Free download, must-read: "Global Trends in University Governnance"

Đó là tên của một tài liệu về quản trị đại học của Ngân hàng thế giới, do tác giả John Fielden biên soạn. Tài liệu dài 70 trang (bao gồm cả phần tài liệu tham khảo và phụ lục), được WB công bố vào tháng 3 năm 2008, tức cách đây khoảng 3 năm, còn khá mới. Có thể tìm thấy tài liệu ấy ở đây.

Xin chép ra đây phần mục lục của tài liệu để mọi người thấy nội dung của tài liệu này có những gì:

Contents
Introduction ..... 2
1. The National Framework ..... 4
Vision and strategy ----- 4
Higher education laws ------ 7
The legal status of public university institutions ----- 9
Private universities ----- 11

2. Governance of the Higher Education Sector ..... 14
Who manages the system overall? ----- 14
What powers are retained at the centre? ------ 16
What central agencies are needed? ------ 17
How much autonomy should institutions have? ----- 18
How are institutions held accountable? ----- 19
How is quality assured? ----- 23
How is research in the tertiary sector managed? ----- 26
3. Funding ..... 28
The overall framework of funding ------ 28
Resource allocation ------ 29
Financial monitoring and control ----- 31
The management of property assets ----- 34
Income generation ----- 35
4. Governance of Public Institutions ..... 37
Powers of the Board ----- 37
Selection of the Chair and Members and Board composition ----- 37
Appointment of the President ----- 39
The search for “good governance”----- 41
5. Conclusions ..... 43
References ..... 45
Appendixes...... 47

Rất đáng đọc, đặc biệt là trong bối cảnh nhà nước đang chủ trương đổi mới quản lý giáo dục đại học, và quốc hội đang xem xét dự thảo luật giáo dục đại học của VN. (Chỉ tiếc, cũng như nhiều tài liệu quý khác, ngôn ngữ trong tài liệu này là tiếng Anh. Mà đọc để hiểu đúng tiếng Anh về những vẫn đề pháp luật, xã hội đối với những người chỉ biết tiếng Anh tay ngang thì không hề dễ dàng một chút nào, thật vậy! Tôi đã từng gặp rất nhiều trường hợp hiểu sai rất tai hại.)

Nếu bạn nào đọc mà có câu hỏi xin cứ trao đổi nhé!

Bài đáng đọc: "Thể chế: Gông cùm và tài sản"

Bài đó ở trên trang TuanVN, ở đây.

Dưới đây là những chỗ mà theo tôi là thực sự đáng đọc và suy ngẫm. Các tựa nhỏ trong bài này do tôi đặt, dựa trên ý chính của bài viết.


Thể chế là luật chơi

Theo cách định nghĩa của Ngân hàng Thế giới thì thể chế không phải là một [...] tổ chức mà chính là các quy định theo đó các cá nhân, công ty và nhà nước tác động lẫn nhau. Nói một cách nôm na thì đó là luật chơi giữa 3 nhóm chủ thể. Trong hoạt động kinh tế, xã hội loài người đã sản sinh ra và cũng đã thải loại đi nhiều luật chơi - có thứ luật chơi khuyến khích tối đa thị trường, nơi liên kết những cá nhân tự do hành động vì tư lợi của mình và cũng tồn tại những luật chơi có mục đích hạn chế, kìm hãm thậm chí không chấp nhận mọi hoạt động có động cơ cá thể

Phần viết nêu trên rất quan trọng đối với những người sử dụng tiếng Anh như một ngoại ngữ. Trong tiếng Anh, từ institution có khi được dịch là tổ chức (như higher education institution = các tổ chức, tức các cơ sở đào tạo, giáo dục đại học, nói nôm na là các trường đại học), có khi được dịch là thể chế (institutional reform = cải cách thể chế, tức cải cách phương thức quản trị của nhà trường).

Hai từ này thật ra có liên quan khá chặt chẽ với nhau. Khi tham gia vào một tổ chức (có cơ cấu, có nơi tọa lạc, có những con người làm việc trong đó), thì cũng có nghĩa là bạn được áp dụng và cần phải tuân thủ các luật chơi ở trong tổ chức đó.

[...] [Y]ếu tố quyết định đối với khả năng tạo ra những đổi mới cơ bản của một nền kinh tế [...] nằm trong môi trường thể chế của nó và [...]thể chế được nhìn nhận như là yếu tố chính quyết định sự phát triển lâu dài của một quốc gia.

Bài viết này đang nêu vấn đề vĩ mô của cả một đất nước, nhưng cũng đúng khi áp dụng ở mức vi mô hơn, trong phạm vi của một doanh nghiệp, một tổ chức phi chính phủ, hay một trường đại học, chẳng hạn.

Luật chơi tốt chưa đủ, cần có môi trường phù hợp

[C]ó một đặc điểm mà các nước đi sau trên con đường công nghiệp hóa, hiện đại hóa cần lưu ý đó là ở tất cả các nền kinh tế tiên tiến các thể chế hiệu năng cao (hay "luật chơi" hấp dẫn, công bằng cho mọi người tham gia) đều [...] nhờ có một xã hội mà ở đó pháp luật là thượng tôn, thị trường là phương tiện và người dân có tiếng nói trước những vấn đề quốc kế, dân sinh.

Nói cách khác, cần (1) môi trường pháp lý tốt; (2) môi trường cạnh tranh lành mạnh; và (3) môi trường tự do, dân chủ, tôn trọng ý kiến và sáng kiến cá nhân.

Bài học rút ra cho một đơn vị nhỏ như Trung tâm của tôi: mọi việc cần có luật lệ minh bạch và được thực thi, mọi người được trả công theo đúng mức tài năng và hiệu quả đóng góp của mình đối với đơn vị, và phát huy quyền dân chủ mà đặc biệt là quyền có ý kiến của mọi người.

Nói thì dễ, làm thì khó?

