Non-University Higher Education in Europe (Higher Education Dynamics)

Non-University Higher Education in Europe

HIGHER EDUCATION DYNAMICS VOLUME 23 Series Editor Peter Maassen, University of Oslo, Norway, and University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Johan Muller, Graduate School of Humanities, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa Editorial Board Alberto Amaral, CIPES and Universidade do Porto, Portugal Akira Arimoto, Hiroshima University, Japan Nico Cloete, CHET, Pretoria, South Africa David Dill, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA Jürgen Enders, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands Patricia Gumport, Stanford University, USA Mary Henkel, Brunel University, Uxbridge, United Kingdom Glen Jones, University of Toronto, Canada

SCOPE OF THE SERIES Higher Education Dynamics is a bookseries intending to study adaptation processes and their outcomes in higher education at all relevant levels. In addition it wants to examine the way interactions between these levels affect adaptation processes. It aims at applying general social science concepts and theories as well as testing theories in the field of higher education research. It wants to do so in a manner that is of relevance to all those professionally involved in higher education, be it as ministers, policy-makers, politicians, institutional leaders or administrators, higher education researchers, members of the academic staff of universities and colleges, or students. It will include both mature and developing systems of higher education, covering public as well as private institutions.

The titles published in this series are listed at the end of this volume

James S. Taylor • José Brites Ferreira Maria de Lourdes Machado • Rui Santiago Editors

Non-University Higher Education in Europe

Editors James S. Taylor CIPES and University of Aveiro Portugal

José Brites Ferreira CIPES and Polytechnic University of Leiria Portugal [email protected]

Maria de Lourdes Machado CIPES and Polytechnic Institute of Braganca Portugal [email protected]

ISBN 978-1-4020-8334-1

Rui Santiago University of Aveiro Portugal [email protected]

e-ISBN 978-1-4020-8335-8

Library of Congress Control Number: 2008925105 © 2008 Springer Science + Business Media B.V. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work. Printed on acid-free paper 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 springer.com

Preface

Today, a substantial portion of higher education is provided outside of the traditional universities in non-university institutions with a multitude of varied characteristics. In recent decades, higher education systems have been subjected to many changes and reforms throughout the world. One of the most important was undoubtedly the expansion of higher education in the second half of the last century from an elite system to one for the masses. While institutions of higher learning have been in existence for approximately 1,000 years, this exponential growth has been much more recent. This movement toward mass higher education has created substantial national impacts on the development of the systems of higher education. While common denominators of change and adaptation can be identified globally, there remain important differences from country to country. There are many factors challenging higher education today and in the foreseeable future. In one form or another, these issues and trends can be seen in higher education systems throughout the world. They include chronic underfunding, marketisation and competition, alternative providers, massification, internationalisation, governance, leadership, strategic management, accountability, accreditation, and social relevance. Another key factor for many countries, especially in Europe, and the focus of this book, is the current and future status of the higher education systems that differentiate the university and non-university sectors. The proposed and emerging transformations occurring in higher education in Europe pose many new challenges. The Bologna Declaration and the movement toward the European Knowledge Area, among others, are pushing European higher education forward. Necessary responses to these demands can properly differ from one country to another, or for that matter, from one segment of the higher education enterprise to another. In order to weave the complex tapestry that defines change and innovation in European higher education, a solid understanding of the varied non-university sector must be included. The principle objective of this volume is to understand and critically examine the history, evolution, and governance structures of the non-university higher education sector in Europe. Ten countries – Austria, Belgium/Flanders, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom – are described and analysed by higher education scholars from each country. This is preceded by an opening chapter by Ulrich Teichler on the changing role of the non-university sector v

vi

Preface

in Europe generally. The book concludes with a comparative analysis across the ten countries and an agenda for the future of the non-university sector within Europe. The following is a brief overview of the national case studies. Urlich Teichler introduces the reader to the non-university sector from a panEuropean perspective. The author presents an intriguing discussion about the changing roles of this sector within Europe. This broad analysis provides the theoretical and practical underpinnings for the national cases that follow. The case of Austria is presented by Elsa Hackl. After a brief description of the Austrian higher education system, the author focuses on the higher education changes of the 1990s, including the creation of the non-university sector, the Fachhochschule, in concert with the accession of Austria to the European Union. Particular focus is given by the author to the level of autonomy. According to the author, future trends will emerge based on the developments of the Bologna process, and also as a result of an eventual redefinition of the relationship between universities and Fachhochschule. In the chapter on Flanders (Belgium), a jurisdiction that has long had a binary system of higher education, Jef Verhoeven questions it from both a national and an international context. After giving a systematic and critical overview of the nonuniversity sector in terms of its structure and nature, institutional governance and level of autonomy, the author argues that the binary system is still present but not as definitively as in the past. The bridges between colleges and university have been growing, and it is therefore difficult to say whether the universities will become more like the non-universities, or vice versa. Jussi Valimaa and Marja-Liisa Neuvonen-Rauhala present the case of the polytechnics in Finland. They stress that these higher education institutions are in a quasi-permanent transition. This results from their creation in the 1990s through the merger of many vocational institutions, as well as the challenges of new national legislation and the Bologna process. In their analysis, the authors highlight the establishment of the polytechnics in a political and economical environment with governance and management characterized as more managerial than academic. Questions are also raised concerning the vocational drift of the universities versus the academic drift of the polytechnics, and institutional autonomy versus academic freedom, specifically in the polytechnics. They delve into future possibilities within the context of a system challenged by overcapacity and the unpredictability of the eventual outcomes of the Bologna process. Mathias Klumpp and Ulrich Teichler present the case of the German Fachhoschulen and discuss their differentiation from traditional universities. The authors offer an interesting point-counterpoint perspective to the discussion by referring to the Fachhoschulen’s record of success compared to other binary systems, and then a possible scenario that would suggest the end of the success story. Their insights include an in-depth discussion of the rules, aims, actors and other dynamics in the battle for distinction between the German Fachhoschulen and the universities. Finally, in looking toward the future, the authors place the discussion within the context of the Bologna Process. Patrick Clancy discusses the non-university sector in Ireland. The author provides an overview of the evolution of higher education policy in recent decades with an

Preface

vii

emphasis on technology, the main element of the non-university sector. Key parameters of transformation for the Irish higher education system are presented. Emphasis is given to the institutional governance structures of the non-university sector, including an examination of the changes and developments that have characterized the sector in recent years in the context of the Irish higher education agenda. The level of autonomy of the sector is also the subject of a developed analysis and comparison with the university sector. The author concludes that future trends for Irish higher education will be strongly impacted by the Bologna process and the OECD. Jeroen Huisman analyses the hogescholen sector in the Netherlands. The author first presents the general structure of Dutch higher education and the development of the hogescholen, a sector with a large and important tradition in the overall system. The second section is more reflective in nature. Here the author discusses the level of autonomy in the hogescholen sector and some issues present in the debates and tensions surrounding the binary system, such as the cooperation between universities and hogescholen, academic drift and the political agenda of higher education. Finally, three future scenarios are presented for the binary system in the Netherlands. Norway’s non-university sector is analysed by Svein Kyvik. The author stresses three trends in the evolution of the sector: academic drift, standardization and rationalization. The author stresses that the processes of academic drift, standardization and rationalization in the non-university sector are likely to continue in the coming years. The recent dynamics in Norway’s higher education suggest that differences between universities and colleges have been reduced and the arguments for abolishing the binary system have become stronger. But on the other hand there are also counterarguments, especially those looking at the relationship between higher education, society and industry. The author suggests the process towards a unified system is likely to continue. Dynamics within the Norwegian higher education system and impacts from the Bologna process suggest and underscore this position. José Brites Ferreira, Maria de Lourdes Machado and Rui Santiago present and analyse the origins and evolution of the polytechnic sector in Portuguese higher education. The authors explain the general structure of Portuguese higher education and the specific development of the polytechnic sector within it. Attention is focused on polytechnic governance and autonomy, the current debates and consequent tensions surrounding the binary system and possible future trends for Portuguese higher education within the context of the Bologna Process, and academic and professional drift. Joseph Bricall and Marti Parellada author the chapter on Spain, where the case is somewhat different from the other countries. In Spain, the non-university sector has assumed a minor role. At the same time, it may still be an evolution in progress from a pre-university upper-secondary education to more of a post-secondary experience. The non-university sector is explained and analysed in detail from both an internal and external university perspective. Finally, the authors suggest some changes within Spain that may well result from the Bologna Process and their possible consequences. John Brennan and Ruth Williams characterise the United Kingdom case. Unique to the UK was the fact that as other countries were working to establish non-university

viii

Preface

sectors, they were dismantling one of the first such systems ever established. The authors discuss the idiosyncrasies of the UK case, and the growth and demise of the polytechnic system. The future of UK higher education is also offered as a point of discussion with some emphasis placed on the arena of vocational higher education. In the final chapter, the editors address the issue of convergence or diversity within and between the sectors of European higher education. The authors examine structural models across countries, and conclude with a discussion of trends, with an emphasis on the Bologna Process. The editors would like to acknowledge Alberto Amaral, Director of CIPES, for his advice and steadfast assistance to the editors in the development of this volume. Our appreciation is extended to Maria João Rosa for her assistance. We also want to thank Maria José Sá, who with dedicated service to this project, was able to move us forward to fruition through her excellent administrative assistance. James S. Taylor José Brites Ferreira Maria de Lourdes Machado and Rui Santiago

Contents

Preface .............................................................................................................

v

Contributors ...................................................................................................

xi

The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities? .................................................................................. Ulrich Teichler

1

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education ........................................................................................... Elsa Hackl

15

Questioning the Binary Divide: Non-University Higher Education in Flanders (Belgium).................................................................. Jef C. Verhoeven

43

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education .................................................. Jussi Välimaa and Marja-Liisa Neuvonen-Rauhala German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story? ......................................................................................... Matthias Klumpp and Ulrich Teichler The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education ............................... Patrick Clancy Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education: Dutch Hogescholen on the Move................................................................... Jeroen Huisman The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway ......................... Svein Kyvik

77

99

123

147

169

ix

x

Contents

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal............................... José Brites Ferreira, Maria de Lourdes Machado, and Rui Santiago The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education ......................................................................... Josep M. Bricall and Martí Parellada Higher Education Outside the Universities: The UK Case ........................ John Brennan and Ruth Williams Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity? ............................................................................ Maria de Lourdes Machado, José Brites Ferreira, Rui Santiago, and James S. Taylor

191

215

231

245

Contributors

John Brennan is Director of the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information and Professor of Higher Education Research at the Open University. He has directed national and international projects on quality assurance in higher education, graduate employment, widening participation and the role of universities in social transformation. He has published several books and many reports and articles on higher education and has spoken at countless conferences on higher education in the UK and many other parts of the world. Joseph Bricall has a Ph.D. in Law and a Ph.D. in Economics, University of Barcelona. He is Professor of Political Economy in the University of Barcelona since 1976. He is Dr. H.C. (Soka-Japon; Rovira-i-Virgil-Tarragona; Marne-laVallée (France); ClujRoumanie; Paris XII; Bolonia). His main subjects of study are: war economy (Catalonia 1936–1939); economic growth; industrial development; public finance; post-Keynesian studies; universities. Among other functions, he is or has been: Rector of the University of Barcelona (1986–1994); President of the Association of European Universities (CRE) (1994–1998); Member of the Advisory Board of the Accreditation Committee of the Hungarian Universities (1994–2001), of the Council of the United Nations University (1998–2004); Member of the of the Collegium de l’Observatory of Magna Charta Universitatum and of the “Comité National d’Evaluation” appointed by the French government; Director of the Rapport “Universidad 2000” ordered by the Conference of Spanish Rectors – March 2000; Secretary General to the Presidency in the Generalitat of Catalonia (1977–1979) (State Government); Minister for Home Affairs of the Generalitat of Catalonia (1979–1980); Member of the Executive Board of the Opera House – Barcelona (1984–1991). Patrick Clancy is Associate Professor of Sociology and former Dean of the Faculty of Human Sciences at University College Dublin. His main publications are in higher education, sociology of education, education policy, and social change in Ireland. These include College Entry in Focus: A Fourth National Survey of Access to Higher Education (Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 2001) and Irish Society: Sociological Perspectives (Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 1995). He has served on a variety of National Advisory and Policy groups on higher xi

xii

Contributors

education and in 2005 was selected on the Fulbright New Century Scholar programme researching ‘Higher Education in the 21st Century: Global Challenge, National Response’. José Brites Ferreira is a Professor at the Polytechnic Institute of Leiria and Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Higher Education Policies (CIPES). He has been involved in several programmes of teacher training in the Republic of Cape Verde. His main interests are the regulation mechanisms of education, school organization and curriculum management. Recent work has focused on European perspectives on the governance and management of the non-university higher education sector. Elsa Hackl is part of the Department of Political Science of Vienna University. Masters Degree in Law, Doctorate in Politics. Has worked as a civil servant in a senior position (director responsible for Fachhochschulen at the Austrian Ministry for Education, Research and Culture), was Visiting Fellow at the University of British Columbia, Canada and at the European University Institute, Florence, continues to work as an expert for the OECD, the Council of Europe and Salzburg Seminar. Elsa Hackl’s primary research areas include Education policy, Europeanisation/ internationalisation and public administration Jeroen Huisman is Director of the International Centre for Higher Education Management and Professor of Higher Education Management, University of Bath, United Kingdom. Before taking up this position in June 2005, he was research coordinator and senior researcher at the Center for Higher Education Policy Studies of the University of Twente, the Netherlands. His main research interests are governance, policy change and impact, management, organisational change, diversity, internationalisation and comparative research. Matthias Klumpp studied economics at the Universities of Leipzig and Strasbourg/ France (graduated 1998, Diplom-Kaufmann, Diplom-Volkswirt) as well as education science at the Humboldt-University of Berlin. After five years as business consultant he has worked in several management projects as higher education consultant in areas such as university strategy, organisation models in universities, concepts for alumni, career service and fundraising. Currently his Ph.D. thesis about risk management in universities is prepared for publication. As student and researcher at the INCHER Kassel he worked on higher education professions and the future development of German Fachhochschulen in the light of the Bologna process. Svein Kyvik is a senior researcher at NIFU STEP – Studies in Innovation, Research and Education in Oslo. He holds a Ph.D. in Sociology, and his current research focuses on the development of a non-university higher education sector in Norway and Western Europe, and on changes in the roles of the academic researcher.

Contributors

xiii

Maria De Lourdes Machado has a Licenciatura in Economics from the University of Porto (Portugal), Post-Graduate Studies in Administration and a Ph.D., both from the University of Minho. Her career in Portuguese higher education began as the Head of Administration of the Polytechnic Institute in Bragança (Portugal). She helped found the institution and served as a member of its Board of Directors. Dr. Machado is currently a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Higher Education Policies (CIPES) in Matosinhos, Portugal. She was a Fulbright Scholar at North Texas University (U.S.) and is a Fulbright Alumni Fellow. Her areas of research include governance and management, strategic planning, the nonuniversity sector, student success, diversity and faculty satisfaction. Currently she is involved in research projects concerning student satisfaction, women managers in higher education and change in the academic profession. She is the author of books on higher education legislation and other publications in European and American journals such as Diálogo Educacional, Higher Education Policy, Planning for Higher Education and Tertiary Education and Management. Marja-liisa Neuvonen-rauhala works as Project Manager in the Innovation Centre of the Lahti University of Applied Sciences. She is finishing her doctoral studies at the Institute for Educational Research on non-university higher education. Marti Parellada (1951) graduated in Economic Science and was awarded a Ph.D. in Economic Science and become Professor of Applied Economics at the Faculty of Economic and Business Science of the University of Barcelona. He also has been visiting professor at the Johns Hopkins University of Baltimore (US). He has been Vice-Rector at the University of Barcelona (1986–1990), Director of the Continuing Education Centre of the University of Barcelona (1992–2002). He has also been member of the Steering Committee of the European Universities Continuing Education Network (EUCEN). At present, he is General Coordinator of the Annual Report on the contribution of Spanish universities to regional development, published since 2003 by the Knowledge and Development Foundation (Fundación CYD). He is also member of the Review Team for the OECD – IMHE project: Supporting the contribution of higher education institutions to regional development. Rui Santiago is associate professor at the University of Aveiro, and a senior researcher at CIPES. His main research interests are the regulation mechanisms of higher education and the institutional governance and management of higher education institutions. His recent publications include “Effects of managerialism on the perceptions of Higher Education in Portugal”, Higher Education Policy (2004), 17, 427–444 (with Teresa Carvalho); “Students’ perceptions on the influence of institutional evaluation on universities”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (2006) 31, 6625–6638 (with Denise Leite et al.); and “Changing patterns in the middle management of Higher Education Institutions: The case of Portugal”, Higher Education (2006), 52, 215–250 (with Teresa Carvalho, Alberto Amaral and Lynn Meek).

xiv

Contributors

James Taylor passed away on July 7, 2007. He was Professor of Higher Education and Advisor to the Rector for Strategic Planning at the University of Aveiro. He was the Coordinator of the Erasmus/Mundus Joint European Master’s Degree in Higher Education Policy there. He was also a Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Higher Education Policies (CIPES). His research areas included higher education leadership, strategic management, institutional planning, faculty satisfaction, student success and strategic enrolment management. His primary research projects at the time of his death included studies in the European Union on institutional benchmarking and institutional typologies, a national study in Portugal on student satisfaction in higher education and an international study on changes in the academic profession. Dr. Taylor was Vice President Emeritus, former Head of Strategic Planning and Professor at Pittsburg State University in the United States and a Lifetime Fellow of the American Council on Education. Jim will be greatly missed by his family, friends and colleagues. Ulrich Teichler is professor at the International Centre for Higher Education Research Kassel (ICHER Kassel) and at the Department for Social Sciences of the University of Kassel (Germany). He was research fellow and part-time professor in Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan and the U.S. For many years, he was chairman of the Consortium of Higher Education Researchers (CHER), president of EAIR and member of the Board of the International Academy of Education. His key areas of research are higher education and the world of work, international comparison of higher education systems, and international cooperation and mobility in higher education. Jussi Välimaa is Professor in higher education studies in the University of Jyväskylä. He has acted as the head of the Higher Education Research Team at the Institute for Educational Research since 1995. Professor Välimaa has expertise on social studies of higher education and has carried out national and international research on Finnish and European higher education. He has been active in many international academic organisations and has organised a number of international and national conferences. Jef C. Verhoeven is Professor of Sociology at the KU Leuven (Belgium) and Head of the Centre for Sociology of Education at the same university. He has published in the field of sociology of education, and more specifically on higher education. Recently he conducted several projects on higher education in Belgium (amongst others, about mergers in colleges of higher education, and about internationalisation and commercialisation of higher education in Belgium). He has published several books, and articles in, among others, the European Journal of Education, the Journal of Education Policy, Educational Management, Administration and Leadership, Studies in Higher Education, the Tsinghua Journal of Education, Education Policy Analysis Archives.

