measuring governance in tertiary education jamil salmi & roberta malee bassett washington, dc 28...

Measuring Governance in Tertiary Education

Jamil Salmi & Roberta Malee BassettWashington, DC 28 January 2010

2

outline of the presentation

• what is governance; why it matters

• key dimensions of governance

• the corruption agenda

• benchmarking governance in tertiary education

3

4

what is governance in tertiary education?

• governance focuses on

– the rules and mechanisms by which various stakeholders influence decisions

– how institutions are held accountable

– to whom they are accountable

5

what is governance in tertiary education?

• governance encompasses the framework in which an institution pursues its goals and policies in a coherent and coordinated manner to answer the questions: ‘who is in charge, and what are the sources of legitimacy for executive decision-making?’

eacea.ec.europa.eu/ressources/eurydice/pdf/0_integral/091EN.pdf

6

natural lab experiment:

University Of Malaya vs. National University of Singapore

• early 1960s: 2 branches of University of Malaya

• today, stark difference:

• THES: NUS # 30, UoM # 180

• SJTU: NUS 101- 151, UoM not in top 500

7

AutonomyAcademic Freedom

StudentsTeaching StaffResearchers

Leading-Edge Research

Dynamic Knowledge & Technology

Transfer

Concentration of Talent

Abundant

Resources

Favorable Governance

Leadership TeamStrategic VisionCulture of Excellence

Public Budget Resources

Endowment Revenues

Tuition Fees

Research Grants

WCU Supportive Regulatory Framework

Top Graduates

Characteristics of a World-Class UniversityAlignment of Key Factors

Source: Elaborated by Jamil Salmi

• talent• UM: selection bias in favor of

Bumiputras, less than 5% foreign students, no foreign professors

• NUS: highly selective, 43% of graduates students are foreign, many foreign professors

9

University Of Malaya vs. National University of Singapore

University Of Malaya vs. National University of Singapore (II)

• finance

• UM: $118 million, $4,053 per student

• NUS: $750 million endowment, $205 million, $6,300 per student

10

University Of Malaya vs. National University of Singapore (II)

• governance

• UM: restricted by government regulations and control, unable to hire top foreign professors

• NUS: status of a private corporation, able and eager to attract world-class foreign researchers

• 52% of professors (9% from Malaysia)

• 79% of researchers (11% from Malaysia)

11

comparing the US and Europe

• governance is a key determinant of world rankings

• research performance positively linked to degree of autonomy (budget management, hiring and firing staff, freedom to set salaries)

• university boards with outside representation are a necessary condition for dynamic reforms

12

13

outline of the presentation

• What is governance and why it matters

• key dimensions of governance

14

key dimensions of governance

• role and responsibilities of the state?

• laws, policies, declarations, charters

• institutional leadership

• autonomy vs. accountability (stakeholder voices)

15

role of the State

from

central control

to

steering at a distance

16

international trends

• general move to granting greater autonomy (Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, Germany, France)

• MOEs are surrendering some functions to intermediate agencies or empowering institutions

• Board with external representation

• growth in scale and intrusiveness of monitoring by governments

17

key dimensions of autonomy

• academic (selection of students - qualifications and number, program and curriculum development, academic freedom)

• staffing (recruitment / evaluation of faculty / dismissal, remuneration)

• financial (income generation, block-grant, ownership of infrastructure and ability to borrow)

18

extent of university autonomy in 12 OECD countries

CountryOwn

publicbuildings

Borrow funds

Spend budgets

to achieve objectives

Set academic

structure and courses

Employ and dismiss

staff

Set staff salaries

Decide size ofstudent

enrolment

Mexico Y Y Y Y Y

Netherlands Y Y Y Y Y Y

Poland Y Y Y Y Y Y

Australia Y Y Y Y Y

Ireland Y Y Y Y Y

UK Y Y Y Y Y

Denmark Y Y Y Y

Sweden Y Y Y Y

Norway Y Y Y Y

Finland Y Y Y

Austria Y Y Y Y

Romania Y Y Y Y Y Y

19

changing role of government (Georgia)

Areas of oversightand regulation

Present situation

Proposed approach

Formulating overall vision and setting policies

Y Strengthened

Allocating budgetary resources based on performance and equity criteria

N Y

Evaluating and promoting quality Limited Strengthened

Allowing flexibility to hire and dismiss faculty

N Y

Allowing flexibility to establish salary levels

N Y

Imposing ex ante financial controls and audits

Y N

Allowing flexibility in procurement rules N Y

Monitoring / evaluating Limited capacity Y

20

appointment of university leader

• government appointment

• democratic election (faculty, administration, students, alumni)