Governance in higher education

Governance in higher education
(from wikipedia)

Governance in higher education refers to the means by which higher educational (also tertiary or postsecondary) institutions are formally organized and managed, though often there is a distinction between definitions of management and governance. Simply, university governance is the way in which universities are operated. Governing structures for higher education are highly differentiated throughout the world. Noted by Altbach (2005: 16-18) the different models for higher education throughout the world nonetheless do share a common heritage. Coldrake, Stedman, and Little (2003: 5) also discuss the shared traditions and history of higher education worldwide. Internationally, tertiary education includes private not-for-profit, private for-profit, and public institutions governed by differentiated structures of management.

Governance and management of postsecondary institutions becomes even more diverse with the differences in defining the relationships between higher and tertiary education (university education), postsecondary education, technical and vocational education, and community college models of education. The issues are complicated by current debates over collegial and shared forms of governance contrasted to corporate and business forms of institutional governance.

University portal
Contents [hide]
1 Overview of governance
2 Issues in university governance
3 Statements from educational organizations
3.1 National Education Association (NEA): faculty governance in higher education
3.1.1 Higher education policy: statement of community college governance
3.2 American Federation of Teachers (AFT): statement on shared governance
4 Statements from associations of governance
4.1 Association of Governing Boards (AGB): statement on institutional governance
4.1.1 AGB statement on governing in the public trust
4.2 Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC): statement on governance
5 Additional perspectives
5.1 The case of South Africa
5.2 European higher education
5.3 Shared governance and Jesuit Catholic universities
6 2001 Kaplan Survey on higher education governance
7 University governance statements
8 See also
9 Further reading
10 References
11 External links



[edit] Overview of governance

The library of Lincoln University, New ZealandThe concept of governance for postsecondary education predominantly refers to the internal structure, organization and management of autonomous institutions. The organization of internal governance is generally composed of a governing board (board of regents, board of directors), the university president (executive head, CEO) with a team of administrative chancellors and staff, faculty senates, academic deans, department chairs, and usually some form of organization for student representation. In the United States, state institution governing boards often emphasize the concept of citizen governance in recognizing that board members serve a civic role for the institution. Managing structures themselves have become increasingly complex to establish a means of organizing an equally complicated system of intraorganizational, interorganizational and governmental relationships. Whether college and university education, adult education, technical and vocational education, the complexities of managing education in today's world proves true at all levels of private and public education (for even the interdepence with primary and elementary education to the management of secondary education).

As universities have become increasingly interdependent with external forces, institutions are accountable to external organizational relationships such as local and federal governments, equally in managing business and corporate relationships. The nature of the managing relationships characterize whether governance is corporate and business oriented or defined more by a collegial shared form of governance. "Governance" in this sense is discussed by Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398), whom define it at the macro-level of policy decisionmaking. Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398) suggest governance is a multi-level concept including several different bodies and processes with different decision-making functions. In this way, governance is sometimes defined at difference to the internal management of institutions. Throughout the world, many federal, state and local governments have begun to establish coordinating and governing boards as both buffer and bridge to coordinate governance and institutional management.

With the complexity of internal structures, the external relationships between institutions and local, state, and national governments are evidently equally differentiated given the different forms of government in the international system (making the concepts of governance for postsecondary education pluralistic in its broadest sense and usage). External governing relationships depends much on institutions, government policy, and any other formal or informal organizational obligations. Generally, institutions are recognized as autonomous actors with varying degrees of interdependence with, and legislated commitments to the external stakeholders, local and national government.


[edit] Issues in university governance
Due to the influences of public sector reforms, several authors (Kezar and Eckel 2004; Lapworth 2004; Middlehurst 2004) point out that next to the concept of shared and participative governance a new form of governance has emerged, i.e. the notion of corporate governance of institutions that has increasingly become a more dominant approach to tertiary management. According to Lapworth (2004: 299-314), the rise of the notion of corporate governance and the decline of the shared or consensual governance can be seen to be a result of the decline in academic participation, growing tendency towards managerialism and the new environment where the universities are operating.


Administrative building at University of Agricultural Sciences, BangaloreThe American Association of University Professors was the first organization to formulate a statement on the governance of higher education based on principles of democratic values and participation (which, in this sense, correlates with the Yale Report of 1828, discussed by Brubacher (1982: 5) as the “first attempt at a formally stated philosophy of education” for universities, emphasizing at that time that Enlightenment curricula following the establishment of democratic constitutional governance should not be replaced with retrogression to religious curricula). The AAUP published its first "Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities" in 1920, “emphasizing the importance of faculty involvement in personnel decisions, selection of administrators, preparation of the budget, and determination of educational policies. Refinements to the statement were introduced in subsequent years, culminating in the 1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities (AAUP 1966). The document does not provide for a “blueprint” for the governance of higher education. Nor was the purpose of the statement to provide principles for relations with industry and government (though it establishes direction on “the correction of existing weaknesses”). Rather, it aimed to establish a shared vision for the internal governance of institutions. Student involvement is not addressed in detail. The statement concerns general education policy and internal operations with an overview of the formal structures for organization and management. In process and structure, the meaning with the end result is an organizational philosophy for shared governance in higher education.

While institutions internationally do not directly have the same genealogy with the idea of shared, collegial governance, universities worldwide are loosely organized by similar structures and based on comparable models. McMaster (2007: 1-9) notes the different cultures in universities and the traditional relationships between faculty and administration, characterizing historical transitions and suggesting that universities today are undergoing transitions in culture. Kezar and Eckel (2004: 371-398) point out the substance of governance has changed during the last decades with more emphasis put on high stake issues and more incremental decisions made in a less collegial mode – the reasons for this stem from trends that have devalued the notion of participation and also from the external pressures for more accountability and demands for quicker decision-making (that sometimes is achieved through bureaucracy). McMaster (2007: 1-9) discusses the same changes in university management resulting from the “huge amount of additional administrative work at all levels within the university, and the requirement for a wide range of specialist skills in areas such as marketing, HR management, management accounting, web development and instructional design.” and the difficulties with the tensions that have resulted between collegial and corporate models of management.