Contributors

xv

Ruth Williams is a senior policy analyst at the Centre for Higher Education Research and Information at the Open University, London. She undertakes policy-related research for higher education policy bodies both within the UK and internationally. Her main research focus at the Centre is on systems and methods of quality assessment, assurance and evaluation. Recent work has focused on the collection of student feedback and its use in the quality assurance of teaching and learning, and external quality assurance of higher education as a form of regulation.

The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities? Ulrich Teichler

1 1.1

Introduction Emergence and Popularity of a Second Institutional Type

For about four decades, diversity according to types of higher education institutions was among the key characteristics of the higher education systems in many European countries. Some countries are named frequently in publications on higher education systems as having set the agenda for such a move towards a two-type or multi-type structure of higher education systems (see OECD 1973). The British polytechnics were established in the early 1960s. In France, Instituts universitaires de technologie (IUT) were also established in the 1960s as a third type of higher education institution beside the university and the Grandes Écoles (see Bienaymé 1991). The German Fachhochschulen started their programmes in 1971 (see Teichler 1996). Last, but not least, the regional colleges of Norway are often mentioned as early prototypes of an institutional alternative to the university (see Kyvik 1981; Vangsnes and Jordell 1992). At that time, many actors and experts predicted that two-type structures or multi-type structures might spread all over Europe. A consensus never emerged on how these institutions should be termed. Some called them polytechnics, thereby taking the British term for the institutional type, although British polytechnics were clearly distinct from Fachhochschulen, IUTs, etc. Others preferred “non-university higher education” or “short-cycle higher education” (see for example, OECD 1973), but these terms were viewed as too derogatory to be generally accepted. An OECD study in the early 1990s ended up with the term “alternatives to universities” (OECD 1991), but this seemingly neutral term all the more underscored that universities always had the freedom of reflecting their tasks and functions in their own rights, while this second type of higher education always had to define its position vis-à-vis its “big brother,” i.e. the university. In the 1980s the second type of higher education institutions had consolidated in various European countries; however, it became obvious that – in spite of a widespread and relatively similar rhetoric about the virtues of diversity of higher education in most European countries – a structural variety has persisted across European higher education systems (see de Moor 1979; Council of Europe 1982; OECD 1983; James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

1

2

U. Teichler

Teichler 1988a, b; Neave 1989). Unitary systems did not cease to exist. There were some options in favour of a comprehensive structure, and in some countries an informal diversity seemed to be more important than formal diversity. I argued that we observed a “persistent variety” of higher education systems in Europe (Teichler 1990).

1.2

Challenges to a Two-Type or Multi-Type Structure

No matter whether a two-type or multi-type institutional structure was the dominant pattern in Europe or one of several well-accepted patterns: one could have expected a high degree of stability of such a structure, because the non-university institutions were, obviously, widely praised as desirable and because there wasn’t a widespread consensus about a superior pattern for the higher education system. In reality, however, the two-type or multi-type institutional structure was constantly challenged in Europe by alternative concepts. In the late 1970s and during the 1980s, increasing attention was paid to informal diversity, i.e. to vertical and horizontal differences between higher education institutions of formally the same type. If distinctions between the individual institutions of higher education are made according to academic reputational rank or institutional and curricular profiles are made so important, for example, for the job opportunities of graduates, the type of higher education institution might be downgraded towards a structural dimension of minor relevance. Subsequently, when the British polytechnics were upgraded to universities in 1992, some actors and experts predicted the end of two-type and multi-type structures of higher education systems in European countries. One could assume that an “academic drift”, i.e. successful efforts on the part of non-university higher education to imitate universities and to assimilate themselves to universities, would lead eventually to the natural death of the two-type structure and the glory of upgrading of the previous non-university institutions to universities. In reality, however, this upgrading took place only in a few countries, while concurrently a significant number of other European countries, in reverse, moved during the 1990s towards a two-type structure, for example, Austria, Finland and Switzerland. And in many other European countries, consolidation could be observed of the alternatives to universities, an example of which is the Institutos Politécnicos in Portugal. Finally, the ministers in charge of higher education in France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom suggested in the “Sorbonne Declaration” in 1998 that the “architecture” of the higher education systems in Europe ought to be harmonized towards a stage system of study programmes and degrees. In 1999, the educational ministers of almost 30 European countries agreed on the “Bologna Declaration,” moving towards a convergent structure of study programmes and degrees. In the meantime, efforts are underway in the so-called “Bologna Process” to implement a Bachelor-Master structure of study programmes and degrees in order to create a convergent structure in the “European Higher Education Area” to be realized by 2010.

The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities?

3

This clearly puts an emphasis on levels of study programmes and degrees as the prime structural characteristics and intra-institutional diversity, and thus challenges the relevance and potentially the existence of a two-type or multi-type structure of higher education. What will be the future of the non-university sector of higher education in the first decade of the 21st century? It is easy to agree with the chorus of voices predicting an end to a specific non-university sector. But a closer look back might be interesting, because various predictions in the past have turned out to be premature.

2

The Emergence of the Non-University Sector

Beginning around the 1960s, Western European countries became increasingly interested in comparing their higher education system with that of other countries in order to generate ideas for higher education reforms. It is difficult to determine clearly the extent to which social pressures caused a similar problem-awareness or the extent to which similar policy debates emerged even without substantial social pressures – more or less as an “epidemic” spread by international organisations or comparative experts. It is obvious, though – and this is well-documented in OECD publications (see the analysis in Papadopoulus 1994) – that the expansion of student enrolment became a key issue of higher education policy in most economically advanced countries around 1960. This was a period when the economics of education succeeded in delivering a concept rapidly absorbed in higher education politics: a substantial increase of entry quotas to higher education and of graduation quotas among the corresponding age groups was considered in most countries as a precondition to stimulating economic growth. During the 1960s a consensus quickly grew among actors and experts that a substantial increase in student numbers could not emerge in more or less homogenous university systems (see OECD 1974). It was generally assumed that only diverse study provisions would suit the variety of students’ motives, talents and career prospects. An expansion of traditional universities with a close link of research and teaching in accordance with the growing student numbers was considered too costly. Last but not least, the general concept of system theory was widely accepted that a growing system can only fulfil its tasks in the process of growth if it diversifies both institutionally and substantially. Before the expansion in the 1960s, universities were the key institutions of higher learning in almost all countries of the world. They were characterized by ● ● ●

● ●

Serving both research and teaching Comprising a broad range of disciplines Setting an intellectually-demanding standard both at entry as well as in teaching and learning Having a strong theoretical emphasis Being highly “autonomous” institutions with a significant degree of “academic freedom”

4

U. Teichler

In most European countries, some other colleges existed as well. Most of them were specialized according to disciplines or professional areas, and they tended to be viewed as not being on equal terms with the universities. It should be noted, though, that these institutions did not form the nucleus for a two-type structure of higher education. Rather, most of them were upgraded in most European countries to university-level institutions, in some cases through a merger with existing universities, in other cases by broadening their disciplinary range, or in other cases to mono-disciplinary universities. Instead, the establishment of a two-type institutional structure of the higher education system was realized in many European countries by means of upgrading vocational training institutions to non-university higher education institutions. Thereby, the second type of higher education institution could be established quickly through an elevation of the status of previously existing institutions. In most countries, such a decision was taken after controversial debates: Was a change of educational level really needed in the middle-level occupations which were served by these training institutions, or did it undermine well-established applied approaches of training and professional practice? Were established institutions capable of changing their educational character in the desired way? Was the upgrading necessary because otherwise more and more talented youth would opt for universities? Often, the international argument was crucial for the eventual upgrading: If other countries head in this direction, we cannot exclude ourselves. This upgrading of previously existing advanced vocational training institutions had clear advantages of implementation: ● ●

●

The new institutions could be established immediately. An upgrading of established institutions is cheaper than the establishment of new institutions. Neither new cohorts of students nor new labour market segments had to found.

As a consequence of the establishment of non-university institutions of higher education, an inter-institutional diversity of higher education emerged. In contrast to an intra-institutional diversity, such an inter-institutional diversity ensures that the tasks and functions of this sector differed from universities, that had their separate home. These institutions could cultivate an identity of their own, and could pursue their specific goals in an institutional setting with a day-to-day reference to the tasks and functions of the university. All these features suggest that non-university institutions of higher education had the best possible chance in the European context of becoming a stable sector alongside the traditional university. In contrast, the preservation of a unitary higher education, as for example, in Italy, was often viewed as an outmoded system. Also, efforts of establishing comprehensive universities, i.e. different types of study programmes and degrees under a single institutional “roof”, did not gain wide popularity and, where they were established, suffered from the day-to-day visibility of uneven reputation of academics and possibly departments and study programmes (see Hermanns et al. 1983).

The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities?

3

5

The Challenge of Stratification

Experts agree that a higher education researcher has had an enormous impact on the debates and policies regarding patterns within the higher education system. The terms “elite higher education”, “mass higher education” and “universal higher education” coined by Martin Trow in the late 1960s (see Trow 1970, 1974) were referred to more frequently in public debates than any other concept coined by a higher education researcher. But Trow’s concept was frequently misunderstood. Trow did not assume, as frequently argued, that “elite higher education” was substituted by “mass higher education” in the process of expansion; rather, he pointed out that a sector of mass higher education emerges when enrolment surpasses about 15 percent of the age group which absorbs the additional students and thus protects “elite higher education” from becoming like higher education for the masses. Similarly, an additional sector of “universal higher education” was likely to emerge when enrolment surpasses about 50%. Similarly, Trow did not argue that “elite higher education” resides in one type of higher education institution and “mass higher education” in another institutional type. On the contrary, he argued in the late 1970s that higher education policies in many European countries – among them those with a two-type or multi-type structure – have failed to protect “elite higher education” (Trow 1979). Obviously, the concept of a distinction between “elite” and “mass” higher education was generated on the basis of the experience of the U.S. higher education system, which is among the higher education systems in economically advanced countries characterized by enormous differences of academic quality and reputation between the individual higher education institutions. While Trow described it as dichotomic, many other experts pointed out the “diversity” of the U.S. system (for example, Clark 1976). Within Europe, university systems had differed substantially as far as vertical differences, i.e. those of academic quality and reputation as well as access routes to elite positions in society, were concerned. British universities are widely seen as traditionally the most highly stratified ones, while German universities are viewed as the least stratified ones. From the 1970s onwards, we note, first, growing attention being paid to vertical differences among higher education institutions, departments and programmes and, second, increasing advocacy to make the quality hierarchy of higher education institutions steeper. This growing emphasis on vertical differences was fuelled both by concerns of teaching and learning and by concerns of research. As regards teaching and learning, most observers believed that a higher education degree lost in the process of higher education expansion its role as a sufficient condition to enter high-level careers. Higher education was viewed as expanding beyond the demand of high-level careers. As a consequence, a university more clearly became a necessary precondition, but less clearly a sufficient pre-condition for access to those careers. Additional criteria, among them those linked to educational credentials such as grades or the reputation of the higher education institutions, were bound to play a stronger role in social selection.

6

U. Teichler

As regards research, the success of research in the U.S. reinforced the view in many European countries that an increasing stratification in the allocation of resources for research might be beneficial for the overall quality of research in a country. In the 1980s, the view spread quickly that research in Europe lagged behind research in the U.S., that quality of research was crucial for the future development of the economy, and that the costs of research exploded and thus were calling for a concentration of research expenses. We could observe during the 1980s a rapid extension of “ranking” studies, i.e. studies aiming to establish a rank order between universities or countries to various measures of academic quality. No matter whether we consider these studies as theoretically and methodologically convincing or as biased by an unfounded view (or “ideology”?) that quality differences between scholars are largely shaped by the environment of individual universities: we note that an increasing emphasis was placed on quality differences between higher education institutions since the 1970s and has become more pronounced since the 1980s in many European countries. Obviously, this could have challenged the role of institutional types of higher education. If the distinction between “elite universities” and “mass universities” is viewed as salient, why shouldn’t the distinction between the different curricular profiles between “mass universities” and “mass other higher education institutions” be highly relevant? Also, one could assume that competition for different ranks could take place freely and efficiently if there were no boundaries between types of higher education institutions (see Scott 1995, 1996). It seems justified, however, to argue that the policy debates about the strengths and weaknesses of the two-type or multi-type systems of higher education taking place in Europe in the 1980s were hardly affected by the debates about the strengths and weaknesses of a steep hierarchy of quality differences. The latter debates almost exclusively focused on the differences between universities. It is also interesting in this context to note that most ranking lists established at that time only comprised universities. Other types of higher education obviously were viewed as not directly competing with the universities or even as hardly stratified. We can argue that there was not an alternate debate between a “dual system” or “binary system” on the one hand and a “stratified system” on the other hand, but rather the co-existence of a “stratified” university sub-system and a “dual system” of two types of higher education institutions seemed to have been taken for granted in a substantial number of European countries during the 1980s.

4

The Challenge of Academic Drift

Analyses of the “dual” or “binary” structures of higher education systems in Europe emerging between the early 1960s and the late 1990s show an enormous variety (see Teichler 1988a, b; Gellert 1993; Meek et al. 1996; Hennessey et al. 1998; OECD 1998; Teichler 1998; Haug et al. 1999).

The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities? ●

●

●

●

●

7

In some countries, different routes of secondary education and vocational training are the typical entry requirements for universities and other higher education institutions, while in other countries the formal entry requirements between universities and other types of higher education institutions barely differ. In some countries, the study programmes at other higher education venues are identical to those of universities as far as the length of study and the degrees conferred are concerned, while in others the study programmes are shorter and degrees and certificates are clearly distinct. In most countries, we note a substantial overlap of graduates’ careers and on average a relatively small difference between the job perspectives of graduates from the various types of institutions, while in a few countries, the career prospects differ substantially. In some countries, most teachers of the second type of higher education are well qualified for research tasks, while in other countries, they are hardly qualified for these tasks. Similarly, there are no striking differences as to whether and to what extent these institutions are expected to be involved in research and the actual extent of research activities. Similarly, the countries vary with respect to the extent to which salaries, status and job assignments differ between the academic staff at universities and other institutions of higher education.

These differences notwithstanding, the policies of the non-university higher education institutions were similar: on the one hand, they tried to cultivate some distinctions, and on the other hand, they tried to raise their status in comparison to the universities by attempting to become more similar to the universities. The latter phenomenon, generally called “academic drift” (cf. Neave 1996), seems to be becoming dominant over time. Eventually, an imbalance does not serve the stabilisation of the second type of higher education institution, but might lead to an upgrading of these institutions to universities. One should point out that governmental policies of creating and preserving different types of higher education institutions in many European countries have elicited collective strategies on the part of the second types of higher education institutions to raise their status. As far as these strategies were successful, the overall structure of the higher education system was on the move. In contrast, we note in the U.S. and Japan that individual institutions of higher education try, individually, to be vertically mobile. Individual institutions are upgraded from four-year colleges to universities with graduate schools or from two-year colleges to four-year colleges, while the overall structure of the system remained unchanged over decades. A closer look at the “academic drift” argument shows that different reasons are seen underlying the imitation behaviour on the part of the second type of higher education institutions: ●

According to some arguments, we could consider “academic drift” as an outgrowth of shared values. Academic staff at higher education institutions, students and graduates, employers and politicians have similar views with respect to what is noble and what is less noble in higher education.

8 ●

●

U. Teichler

According to other arguments, the teaching, learning and research activities at other institutions of higher education are less demanding cognitively, and this clearly overshadows the horizontal differences of curricular thrust. As a consequence, the other types of higher education institutions are bound to end up on a lower level in their competition with the universities under the rule of educational meritocracy. Similar views on what is noble and less noble are, thus, the necessary outgrowth of different cognitive levels. According to a third argument, the second type of higher education cannot focus consistently on certain types and levels of students and on certain types and levels of occupations. Under conditions of a relatively open education system and a close link between educational attainment and career, the second type of higher education institutions constantly lose some of their clientele who will turn to universities in the hope that they will rise to a higher education. In order to avoid losing their clientele and in order to avoid being forced to turn to a cognitively “less noble” clientele, the institutions of the second type of higher education try to keep their clientele striving to become somewhat more similar to the universities.

When the British polytechnics were upgraded to universities (cf. Kogan 1993; Fulton 1996), this phenomenon was often interpreted as the first step of a convergent trend. We noted, however, varied developments in Europe. In some countries, the established second type of higher education institutions persisted, and in other countries, a second type of higher education institutions was newly established during the 1990s – in most cases again through the upgrading of former vocational training institutions. In sum, a second type of higher education institution did not cease to exist in spite of widespread “academic drift”. Obviously, there is pressure named “academic drift” everywhere, but it turned out to be the dominating force only in a few cases during the 1990s. This calls for an explanation about the conditions and factors supporting or counteracting “academic drift” as well as conditions and factors supporting or undermining the persistence of a two-type or multi-type system of higher education. Certainly, political options play a significant role (see van Vught 1996), but the political will is likely to reflect the cultural, societal and economic context. We certainly might argue that the curricular duality between universities and the second type of higher education institutions is more likely to persist in countries where both the world of work as well as education and training is strongly shaped by professional or vocational cultures. In a country like Germany where the second type of higher education had existed for a long time, the development of Fachhochschulen was characterized both by the persistence of a tradition according to which distinct cultures existed, though with some undeniable overlap, between professions based on university education and somewhat lower-ranking (semi-) professions based on applied knowledge, and by an “academic drift” of these institutions, Fachhochschulen and Fachhochschule education became somewhat more similar to universities and study programmes at universities. Thus, there was a gradual but undeniable upgrading of the Fachhochschulen without a discontinuation of the divide.

The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities?