• competitive appointment (Board, govt, electorate)

21

role of the Board in the autonomous university

• appoints the President and monitors his/her performance

• approves the mission and strategic plan, budget and performance indicators

• assesses performance against the strategy and plan

• establishes and monitors control and risk management systems

22

effective Boards

• Board = interface between society and universities

• learning to work together: university leadership and Board

• need for capacity building• clear boundaries

24

outline of the presentation

• why governance matters

• key dimensions of governance

• the impact of corruption

an inventory of corrupt behaviors

• categories based on educational and institutional processes

• “protagonists” identified

• examples provided from around the world

• summary matrix on p. 33 of the report

main forms of corruption in tertiary education

• admission process (examination fraud, bribery, favoritism, undue influence, discrimination)

• academic process (cheating, plagiarism)

• awarding of false credentials

• undermining of QA (bribery, false data, accreditation mills)

• research misconduct (standards, falsification of results, conflicts of interest, theft of ideas)

financial fraud and mismanagement

• profiteering

• theft

• embezzlement

• financial mismanagement

• student loan fraud

informal payments for education

Colom

bia

Zambia

Mad

agas

car

Parag

uay

Peru

Gua

tem

ala

Tajikis

tan

Bulgar

ia

Moz

ambiq

ue

Namibi

a

Gha

na

Nepal

India

Albania

Bangla

desh

Haiti

Sri La

nka

Pakist

an0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

26 7 7 7 8 9

16 1620

24 2534 35

40

60 61

92

% of households that make informal payments

http://medialogy.net/2009/12/28/looking-while-reading/

why does corruption happen?economic dimensions

• corruption in tertiary education often mirror corruption in other realms

• low teacher and administrator salaries

• supply out of sync with demand

why does corruption happen?political dimensions

• lack of oversight and accountability

• managerial capacity

• political tolerance

negative impact

• contrary to basic purpose of education• ethical values• academic merit • loss of trust in system and outputs

• teachers (role models)• students (code of conduct)• institutions (reputation)

• misuse of limited resources

• danger to the public • medical doctors with invalid accreditation

fighting corruption

• preventive measures (legislation, governance, procedures)

• detecting and monitoring (IT systems, tip lines, surveys, audits)

corruption in Kyrgyz universities

KTUKAU

NGU

BGU

Bishke

k M

edica

l Aca

dem

y

KGUSTA

KRSUM

UK

KGAFKiS

AUCA0

20

40

60

80 68 67.5 64.9 62 59.6 5951 49.5

34.3

5.1

Percentage

fighting corruption

• punitive measures (legal action, career sanctions, academic / professional sanctions, protests and violence)

• multiple purpose measures (accreditation, awareness, transparent reporting, integrity ranking)

38

outline of the presentation

• why governance matters

• key dimensions of governance

• the corruption agenda

• benchmarking governance in tertiary education

ranking systems in 2009

Region National and International Ranking System

Eastern Europe and Central Asia Kazakhstan (A, B), Lithuania (B), Poland (C), Slovakia (B), Romania (B/C), Russia (B), Ukraine (B/C)

East Asia and PacificAustralia (B), China (B, C, IB), Hong Kong (C), Japan (B, C), Korea (A), Malaysia (A), New Zealand (A), Taiwan (B, IB), Thailand (A)

Latin America and the Caribbean Argentina (D), Brazil (A), Chile (C,D), Mexico (B), Peru (B)

Middle East and North Africa Tunisia (A)

North AmericaCanada (B, C, B/C), United States (C, IC)

South AsiaIndia (C/D), Pakistan (A)

Sub-Saharan AfricaNigeria (A)

Western EuropeGermany (B/C, C), Italy (C), Netherlands (A), Portugal (C), Spain (B, C, IC), Sweden (C), Switzerland (B/C), United Kingdom (A, B, IC)

40

European Association of Universities

41

• Study of University Autonomy in Europe (34 countries)

42

benchmarking governance in tertiary education

• defining key dimensions

• selecting indicators

• developing questionnaire

43

developing indicators

• systems governance (strategic vision, legal framework, quality assurance, resource allocation and financial incentives)

• autonomy (academic, staffing, financial)

• accountability mechanisms

• existence and role of Boards

• institutional leadership

44

data collection

• piloting questionnaire in the East Asia Region

• second pilot phase in Central America

• intended to expand globally after pilot-driven improvements

45

next steps

• collecting data

• analyzing findings

• establishing relationships with performance measures

46

University

Governance

Upgrade your knowledge –

Govern and finance your tertiary education system!

Ariel Fiszbein