Dearlove (1997: 56-75) emphasises that, under the conditions of mass higher education, no university can avoid the need for some sort of bureaucratic management and organisation, though this does not mean that the importance of informal discipline and profession based authority (internal governance of universities) can totally be ignored. Lapworth (2004: 299-314) advocates what the author believes is a model of university governance with the positive aspects of corporate and collegial approaches. The issues in university governance discussed by these literatures are detailed by Coldrake, Stedman, and Little (2003) through a comparative study of current trends in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with poignant insight into the different models of governance for the management of higher education. Critical of the currents of change toward “corporate governance,” the authors cite reference to literature that calls for “re-balancing” of university governance, maintaining that the re-balancing “would amount to a clarification of shared governance” (Coldrake, Stedman, and Little 2003: 14). With changing roles in human resources and the external pressures for accountability affecting university relationships internally, McMaster (2007: 1-9) provides insights by defining management styles in terms of nested partnership between faculty and administration, contiguous partnership, and segmented partnership. With debates over the recent trends, university organizations, governing associations, and numerous postsecondary institutions themselves have set forth policy statements on governance.


[edit] Statements from educational organizations

[edit] National Education Association (NEA): faculty governance in higher education
First published in 1987, the NEA statement on faculty governance in higher education is a straightforward point of view on their policy in support of shared governance. The policy maintains that faculty involvement in governance is critical. Providing research support, the organization states faculty should advise administration in developing curriculum and methods of instruction. Faculty is responsible for establishing degree requirements, takes primary responsibility in tenure appointments and the award of promotion and sabbatical. Addressing issues through collective bargaining, the statement believes “administration and the governing boards of colleges and universities should accept the faculty's recommendations” (National Education Association 1987). The statement also maintains that faculty should be involved in salary decisions, evaluating administrators, and budgeting. The policy concludes with the assertion:


Students attending a lecture at the Helsinki University of TechnologyState and federal government and external agencies should refrain from intervening in the internal governance of institutions of higher education when they are functioning in accordance with state and federal law. Government should recognize that conserving the autonomy of these institutions is essential to protecting academic freedom, the advance of knowledge, and the pursuit of truth (NEA 1987).

The policy statement references the AAUP's "1966 Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities." The basic principles evidently draw from the early AAUP statement on governance. Though the NEA makes no mention of students anywhere in the policy, the NEA like the AAUP does reflect the basic ideas and premise for the “responsibility primarily of the faculty to determine the appropriate curriculum and procedures of student instruction” (AAUP 1966). In this respect, the AAUP grants that considerations should be made for publicly supported institutions. Unlike the NEA, the AAUP elaborates more on the role of governing structures, including the role of the president to ensure “sound academic practices,” as the NEA suggests faculty rights to appeal flawed and improper procedures. In summation, where the AAUP discusses the organizational structure for governance and management in more detail while touching on student involvement, the NEA statement differs by detailing primarily faculty rights and responsibilities in shared governance.


[edit] Higher education policy: statement of community college governance
Noting the 1987 publication of "Policy Statement on Higher Education Faculty Governance", in 1989 the NEA issued a "Policy Statement on Higher Education Policy for Community College Governance." The NEA elaborates upon issues in support of shared governance for the management of community colleges, junior and technical colleges not addressed in their previous statement. The statement is based on the same principles, believing cooperative decision-making and collective bargaining for in governance should be based on “collegial” relationships. Where statements from the NEA and the AAUP advocate the importance of faculty involvement in governance, the community college statement notes that many do not exercise the right when available and that faculty “at public institutions are not yet permitted to bargain collectively in many states” (NEA 1989). The NEA then elaborates upon the need for faculty participation.

Again, the "Policy Statement of Community College Governance" correlates based upon the same underlying principles of the AAUP and NEA statement on faculty governance. The community college statement also elaborates upon structure and procedure not addressed in the previous statement, including the “ad hoc” and standing committees as discussed in the AAUP policy statement on governance. Where the AAUP statement discusses policy on students and their academic rights, with the community college statement the NEA (1989) does conclude on student involvement.


[edit] American Federation of Teachers (AFT): statement on shared governance
In 2002, the Higher Education Program and Policy Council of the American Federation of Teachers also published a statement in support of the shared governance of institutions. The policy statement is a response to the fact that many governing boards have adopted the "mantra of business” (American Federation of Teachers 2002). The AFT (2002: 5) iterates purpose by which higher education achieves democratic organizational processes between administration and faculty, believing shared governance is under attack in six ways: (1) the outsourcing of instruction, particularly to learning technologies; (2) redirecting teaching to part time and temporary faculty; (3) re-orienting curriculum to business oriented coursework; (4) the buying and selling of courseware for commercial exploitation; (5) for profit teaching and research; (6) with the formation of a “commercial consortia with other universities and private investors." Meaning, as many have begun to view education of business, they are not necessarily in the business of education.

Accordingly, six principles affirm standards of academic freedom, faculty participation in standards and curriculum, and faculty decisions on academic personnel as the AAUP first established principles of governance. The statement maintains that participation in shared governance should be extended, acknowledging that the way in which participation is expanded will vary from institution to institution; “but each group whose work contributes to the academic enterprise should be involved in a manner appropriate to institutional functions and responsibility” (AFT 2002: 8). The policy addresses unions and faculty senates, believing that they contribute to the maintenance of shared governance in institutions as well as the role of accrediting agencies to support management standards. In conclusion, the AFT emphasizes affirmation of the goals, objectives and purpose for shared governance in higher education.


[edit] Statements from associations of governance

[edit] Association of Governing Boards (AGB): statement on institutional governance
With recent debates and trends in the governance of institutions of higher education in the United States, the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) has issued a statement on governance. The statement was published with a correlating statement, “Governing in the Public Trust: External Influences on Colleges and Universities.” In the first statement on governance, the advisiory organization for institutional governance discusses facts and perceptions concerning governance, including specific facts related to institutional trends and perceptions that “internal governance arrangements have become so cumbersome that timely decisions are difficult to make” (AGB 2001: 3). The AGB statement then defines general principles upon which governing boards are to operate and the responsibilities of a governing board to the institution. The principles include specific issues such as responsibility to the academic integrity and financial health of an institution as well as conducting affairs “in a manner that exemplifies the behavior it expects from other participants in institutional governance” (AGB 2001: 5). From which, in acknowledging the changing nature of stakeholder interests in institutions, the AGB establishes standards of good practice.