9

It is interesting to note, however, that neither a complete upgrading as in the British case nor a gradual upgrading as in the German case seems to lead back to a unitary system. Rather, somewhat lower-ranking institutions expand and seem to take over educational functions which the Polytechnics and Fachhochschulen might have given up as a consequence of “academic drift”. The best example for this emergence and strengthening of a next rank of institutions is the historical shift of membership of EURASHE, the European Association of Institutions in Higher Education. Founded in 1990 as a unit of the Conference of European Rectors (CRE), the membership organisation of universities, in order to serve as a voice of non-university higher education, EURASHE initially had members such as Fachhochschulen. In the meantime, many former polytechnics are members of the European University Association (EUA), the successor organisation of CRE, while Fachhochschulen ceased to be members of EURASHE and still are not accepted as individual members of EUA. EURASHE is now based primarily on other “tertiary education” institutions such as the Berufsakademien in Germany (see also Kirsch et al. 2003).

5 The Challenge of a Stage Structure of Study Programmes and Degrees and of European Convergence In 1999, ministers from almost 30 European countries agreed in signing the “Bologna Declaration” to strive for the establishment of a stage structure of study programmes and degrees. In the meantime, more than 40 European countries are involved in the so-called Bologna Process, which is an effort to articulate a “convergent” structure whereby the length of the Bachelor programmes might be between three and four years, the length of the Master programmes between one and two years with the overall length of these two stages being five years or somewhat shorter. Doctoral study is viewed as a third stage. The Bologna Process (see the overview on the first years in Haug and Tauch 2001; Reichert and Tauch 2003, 2005) clearly puts a prime emphasis on the stages of the study programmes and makes this a key criterion for diversity in higher education. Intra-institutional diversity is in the forefront. This does not preclude, however, any other dimensions of diversity. First, different types of higher education institutions might offer study programmes which fit the overall stage structure. In fact, the establishment of a stage structure was viewed in some countries as strengthening the position of the second type of higher education institutions as compared to the universities. This view notably was promoted in countries where the second type of institutions are entitled now to offer Master programmes in addition to Bachelor programmes. It does not come as a surprise that the Bologna Declaration had elicited controversial debates and eventually different decisions with respect to the questions on whether the second type of higher education institutions ought to be entitled to offer Master programmes or not. But it is generally assumed that the distinction between the Bachelor and the Master will be the crucial one in the future,

10

U. Teichler

while studying for a Bachelor at a university or at a second type of higher education institution will be of minor relevance. Second, the Bologna Process is likely to affect as well the relevance of vertical differences according to academic quality and reputation between higher education institutions and programmes of the same type. But many experts point out an ambivalence of the Bologna Process in this respect (see, for example, Van der Wende 2001; Van Vught et al. 2002; Neave 2002; Teichler 2007). On the one hand, the establishment of a convergent structure of study programmes and degrees is expected to facilitate student mobility within Europe. This effect can be reached only if differences of quality and curricular thrusts of study programmes at European institutions of higher education are kept in bounds. On the other hand, the Bologna Process is viewed as part of a process of growing global competition in higher education and research which is likely to underscore or even increase quality differences. This ambivalence notwithstanding, the Bologna Process clearly emphasises the stages of study programmes and degrees as the single most important mode of diversification in higher education. As a consequence, the distinction between types of higher education institutions loses its former relevance to some extent. It is premature to predict now whether the formal distinctions between types of higher education institutions such as the one between German universities and Fachhochschulen will be discontinued in the near future as the formal distinction between universities and polytechnics was discontinued in Britain in 1992. There is an argument in favour of the assumption that the institutional divide will cease to exist. The current higher education policy options within individual European countries are not viewed anymore, as in the preceding decades, as individual national options possibly influenced by international comparison, but rather as part of joint efforts and convergent decision-making within Europe. Already before the Sorbonne Declaration, the predecessor declaration to the Bologna Declaration, was signed in 1999, Guy Neave (1997), the thorough observer of higher education trends in Europe, noted a growing imitation behaviour within European countries. It will be interesting to note whether higher education systems in the various European countries will establish a variety of different models of stage systems of study programmes and degrees in the Bologna Process or whether they will move towards similar solutions. If the latter occurs, the persistence of different types of higher education institutions is likely to be challenged.

6

Concluding Observations

A non-university sector has emerged in various European countries since the 1960s as a means of clearly marked inter-institutional diversification. This was a response to the expansion of higher education in various respects, among others based on the belief that research should not be spread as widely across education on the tertiary level and that the diversity of students according to motives, talents and job pros-

The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities?

11

pects was bound to grow. Inter-institutional diversity could ensure that different educational concepts are fostered under separate institutional “roofs”. Two-type or multi-type higher education systems were often hailed, notably by government and employers’ representatives as an optimal structural model. But they remained controversial. We provided evidence that the two-type or multi-type structure had faced three waves of major challenges. First, we noted a growing relevance of vertical differences according to academic reputation and quality among institutions of higher education of the same type. Second, the double strategy of non-university higher education to underscore some differences between them and universities on the one hand and aiming to get closer to the universities in other respects on the other hand, seemed to lose momentum in favour of the latter development. The Bologna Process poses a third wave of challenges to non-university higher education. As intra-institutional diversity according to stages of study programmes and degrees becomes the “convergent” pattern of higher education systems in Europe, the relative weight of inter-institutional diversity according to types of higher education institutions is bound to decline. This is all the more true because the individual countries advocate structural similarities between the higher education systems more strongly than ever before. Yet, it would be premature to argue that the non-university types of higher education are on the way to being upgraded to universities. If a substantial variety emerges in the new structure of study programmes and degrees, one cannot expect strong pressures for convergence as far as the types of higher education are concerned. If, however, the structure of study programme degrees becomes more similar across European countries, as they seem to develop at the moment, the various countries might opt for an upgrading of the non-university higher education institutions to universities.

References Bienaymé, A. “France”. In Altbach, P. G. (ed). International Higher Education: An Encyclopedia. New York/London: Garland Publishing, 1991, pp. 657–670. Clark, B. R. “The Benefits of Disorder”. Change 8(10) (1976): 31–37. Council of Europe. Reforms and Development of Tertiary Education in Europe: Recommendations. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, 1982. De Moor, R. A. Changing Tertiary Education in Modern European Society. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, 1979. Fulton, O. “Differentiation and Diversity in a Newly Unitary System: the Case of the UK”. In Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press, 1996, pp. 163–187. Gellert, C. (ed). Higher Education in Europe. London/Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1993. Haug, G., and C. Tauch. Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education (II). Helsinki: Finnish National Board of Education, 2001. Haug, G., J. Kirstein, and I. Knudsen. Trends in Learning Structures in Higher Education. Copenhagen: Danish Rectors’ Conference Secretariat, 1999.

12

U. Teichler

Hennessey, M. A., O. Lampinen, T. Schröder, H. Sebkova, J. Sentényiand, and U. Teichler. Tertiary Professional and Vocational Edcation (TP/VE) in Central and Eastern Europe. Strasbourg, France/Torino, Italy: Council of European and University Training Foundation, 1998. Hermanns, H., U. Teichler, and H. Wasser (eds). The Compleat University. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman, 1983. Kirsch, M. et al. Tertiary Short Cycle Higher Education in Europe. Brussels: EURASHE, 2003. Kogan, M. “The End of the Dual System? The Blurring of Boundaries in the British Tertiary Education System”. In Gellert, C. (ed). Higher Education in Europe. London/Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1993, pp. 48–58. Kyvik, S. The Norwegian Regional College. Oslo: Institute for Studies in Research and Higher Education, 1981. Meek, V. L., Goedegebuure, L., Kivinen, O., and Rinne, R. (eds). The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press, 1996. Neave, G. “Foundation or Roof? The Quantitative, Structural and Institutional Dimensions of Higher Education”. European Journal of Education 24(3) (1989): 211–222. Neave, G. “Homogenization, Integration and Convergence: The Chesire Cats of Higher Education Analysis”. In Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press, 1996, pp. 26–41. Neave, G. “Nachäffen der Eigenen Nachbarn oder Überzeugt sein von der Eigenen Weisheit”. Das Hochschulwesen 45(3) (1997): 139–145. Neave, G. “Anything Goes: or, How the Accommodation of Europe’s Universities to European Integration Integrates an Inspring Number of Contradictions”. Tertiary Education and Management 8(3) (2002): 181–197. OECD (ed). Short-Cycle Higher Education: A Search for Identity. Paris: OECD, 1973. OECD. Towards Mass Higher Education: Issues and Dilemmas. Paris: OECD, 1974. OECD. Policies for Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1983. OECD. Alternatives to Universities. Paris: OECD, 1991. OECD. Redefining Tertiary Education. Paris: OECD, 1998. Papadopoulus, G. S. Education 1960–1990: The OECD Perspective. Paris: OECD, 1994. Reichert, S., and C. Tauch. Trend in Learning Structures in European Higher Education III. Brussels: European University Association, 2003. Reichert, S., and C. Tauch. Trends IV: European Universities Implementing Bologna. Brussels: European University Association (EUA), 2005. Scott, P. The Meanings of Mass Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1995. Scott, P. “Unified and Binary Systems of Higher Education in Europe”. In Burgen, A. (ed). Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century. London/Bristol, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1996, pp. 37–54. Teichler, U. Changing Patterns of the Higher Education Systems. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1988a. Teichler, U. Convergence or Growing Variety: The Changing Organisation of Studies in Europe. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe, 1988b. Teichler, U. Europäische Hochschulmodelle: Die Beharrlichkeit vieilfältiger Modelle. Frankfurt/ M., Germany/New York: Campus Verlag, 1990. Teichler, U. “Diversity in Higher Education in Germany: The Two-type Structure”. In Meek, L. V., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press, 1996, pp. 117–137. Teichler, U. “The Changing Roles of the University and the Non-university Sectors”. European Review 6(4) (1998): 475–487. Teichler, U. Higher Education Systems. Conceptual Frameworks, Comparative Perspectives, Empirical Findings. Rotterdam, The Netherlands/Taipai, Taiwan: Sense Publishers, 2007.

The End of Alternatives to Universities or New Opportunities?

13

Trow, M. “Reflections on the Transition from Mass to Universal Higher Education”. Daedalus 90(1) (1970): 1–42. Trow, M. “Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education”. In OECD (ed). Policies for Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1974, pp. 51–101. Trow, M. “Elite and Mass Higher Education: American Models and European Realities”. In Research into Higher Education: Processes and Structures. Stockholm: National Board of Universities and Colleges, 1979, pp. 183–219. Van der Wende, M. “Internationalisation Policies: About New Trends and Contrasting Paradigms”. Higher Education Policy 14(3) (2001): 249–259. Van Vught, F. “Isomorphism in Higher Education? Toward a Theory of Differentiation and Diversity in Higher Eeducation Systems”. In Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked. Oxford: Pergamon/IAU Press, 1996, pp. 42–58. Van Vught, F., M. Van der Wende, and D. Westerheijden. “Globalisation and Internationalisation: Policy Agendas Compared”. In Enders, J., and O. Fulton (eds). Higher Education in a Globalising World. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002, pp. 103–120. Vangsnes, S., and K. Jordell. “Norway”. In Clark, B. R., and G. R. Neave (eds). The Encyclopaedia of Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 1992, pp. 524–533.

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education Elsa Hackl

1

Demographic and Political Context

Austria has an area of 83,858 km2 and a population of approximately eight million. As in many other European countries, the population is aging and the number of pupils in compulsory schools started to decrease after the year 2000. Participation in higher education and completion rates still lag behind the OECD average (OECD 2004). But in the past decade, educational attainments have risen significantly. In 1991, 7% of the 25–64 year old population had a higher education degree; in 2002, that percentage had doubled to 14%. In 2003, more than 37,000 students, or 45% of the relevant age group, graduated from upper secondary schools with a Reifepruefung (Matura), which is a prerequisite for access to higher education. In the same year, more than 25,000 students, i.e. 31% of the age cohort, continued with some sort of post-secondary education. Austria is a federal state comprising nine province (Laender) governments and a federal government. General legislation for education, with the exception of preschool education, is made by the Federal Parliament. The distribution of different responsibilities, however, is quite complicated. The Federation, for instance, regulates the organizational structure of school authorities and the maintenance of compulsory schools by frame laws within which specified laws are made by the province Parliaments. The maintenance of post-compulsory and higher education, again, is a responsibility of the federal government. In addition, until recently laws on school education required a two-thirds majority in the Federal Parliament. This requirement goes back – like the abovementioned complicated distribution of competence – to the conflicting conceptions of school organization and education in the First Republic (1918–1934) when the Constitution was drafted and came into force. There is no qualified majority requirement concerning higher education laws.

James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

15

16

2

E. Hackl

Structure of the Higher Education Sector

The following figure (Fig. 1) taken from the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture gives an overview of the structure of the Austrian education system and shows the position of the non-university sector within the system.

2.1

Description of the Austrian Higher Education System

Until the mid-1990s, higher education was equated with university education. Austrian universities were exclusively federal institutions and administered by detailed legal regulations. Laws regulated their organisation, their studies and

Fig. 1 Overview of the structure of the Austrian education system

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

17

programmes, including access, financial assistance to students, student halls and the organisation and responsibilities of the university student union. There were non-university post-secondary institutions for the training of teachers for compulsory schools, for social work and for paramedical professions, but these were regulated within the legal framework and regime of school education or of health care and the courses did not lead to academic degrees. In quantitative terms, these institutions were marginal compared to universities, receiving less than 10% of all post-secondary students. The monopoly of universities in higher education was abolished in 1993, when the Act that established a Fachhochschule sector (Fachhochschul-Studiengesetz, FHStG)1 passed through Parliament. But ten years later higher education is still dominated by public universities. In winter term 2003, of the total of 214,068 higher education students, 86% (185,438) were enrolled in public universities, 4% (7,954) in universities of art and music and only 10% (20,676) in Fachhochschule institutions (Table 1).2 Due to the quantitative preponderance of universities and hence the significance of the “university model” (as well as its shortcomings), it is therefore necessary to first present in some detail the structure of the university sector in order to understand the development and the positioning of the Fachhochschule institutions.

2.2

Public Universities

The importance for economic development attributed to higher education and the rising demand for higher education entailed, from the mid-1960s on, intensive lawmaking to reform university studies and organisation. University courses were regulated by a number of laws and decrees and all study offerings were harmonised. The leading political ideals of that time were the welfare state and democratisation of institutions in different policy areas. Student fees, which had always been low, were abolished in order to remove barriers to university entry for students from lower income families. In 1975, the organisation of universities was changed fundamentally. The University Organisation Act introduced co-determination in decision-making by professors, junior staff and students and abolished the rule that, in principle, all decision-making was the prerogative of the chair holders. The Act also harmonized the status and structure of all universities (12 universities and 6 universities of art and music). The University of Vienna, founded in 1365, is not only the oldest,3 but also the largest, university in the country. In the winter term 2002, 66,574 students were

1

I BGBl 1993/340. Source: BMBWK, Fachhochschulrat. 3 In contrast to the universities of Graz, Innsbruck and Salzburg that were dissolved in the 18th and 19th century, respectively, the Vienna University has existed continuously since its foundation. 2

18

E. Hackl

Table 1 Students in Universities, Universities of the Arts and Fachhochschule Institutions, Winter Term 2003/04 (Graduates: 2001/02) (BMBWK, FHR) Graduates New entrants Students (1st degrees) Universities Vienna Graz Innsbruck Medical University, Vienna Medical University, Graz Medical University, Innsbruck Salzburg Technical University, Wien Technical University, Graz Leoben Agriculture, Vienna Veterinary, Vienna Economics, Vienna Linz Klagenfurt Universities, total Universities of Art and Music Fine Arts, Vienna Applied Arts, Vienna Music/Drama, Vienna Music/Drama, Salzburg Music/Drama, Graz Art & Design, Linz Art Universities, total Fachhochschulen FH Burgenland FH OOe FHW, Vienna FH Vorarlberg Technikum Vienna IMC Krems FH Wiener Neustadt FH Kaernten FH Joanneum Styria FH Salzburg FH St. Poelten WIFI Steiermark FH BFI Vienna Management Center Innsbruck FH Kufstein FH Campus Vienna Chamber of Labour Salzburg Lauder Business School, Vienna Ministry of Defence Fachhochschulen, total

8,055 2,776 2,824 1,037 499 464 1,512 2,044 1,129 258 638 367 2,446 1,421 822 26,292

58,758 19,741 19,363 10,391 4,448 3,798 9,935 15,610 8,157 1,792 4,208 2,140 20,134 10,997 5,738 185,438

13,939

112 126 227 178 150 103 896

916 1,193 2,637 1,404 1,235 758 7,954

742

340 1,020 509 260 550 320 600 331 671 411 290 192 320 351 246 405 30 60 180 7,086

1,115 3,040 1,688 940 1,455 955 2,090 1,238 2,236 1,397 965 698 1,120 959 774 930 90 60 360 22,110

2,376

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

19

enrolled at this institution. Like the Universities of Graz (first founded in 1585 and currently with 23,325 students) and Innsbruck (first founded in 1669 and currently with 22,670 students) it had all the “classical” faculties, including a medical school. The University of Salzburg (first founded in 1622) had 9,833 students in the winter term 2002, the Universities of Linz (founded 1966) has 10,441 and Klagenfurt (founded 1970) 5,409. There are two Technical Universities, founded in the 19th century, Vienna (15,248 students) and Graz (8,024 students). Finally, there are four other specialised universities, also dating back to the 19th century, the Universities for Mining and Metallurgy in Leoben (1,719 students), Agricultural Sciences (4,112 students), Veterinary Medicine (1,951 students) and Economics and Business Administration (21,050 students). All of the last three are in Vienna. Summing up, there was one very large university, the University of Vienna, that received more than one third of all university students and half of the other universities were, in fact, specialised institutions of small size, mostly very small ones. All universities, however, have been subject to a single organisational law and, in principle, showed the same organisation. The predominance of small institutions becomes even more pronounced if one looks at the six universities of art and music, which in total receive only about 8,000 students. The Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, the oldest of the six, was founded in the 18th century and had, in the winter term 2002, 844 students. The largest, the University of Music and Performing Arts, Vienna, had 2,430 students. At the University for Music and Dramatic Arts in Graz, 1,187 students were enrolled and at the University for Music and Dramatic Arts in Salzburg (“Mozarteum”) there were 1,374 students. The Universities of Applied Arts in Vienna had 1,108 students and that of Art and Industrial Design in Linz had 714 students. A new University Organisation Act passed Parliament in 1993. It marked a transition period in higher education policy. It strengthened institutional autonomy, split decision-making between collegiate bodies (rule-making, strategic decisions) and ruling bodies (operative, executive), and made the position of the rector full-time. The rector was given more decision-making authority and flexibility in the allocation of funds. The Act of 1993 was implemented in a step-by-step way. At Vienna University, it became effective only at the start of 2000. By then, however, first versions of a new act had been drafted without waiting for any assessment of the 1993 Act. In 2002, the new University Act (Universitätsgesetz, UG 2002)4 encompassing most of the formerly separate legal areas such as university organisation, studies, etc., came into force. In contrast to the reform of 1975, the new law is clearly governed by the ideas of the “audit state” and of “new public management” (Zechlin 2002). The UG 2002 made public universities independent legal entities (public law corporations, Körperschaften öffentlichen Rechts), and fundamentally altered the relationship between the State and universities. It has been described as a change of paradigm in the guiding principles and workings of the university (Melchior 2004). But the law also split up the “classical” universities with medical faculties and set up separate medical universities. In the winter term 2003, the Medical

4

BGBl I 2002/120.

20

E. Hackl

Universities in Vienna, Graz and Innsbruck had 10,391, 4,448 and 3,798 students, respectively, which accordingly reduced the number of students at the classical universities in these cities. One might have expected from the high number of small institutions that reorganisation was also used to merge some universities. But mergers did not occur. In addition and in contrast to the reform’s underlying idea of the entrepreneurial university, the lawmaker did not leave it to the universities to divide into two or more institutions or to merge as new circumstances might require. This may be due to the paternalistic tradition (the running of university hospitals involved cooperation with the relevant province governments and their reorganisation was considered too complicated to leave to the universities), to vested interests on the policy and university level, or to both. The new legal status of the universities – formerly they were dependent institutions of the State – was the basis for other far-reaching consequences: ●

●

●

●

●

●

University staff are no longer civil servants but employees of the university; this will lead to new labour law regulations for university personnel and collective/ tariff agreements. Only the central decision-making authorities of the university – the University Council, the Senate and the Rectorate – are prescribed by law. The further internal organisation (division into faculties, department institutes, etc.) is left to the individual university. The University Council makes the strategic decisions, e.g. election of the Rector on the basis of a tripartite proposal of the Senate, appointment of Vice-Rectors on the proposal of the Rector, approval of the development plan, the organisation plan, the draft performance agreement and of major business transactions. The university councils consist of five, seven or nine (external) members, two, three or four of which are nominated by the Federal Government and the Senate respectively. These then agree on a fifth, seventh or ninth member and elect a chairperson. The Rectorate consists of the Rector and up to four Vice-Rectors; they are to manage the university. The Senate is predominantly a decision making body in academic affairs (study affairs, setting up committees for staff recruitment (Habilitation and Berufung). Funding: Universities remain largely funded by the Federal Government, but now they receive a lump sum budget. 20% of their budget is allocated on the basis of indicators, the larger amount, 80%, is to be negotiated between the university and the Federal Ministry (this basically follows the traditional mode of budget allocation) and forms part of the performance agreement. Student fees introduced in 2001/02 (726.72 euros per year) are an additional income stream.

2.3

University for Continuing Professional Education

The University for Continuing Professional Education in Krems was founded in 1994 by the Federal Government and the Provincial Government of Lower Austria. It offers

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

21

exclusively postgraduate and continuing education programmes. It is a public law entity, financed by the Federation, the Province of Lower Austria and from student fees. In 2004, its legal basis was brought in line with the University Act of 2002.

2.4

Private Universities

In 1999, a law providing for the accreditation of private universities passed Parliament. Already before that time religious and foreign institutions had operated in Austria and, contrary to law but tolerated by the ministers responsible, have used the legally protected term “Hochschule” or “University”. So the Act on the Accreditation of Private Universities more or less adjusted the legal to the real situation and at the same time met the demands of those, mainly industrialists, who had began to consider higher education as a marketable good. Under this law eight private universities have been established: Roman Catholic Theological University in Linz, offering theology and religious instruction; the Webster University in Vienna, offering bachelors’ and master courses in business administration, computer sciences, management, international relations and psychology; the IMADEC Vienna, offering MBA and LL.M programmes; the PEF Consulting for Management in Vienna, offering Masters’ courses in human resource management, construction management and business administration; the Private University for Medical Informatics in Innsbruck; the Private Medical University in Salzburg, the Anton Bruckner University (music and dance) and the TCM Privatuniversität Li Shi Zhen for Chinese Medicine. The Accreditation Act5 says explicitly that private universities are not to receive subsidies from the Federal Government. They may, however, receive funds from the regions or from municipalities; and some do so. But the limitation of public funding explains why the number of students in private universities is small. In 2003, their numbers amounted to about 1,300. For this reason and because of the short period of existence of private universities, this sector will not be dealt with further in this chapter.

3 3.1

The Nature of the Non-University Institutions The Creation of the Fachhochschule Sector

In the late 1980s, the issues of increasing student numbers as well as over-crowded and under-funded universities moved into the forefront of the political arena. Like other countries with a comparable university tradition and culture, Austria always had high drop-out rates and a long duration of studies. Periodically these facts have

5

Universitäts-Akkreditierungsgesetz-UniAkkG, BGBl. I 1999/168 idF BGBl I 2000/54.

22

E. Hackl

been and are criticized.6 At the end of the 1980s, they led to a broader discussion on whether the existing study system and homogeneous offerings would meet the different abilities of the students. These speculations and discussions were nourished by a comparative OECD study of that time on non-university institutions. It showed the function, share and success in higher education of the latter in most other OECD countries and pointed to the fact that Austria was among those few countries where similar institutions were lacking (OECD 1991; Pechar 1988). It was questioned whether the decision of the Austrian Government 20 years previously not to set up non-university institutions but to expand higher secondary vocational education, assuming that this would curtail the expansion of university participation, had indeed been the right one. In addition, it became questionable whether it had been the appropriate measure from a European and international perspective. In the beginning of 1990s, Austria was preparing for accession to the European Union. The higher secondary vocational schools, promoted by the Austrian government as an answer to increased demand for education, had been highly successful. Their courses took five years, so they were schools for the 14- to 19-year-olds. They led to qualifications highly valued in the labour market and to the qualification of a Matura, i.e. the formal entrance requirement for universities. But they had no real counterparts in other EU countries. Moreover, in 1988, the European Community had passed a Directive on the recognition of higher education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years duration.7 The Austrian higher secondary vocational schools did not fit into the category covered by the Directive, their graduates were therefore concerned about their possible disadvantage in a European labour market. In 1990, the Coalition Government (social democrats and conservatives) in its Working Programme announced the establishment of a non-university sector “to bring vocational education in tune with European standards (…) to supplement and relieve universities (…) and to educate and retrain for different professional fields”.8 The new sector was set up in a climate of institutional change (Pfeffer et al. 2000). Traditional ways to regulate study offerings, the relationship between the State and universities and their funding regime were criticized. The uniform and dense regulation of study programmes was seen as a hindrance to adapting and reacting flexibly to the new demands of the labour market. The close relationship of the State and universities as well as the application of bureaucratic budgeting and accounting rules were said to undermine efficiency. Thus the new Fachhochschule sector became to some extent an experiment with new approaches in lawmaking and funding, and a forerunner for university reform (Brünner 2004). 6 From the seventies onwards – see: OECD (1976) Reviews of National Policies for Education: Austria. Higher Education and Research – until recently, see: OECD (2004) Education at a Glance. 7 89/48/EEC. 8 Arbeitsübereinkommen zwischen der Sozialistischen Partei Österreichs und der Österreichischen Volkspartei über die Bildung einer gemeinsamen Bundesregierung für die Dauer der XVIII. Gesetzgebungsperiode des Nationalrates, Dezember 1990.

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

3.2

23

Public-Private

According to the traditional interpretation of the Austrian Constitution higher education was a federal responsibility and therefore it had to be offered by federal institutions only. This interpretation was abandoned in the course of drafting the Act on Fachhochschule courses (Fachhochschul-Studiengesetz, FHStG) and the competence of the Federation was redefined such that the State is responsible for overseeing higher education (“audit state”), for making sure that higher education is offered and available to all, but the State need not necessarily run higher education institutions. According to law Fachhochschule courses may be offered by public as well as private institutions. In fact, until now only one course is offered by a federal institution (the Federal Ministry of Defence runs the course “Military Leadership”), two are offered by chambers (public law bodies), and the majority of courses is offered by private legal entities, e.g. private limited companies, though with majority involvement from the regions (see Section 3.4). An additional reason, although not explicitly discussed, for opting for non-state institutions in the Fachhochschule sector,9 was that privately run corporations may better fit the institution’s prime objective to educate for vocations in the private sector. The FHStG regulates, essentially, the accreditation of Fachhochschule courses and says little about the institution’s organisation. However, an institution that fulfils certain criteria (collegiate body to represent staff and students, student numbers) may – on application – be designated as a Fachhochschule. In 2002, the provision of the FHStG was amended by restricting the number of private law institutions to those “whose objective of enterprise overwhelmingly is the establishment, providing and running of Fachhochschule courses”.10 This amendment was intended to avoid the mingling of different entrepreneurial objectives in order to guarantee the running of the course. One may question, however, whether this provision was necessary and would be effective, as constructing interdependent legal entities is easy.

3.3

Funding Mechanism

Beginning with the late 1980s another point had encountered criticism. Universities, like all other parts of state administration, were funded on the basis of a line-item budget. This funding regime made it impossible to transfer money from one major item (e.g. personnel, recurrent expenditure, buildings and infrastructure) to another if changing circumstances required. It was held that more flexibility for the universities in budget allocations would lead to more efficiency, which had become the major value in times of budgetary stringencies. 9 Universities remained public institutions, although the UG 2002 changed their status to public law corporations. 10 BGBl I 2002/58.

24

E. Hackl

In the Austrian context it was evident that private funding of the Fachhochschule sector was not viable. The major part of the costs still was to be borne by the public coffers. But the funding regime from the public sector could not simply be transferred to privately run Fachhochschule institutions. Therefore a new funding regime had to be developed. The FHStG says nothing about funding. The Government’s funding model is laid down in a plan on the development and financing of the Fachhochschule sector. The planning period is five years, and at present the third plan is in force. The plans, inter alia, state the number of student places that are to be subsidized in the relevant planning period and the amount of money to be provided by the Federal Government. A per capita funding model is applied: the Federal Government contributes between 5,813 and 6,903 euros per student, depending on the field of study. This amounts to 90% of what was calculated for the recurrent expenditure for students in universities and schools in similar study areas. Additional money comes mainly from province governments and municipalities, and some also from the private sector. The FHStG also said nothing about student fees. Since fees did not exist when the Fachhochschule sector was set up, it was understood that student places subsidized by the Federal Government would not be supplemented by fees from students. In 2001/02 student fees were introduced for all students at universities. Interestingly, the Fachhochschule Conference (see Section 4.1) succeeded in exempting from fees Fachhochschule students that had enrolled before their introduction and restricted the collection of fees to new entrants. Their argument was that the Fachhochschule institutions had entered into contracts with their students (required by the government) that said nothing about fees. In 2003, the FHStG was amended to allow Fachhochschule institutions to explicitly levy fees of 726.72 euros per year, which is the same level as at universities. However, some provinces free students in Fachhochschule courses in their area from fees.

3.4

National-Regional

Although in most cases the institutions that offer Fachhochschule courses are private legal institutions, like associations and private limited companies, they are – in most cases – formed by public bodies like provinces, municipalities or social partners. As mentioned before regarding funding mechanisms, these bodies were expected to provide infrastructure or additional funds and therefore to also influence the development of the new sector. But in fact, regional governments and chambers tended to curtail the institutional autonomy envisaged by the federal lawmakers and to govern the new institutions in a similar way as the Federal Government recently did with universities. At present, there are 160 Fachhochschule courses offered by 19 institutions spread throughout Austria. Six institutions are predominantly owned by regions, five by chambers (economy, labour), three by municipalities and one by the

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

25

Ministry of Defence. The remaining institutions are owned, with varying numbers of shares, by private firms, regional/local governments and chambers.

3.5

Access of Students: National-Regional

Since the 1970s, the apprenticeship scheme has been criticized for its “cul-de-sac” character. Whenever there was a lack of young people who would enter apprenticeship training, it has been argued that an increased permeability to further and higher education would help to make the training more attractive. Gradually, it became accepted that it was necessary to improve permeability between the apprenticeship training and other educational paths. When it was decided to establish a new sector in higher education, the Coalition Government declared that the new sector should also enrol graduates from apprenticeship training. Therefore, for Fachhochschule courses, a more open access policy than for universities was laid down by law. The main route to universities is via graduation from a higher secondary school. An alternative entrance procedure is to pass an examination qualifying for a specific field of study only. The FHStG, in contrast, provides that a prerequisite for access to a course is either graduation from a higher secondary school or vocational qualification (apprenticeship training) relevant for the course the candidate intends to enter. The second category of candidates may be required to pass additional exams. The more open access policy for Fachhochschule courses was, however, less successfully implemented than the advocates of that policy had in mind. Though, according to a survey on graduates, around 10% of the Fachhochschule graduates did their courses after vocational training (Hoyer and Ziegler 2002). The aim to improve regional imbalances in access to higher education is not explicitly stated in the FHStG, but the first development plan for the Fachhochschule sector of 1994 listed “reduction of regional imbalances in access to higher education” among the policy aims and criteria for federal funding. The subsequent development shows that this policy aim has been achieved to a reasonable degree. Differences in participation rates between large and small communities have been reduced although they are still considerable (Lassnigg et al. 2003). What matters in this context is that regionalisation of higher education tends to provide that more students from lower income families go on to higher education. Thus, in Fachhochschule institutions, the percentage of students that receive a grant on a means-tested basis is higher than that of university students. The regional importance is due to the fact that the two provinces without a university (the most western province, Vorarlberg, and the most eastern province, Burgenland) were among the first to promote the establishment of Fachhochschule courses. In other provinces, municipalities that had no universities supported and actively lobbied for the setting up of courses in their districts. Regional importance of Fachhochschule institutions does not mean that the courses recruit their students only from their region or province. Since their start

26

E. Hackl

the Fachochschule institutions have increasingly attracted students from other provinces. In 2003, 63% of the Fachhochschule students studied in the province of their origin. In this respect the Fachhochschule sector differs less from the university sector than one might expect. There the corresponding percentage is 58%.11

3.6

Degrees and Diplomas

In 1993, when the Fachschule sector was established, graduates from courses at universities were awarded either the degree of Magister or Diplom-Ingenieur, depending on their subject area. The FHStG was, on the one hand, inspired by the minimal study duration of the Directive 48/89 EEC and the gradually emerging European Higher Education Area. On the other hand, for reasons of permeability and to demonstrate that courses at a Fachhochschule were at an equal footing (“equal but different”, see Sections 4.1 and 6.2) with those at universities, the FHStG had to conform to the degree structure then existing at Austrian universities. The Act therefore laid down that courses were to have a minimum duration of three years, excluding a possibly required internship. The Act also provided that Fachhochschule courses would lead to a Magister (FH) or Diplom-Ingenieur (FH) and that graduates of Fachhochschule courses could be admitted to doctoral studies at universities. However, these courses last a year longer than for university graduates, and additional subject requirements for Fachhochschule graduates are specified in decrees. The provision that Fachhochschule graduates may do a doctoral thesis at a university was met with some disapproval by the universities but did not encounter heavy opposition, possibly because this provision would only become effective about four years later when the first Fachhochschule students graduated. An amendment to the FHStG of 200212 provided that Bachelor courses may be offered at Fachhochschule institutions, three years after the new “architecture study” of the Bologna Declaration had been legally introduced in universities. Section 6.3 deals with the increasing effect of the Bologna Process and the new degree structure on Fachhochschule courses. In the academic year 2004/05, the majority of courses still followed the traditional degree structure, meaning that courses normally last for four years and lead to the degree of Magister (in subjects like business, economics, tourism etc) or to the degree of Diplom-Ingenieur – in case the course is in technology or engineering. Differences in the subject areas between university and Fachhochschule courses are dealt with in Section 4.1.

11

The percentage of students from the province where Fachhochschule institution is situated varies with institution between 40% (Burgenland) and 78% (Vorarlberg). It also varies with universities: University for Agriculture and Forestry in Vienna with 28% Viennese students and University of Klagenfurt in Carinthia with 92% of Carinthian students. 12 BGBl I 2002/58.

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

27

The first ten Fachhochschule courses started in the winter term of 1994/95 with approximately 700 students. Four years later, there were about 600 graduates. Since the start until 2002/03, a total of 10,067 students graduated from Fachhochschule courses. The number of Fachhochschule graduates per year (2001/02: 2,374) is equivalent, at present, to only 17% of university graduates from a first degree course (2001/02: 13,939).

3.7

Staff Recruitment and Academic Careers

The FHStG provides that the teaching staff of Fachhochschule courses must be composed of members that are academically/scientifically competent, or of practically qualified members in the profession, and all must have pedagogical-didactical skills. The Act also states that staff members are to engage in applied research and development and that they, as well as the members of the team that develop a programme, are to enjoy the autonomy that traditionally is in place in universities. In case an institution that runs Fachhochschule courses develops into a Fachhochschule it has to set up a collegium composed of staff members and student representatives that is to make recruitment proposals. In addition, an institution that seeks accreditation of a course has to demonstrate adequate staffing. These provisions were in contrast to employment laws and payrolls at universities that were (and still are) highly complex. Within the generally applicable labour laws, institutions that run a Fachhochschule course may therefore choose among a variety of different employment contracts. Experts tend to judge this flexibility as an asset (Mazal 2004). The legal situation thus allows creative career patterns and staff development. Qualified and motivated staff is the most important prerequisite for successful and high quality education. Therefore it is useful to study which recruitment procedures, career patterns and staff management strategies proved to be successful and which tended to fail. To some extent, this is to be done by a committee for personnel development of the Fachhochschule Conference (Fachhochschulkonferenz, Section 4.1). Its main concern, however, seems to be the promotion of pedagogical-didactical competence. Staff development and personnel policy are also discussed when courses are evaluated. On these occasions the number and the qualifications of staff are considered and this may affect staff recruitment and management. Due to flexible employment contracts it is difficult to give an exact number of teaching staff in the Fachhochschule sector. A study from 2003 (Lassnigg et al. 2003) reports 3,500 people engaged in teaching for the academic year 2000/01. The share of full- and part-time employees varies with the courses. On average, there are four or five part-time lecturers to one full-time lecturer. The latter may, however, divide their time between teaching and R&D. The study concludes from online interviews that in 2000/01 the teaching staff in Fachhochschule courses amounted to 1,000–1,100 full time equivalents (FTE). In 2001/03, it rose to 1,400–1,600 FTE, with a third being employed on a full-time and two-thirds on a part-time basis.