The standards address issues from (1) the board’s relationship with faculty decision making; (2) the need to establish consultative decision making; (3) serving as a window for the institution to external stakeholders; (4) defining practices of communication with the internal management of institutions; (5) and the role of union leadership in faculty governance. The statement then addresses the nature of institutional relationships with external stakeholders. The AGB emphasizes that the “responsibilities of these officials and bodies vary widely among the states, but governing boards should serve as important buffers between the college or university and political structures, partisan politics, and pressures of state government” (AGB 2001: 10). The AGB notes the importance of, and issues with alumni and other organizations in institional governance, concluding the statement with questions over governance for institutions to consider.


[edit] AGB statement on governing in the public trust
With their statement on governing bodies, the AGB then provides statement on governing in the public trust, iterating many of the same points concerning recent external pressures. The statement defines the historic role and rationale behind the principles of citizen governance upon which state institutional boards operate. Again, addressing the nature of external influences in university governance, the AGB defines specific principles in maintaining accountability and autonomy in the public trust, including (1) the primacy of the board over individual members; (2) the importance of institutional missions; (3) respecting the board as both buffer and bridge; (4) exhibiting exemplary public behavior; and (4) keeping academic freedom central (AGB 2001: 23-26). In conclusion, the statement asks for the reaffimation of a commitment to citizen governance to maintain the balanced and independent governance of institutions.


[edit] Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee (AVCC): statement on governance
In October 2003, the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC), the council of Australia’s university presidents, put forward a “Chancellors and AVCC statement on university governance." Given national and institutional debates over the governance of tertiary education, the statement acknowledges the opportunities with developments in management and governing structures. The statement notes the role of the “business model” that has been advanced alongside the traditional models of governance in Australia. With reference to additional “third models” in introducing a discussion of the existing frameworks for the governance of tertiary education, the statement defines the legal autonomy of institutions and independence from external stakeholders. Acknowledging the diversity of governing structures and believing a balance is necessary between internal and external forces, the organization maintains: “No single way to achieve an effective governance arrangement” (AVCC 2003: 3) is possible. In recognizing the differences in institutional structures and frames of reference, the statement offers operational good practices as generic principles and recommendations, also identifying national protocols for the success of Australian higher education.

The recommendations address practices by which internal governing structures operate and how they can improve institutional governance for the Commonwealth of Australia. External relations, the role of faculty and students in governance are not approached except inasmuch as institutional board members should be appointed with their selection based on contributions “to the effective working of the governing body by having needed skills, knowledge and experience, an appreciation of the values of a university and its core activities of teaching and research, its independence and academic freedom and the capacity to appreciate the university’s external community needs from that university” (AVCC 2003: 6). The committee defines the responsibilities of university governance, including legal obligations and legislative requirements for the internal governing boards of Australian institutions. Accordingly, governing bodies “should make available a programme of induction and professional development . . . to ensure that all members are aware of the nature of their duties and responsibilities” (AVCC 2003: 6). The report concludes with protocol for annual reports, including report of risk management and additional steps to ensure good governance.


[edit] Additional perspectives

[edit] The case of South Africa
South Africa faces issues related to the governance of their tertiary system of higher education that correlate with international trends. Hall and Symes (2005) discuss the state of South African higher education in the first decade of the country’s constitutional democracy at a time when the country has faced not only democratic transition but also the end of Apartheid racial segregation. With the South African transition to democracy in 1994, the national government and institutions of postsecondary learning envisioned the cooperative governance of higher education. For a developing country that faced “massive social exclusion” for the better part of a century – only to be challenged in 1970s and 1980s – Hall and Symes (2005: 205-206) note traditional models for governance in higher education, European and North American models of institutional autonomy are not entirely applicable to the South African context. The authors discuss the need for government “steering,” an idea originally envisioned in South Africa with the democratic transition, based upon a cooperative framework as a “conditional autonomy.” The goals and objectives for cooperative governance were thus established with the National Commission on Higher Education (NCHE) in 1994, detailed in its 1996 report.

The South African National Commission on Higher Education was meant to serve as a “buffer mechanism” between government and institutions to establish a system by which “autonomous higher education institutions would work in a range of partnerships with government and other stakeholders,” from the involvement of state supervision and consultation (Hall & Symes 2005: 200, 204, 210). Within the initial years of the democratic transition and the end of the Apartheid, Hall and Symes (2005) note that the national government assumed a much stronger regulatory and bureaucratic control of South African postsecondary institutions than what had been originally expected. From the appointments to the National Commission on Higher Education, the 1997 Higher Education Act, and the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education, the national government has assumed direct command of curriculum, funding and regulation over institutions with “weak or non-existent traditions of academic freedom” (Hall and Symes 2005: 201-202).

Where the 1997 Higher Education Act and ministerial appointments provided the framework by which the national government could assert control over postsecondary institutions, the 2001 Education Amendment Act and white paper expressed the government’s motivations to take a strong position of power in the governance of South African higher education. Whereby, the “period from the 1997 White Paper to the 2001 National Plan for Higher Education has seen a systematic tightening of state control and the erosion of both the procedural and substantive autonomy of individual institutions” (Hall and Symes 2005: 210). Furthermore, Hall and Symes (2005: 201-202) note that while the ten universities reserved for white students during the apartheid maintained substantial autonomy, other institutions such as technical schools and “branches of the racially defined government bureaucracy,” continued to be governed by tight government intervention. The authors do not reject the need for government “steering,” and cooperative governance with the national government for the developing country. Nonetheless, where the concept of conditional autonomy remained vague with its vision in 1996, the authors suggest that given the direction the government and NCHE have taken, there need be a rethinking of the relationship between institutions and the newly established democratic government.