28

E. Hackl

When the Fachhochschule sector was set up it was argued that the new sector would hire part-time lecturers that were employees of universities and thus undermine labour morale in universities. As a matter of fact, the new sector needed staff with qualifications that could only be found in a sufficient number within universities. Given the small size of the individual institutions, when the sector was created it was also evident that Fachhochschule courses would have to rely in their first years on a huge number of part-time lecturers. But it turned out that after some years, only a small proportion of them are university employees. In 2001/02, the largest share of part-time lecturers was otherwise employed in industry (46%), 18% in universities, 22% in other professions (self employed, public administration, etc.) and 9% in higher secondary schools (Lassnigg et al. 2003). However, the individual Fachhochschule institutions vary with regard to the main employers of their part-time teachers.

4

Changes in Policies and the Governance of Higher Education over the Last Ten Years

For more than a decade now Austrian higher education has been under constant reform. This makes it almost impossible to give a separate account of the system as it is and the changes in policies and structure. Sections 2 and 3 have already given an overview of the changes that have taken place in Austrian higher education. It is too early to assess the reforms. A major change concerning universities is still in implementation. It is clear that in about five years time the higher education system in Austria will look different. But it remains open to what extent the reforms will conform to what the reformers had in mind.

4.1

The Main Objectives of the Non-University Sector

The working programme of the Coalition Government of 1990 that laid down the creation of a non-university sector in higher education was inspired by Austria’s planned accession to the European Community, mass higher education and an insufficient linkage of the apprenticeship scheme to further and higher education (see Section 3.5). Accordingly, § 3 of the FHStG formulates the objectives as follows: “Fachhochschule courses are higher education courses that serve to educate on a scientific basis for vocations. The main objectives are: (1) to ensure a practice oriented education and training at higher education level, (2) to impart skills that are necessary to fulfil the tasks of the pertinent vocational area in accordance with the scientific state of the art and the practical demands, and (3) to promote the permeability of the education system and the vocational flexibility of the graduates.”13

13

FHStG, § 3.

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

29

The then-valid Act on University Studies, in contrast, said that the objective of university courses was “scientific pre vocational education”.14 The University Act of 2002 describes university objectives in a still more abstract and encompassing manner with “(…) academic research and teaching (…) and thereby to contribute to the personal development of the individual and to the welfare of society and the environment (…) research and research based teaching (…) directed towards the advancement of knowledge and new approaches to the arts.”15 In Austria, the linkage between education and jobs has always been tight. In most cases, a particular job has only been available to graduates from specific fields. Despite or because of this close linkage, universities have been constantly criticized for not preparing students adequately for pertinent jobs. When establishing the Fachhochschule sector, the Government’s intention was clearly that its courses were to differ from university courses in their strong practical orientation and in their explicit aim to educate for specific vocations. Hence the FHStG provides that proposals for accreditation submitted to the Fachhochschulrat have to include a study of the labour market demand for graduates in the proposed speciality as well as student demand for the proposed course (Lassnigg 2004). In addition, the Act made it a task of the Fachhochschulrat to evaluate the labour market and student demand with regard to the whole sector.16 Due to this strong labour market orientation the range of Fachhochschule courses is much narrower than the specialties offered at universities. From the start, Fachhochschule institutions provided courses in economics/ business, engineering/ technology and tourism, but not in “classical” university disciplines. They also tended to be more interdisciplinary; e.g. combining engineering and economics; or more specialist, such as bank business; or in new fields, like media and communication. The spectrum of courses still clearly focuses on education for industry and the business sector, but now also includes programmes for the health and social sector. Education for social work and for paramedical professions – formerly the domain of non-university post-secondary institutions – also becomes gradually integrated into higher education. When the FHStG was drafted the role of the new sector in research was a very sensitive topic and difficult to discuss. The OECD report on non-university higher education (OECD 1991) had addressed the issue of “academic drift”. Some higher education politicians and experts from abroad referred to the blurring of borders between universities and Fachhochschule institutions. These reports from other countries caused concern in Austria, as in many countries. It is widely held that institutions for academic and for vocational education are worlds apart and need to be strictly separated. Research was believed to be the domain of the academic, “scientific” world. Consequently, the FHStG evaded the issue of research in Fachhochschule institutions. It provided, however, that staff members of Fachhochschule courses needed to

14

Allgemeines Hochschul-Studiengesetz (AHStG), BGBl 1966/177, § 1(2)b. UG 2002, BGBl I 2002/120, § 1. 16 FHStG, § 12(2)9, § 6(2)5. 15

30

E. Hackl

work in applied R&D in order to guarantee that the courses would be in compliance with their objectives (education on the basis of the state of the art in the sciences). Gradually research activities in Fachhochschule institutions became more accepted and are now seen as an asset. Fachhochschule courses were first involved in regional R&D and innovation centres. Then, since 1997, the Government made money available for cooperative projects of Fachhochschule courses and industries.17 (Maresch 2002). This change is due to the fact that in Austria the share of the economy in R&D traditionally lags behind other countries, whereas the share of university research is internationally on the average. R&D activities of Fachhochschule institutions, especially cooperative R&D projects with firms, should help to increase the non-university research (Clement et al. 2002). There are no exact data on the quantitative dimension of research in the Fachhochschule sector. Estimations vary between 40 and 100 FTE staff in R&D (Lassnigg et al. 2003). The changing attitude is expressed by a recent amendment to the FHStG that replaced the words “teaching staff” with “teaching and research staff”.18 It is also reflected in the third “Plan on the Development and Financing of the Fachhochschule sector” that covers the period 2005–2010 and makes R&D a criterion for government funding.

4.2

Governance Structure of the Non-University Institutions

Parliament regulates and controls the Fachhochschule sector by a frame law to assure quality, approve public budgets for the sector and by dealing with the reports on the development and future plans of the Minister and of the Fachhochschule Council (FH Council, Fachhochschulrat). The Ministry that used to decide in detail by decrees on organisational and curricular issues, now has a more strategic role. It makes funding decisions, decides on the level of and the criteria for public funding and how much money to invest yearly in the new sector. The Ministry supervises the Fachhochschule Council, whose members are appointed by the Minister. The Fachhochschule Council is the responsible authority for the accreditation, evaluation and re-accreditation of Fachhochschule courses (Pratt 2004). It is an expert body, consisting of 16 members, half of whom work in academic institutions and the other half in business or industry. They are not subject to ministerial directives. Accreditation decisions of the Fachhochschule Council need approval of the Minister but may be rejected only for contradicting national educational interests. Although the core mandate of the Council is quality assurance, it has tasks and responsibilities that render it a most influential governing agency both with regard to the individual 17

BMVIT, BMBWK, Fachhochschulförderungsprogramm FH-plus (funds in 2004 8 cooperative projects and 12 projects to establish R&D structures). 18 BGBl I 110/2003.

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

31

Fachhochschule institutions as well as to the development of the whole sector. Most important with regard to the latter is that the Fachhochschule Council on accreditation evaluates whether the proposed course fulfils the requirement of preparing for a specific vocational field. De facto the Council decides what areas of vocational training are to be included in the Fachhochschule sector.19 The Council is also a counseling body to the Minister on Fachhochschule matters. Concerning individual courses, the Council has a supervising function. It also supervises the final exams of the students. Frequently, the Fachhochschule sector has been said to be governed by a “bottomup process” (Lassnigg et al. 2003). Indeed, the initiative of the institutions that develop and offer courses is crucial for the development and expansion of the sector, the regional distribution of its sites, its subject areas and ultimately its quality. Shortly after the establishment of the new sector, Fachhochschule institutions formed an association, the Austrian Fachhochschule Conference (FHK, Österreichische Fachhochschulenkonferenz) “to strengthen the identity of the Fachhochschule sector, to represent the interests of their members and to offer a platform for exchange”.20 One of its first activities was to engage in developing the evaluation system and procedure that is applied in the Fachhochschule sector. In addition to quality management, it has committees on personnel development, R&D and international affairs. Although not legally a governing institution, the Fachhochschule Conference with its coordinating and lobbying function plays, like other professional bodies, an important role in the governance of the FH sector.

4.3

Management of Non-University Sector Institutions

Fachhochschule institutions that run courses are legal entities under private or public law, and, in most cases, are private limited companies whose basic management structure is regulated by commercial law21 and the Law on Associations.22 They are non-profit organisations. One Fachhochschule institution is a foundation, two are run by chambers and one by the State. In the beginning, the Fachhochschule institutions were primarily associations. Within a few years most of them changed their legal basis. This change was due to the fact that at the start associations were easy to create and fitted the small and rather simple organisational and managerial requirements of the first years. In the meantime most institutions run several courses, with the 2002/03 average being more than six (Lassnigg et al. 2003). With size, the organisational complexity and budgets increased

19

For example, the FH Council has been reluctant to accept proposals in information technology which the Council subsumed under “training in a discipline” and not under “training for a vocational field”. 20 www.fhk.ac.at. 21 GmbH-Gesetz (GmbHG), RGBl 1906/58. 22 Vereinsgesetz 2002-VerG, BGBl. I 66/2002.

32

E. Hackl

and the demand for stricter and more clearly regulated responsibilities as well as more professional management arose. The FHStG provided that institutions that run Fachhochschule courses and fulfil certain requirements may by application be granted the name “Fachhochschule”. Originally, it was the responsibility of the Minister to confer the name “Fachhochschule”, though an amendment of 2003 made it a responsibility of the FH Council.23 When a Fachhochschule institution becomes a Fachhochschule its legal status does not change. But some competence is transferred from the Fachhochschule Council to the individual Fachhochschule, e.g. granting of academic degrees and recognition of prior studies. In addition to size (a minimum of two courses and 1,000 students within the next five years), accreditation requires the establishment of a collegium consisting of staff members and students. The Fachhochschulkollegium has the right to forward proposals and propositions to the institutions’ managing director and supervisory board concerning appointments, budget, vacancies and employment, changes in accredited courses and proposals for new courses. It is responsible for the coordination of teaching and examinations, assessments and evaluations and for awarding academic degrees. The rector (Leiter des Fachhochschulkollegiums) is elected by the collegium and is its representative. He or she is responsible for the organisation of exams and courses, the recognition of studies and examinations and the appointment of part-time lecturers upon proposal of the collegium. So far seven of the 19 Fachhochschule institutions have been accredited as Fachhochschule. In practice however, most Fachhochschule institutions anticipate the abovementioned organisational requirements even before applying to become a Fachhochschule. They do so partly for pragmatic reasons. It guarantees that a requirement for the accreditation of courses, namely that “those who developed a course and the teaching staff enjoy autonomy usual for universities”,24 is met. Therefore most institutions follow a similar management structure: Organisation, budgets and employment contracts are the responsibility of the company management (supervisory board, managing director, and sometimes an advisory board). Academic affairs are managed by the deans and their committees. Some institutions have an additional organisational unit/ structure for the management of research activities (Hauser 2003).

4.4

Budgetary and Administrative Authority and Responsibility

As mentioned above, when the Fachhochschule sector was established, universities were, like any other part of administration, financed by the Federal Government on the basis of a line-item budget. This means that decisions on budgets were heavily

23

BGBl I 2003/110; the same amendment authorized Fachhochschule institutions explicitly to use titles that are commonly used in higher education (professor, rector etc) for their personnel. 24 FHStG, § 12(2)5.

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

33

centralised. Additional income for universities came from research projects commissioned from both private and public institutions. For this income, budgetary and administrative responsibilities lay, in principle, with the unit that had entered the research contract, i.e. responsibilities were largely decentralised. But the share of research income was low. At the beginning of the 1990s it amounted to only 4–5% of university budgets. The Act on universities of 2002 changed this method of budget allocation, both to and within universities. The FHStG says little on budgetary and administrative responsibilities. This is due to the fact that the Act regulates quality control – the accreditation and evaluation of courses and the requirements to become a Fachhochschule – but not public funding of the new higher education sector. Only two articles25 refer to budgetary responsibility and control. The first one states that the Fachhochschule Council is subject to controls of the Audit Office. The second article provides that the proposals to the Fachhochschule Council for accreditation need to include a calculation and a business plan for the duration of accreditation, including a statement of the cost of a study place. This should ensure that the courses had an adequate financial basis. The successive “Fachhochschule Development and Financing Plans” clarify that Fachhochschule institutions whose courses have been accredited and meet the criteria defined in the plan, receive a global budget from the Federal Government based on a per capita formula, taking into account student numbers and disciplinary differences. The owners of the institutions that run Fachhochschule courses are to fund buildings and infrastructure and are to meet additional expenditures. The basis for the allocation of federal money is a funding contract. It provides that Fachhochschule institutions are to report to the Federal Ministry of Education annually the estimates of cost and closing of accounts. Receiving public money, the institutions are also subject to the control of the Audit Office. Since fees have been introduced, they are now an additional source of income (see Section 3.3). Most Fachhochschule institutions are private limited companies. Company law and the articles of association, therefore, define the responsibilities of the managing board and the managing director(s) for budgetary and administrative matters as well as the delegation of responsibilities.

4.5

Internal Organisation

In Austria, the Fachhochschule sector was created by establishing new institutions and not by the upgrading of existing ones. The institutions are still small and hence their internal structures are still not complex.

25

FHStG, § 11(1), § 12(2)11.

34

E. Hackl

In general, there is a bipartite structure. One sector is supervised by the managing director who reports to the supervisory and executive board. This sector is responsible for budgets and administration. That includes units for accounting, controlling, personnel administration, facility management, procurement, marketing, information services and libraries. International affairs are in some cases dealt with by management, while in some cases it is a responsibility of the rector’s office (see Section 4.1). The second part representing academic issues is headed by a Studiengangsleiter (dean) whose main responsibility is to implement the accredited study programme. He/she supervises the teaching staff, makes proposals for appointments and is an informant to the Fachhochschule Council and responsible for course evaluation. The dean and his/her team organise the curriculum, the timetable and prepare the reports for course evaluations. Except for three cases where the Fachhochschule institutions run only one course (i.e. the Ministry for Defence – Military Leadership, the Chamber of Labour in Salzburg – Social Work, and a course by a new institution accredited only last year) the deans are coordinated by and report to the rector and the Fachhochschule collegium. With the increasing role of R&D in Fachhochschule institutions (Section 4.1), additional units and sometimes even separate departments for R&D, beside institutional management and academic management, are set up. In a few cases separate companies for R&D, linked to the Fachhochschule institution by a holding company/ association, have been founded. There is also the tendency to establish units for continuing professional education.

4.6

Participation of External Stakeholders in Governance

Because most Fachhochschule institutions are private limited companies of provinces, municipalities and interest groups, the so-called external stakeholders participate directly under company law in management and governance. In a few cases, additional advisory boards that include other external stakeholders like firms, and other higher education or research institutions have been set up.

4.7

The Role of Local Authorities

What has been said with respect to external stakeholders also applies to local authorities. They are associate partners in some Fachhochschule institutions and hence represented on the supervisory boards. In other institutions they are not directly involved but sponsor the Fachhochschule. In both cases they lobby the Minister and the Fachhochschule Council to promote the institutions in their regions. Local authorities, too, very actively intercede for the request of “their” Fachhochschule courses and institutions with the respective province and the Federal Government (Prisching 2004).

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

5

35

Level of Autonomy

5.1

The Level of Autonomy of Non-University Sector Institutions Compared with That of Universities

In Austrian universities, individual members of the staff traditionally enjoy a high degree of academic freedom whereas corporate autonomy was rather restricted (Pechar and Pellert 1998). Academic freedom that is guaranteed by constitutional law26 has been interpreted as a right that protects the individual researcher against the intrusion of the State (Berka 2002) but not as prescribing a specific university organisation.27 Only the UG 2002 reversed the dominance of individual freedom over institutional autonomy. By abolishing the state monopoly in higher education, the FHStG clearly strengthened corporate autonomy. But the Act also protects the individual teacher from intrusions of a private overseer (see Section 5.2). The government made this shift to institutional autonomy in the Fachhochschule sector deliberately. It has hardly ever been possible to steer universities as other parts of state administration. Academic freedom is inconsistent with the administrative principle of being subject to instruction, or at least there is a tension between the two principles. The growing size and complexity of the university sector made it ever more difficult for the Ministry to steer universities.

5.2

The Degree of Academic Freedom

The lawmakers of FHStG were conscious about the problematic relationship between private institutions, practical orientation (immediate employability) and academic freedom. The Act deals in three paragraphs with academic freedom. The first is to protect the individual teacher. The other two are to secure academic freedom by involving the teaching staff in relevant decisions, mainly curriculum and recruitment. § 3(2)1 of the Act on Fachhochschulen dealing with the objectives of the courses, prescribes that courses need to observe “the plurality of scientific opinions and methods; the principle of freedom to teach applies to giving classes in the frame of the assigned teaching tasks and their content and method….” In § 12 (2)5, in the context of the criteria for accreditation, the law provides for the autonomy of the teaching staff and the group that develops courses. And, finally,

26 27

“Die Wissenschaft und ihre Lehre ist frei” – Artikel 17 (1) StGG, RGBl 1867/142. Decision of the Constitutional Court 1977, G 7/77-12 of 3 October 1977.

36

E. Hackl

in § 16(1) the FHStG regulates the establishment and the competence of a collegial body of staff members. Practice-oriented curricula are determined by qualifications that are expected to be needed in business and industry. This suggests that they bind the individual teacher more tightly in what to teach and students in what to learn than traditional university disciplines. In this sense one may say that practice orientation reduces academic freedom. One needs to remember, however, that at universities disciplinary conservatism and the dominance of particular paradigms also constrain academic freedom. The involvement of academic staff in decision-making, including staff recruitment, is described in 4.1.3. There is no systematic study of the relationship between the teaching staff and the institution’s management or on academic freedom in Fachhochschule institutions. The fact that courses are the units for accreditation and evaluation underlines the responsibility of the deans and the teaching staff and strengthens their position. In addition, academic autonomy is a requirement for accreditation and is looked at when the courses are assessed.28 This may explain why no serious complaints about violation of academic freedom have been reported.

5.3

The Relationship Between Non-University Sector Institutions, The Government and External Stakeholders

A comparison of Sections 2.2 and 3.2 shows that the relationship between the Fachhochschule institutions and the Federal Government is a much more distant one than with universities. Although the Government and the individual Fachhochschule institution are parties to a contract, there is little direct interaction. It could be expected that the businesslike organisation of Fachhochschule institutions, where “external” stakeholders are business associates, entails less collegial decision-making and less autonomy for the individual teacher than has been in place in universities before the UG 2002 came into force. To some extent and in some cases this may be the case. On the other hand, the provinces, municipalities, interest groups, etc. that run Fachhochschule institutions are newcomers and inexperienced in higher education management, which strengthens the position of the academics.29

28

Academic autonomy is an item of the evaluation reports, www.fhr.ac.at. There is evidence that in some cases the provinces acted much more generous with regard to funding demands of academic staff than the federal government.

29

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

6

37

Future Trends

6.1

Future Developments of the Higher Education System with Special Emphasis on the Relationship Between Non-University Sector Institutions and Universities

The most evident development in higher education that affects both universities and Fachhochschule courses stems from the Bologna process and will be dealt with below. It may entail a redefinition of the relationship between the two sectors. Another change that affects the relationship between universities and Fachhochschule institutions results from UG 2002 that extended the universities’ capacity to take legal actions and liabilities. In principle and under certain circumstances, they could become partners in associations, foundations or companies that run Fachhochschule courses. Some universities seem to be considering such cooperation. At the moment, however, they are busy with implementing the new law and it is too early to make any statement about how likely such developments are. A possible area for cooperation between universities and Fachhochschule institutions could be research. The Government explicitly states that promoting cooperation between innovative firms, research institutions, universities and Fachhochschule institutions is an aim of its R&D policy.30 A year ago a law on the funding and organisation of research passed in Parliament.31 It is to bring together various research promoting and funding institutions. Only future developments will show to what extent this will also result in enhanced cooperation between research institutions. The UG 2002 also provides for an institution that may have an impact on the Fachhochschule sector. The Act set up a board (Wissenschaftsrat) to advise the Minister, lawmakers and universities on university issues, science policy and art, as well as to monitor and analyse the Austrian university and science system with regard to European and international developments. The Fachhochschule Council has, in addition to accreditation, a similar advisory function regarding the Fachhochschule sector. It is not yet clear if and how the university and Fachhochschule sector will be coordinated and who will be in charge of overseeing the whole higher education sector. Will the Wissenschaftsrat and the Fachhochschulrat keep their domain apart, will they cooperate or will they compete? Similar questions may be raised concerning the relationship between the Fachhochschule Council and a newly-created quality assurance agency (see Section 6.3).

30 31

www.bmbwk.gv.at/forschung/oesterreich/. Forschungsförderungs-Strukturreformgesetz, BGBl I 2004/73.

38

6.2

E. Hackl

Academic Drift

The tendency of technical and vocational colleges to aspire to university status and autonomy has been defined as “academic drift” (Pratt and Burgess 1974). In Austria with its tradition of neatly separated academic and vocational education at all levels, it was clear when creating a Fachhochschule sector that it was to differ from the universities, and the majority of policymakers and academics were convinced that every care had to be taken to avoid an “academic drift” (see Section 4.1). Like their colleagues in Germany and Switzerland they used the formula “equal but different” to describe the relationship between the Fachhochschule and university sectors. As a result, the Fachhochschule sector has been established very differently in organisation and funding from universities. Although universities’ corporate autonomy has been extended and their funding changed (see Section 2.2), it is still correct to define the Austrian higher education system as a binary one (Beerkens 2001). As described in Section 4.1, the issue of research in Fachhochschule institutions was a delicate one and evaded in the FHStG. There were concerns that Fachhochschule institutions would tend, as universities, to concentrate on research and compete with universities for research money. Another argument was that research would influence Fachhochschule courses to become less vocational and more academically oriented. In the meantime R&D has become an accepted and publicly-subsidized activity of the Fachhochschule institutions. However, there is agreement that the Fachhochschule sector concentrates on applied research, whereas pure research is the domain of universities. The two higher education sectors differ particularly in their teaching and studying systems. Fachhochschule institutions offer a narrower and more employment-oriented spectrum of specialities than universities (see Section 4.1). In contrast to universities, their curricula are strongly structured and organised on a year-by-year basis with internships in enterprises that form an integral part of the overall education. One may, however, observe an increasing vocational orientation at universities. This is due to external pressure. Firstly, the Act on University Studies of 1997 provided for a renewal of all curricula in order to strengthen their practical orientation. Permeability, i.e. the recognition of study periods and exams at non-university tertiary institutions by universities, was also enforced. Secondly, the Bologna Declaration underlined that the first degree, in addition to providing for the second cycle, should “be relevant to the European labour market as an appropriate level of qualification”.32 Universities have to bear this in mind when they switch to the new “study architecture”. Finally, financial pressure, the new governance of universities and increasing competition has shown that at least some departments tend to increase their attractiveness by offering more practical oriented courses and by continuing professional education activities. It could be argued that due to the

32

The European Higher Education Area. Joint declaration of the European Ministers of Education convened in Bologna on the 19th of June 1999.

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

39

recent reforms, reorientation at universities is more pronounced than the “academic drift” at Fachhochschule institutions. But it may also be the case that due to the above mentioned university reforms, aspiring to university status and autonomy has become less attractive. In 1991, when preparing the creation of the Fachhochschule sector, the Austrian Ministry together with OECD organised an international conference on “New Directions for Higher Education”. The British delegate and speaker John Pratt then informed the audience about the abolition of the binary system in the UK and explained that it had reflected “vocational drift” of the universities, and by a “blurring of all kinds of distinctions” (Pratt 1991). In Austria, more than ten years later, there is no discussion of abolishing the binary system, but there is also none on the consequences of the Bologna Process (see Section 6.3), notably the requirement that all BA courses are to lead to “employability” of their graduates. But a lack of debate does not prevent changes from happening.

6.3

The Effect of the Bologna Process

In 1999, only a year after the Sorbonne Declaration, the Act on University Studies was amended to allow universities to offer Bachelors courses. In 2003, approximately 80 out of 340 courses at universities had been restructured into BA and MA courses. This means that almost 25% of all university courses follow the new “study architecture”. It has been said above (see Section 3.6) that the FHStG has been so amended only in 2002. Proposals from Fachhochschule institutions to do so in 1999, when an amendment to the Act on University Studies had introduced Bachelors courses, were rejected by the Government. Then the Government’s argument was that the vocationally-oriented courses would require four years, otherwise their quality would suffer and that, in principle, the Bologna Declaration applied to academic studies only. Most decision-makers have always been in favour of a clear distinction between the two sectors (see Section 4.1), and now see a chance to enhance it. Maybe they were also convinced that there was a greater need for university degrees to be internationally comparable than for the more vocationally-oriented Fachhochschule degrees. This might be explained by reasons of status – internationally-oriented institutions being regarded superior in that regard. There might also have been more interest or trust in the creation of a European Higher Education Area than in a European Labour Market. In addition, the Austrian Government regarded the introduction of Bachelors’ degrees as a means to reduce the long duration of studies at Austrian universities. Students at Fachhochschule courses did not usually exceed the fixed duration of courses. In 2003/04, when the Fachhochschule institutions were first allowed to offer BA courses, only seven out of 146 courses were BA courses. According to preliminary information, in the academic year 2004/05, 36 out of 160 courses are BA courses.

40

E. Hackl

This means that the Fachhochschule sector made up quickly for the time lag and shows at present almost the same percentage of BA/MA courses as universities. Unofficial plans indicate that more BA/MA courses are to be expected when health professions are integrated into the Fachhochschule sector. In Section 6.2 it has been said that discussions on the effects of the Bologna Process on the binary system are not taking place, nor are there reflections on new linkages between university and Fachhochschule courses, e.g. could the “new architecture” reverse permeability between university and Fachhochschule? Will it become more reciprocal? Will BA graduates from universities enter and profit from a practically-oriented MA course at Fachhochschule before entering the labour market or as working part-time students? In addition to the “study architecture” and European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) that is being introduced in both sectors, the Bologna Process also resulted in the creation of an Austrian Agency for Quality Assurance (AQA).33 This institution has been set up only in the first half of 2004. Its website says that AQA has been founded as an independent body on the initiative of the Austrian Rectors Conference (universities), the Fachhochschule Conference, the Association of Private Universities, the Students Union and the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Culture. It is not yet clear how AQA will interact with the Fachhochschule Council, and even less clear how this interaction will develop. Will there eventually be only one quality assurance agency for all higher education? Will this put an end to the binary system? Will this be by accident or design?

References Beerkens, E. “Austria”. In Huisman, J. and F. Kaiser (eds). Fixed and Fuzzy Boundaries in Higher Education: A Comparative Study of (Binary) Structures in Nine Countries. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Adviesraad voor het Wetenschaps - en Technologiebeleid, 2001. Berka, W. Autonomie im Bildungswesen. Wien: Böhlau, 2002. Brünner, CH. Die bildungspolitischen Auswirkungen des Fachhochschul-Studiengesetzes. Wien/ Graz, Austria: Neuer wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2004. Clement, W., H. Detter, J. Fröhlich, G. Turnheim et al. Basiskonzept zur Umsetzung des Zieles “Wachstumsschub in der angewandten Forschung und Entwicklung durch Stärkung der auáeruniversitären Forschung und Entwicklung”. Wien: Rat für Forschung und Technologie, BMVIT, 2002. Hauser, W. “Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Nutzung von Synergien beim Betrieb von Fachhochschul-Studiengängen durch Schaffung von “Support-Einrichtungen” und “ZentralErhaltern”. In Berka, W., C. Brünner and W. Hauser (eds). Res universitatis. Bernd-Christian Funk zum 60.Geburtstag. Wien/Graz, Austria: Neuer wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 2003. Hoyer, A., and J. Ziegler. Das Fachhochschulstudium aus der Sicht der AbsolventInnen – Eine österreichweite Studie zur beruflichen Situation und zur Bewertung des FH-Studiums aus der Sicht der AbsolventInnen. Wien: Facultas, 2002.

33

www.aqa.ac.at

The Role of the Non-University Sector in Austrian Higher Education

41

Lassnigg, L. “Ausgewählte Befunde und Fragen zur Entwicklung des Fachhochschul-Sektors in Österreich”. In Prisching, M., W. Lenz, and W. Hauser (eds). 10 Jahre FHStG. FachhochschulRecht zwischen Bewährung und Reform. Wien: Verlag Österreich, 2004. Lassnigg, L., M. Unger, H. Pechar, A. Pellert, E. Schmutzer-Hollensteiner, D. Westerheijden et al. Review des Auf- und Ausbaus des Fachhochschulsektors in Österreich. Wien: equisIHS/iff/ cheps, 2003. Maresch, H. “Die Forschung im Fachhochschul-Bereich in der Praxis”. In Prisching, M., W. Lenz, and W. Hauser (eds). Die Wissenschaftliche Forschung in Österreich. Wien: Verlag Österreich, 2002. Mazal, W. “Zur Rechtsstellung von Personal an Fachhochschulen”. In Prisching, M., W. Lenz, and W. Hauser (eds). 10 Jahre FHStG. Fachhochschul-Recht zwischen Bewährung und Reform. Wien: Verlag Österreich, 2004. Melchior, J. “The Managerial and Entrepreneurial Turn in Austrian Higher Education”. European Political Science, summer 2004. OECD. Reviews of National Policies for Education: Austria. Higher Education and Research. Paris: OECD, 1976. OECD. Alternatives to Universities in Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1991. OECD. Education at a Glance. Paris: OECD, 2004. Pechar, H. Alternatives to Universities. Country Study: Austria. Paris: OECD, 1988. Pechar, H., and A. Pellert. “Managing Change: Organisational Reform in Austrian Higher Education”. Higher Education Policy 11 (1998): 141–151. Pfeffer, T., M. Unger, S. Hölttä, P. Malkki, S. Boffo, and G. Finocchietti. “Latecomers in Vocational Higher Education: Austria, Finland, Italy”. Higher Education Policy 2 (2000): (forthcoming). Auch erschienen in: HOFO Working Paper Series 00.001, Vienna (IFF Faculty for Interdisciplinary Studies). Pratt, J. In BMWF, Fachhochschule als Alternative zur Universität. Wien: BMWF, 1991. Pratt, J. (ed.). The “Accreditation Model”. Policy Transfer in Higher Education in Austria and Britain. Oxford: Symposium Book, 2004. Pratt, J., and T. Burgess. Polytechnics: A Report. London: Pitman Publishing, 1974. Prisching, M. “Die Fachhochschulen und die Bildungspolitik”. In Prisching, M., W. Lenz, and W. Hauser (eds). 10 Jahre FHStG. Fachhochschul-Recht zwischen Bewährung und Reform. Wien: Verlag Österreich, 2004. Zechlin, L. “University Reform in Austria: Quick Change, no Public Management”. Zeitschrift für Hochschulrecht 1 (2002): 139–143.

Questioning the Binary Divide: Non-University Higher Education in Flanders (Belgium) Jef C. Verhoeven

Flanders has long had a binary system of higher education. While this system is still operating under the influence of governmental higher education policy and actions of the colleges, it has undergone many changes. Since Belgium became a federal state in 1989, the Flemish government has been able to set its own educational policy, and was and is strongly determined to adapt its system of higher education to the developments of the knowledge society and the rise of a neo-liberal view of education in Europe. Therefore, it adopted three important principles: deregulation, autonomy of the institutions of higher education, and quality of education. Fewer rules, it was conjectured, would give the institutions the freedom as well as the responsibility to adapt faster to the demands of the labour market. The state should only establish the framework in which institutions are to act and the financial resources to realize what they have to do. This partial autonomy would make the institutions accountable for the use of the resources and also for the attainment of their objectives. Moreover, they had to provide for their own quality assurance, which was still a system under the control of the government (De Wit and Verhoeven 2005). In this paper, I will show how the government created a framework to bring universities and colleges closer to each other, and thus cast the binary divide into question. Although the first few steps in this process had already been taken in the College Decree in 1994, this process was more stimulated by the Bologna Process. Bologna, after all, stressed the internationalisation of higher education with its consequences for the structure of the curriculum and the titles of the diplomas. Within this process, new structures emerged (e.g. associations between universities and colleges), and special financing was provided for the academic upgrading of college curricula. A comparable financing system for universities and colleges was planned. Nevertheless, the binary divide is still present, which inspired VLHORA1 (2004b) to formulate a four-page list of demands to 1 VLHORA (Council of Flemish Institutions of Higher Education) is an official council established by law. All colleges are members of the VLHORA. This council consists of the general directors of the colleges and advises the Minister of Education, the Flemish Parliament, and other educational councils (e.g. VLOR, the Flemish Educational Council) on college education, projectbased scientific research, and the provision of social services. It also discusses issues with the trade unions and representatives of the student organisations, the VVS) and is responsible for the co-ordination of the external quality assurance among the colleges, sometimes in collaboration with the VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council).

James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

43

44

J.C. Verhoeven

the new Flemish government in July, 2004, in order to bridge this divide. One of these demands was the right to translate hogeschool into the English word “university”, if only in their international contacts. The road of the colleges into the academic world will be described here in four sections. First, I will take a look at the structure of the colleges; second, I will give a picture of their governing structure; third, I will discuss their level of autonomy; and fourth, I will highlight their future development and challenges.

1 1.1

Structure of the Non-University Sector Non-University Higher Education Within the Structure of Higher Education

The system of higher education in Flanders consists of colleges and universities. Both may be attended by anyone with a diploma of Belgian secondary education or an equivalent from another state. At present, the two systems are seen as separate forms of higher education, but this has not always been the case in higher education in Belgium. University education has been present in the Low Countries since the establishment of the University of Leuven in 1425. This was the only university until what was later Belgium became part of the Dutch Kingdom in 1815. Under Dutch rule more universities were established. When Belgium became independent in 1830, the status of the old universities changed, with new universities being established during the 19th century and then again in the 1960s. Non-university higher education in Belgium came into being in the wake of the industrialisation of the country, and several schools for engineering were established in the 19th century (Mallinson 1963). The first teacher training school was established in 1817 under Dutch rule, and once Belgium was independent, more teacher training schools were established in 1834. Training was available for nursery school teachers in 1880 and became compulsory in 1919. Apart from some engineering schools, none of them was seen as providing higher education. This is also true for the schools of social work. The first school of social work was established in 1921, and was seen as a kind of technical secondary school (Sociale Hogeschool Heverlee s.d.: 5). This changed in 1933, when higher technical education was split into three levels of higher education, one of which was designated as being of “university level”, namely the licentiates trained in commercial colleges. Gradually, a non-university higher education system emerged. In 1952, for instance, social work was upgraded to non-university higher education, but not the education of elementary or nursery school teachers. In 1970, a new law reorganized higher education into two parts: university education and higher education outside the universities, which consisted of “higher education of short duration” (no longer than three years) and “higher education of long duration” (four years or more).2 This was the starting point for more structured non-university higher education. 2 The Belgian higher education system is thus sometimes called a ternary system instead of a binary system.