[edit] European higher education
Institutions of tertiary higher education in Europe have been under reform, following the common goals and objectives to develop new models for institutional governance. Sporn (2003: 31) for EDUCAUSE discusses the restructuring of higher education with “notions of new public management", which the author correlates to neoliberal economic models. The author directly relates these currents in the management of European higher education with the influence of U.S. models for approaching change in higher education. Changes in the United Kingdom’s system of higher education are given as examples of neoliberal economic models. Increased managerialism with economic privatization and minimizing internal governing structures are common themes in the restructuring of UK higher education, which entails the “erosion of the power of unions and professionals and the increased importance of managers and nonexecutive, nonelected directors (Sporn 2003: 32). In general, the new managerialism in Europe involves four different trends:

Efficiency in finances with stronger managerial controls and deregulation of the labor market, i.e. the Efficiency Drive.
Downsizing and Decentralization, breaking up large institutions into smaller peripherary units with a small centralized managerial core and a split between public and private funding.
Excellence, the In Search For Excellence Model, which focuses on a more human resource approach to institutional change with a mix of top-down and bottom-up organization
Public Service, with the merging of both public and private managerial practices.
The European countries of Norway and Sweden are provided as additional examples of the new managerialism in tertiary education. Noting that the countries do differ in their approaches to institutional change from that in the United Kingdom, these examples illustrate that the changes in the governance of European higher education “can be interpreted differently in varying contexts” (Sporn 2003: 33). In both Norway and Sweden, each have emphasized restructuring based on in vogue international trends with different approaches to reform that are characterized as common to continental Europe. New organizational forms for governance and leadership with the diversification of higher education have emphasized maintaining institutional autonomy, harmonizing institutional standards, and expanding higher education with goals related to the neoliberal market model of education. Stressing quality of learning and leadership within higher education, restructuring by way of the key catchphrases such as accountability, changing management in Europe also includes providing for human resource goals such as staff development.

Significant among these changes is the establishment of governing and coordinating boards with decision-making structures for collaboration in external and internal governance of higher education (as done in many states within the United States). Believing that there will be either a convergence or divergence between a strong administrative managerialism and faculty involvement in governance throughout Europe, the UK and U.S., the example of the system in Austria illustrates the potential for innovative approaches that grant autonomy to institutions with restructuring through an external board. In conclusion, Sporn (2003: 41) believes the new governing structures provide stronger leadership and management, but that institutions "should pay close attention to the role of faculty and shared governance."


[edit] Shared governance and Jesuit Catholic universities
Since the 1819 U.S. Supreme Court case Dartmouth College v. Woodward before the Yale Report of 1828 (where the former was catalyst from the later, each of which upheld the separation of church and state) private universities in the United States generally maintain remarkable autonomy from local, state, and federal government. Questions might be raised over the role of shared governance in private education. A significant topic for discussion in Conversations on Jesuit Higher Education, Quinn and Moore (1992-2004) support values of shared governance in Jesuit Universities. Quinn (30-31) notes the way in which Catholic colleges and universities adopted principles of shared governance throughout the 1960s. Moore (26-28) begins by noting that the concept of shared governance is often viewed as inefficient in the corporate world. The author believes that shared governance is not a cumbersome system of management, but necessary given the organizational dynamics and complexities of university systems.

By contrast to corporate trends, the author maintains that the corporate “one-size-fits-all” system could not effectively suit institutional needs. From which, the perspective then affirms the AAUP tradition of shared governance as a sound system of organization and management in higher education, “essential to the long term interests of colleges and universities if they wish to remain competitive and academically credible” (Moore 26-28). The way in which shared governance is realized in Catholic colleges and universities does vary from institution to institution. In Jesuit institutions, when serving the role of a board member an individual of the formal order provides guidance on the philosophy of Jesuit education while facilitating “the mutuality so essential for shared governance before the law and in reality,” (Quinn: 30-31) respecting Catholic traditions with a democratic spirit of institutional governance.


[edit] 2001 Kaplan Survey on higher education governance
Sponsored by the AAUP and the American Conference of Academic Deans, the 2001 Survey of Higher Education Governance is a study done by Gabriel Kaplan, a doctoral student at Harvard University interested in replicating research done by Committee T of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) thirty years ago. Available from the AAUP - [1] - are the general findings and the preliminary results. The findings of the report detail the method with summary of the present state of shared governance. The findings include the state of the locus of authority and reforms as well as the analysis of the challenges facing Liberal Arts Colleges with the pressures of the current economic climate (Kaplan 2001). The preliminary results contain the raw data on the landscape of governance in higher education from a population of 1303 4-year institutions in the United States, with data compiled from both administrative structures and the faculty. The survey did not include participation from any population of students.

Modern university governance – a national perspective

http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/otherpub/mod_uni_gov/default.htmhttp://www.dest.gov.au/archive/highered/otherpub/mod_uni_gov/default.htm



Paper presented at
The idea of a university: enterprise or academy?
Conference organised by The Australia Institute and Manning Clark House
Session on:
Values and governance in Australian universities, How should universities be governed and what is the role of government?
The Australian National University
Canberra, 26 July 2001
Michael Gallagher,
First Assistant Secretary, Higher Education Division,
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This paper outlines a number of factors affecting the changing role and organisation of universities and associated shifts in higher education policy. Against that background some comments are made about expectations of university governance, leadership, management and administration.