Questioning the Binary Divide

45

In 1989, Belgium became a federal state, and Flanders could decide its own education policy. This had important consequences. Since then, the policy of the Flemish Government has been focused on applying the concepts of quality, autonomy, and deregulation to higher education. Not only among politicians but also among academics, the prevailing opinion was that higher education needed a new approach in which more autonomy should be granted to institutions of higher education. With the University Decree of 1991 and the College Decree of 1994, the Flemish Parliament created a new framework for universities and hogescholen (colleges). While the binary system was kept intact and colleges and universities were seen to have their own individual callings, it became clear that it was not easy to make the divide watertight. How did the Legislature define the difference between universities and nonuniversity higher education? Article 4 of the Decree of 12 June 1991 states: “Universities should, in the interest of society, be simultaneously active in academic education, scientific research, and the provision of scientific service.” Article 3 of the Decree of 13 July 1994 states: “Colleges should, in the interest of society, be simultaneously active in college education, social service provision, and, where appropriate, project-based scientific research in collaboration with a university or other body in this country or abroad. The development and practice of the arts will also be the task of the colleges, which will organise courses in audio-visual and plastic arts, music and drama. The provision of college education will be the primary task of the college.” Clearly, the Legislature had problems differentiating between universities and colleges but still wanted to stress the difference. This has been changed in a recent decree that was necessary in order to implement the Bologna Process in Flanders. The “Decree of 4 April 2003 concerning the Restructuring of Higher Education in Flanders” (Structure Decree) is less concerned about distinguishing between university and non-university higher education than about building bridges between them. A kind of duality was created by the Legislature. Although it was stressed in the mission statement (Art. 10 of the Decree of 4 April 2003) that both universities and the colleges “are, in the interest of society, active in higher education”, universities and colleges are distinguished. Colleges may participate in the research of universities within the framework of an “association” between a university and one or more colleges (see Section 1.2), and colleges should also be active in projectbased scientific research. Apart from that, the mission statement did not change the original one very much, but it stipulated that universities would train academic bachelors and academic masters, while a college might train profession-oriented and academic bachelors and masters, but the last only within the framework of an association between a college and a university (see Fig. 1).

1.2

Nature of the Non-University Institutions

Until 1995, non-university higher education in Flanders was present in 163 institutions. In 1992, for instance, the average number of students in a college was 516, but many institutions had fewer (Verhoeven et al. 2002: 1). This fragmentation of

min. 1 year

subsequent Bachelor

min. 3 years

min. 1 year

Doctor (only at universities)

profession-oriented

subsequent Master - at universities and at hogescholen in the framework of an association and at postgraduate training

Master - at universities and at hogescholen in the framework of an association

academic

Bachelor

Bachelor

only at hogescholen

at universities and at hogescholen in the framework at an association

min. 3 years

bri din gc ou rse

(only at hogescholen)

min. 2 years

J.C. Verhoeven

min. 1 year

46

secondary school-leaving certificate giving access to higher education

Fig. 1 The bachelor-master structure in Flanders (VLIR)

equipment and resources for non-university higher education could no longer be accepted if these institutions were to meet the quality standards of the Inspectorate. The Decree of 13 July 1994 established a system of funding for the colleges that put them on the track of merging with other colleges. The target was to arrive at colleges of more than 2,000 students. This aim was not attained immediately. In 1995, 29 new colleges were established as a result of mergers. This process continued over the years to arrive at 22 colleges in 2004. One of the reasons for this ongoing process was the advantageous funding system for larger colleges. At present in 2004, the largest college (Hogeschool Gent) has 12,256 students. Most colleges have more than 2,500 students and three have fewer. One of these colleges (the smallest, with 204 students in 2004) is the Antwerp Maritime Academy, which organizes both Dutch and French courses, and is the only college governed by the Flemish Government3 and also the only college offering only one field of study. All other colleges are autonomous, even the state colleges, and offer several fields of study. Before the Decree of 13 July 1994, all the state colleges were directly under the authority of the Minister of Education, but this principle has been abandoned. Each of the colleges is now governed by a board that is responsible for its organisation. The decree imposed only formal requirements (length of the course, division in cycles, ability to abridge the course duration, and so on). The content of the education (the course programme) could be decided by the institutions themselves. Although all the colleges are autonomous, there are three legal types of colleges. One type is composed of former state colleges, which are now called 3 Since Belgium became a federal State in 1989, the Flemish, the French-speaking and the German-speaking Communities became responsible for policy towards culture and personal issues (education, culture, language, welfare and health). The Flemish Community agreed to organize nautical higher education for all of the language communities.

Questioning the Binary Divide

47

autonomous colleges. There are five autonomous colleges. The second are the two provincial colleges, and the third type is composed of 14 grant-aided colleges, all of which except for one are run by boards belonging to a Catholic network of colleges. By granting autonomy to the state colleges, the Legislature wanted to disconnect the governing of these colleges from the political fluctuations of the different Ministers of Education, who had previously run them. The structure of the state institutions is still fixed by decree, in contrast with that of the grantaided institutions, for which only the democratic representation of the students and the staff is regulated by decree (see Section 2.4.). Besides this basic structure of the colleges, the Decree of 4 April 2003 also established associations, new legal bodies (not-for-profit institutions) in which at least one college and no more than one university share some responsibilities (Art. 101), for example, (1) the offering of a rational supply of courses; (2) the coordination of educational profiles, guidance, transfer opportunities, more particularly between the bachelor and master courses; (3) the organisation of guidance for students; (4) the coordination of personnel policy; (5) the construction of a long-range plan for educational innovation and improvement in close connection with a common quality assurance system; (6) the development of a long-range plan for scientific research and scientific and social service provision in close connection with a common quality assurance system for research; and (7) supervision of the link between research and teaching in the colleges of the association that offer academic education. These associations may become a powerful structure for the organisation of teaching and research in the near future not only in the universities but also in the colleges. Indeed, colleges may not offer academic bachelor and master courses outside an association. Associations in this way became very important instruments for diminishing the distance between the universities and the colleges. For some colleges, the creation of associations has been seen as the ideal instrument for gaining academic status. Nevertheless, most colleges do not have a research infrastructure or a research tradition equivalent to that of the universities. In spite of this, they believe that the synergy in the association will, in the long run, be a big advantage to them. The universities, for their part, saw in this association policy an opportunity to extend their influence over the colleges and their graduates. Since numbers of students are important for the financial support from the state, and since universities (just like the colleges) increasingly attract most of their students from their surrounding cities, the creation of associations could influence graduates of the association to continue their training in the university of the association. This could make the organizing university more attractive to students from other areas than their immediate vicinity. For some actors in the universities, this consideration was so important that they announced the establishment of an association already in February 2003, two months before the decree had taken on legal force. At present there are five associations with very unequal numbers of members. One association, namely Association KU Leuven, accounts for more than half the number of the colleges in Flanders (and is spread over Flanders from east to west) and about 44% of the higher education students in Flanders (see Table 1).

48

J.C. Verhoeven

Table 1 Composition of associations in Flanders (Belgium) and number of students (2004) (Onderwijs.Vlaanderen.be 2004a. Author’s calculations)

Associatie KU Leuven

Associatie UniversiteitHogescholen Limburg

Associatie Universiteit Gent

KU Leuven Limburgs U Gent + 12 Colleges Universitair + 3 Colleges Centrum + 2 Colleges Number of students in associations (2004)4 69,164 or 44.4% 7,808 or 5% 44,423 or 28.4%

1.3

Associatie Universiteit Hogescholen Antwerpen

Universitaire associatie Brussel

U Antwerpen + 4 Colleges

VU Brussel + 1 College

23,742 or 15.2%

10,910 or 7%

Access of Students and Diplomas

One still uncontested principle in Flanders is the democratic accessibility of higher education. Another is the freedom of choice of study, which is related to the principle of free access and to the freedom of education guaranteed by the Constitution. This means that all students with a secondary education diploma have the right to register in the college of their choice. No entrance examinations may be organized although aptitude tests are given for a few particular fields of study. For example, the colleges require that candidates take an aptitude test for their basic courses in nautical science, and entrance examinations are held for some courses in audiovisual and plastic arts, music, and drama. While registration of students in universities went up from 1984 until 1998 and declined later on, college registrations kept rising (See Table 2). In comparison with 1984–1985, the number of students in 2003–2004 increased by 51%, but in comparison with 1994–1995 by only 15%. In Flanders in 2003–2004, 61% of all registrations in higher education were in colleges. Looking at the figures of freshmen5 in colleges there is a slow increase until 2000–2001 (26,766), while later on the numbers diminished somewhat to rise again in 2003–2004 (25,860). The intake of university freshmen is almost stable and reached 12,801 in 2002–2003, but this is only 50% of the number of the college freshmen. Therefore, it could also be expected that in 2000– 2001 26.9% of the 21- to 23-year olds in Flanders received a college diploma, and only 18.8% of the 22- to 26-year olds a university diploma (MVG 2003a: 85). Colleges keep their popularity. In this context, it is also important to mention that only 25.5% of the college students are taking two-cycle courses, the rest take one-cycle courses. In order to make entrance possible for most candidates, the enrolment fee is low. The minimum and the maximum fee are fixed by decree: a minimum of €77.48 and a maximum of €449.90 (Onderwijs.Vlaanderen.be 2004). The minimum fee has to be paid by students who obtain a grant from the government. 4 5

Only the main registrations are counted. Students registering for the first time in a college or university.

32,421 31,917 31,183 31,014 30,751 30,729 31,125 32,405 32,980 33,431 33,945 34,624 35,050 35,059 34,275 29,982 29,156 29,360 29,760 29,989

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

60.31 58.93 57.92 57.14 56.21 55.42 54.70 54.43 53.86 53.20 52.60 51.92 51.40 50.70 49.55 47.23 46.22 45.67 45.33 45.17

% 21,335 22,242 22,655 23,261 23,961 24,723 25,779 27,133 28,251 29,409 30,585 32,062 33,143 34,094 34,898 33,500 33,925 34,933 35,888 36,402

N

Female

Universities

39.69 41.07 42.08 42.86 43.79 44.58 45.30 45.57 46.14 46.80 47.40 48.08 48.60 49.30 50.45 52.77 53.78 54.33 54.67 54.83

%

N 53,756 54,159 53,838 54,275 54,712 55,452 56,904 59,538 61,231 62,840 64,530 66,686 68,193 69,153 69,173 63,482 63,081 64,293 65,648 66,391

Total % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

33,215 33,884 35,289 36,841 38,104 39,392 39,732 39,001 40,572 43,056 42,386 42,544 43,804 45,779 46,796 46,594 46,711 46,782 47,411 47,270

N

Male % 47.86 48.34 47.20 47.69 47.80 48.15 48.37 48.24 47.81 47.34 46.82 46.63 46.53 46.82 46.83 46.03 45.69 45.70 45.92 45.42

36,187 36,210 39,470 40,406 41,617 42,415 42,417 41,848 44,286 47,896 48,145 48,687 50,336 52,001 53,137 54,636 55,513 55,577 55,846 56,808

N 52.14 51.66 52.80 52.31 52.20 51.85 51.63 51.76 52.19 52.66 53.18 53.37 53.47 53.18 53.17 53.97 54.31 54.30 54.08 54.58

%

Female

Colleges

N 69,402 70,094 74,759 77,247 79,721 81,807 82,149 80,849 84,858 90,952 90,531 91,231 94,140 97,780 99,933 101,230 102,224 102,359 103,257 104,078

Total % 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

I want to thank Mr. Jef Peeraer (Centre for Sociology of Education) for collecting the figures for this paper, and Mr. Wim De Pelsemaeker, Wim Claeskens and Mrs Ann Bronselaer of the Department of Education (Ministry of the Flemish Community) for providing the most recent figures.

6

N

Year

Male

Table 2 Evolution of the number of students (main registration) in universities and colleges in Flanders (1984–2004)6 (Department of Education (Ministry of the Flemish Community))

Questioning the Binary Divide 49

50

J.C. Verhoeven

Whether an applicant receives a grant and how much he will receive depends first of all on the taxable income and the rental value of real estate owned by the parents (or the applicant himself if he is independent). To receive this grant, a student has to pass the examinations each year. If he does not pass or he wants to follow another course than the course in which he started, he is entitled to apply once for a “joker” grant (Decree of 21 April 2004). He may receive this grant once. If the student wants to take a course that is not available in Flemish colleges, he may take this grant to a foreign college or university. In 2003, the maximum grant for a student living outside the home of his parents was €2,286, and living with his family €1,783. The average grant for a one-cycle student in 2001–2002 was €1,311.13 and for a two-cycle student €1,462.07 (MVG, Departement Onderwijs 2002: 728). In the same year, about 26.42% of the college students received a grant. To give an idea of what this means, we may refer to the average expenditures for parents with a son or daughter in college: the average yearly cost in 2000 was €2,015.20/student for a student who lives at home and €3,621.90/student for one who lives in rented accommodations (Bollens et al. 2000). In principle, all colleges may recruit students from all over the country. Though most of them recruit regionally, recruitment also includes foreign students, although there are few of them (see Table 3). Only the Antwerp Maritime Academy has a national function. This college trains maritime officers for the entire country. One-cycle higher education confers “graduate diplomas in various disciplines such as midwifery, nursing, social work, export management, accounting, and teaching (pre-school, primary, and secondary education – Group 1). The duration of these courses is three years. For academic year 2004–2005, this form of higher education will grant profession-oriented bachelor degrees (see Fig. 1). In some fields of study, a subsequent bachelor’s degree may be offered after one year of additional study. Two-cycle higher education confers the following degrees: qualifications as industrial engineer, licentiate in nautical science, commercial engineer, architect, and master of arts. The duration of these courses is at least four years. From the academic year 2004–2005 on, this form of higher education grants a bachelor’s degree after three years of study and a master’s degree after at least one year of further study (see Fig. 1). This will give qualifications as master of industrial sciences, master of business administration, master in commercial sciences, master of architecture, master of arts, etc. Master’s degree diplomas will be granted within the framework of an association of a university and a college. In some fields of study, a subsequent master’s degree may be offered after one year of additional study (Decree of 4 April 2003). Ph.D. degrees may only be granted by a university. College graduates can continue their education at a university, but they may have to take preparatory courses and examinations at the university. Profession-oriented bachelors, for instance, have to take a bridging course (about one year of study) if they wish to register for an academic master’s degree at a university or a college. This is not compulsory for a masters student who earned his degree at a college and wants to register for a doctoral degree. Nevertheless, the universities are entitled to organize an entrance examination (Art. 66 of the Decree April 2003). Because of

Questioning the Binary Divide

51

Table 3 Main registrations of Belgian and foreign students in colleges from 1999–2000 until 2003–20047 in Flanders (Department of Education (Ministry of the Flemish Community)) Belgian students Foreign students Total Year

N

%

N

%

N

%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

96,703 97,423 97,397 97,413 97,555

98.14 98.15 98.05 97.74 97.38

1,833 1,835 1,942 2,248 2,623

1.86 1.85 1.95 2.26 2.62

98,536 99,258 99,339 99,661 100,178

100 100 100 100 100

the current level of academisation of college education (see Section 4.2), it is common practice for students to be required to take an examination, which also might mean a bridging course. The organising body of a college is responsible for the diplomas that are automatically “recognised” by the Flemish Department of Education. Colleges may offer one-cycle higher education and/or two-cycle higher education. Most colleges offer one- and two-cycle higher education. Four offer only one-cycle higher education. Since the entrance in universities and colleges is open for all students, one could expect that both institutions could attract students with for the most part the same characteristics, but this is not so. Colleges are traditionally associated with professionoriented education, whereas universities are focused on academic education. In 1999, we conducted a survey in which we checked the differences and the similarities between students of human resource management and information science in colleges and universities (Verhoeven et al. 2000; De Wit and Verhoeven 2003). We concluded that the differences between information science students in colleges and universities were the following: “The survey shows that the students (of colleges and universities) experience and perceive the courses differently. The courses differ regarding educational content and do not prepare for the same functions in the labour market.… They (students) expect to start in similar occupations, but academic-level students also expect to gain in responsibility and move up to leadership functions. One-cycle college students, on the other hand, view themselves as readily employable but without much opportunity to climb the occupational hierarchy.… And, indeed, the different training and vocational profiles attract different types of student. Regarding socioeconomic status, we found that the well-known dividing line in higher education … still exists: colleges and especially one-cycle courses attract a larger share of students from financially weaker families and families with a lower educational level and occupational status. Moreover, while most university students followed general secondary education, for many students in one-cycle college courses the educational career started in technical secondary education and involved entering the college course after having tried university studies.… There is, in brief, a dividing line between academic-level courses and one-cycle courses.” (De Wit and Verhoeven 2003: 154–155). What we concluded here concerning information science students also held, with some minor differences, for human resource management students (Verhoeven et al. 2000: 290–296). 7

Only basic programmes and the initial teacher programme.

52

J.C. Verhoeven

1.4

Staff Recruitment and Careers

In 1994, the academic staff of colleges and the corresponding salary scale were composed according to the model of the universities, although a division in three groups was made. Table 4 lists the different functions of each group and ranks them in order of seniority. The first group works only in departments with one-cycle courses while the second group only in departments with two-cycle courses. The third group may be assigned to both. In general, the duties of junior lector, senior lector, junior lecturer, senior lecturer, assistant professor, and professor consist of one of the following tasks or a combination thereof: the provision of education, the carrying out of supporting assignments, the implementation of project-based scientific research, the provision of services to society, and organisational and administrative tasks. To obtain access to the profession, there are some formal qualification requirements to be fulfilled (Verhoeven and Beuselinck 1996: 129): ●

●

●

A junior practical lector or senior practical lector needs a diploma from a onecycle basic course. A junior lector, senior lector, research assistant, or senior research assistant needs a university or a two-cycle course diploma. A doctor-assistant, junior lecturer, senior lecturer, assistant professor, or professor needs a doctoral degree.