There are many and varied definitions of terms in the literature and a good deal of ambiguity. I am using the following working definitions: Governance is the structure of relationships that bring about organisational coherence, authorise policies, plans and decisions, and account for their probity, responsiveness and cost-effectiveness. Leadership is seeing opportunities and setting strategic directions, and investing in and drawing on people’s capabilities to develop organisational purposes and values. Management is achieving intended outcomes through the allocation of responsibilities and resources, and monitoring their efficiency and effectiveness. Administration is the implementation of authorised procedures and the application of systems to achieve agreed results.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Observable developments in Australian higher education
Government expectations
University autonomies
Accountability requirements
Governance
Footnotes

Observable developments in Australian higher education
Looking back just over a decade we can observe several major shifts in Australian higher education, notably:

growth in the student body, diversification of student backgrounds and rising expectations of students (most of whom now pay a share of costs);
more exacting public accountability requirements on universities, including for planning, performance reporting and quality assurance;
increasing reliance of universities on non-government sources of income, especially through expanding involvement in the business of international education;
accelerating application of Communications and Information Technology to teaching, learning, research, student services and administration.
Associated with those big shifts we may also observe several main effects:

stronger corporate management of universities;
greater instrumentalism in curricula for workforce skilling of graduates;
closer research links between universities and industry;
more aggressive competition and the beginning of increasing differentiation among universities;
improved productivity (higher student throughput for lower unit costs without apparent diminution of quality);
increasing threshold capability costs (for infrastructure and expertise) involved in world class research;
changing nature of academic work, including a shift from ‘cottage industry’ to ‘mass production’, specialisation of curriculum design and assessment functions, and rising expectations of output and self-generated earnings.
Looking at emerging trends we can see further shifts ahead:

Governments are seeking more tangible social and economic returns from science and expecting that universities address social and environmental priorities;
the domestic market will (over the next two decades short of a major spurt in participation rates and/or boost to immigration) provide only limited demographically-driven growth in demand for higher education, mainly confined to a few geographic areas;
firms and professional bodies, both within Australia and internationally, are increasingly prepared to make their own arrangements for workforce training and professional development (a substantial part of the lifelong learning market) if they cannot secure suitable provision from universities and colleges;
the fast-growing global markets are attracting increasing investment interest from across many nations, with new forms of e-education (mainly involving a mix of contact and virtual modes) proliferating through new providers and collaborations among established and new providers, from education and other industries, in globally distributed consortia networks;
the new providers have characteristics that challenge the markets of established universities and require them to transform their operations and organisation. Such features are: borderlessness; earner-learner focus; convenience; customisation; modularisation; applied learning; practitioner-teachers; and disaggregation of design, teaching, assessment and student service functions.
Associated with those developments are some implications for public policy:

the higher education policy framework will need to accommodate the diversification of supply, including boundary blurring across provider types and sectors, beyond its current focus on the social protection of public universities. Extensions to demand-side financing will involve strengthening consumer protection, and prudential and quality assurance regulation;
a more coherent, whole-of-government policy agenda is increasingly required, involving the Education portfolio more closely networking with other Commonwealth agencies, alongside more integrated inter-governmental cooperation;
arrangements for mutual recognition of higher education qualifications need to be inherently robust in order to protect national interests, including through revisiting bilateral agreements entered into before the onset of e-education; they also need to be renegotiated in the understanding of potent international developments, including the emergence of IT and other qualifications that are recognised outside national frameworks, and opportunities for Australia to access global markets and the reciprocal rights of foreign providers to service domestic markets.
There are also profound implications for universities and the higher education system. On the one hand

universities are losing their monopoly over teaching, research and the award of qualifications;
some traditional vertically-integrated, locally-focussed universities will find it increasingly difficult to compete in the new global era;
several universities face difficulty sustaining the overhead cost of their current range of domestic course offerings and research aspirations. Some will need to rationalise their provision, by positioning themselves differently and/or collaborating with others;
universities with limited capacity to invest in new educational technologies, and with cultural, governance and industrial restrictions on their operating flexibilities, will find the future ever more difficult.
On the other hand, there are exciting new possibilities for universities to renew themselves as dynamic, community-engaged institutions, to focus and build on their distinctive strengths in scholarship, and to develop and offer educational programs that are attuned to student needs, enriched by creative applications of new technology and extended by practical experience in diverse learning settings, thereby

widening student access and choice;
improving quality of learning experiences and outcomes for students;
contributing more effectively to the development of regional communities and to national innovation; and
strengthening their international links with the scholarly community.
To some extent we are already seeing a more outward-looking approach and service orientation among Australian universities, with some internationally pace-setting innovations in educational design and delivery. This is partly driven by their greater need for self-reliance in respect of revenues, causing them to face the market rather than be too dependent on government alone. The increasing engagement of the universities interestingly gives rise to higher expectations of them and from more diverse interests, as knowledge becomes more integral to social and economic activity.

However, some expressions of this interest are double edged. On the one hand, engagement of universities with the practical concerns of enterprises and communities has beneficial two-way flows, including for teaching and research. On the other hand, service contracting links costs and benefits to discrete activities that involve some parts of the university more than others, requiring sensitively hard-nosed policies for the internal distribution of resources. Various government bodies too -- Commonwealth and State/Territory, departments and agencies, across several portfolios – are developing specific-purpose relations with universities with tighter conditions attached to their financial contributions, including matched funding and dedicated use of resources, so reducing university discretion. At the same time, new forms of constraint are operating on universities’ commercial activities through changes to corporations law and other State/Territory regulations. And some are now pressing for even tighter conditions on funding, including input controls, greater external directing of IP management strategies and stricter regulation of commercial activities.

Questions of balance arise, both for universities in managing their internal tensions according to their diverse missions and values while adjusting to market realities, and for public policy in maintaining universities as organic institutions while purchasing outputs from them as service providers. In socially valuing the role that universities can play as contributors to national innovation and cultural vitality, prudent policy would give them adequate room to experiment and explore, adapt and diversify – while expecting that they will function responsibly and cost-effectively and be publicly accountable for so doing. The quid pro quo for allowing universities a high degree of autonomy is that they themselves have the necessary capabilities for professional governance and competent management. If universities cannot themselves initiate and carry through the necessary reforms to their organisation and operations either they will not survive in their current forms or outsiders may make decisions for them through very restrictive service purchase arrangements or administrative prescriptions.

top

Government expectations
Special accord is given in Australia to universities as institutions. The Commonwealth and States/Territories agreed in 2000 to protect the term "university". They also agreed on a statement of expectations of universities as organisations, as part of a set of national protocols for higher education approval processes:

An Australian university will demonstrate the following features:

authorisation by law to award higher education qualifications across a range of fields and to set standards for those qualifications which are equivalent to Australian and international standards;
teaching and learning that engage with advanced knowledge and inquiry;
a culture of sustained scholarship extending from that which informs inquiry and basic teaching and learning, to the creation of new knowledge through research, and original creative endeavour;
commitment of teachers, researchers, course designers and assessors to free inquiry and the systematic advancement of knowledge;
governance, procedural rules, organisation, admission policies, financial arrangements and quality assurance processes, which are underpinned by the value and goals outlined above, and which are sufficient to ensure the integrity of the institution’s academic programmes;
and sufficient financial and other resources to enable the institution’s programme to be delivered and sustained into the future.
For its part the Commonwealth has articulated a statement of higher education purposes. The Government regards higher education as contributing to the attainment of individual freedom, the advancement of knowledge and social and economic progress. The main purposes of Australian higher education are to:

inspire and enable individuals to develop their capabilities to the highest potential throughout their lives (for personal growth and fulfilment, for effective participation in the workforce and for constructive contributions to society);
advance knowledge and understanding;
aid the application of knowledge and understanding to the benefit of the economy and the society;
enable individuals to adapt and learn, consistent with the the needs of an adaptable knowledge-based economy at local, regional and national levels; and
enable individuals to contribute to a democratic, civilised society and promote the tolerance and debate that underpins it.
The Government has also articulated its objectives for higher education, as being to:

expand opportunity;
assure quality;
improve universities’ responsiveness to varying student needs and industry requirements;
advance the knowledge base and university contributions to national innovation; and
ensure public accountability for the cost-effective use of public resources.
top

University autonomies
In law universities effectively own themselves and are essentially autonomous. They are able to determine whom to admit as students, whom to employ as staff and the conditions of their employment (subject to relevant industrial legislation and awards), what to teach, how to teach and how to assess learning (subject in several fields to the requirements of professional bodies regarding accreditation of graduates to practise) what research to undertake and how to conduct it (subject to competitively winning funds for major projects from research funding agencies), what to publish and how, when and where to publish research findings (subject to peer assessment). They can normally (subject to State/Territory laws and regulations) invest, divest and borrow in respect of property and commercial ventures. Their assets, whether obtained through private donations or government grants or the proceeds of investment, unless specifically encumbered as to their use purposes, belong to the university and can be used or disposed of, consistent with State and Local government regulations, in accordance with the purposes of the university and the powers of the council. In effect, public universities can and do operate commercially; however, the proceeds of their activities must be directed to the public purposes of their establishment.

Legal opinion[1] suggests, on the basis of courts’ interpretations of legislation as ‘always speaking’ and the recognition of ‘incidental power’, that the fact that legislation establishes a university means that it impliedly authorises the carrying out of the functions of a university, including engaging in profit-making ventures in order to be able to carry out its core functions:

A university can do what a university can do. It is ascertaining the boundaries of these activities that is problematical for a university’s commercialisation activities. In the absence of express powers, assistance as to what can be done by implication is to be gauged from the collective experience of universities in Australia. So the fact that universities generally exploit intellectual property generated by their employees can be taken to indicate that this is an activity that falls within the ambit of university activities. The absence of an express power would not therefore prevent a university so acting. But it would be necessary to establish that it was a recognised university activity.
(Phillips Fox, 2001)

Australian universities generally enjoy greater degrees of freedom than their international counterparts in Europe (less so for the UK), North and South America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia. Practice varies across countries but the following features are common to many: universities are obliged to admit students who meet centrally-determined criteria; staff are public servants engaged under conditions that universities cannot influence; course offerings and curriculum content are subject to central government approval; assessment is based on central examinations; research is permitted only in designated institutions and publications are subject to government clearance; university budgets are allocated annually on a line-item input basis; universities cannot commit expenditures to projects of more than one year’s duration. University assets are owned by the state; universities cannot invest, borrow or divest without project-specific central approval.

The autonomies of Australian universities underpin academic freedom and international competitiveness.

The extent of university autonomy enjoyed in Australia is occasionally queried on the grounds that universities by their actions are insufficiently responsive and accountable. University autonomy seems presently to be under attack from various quarters whether for being insular and self-indulgent, or insufficiently contributing to community debate on and resolution of social issues, or inappropriately risking public assets, or inadequately responding to industry needs or economic development opportunities.

In defence of autonomy (without being romantic or normative) we need to appreciate the special contribution that universities can make to the intellectual and creative culture of the society, as well as to national and regional economic development, and acknowledge the latitude they need to so contribute in diverse ways. We also need to value plurality in higher education as an ingredient of a functioning democracy while accepting the fact of rapid and unpredictable shifts in the formation of knowledge across disciplinary and institutional boundaries. We are wise to take a long-term view and conceive broadly of humanity and social values to permit intellectual pursuits that may not have apparent application nor be fashionable or comfortable at a particular time, while also enabling speedy application of ideas to develop market opportunities and address social needs.

We should also acknowledge that for the bulk of their business the universities are practically oriented, whether in preparing graduates for entry to professional occupations or in undertaking research and consultancy services relevant to industry and community needs. The ability of universities to operate across the range of these activities is important to functional coherence, operational efficiency through the internalisation of costs, and risk reduction through the spreading of investments. Hence the sense in taking a whole-of-university approach in state-university relations, focussing on obtaining educational outcomes rather than preoccupation with accounting for inputs. That said, the universities need to be able to explain why they have exercised their discretion in various ways and account for the ways they have used the resources available to them and the results they have achieved. They should also be prepared to provide information that assists the community in appreciating what they are doing, including information about student access, course provision, student success and staff achievements. Community support for universities and their activities is likely to reflect the visibility of their contributions.

top

Accountability requirements
The Commonwealth as a major stakeholder has certain interests and responsibilities in ensuring public accountability at least in respect of the funds it provides to universities (directly and indirectly) and the services it buys from them, and more broadly in sustaining a cost-effective national system of internationally recognised quality, and promoting institutional responsiveness to varying student and community needs.

However, universities have several external stakeholders, including their alumni, employers of their graduates, professional associations and international research collaborators. Not the least important external stakeholders are the State &Territory governments that establish universities by statute, define their purposes and powers, and determine and make appointments to their governing councils. The annual reports of a university are required to be tabled in the Legislature that established it and its financial statements of revenues and expenditures, assets and liabilities, including for its controlled entities, are subject to audit by the respective State/Territory Auditor-General.

The Commonwealth obtains copies of the audited financial statements, annual reports and strategic plans of universities. These are analysed by the department and discussed with each university during the annual rounds of institutional profiles discussions. The Commonwealth provides both general purpose operating grants to universities for teaching and related purposes, and specific-purpose grants for particular projects, including research activities. Performance-based formulae are used for allocating funding for research student places, research infrastructure, equity and Indigenous education support. Universities provide financial acquittals annually to the department.

The Commonwealth also requires, as a legislative condition of operating grant funding, that universities furnish planning documentation according to prescribed formats annually, including:

a profile of student enrolments for the current year and the next triennium, including commencing and all students in Commonwealth subsidised places by course type; non-overseas fee-paying undergraduate and postgraduate students by course type; research students places; and all students by funding source;
a capital management plan;
a quality assurance and improvement plan, including some mandated performance indicators (published annually and made available to the Australian Universities Quality Agency for audit purposes);
a research and research training management report, including some mandated performance indicators (published annually and subject to audit);
an equity plan (published annually); and
an Indigenous education plan.
The claims that universities make about the quality of their teaching, research and administration are subject to external verification by an independent audit agency, the Australian Universities Quality Agency. Additionally, the department publishes comparative university performance information on a regular basis, including information designed to assist student choice. The department also invests in analysis and evaluation of developments, the dissemination of good practices and the development of tools to assist in management improvement (such as costing methodology studies, benchmarks, and surveys of graduate destinations and graduate and employer satisfaction). Australia is regarded within the OECD as a world leader in the regular public provision of higher education information and analysis.

All in all, Australian universities operate within a rigorous and comprehensive public accountability framework, balancing their considerable autonomy. This framework extends beyond the publicly-financed functions of universities which now represent only around half their activities.

top

Governance
The establishing Acts provide for a Governing Body, Council, Senate or a Board to manage and control the university. The governing body is ultimately accountable for the actions of the university. The Hoare Commitee in 1995 identified "a widespread lack of clarity about the primary roles of the governing body". That Committee defined the roles of the governing body in what may still be regarded as ‘best practice’ terms:

The governing body exists to oversee the development and adoption of institutional strategic plans and key policies, to monitor and review the institution’s overall performance and to bear ultimate accountability for the institution. Its activities should be principally those of guidance and review, rather than executive management, and its members should recognise their overriding responsibility to bring diverse viewpoints together for the advancement of the institution rather than to represent sectional interests.[2]

The Hoare committee drew attention to the need for smaller, more capable councils better supplied with information on which to base decisions and equipped with people having the skills they need to do their job, through improved processes for appointment, induction and training. Modest improvement has been made in several universities since Hoare reported. Yet the roles of councils (except in a few universities) are still not clearly defined. There continues to be a tension between the ‘trustee’ (custodian) role expected of a council member to progress the best interests of the university and the basis on which some of them are appointed, and continue predominantly to act, as ‘representative’ (delegate) of internal interest groups. This is a serious matter. Several Vice-Chancellors in recent years, who endeavoured to make management improvements for the strategic advantage of their university, have been rolled on the vote of representative interests of council members. Were these people subject to the normal requirements of company directors they may well now be suffering penalties.

There are also some operational deficiencies. It is not common practice for university strategic plans to be linked with budgets and performance measures, nor for councils to receive regular financial reports. While universities should be able to improve their net operating results from their various business undertakings and demonstrate to their current and potential partners that they have business competence and transparent management practices, not all investments are adequately assessed for costs-benefits and risks nor adequately monitored for their performance.

Scope also exists for management improvement in various areas, notwithstanding the significant advances made over the past decade in the development of policies, procedures and systems, and the gradual professionalisation of central administration, including for commercial activities where performance has been volatile. Admissions are closely controlled in most universities but less so in others, as reflected in excessive levels of over-enrolment. Student services are efficient and customer-sensitive in some universities but not in others, and most have yet to develop customer management systems. Market analysis is undertaken well in several institutions but not at all in others. There is variability in the efficiency of financial, asset and human resources management. Universities are on the whole lagging well behind other institutions in identifying and collaborating on ways to reduce back office inefficiencies, such as for transaction processing, fleet and property management.

The role of the NTEU as a national gatekeeper in respect of enterprise bargaining, in setting normative salary outcomes (irrespective of institutional capacities) and vetoing agreements of local staff to more flexible organisational arrangements, is a serious restraint of bargaining autonomy and, hence, impediment to institutional responsiveness and diversification. Since enterprise bargaining commenced in the university sector in 1995 very little progress has been made in the critical areas of performance management (such as for dealing with under-performing staff) and operating times (such as a three session year and weekend classes) despite changes in the characteristics and circumstances of students. Universities risk losing market share if they are unable to match competitors who can offer convenient programs (7days/24 hours is now international practice) customised to suit individual needs (including options to pay for additions to their core requirements) at reasonable prices and comparable quality. Indeed, this is already happening.

The imperative is not for more external regulation and restriction, which would fetter universities, reduce their flexibility and diminish their capacity to deliver the contributions the community needs and for which it affords them special status, but for greater internal coherence and competence.

top

Footnotes
[1]“Study of the Regulatory Environment Applying to Universities”, interim report to the Joint Committee on Higher Education, Phillips Fox Lawyers, June 2001

[2]Hoare, D. (chair) Higher Education Management Review, AGPS. Canberra. 1995