Seniority combined with useful professional experience is required for promotion to most posts. To become a professor, the conditions are more demanding. Promotion to professor requires the following conditions. First, the college must be actively involved in scientific research in co-operation with a university within the field of the vacancy. Second, the candidate must have been a lecturer, senior lecturer, or assistant professor for six years at a college or university and, during that time, have been responsible for quality research. The competence of candidates within their specific scientific field is judged by a jury or committee of three professors from different universities (Verhoeven and Beuselinck 1999). In spite of these principles, the career of college teachers is rather flat (see Table 5). The largest group is composed of lectors and research assistants. This low

Table 4 Types of academic staff in colleges in Flanders (Belgium) (Decree of 13 July 1994) Group 1 Group 2 (auxiliary staff) Group 3 Junior practical lector (praktijklector)

Research assistant (assistant)

Senior practical lector (hoofdpraktijklector) Junior lector (lector)

Doctoral assistant (doctor- assistant) Senior research assistant (werkleider)

Senior lector (hoofdlector)

Junior lecturer (docent) Senior lecturer (hoofddocent) Assistant professor (hoogleraar) Professor (gewoon hoogleraar)

Questioning the Binary Divide

53

Table 5 Teaching staff in colleges in Flanders by rank and gender in June 2004 in full-time equivalents (N and %) (Department of Education (Ministry of the Flemish Community). Author’s calculations) Rank Male % Female % Total % Professor Assistant Professor Senior Lecturer Junior Lecturer Senior lector, senior research assistant, doctor assistant Lector, research assistant Senior Practical lector Junior Practical Lector Total

21.20 317.44 87.30 379.37 135.88

0.30 4.48 1.23 5.35 1.92

4.00 51.36 25.00 123.72 71.96

0.06 0.72 0.35 1.75 1.02

25.20 369.39 112.30 503.09 207.84

0.36 5.20 1.58 7.10 2.94

2,328.14 8.50 464.78 3,743.20

32.85 0.12 6.56 52.81

2,257.00 6.00 805.54 3,344.98

31.84 0.08 11.36 47.19

4,585.54 14.50 1,270.32 7,088.18

64.69 0.20 17.92 100.00

promotion profile is due to, among other things, the rather low budget of the colleges. Vaes and Posson (2004: 39) state that the combined number of senior practical lectors and senior lectors may legally not exceed 20% of the combined number of all Group 1 posts. Nevertheless, the figure is only 2% because colleges cannot afford to pay the rather small salary rise of the promotions. The same could be said of the rather low proportion of senior lecturers, assistant professors, and professors. In 2002, they constituted 11.81% of the staff in Group 2 and Group 3 even though the law permits 25% (Cottenie 2004: 91). This is a result not only of the lack of money but also of the rather small number of teachers with a Ph.D. in colleges and because a large part (mainly teachers of the large group of one-cycle course students) of the positions does not require a Ph.D. qualification. In 1994, the proportion of teachers in colleges with a Ph.D. was about 11% (Verhoeven and Beuselinck 1996: 143). This figure can be estimated in 2004 to have risen to 14.25% of the full-time equivalents, which is still low.8 Contractually, members of the teaching staff are employees in the non-state colleges or have a kind of civil servant status in the state colleges. Although this legal status is not totally the same, the consequences are almost the same for both categories. All teachers have to be evaluated at least every five years, with sanctions a possibility for improper professional behaviour. In 2002–2003, there was one teacher for 11.14 students in the colleges. Most of the teachers are male, but the portion of the female teachers has risen every year and reached 45% of all teachers in 2002–2003 (see Table 6).

1.5

Funding

Each college receives an “envelope” of funds. For all the colleges together, the Decree of 13 July 1994 specifies the overall amount, which is index-linked to the 8

No other data were available for this estimate.

54

J.C. Verhoeven

Table 6 Teaching and non-teaching staff in colleges in Flanders by gender from 1994–1995 until 2002–20039 (N and %) (Department of Education (Ministry of the Flemish Community) ) Teaching staff Non-teaching staff Male

Female

Total

Male

Female

Total

Year

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

N

%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

4,877 5,413 5,168 5,041 5,050 4,978 4,954 4,972 4,920

59.66 59.88 59.11 58.64 58.09 57.13 56.17 55.32 55.00

3,298 3,627 3,575 3,555 3,644 3,735 3,866 4,015 4,025

40.34 40.12 40.89 41.36 41.91 42.87 43.83 44.68 45.00

8,175 9,040 8,743 8,596 8,694 8,713 8,820 8,987 8,945

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

207 418 397 404 436 464 495 518 530

38.91 30.58 29.98 30.10 30.66 30.97 31.17 31.86 31.81

325 949 927 938 986 1,034 1,093 1,108 1,136

61.09 69.42 70.02 69.90 69.34 69.03 68.83 68.14 68.19

532 1,367 1,324 1,342 1,422 1,498 1,588 1,626 1,666

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

unit labour costs and consumer prices. Before distribution can be carried out between the colleges, a number of deductions are made to cover certain costs that the government will meet directly, such as the salaries for certain staff members. After these deductions have been made, an overall amount is left for the operational expenses of the colleges. The amount per college is determined on the basis of the following criteria: (1) the historical fixed sum: the costs of the college in the past; (2) the number of students (five-year average); and (3) finance-eligible units: a combination of student numbers (three-year average) and the weightings allocated to the courses according to the nature of the courses. Four groups are distinguished to which the following weightings are allocated: 1.1 for commercial science and business administration, 1.2 for applied linguistics and one-cycle industrial science courses, 1.4 for architecture, biotechnology, social work, and two-cycle industrial science courses, and 1.6 for product development, health care and education. The envelope will be closed until 2006 (Verhoeven and Beuselinck 1996: 123–124). Nevertheless, the Bologna Process was an important reason for changing some principles and the amount of funding, as we will see later on. In addition to the ordinary funding, colleges can also apply for financial support for investments in buildings, and receive special funding for social services for students. Starting in 2007, the former government also promised to establish new funding principles following the same pattern for universities and colleges. In 2002, Flanders spent about €7.2 billion on education, or 4.5% of the Flemish Gross Regional Product (MVG 2003b: 701). This last figure has been almost the same for the last ten years, although the Flemish GRP went up almost every year. Over the last ten years, the budget for the colleges absorbed between 7.46% and 8.4% of the education budget (see Table 7).This is a remarkably smaller part than the 9.73% for the universities, which registered only about 57% of the students of the colleges in 2002.

9

For 1994–1995 only data from fulltime-equivalents are at our disposal.

Questioning the Binary Divide

55

Table 7 Development of the budget of colleges, universities, and for education as a whole from 1991 to 2003 in Flanders (in thousands of Euro, and % of the education budget)10 (Department of Education (Ministry of the Flemish Community)) Year Colleges % Universities % Total budget 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

342,552 372,631 398,598 423,873 438,724 465,276 472,629 478,316 503,246 550,502 557,359 575,247 592,251

7.29 7.42 7.46 7.69 7.73 7.96 7.92 7.84 7.98 8.40 8.12 7.94 7.84

484,768 514,575 533,930 536,630 540,874 534,991 531,375 546,732 561,199 577,716 597,917 716,165 735,439

10.31 10.24 9.99 9.73 9.53 9.15 8.91 8.96 8.90 8.81 8.71 9.89 9.73

4,701,006 5,023,451 5,343,169 5,513,107 5,673,103 5,845,486 5,967,048 6,104,415 6,306,369 6,554,332 6,863,584 7,244,700 7,556,177

Since the principles for the budget were established in 1994, this funding schema has been regularly adapted because colleges complained about the shortage of funding. That this made sense was often illustrated by the following: for many years the government paid less for a student in a college than for a student in a secondary school, and this is still the case. The average amount of money spent by the state for a college student in 2003 was €6,139, for a secondary school student €6,901.21, and for a university student €13,592.56 (MVG 2003b: 707). Does this mean that the colleges had to balance their accounts with a deficit? In 2002, most of the colleges closed the balance positively (Cottenie 2004: 45). Only one college had a deficit. In spite of these positive figures, Vaes and Posson (2004: 48) complain that the government did not pay enough attention to the increase in the costs of living and the growth of the student numbers between 1996 and 2004. The only reason, they contend, that most of the colleges had such good financial results is the cautious management of the college boards, by not promoting capable teachers or by relying on financial sources other than those of the State. The commissioner of the Flemish government calculated that, between 1998 and 2002, colleges obtained between 16.2% and 19.5% additional financial resources (from fees, the selling of text books, the organisation of seminars for adults,11 etc.) of the total amount granted by the state. These figures might differ greatly from college to college. In 2002, the lowest figure was 13.4%, and the highest 46.5%. Moreover, colleges paid in 2002 55.6% of the investments themselves, 37.4% came from the state, and only 5.2% was obtained from banks (Cottenie 2004: 84, 51). Although the financial situation of the colleges does not look so bad, general managers keep repeating that they need more money.12 This has had its consequences. 10

Percentages are calculated as a part of the total budget of education in that year. Internationalisation and commercialisation have already had influences on colleges. 12 Before the new Flemish government took office in July 2004, the spokesmen of VLHORA pleaded with the formateur for, among other things, €25 million more for the college budget, and demanded that the new finance system would abolish the ‘frozen envelope’ and take into account the number of students (VLHORA 2004a). 11

56

J.C. Verhoeven

From 2003 on, the “closed” envelope has been and will be filled by additional financial support from the government. The Decree of 4 April 2003 provides additional funding for the following purposes: (1) to implement the Bologna Process (Art. 148, §2); (2) to promote educational innovation through the use of a plan for educational development and to make the course of study more flexible13 (Art. 148, §2); (3) to support the “academisation process” or academic upgrading14 of the twocycle courses (Art. 152); and (4) to develop project-based scientific research (Art. 153; Decree of 21 April 2004, Art. 190bis).

2 2.1

Institutional Governance Structure The Main Objectives of the Non-University Sector

The College Decree (1994) stipulates the following: “Colleges should, in the interest of society, be simultaneously active in college education, social service provision, and, where appropriate, project-based scientific research in collaboration with a university or other body in this country or abroad. The development and practice of the arts will also be the task of the colleges, which will organize courses in audio-visual and plastic arts, music and drama. The provision of college education will be the primary task of the college.” By stressing college education and teaching, the Legislature followed the traditional division of labour between universities and colleges as it had developed over the last century. Colleges had mainly a vocational character, but at the same time the Legislature admitted that the difference between colleges and universities was not easily made. Moreover, they gave the two-cycle colleges the task of providing education on an “academic level”. This decision was the result not only of changing opinions among the legislators but also perhaps of the changing social expectations in society. A neo-conservative, neoliberal ideology, in which utility and efficiency are highly valued, came increasingly to the fore. The demands of the labour market are regarded as having the highest priority (Brown et al. 1997). Education has to serve the national economy and the employment of the members of society. This means for universities that they have to fulfil not only an academic role but also a vocational role. This was not so much the case for colleges, which had always been interested in professional training. Nevertheless, they were looking for the same recognition as the universities had, and the question is whether they can reach this by adhering solely to professional training. In 1997, we conducted in-depth interviews with 53 university and college teachers of two fields of study, information sciences and human resource management 13

This might be done by offering different forms of teaching and guidance, distance education, special programmes for working students, etc. 14 Colleges have to guarantee that academic courses will be based on research and that college teachers will also conduct research.

Questioning the Binary Divide

57

(Verhoeven et al. 2000: 187–188). The data showed that college teachers were not convinced that they should switch to an academic role. They stressed that the first task of a college is to prepare students for immediate availability to the economy but also that they wanted to be recognized and valued for their specific contribution. This was the opinion not only of the teachers. They found among their students this emphasis on practice as well. The interviews of the students confirmed this statement: 72% of the college students in human resource management (N = 276) saw their training as practice-oriented, while only 23% of their university counterparts (N = 128) did; for students in information sciences, the figures are, respectively, 51% (N = 1,068) and 33% (N = 251) (Verhoeven et al. 2000: 217, 251). In 2001, we conducted a survey of a representative sample of college teachers (N = 773) and asked about their opinion concerning “academisation” in their college. The average score on a scale of 1–5 was 2.5. This means that most of the teachers did not see that the programmes of the college were geared to those of the universities, or that collaboration between a university and their college has emerged, or that the college collaborated much with a university to do research (Verhoeven et al. 2002: 101–102, 107). On the other hand, when asked about any change in behaviour in the college since the merger of the college, they collected an average score of 2.22 out of a possible 3. They saw some moderate change as far as academisation is concerned. What is significant is that the average scores do not differ among individual colleges but do differ between teachers of one-cycle and two-cycle fields of study, the latter scoring higher. Moreover, teachers scored only 2.39 out of 1–5 on the question of whether the college administration put pressure on them to conduct research. In spite of the reservations the teachers have toward academisation, the Legislature has definitely chosen to promote the academic trend in two-cycle fields of study. The Decree of April 4, 2003 and the Decree of April 21, 2004, placed the organisation of the curriculum of two-cycle fields of study in the hands of an association of a university with one or more colleges and created a larger basis for scientific research.

2.2

The Governing Structure of the Non-University Sector Institutions

The governing structure of the state colleges is determined more by law (Decree of July 13 1994) than that of the grant-aided colleges, which received more freedom to set up their governing structures. The provincial colleges also obtained more freedom although they are still subject to provincial law (Verhoeven and Dom 2002: 38–39). A state college is governed by a board of directors consisting of the representatives of the different categories of the staff elected to four-year terms by the staff, representatives of the students (elected for two-year terms by the students) and the representatives of the organizing body and/or the representatives of the socio-economic

58

J.C. Verhoeven

Table 8 Legal governing structure of colleges according to the legal status of the colleges State college College level Board of Directors

General Manager Directorate College Negotiation Committee College Council of Students Departmental level Departmental Council (for each department) Head of department Department Negotiation Committee Department Council of Students

Grant-aided college

Provincial college

General Assembly and Board of Directors General Manager

Provincial council and deputies

Academic Council College Negotiation Committee College Council of Students

Academic Council College Negotiation Committee College Council of Students

Departmental Council (for each department) Head of department Department Negotiation Committee Department Council of Students

Departmental Council (for each department) Department Negotiation Committee Department Council of Students

and cultural sectors (also for four-year terms). The general manager, the school head of a college, has an advisory voice in this council (see Table 8). The board of directors determines the regulations concerning administration, examinations, and discipline, establishes the budget, appoints the staff, establishes the framework for the organisation and co-ordination of the tasks of the educational institution, decides about the entry of the college into an association, and so on. The directorate consists of the chairman of the board of directors, the general manager, and three representatives of the staff appointed for four years by the board of directors. The directorate is responsible for the everyday administration and the preparation, announcement, and execution of the decisions of the board of directors, the financial management within the framework established by the board of directors, the appointment of nonexecutive administrative and technical personnel, and many other matters that are not explicitly assigned by law to other administrative organs or posts. The general manager is appointed (and may be dismissed) by the Board of Directors and is responsible for the administration of the institute. He directs the administrative and other (e.g. international relations officer) staff. Regularly and at least once a year, he informs the organizing body of the school’s financial situation and proposes the budget for the coming year. He is also responsible for the school’s material situation, for maintenance and repairs, and for the purchase of furnishings and equipment. He plays a central role in selecting new teachers and other staff members to be appointed by the organizing body. He is responsible for all external contacts (with the educational support services, the local community, guidance centres, labour market, etc.), and the public relations of the school in general. The institutes have to organize their own recruitment procedures for the post of general manager. The position may be filled by a member of the regular teaching

Questioning the Binary Divide

59

staff with a permanent appointment, but several colleges have already selected a general manager who did not belong to the teaching staff. The conditions for appointment are similar to those of the teaching staff. The Decree assigns the grant-aided colleges administrative bodies such as an academic council, which has mainly an advisory role with respect to the board of directors (see Table 2). The board of directors is composed of co-opted members by the general assembly (also composed of co-opted members). This board of directors must inform the academic council about all matters concerning the educational institution. The academic council consists of elected representatives of the board of directors of the college (four years), of the staff (four years), and of the students (two years). This council is entitled to receive information and to advise at least on certain aspects of educational matters, such as the research policy. Third, the academic council has the “competence of consultation” (the taking of decisions on its own initiative or when asked by the board of directors that, when consensus is reached, will be carried out by the board of directors) for at least the educational aspects of certain matters such as the financial policy, the policy concerning education and examinations, and organisation of study guidance. If there is no consensus, the board of directors of the college decides. Each college must also establish a council of students, consisting of at least eight elected students (Decree of 19 March 2004). The board of directors and the directorate (only at state colleges) must consult the council of students beforehand on all matters that have direct relevance for the students (e.g. regulations concerning education and examinations and the evaluation of the teaching staff). The council of students may also take advisory initiatives (Decree of 13 July 1994). Concerning the conditions of employment, each college and each department of an institute has a negotiating committee to regulate the relations between the employer and the unions of the staff (see also Section 2.5). The negotiating committee of the college consists of the representatives of the board of directors and of the staff (mainly represented by the unions) of the college. Within the Bologna process, the Legislature established associations of universities and colleges (see Section 1.1). These associations are legally organized as non-profit institutions and are freely formed by colleges and universities (Art. 96–113 of the Decree of 4 April 2003). Colleges may belong only to one association. The association of a university and a college ends when a college or a university terminates the contract, the notification of which must be given two years in advance by a college and three years in advance by a university. The effect for a college is then that it loses the right to organise the master’s degree programmes that had been established within the framework of the association unless it joins another association. By law, the associations have to establish positions and councils to govern themselves. They have a general assembly, a board of directors, a president, and several steering committees. The universities and the colleges are represented in the general assembly and on the board along with external stakeholders. Representative trade unions and student organizations have a platform where their particular problems can be discussed. In order to perform their tasks, both the colleges and the universities contribute financially to the association. Like the universities and the

60

J.C. Verhoeven

colleges, the associations have to report every year to the government about their actions and financial accounts, and each association is subject to the supervision of a commissioner of the government, who checks whether all the actions of the association are in accordance with the law.

2.3

Management of the Colleges

The management style of colleges in Flanders was certainly influenced by the merger process. This process created considerable problems for the boards, the general managers, and the departments of the new colleges (Devos and Verhoeven 2003). Old colleges disappeared to become departments in a college. They often had to merge with other colleges that offered the same programmes of study and to become new departments in a new college. Directors of the old colleges lost their positions and were not sure if they could become department heads of the new departments in the new colleges. Departments in the larger colleges did not often share the same physical campus but were spread over several locations in a city, and the campuses of some colleges were even spread out over several cities. In some colleges, the general manager and his staff have their offices on locations far off the campuses of the college. It was not only a question of finding a way of collaborating between erstwhile competitors, but, certainly in grant-aided colleges, the management of the college had to find a new governing and management structure. Moreover, colleges had to work with a “closed” envelope, establish a quality assurance system, reduce the staff to meet the requirements of the law, establish a new staff system (see Section 1.4), internationalize the college, merge one-cycle with two-cycle training, etc. One can hardly imagine a bigger challenge for these new colleges, particularly in view of the traditional resistance of higher education to major changes (see Kerr 1982; van Vught 1987; Salter and Tapper 1994; Maassen and Gornitzka 1999). Therefore, it was no surprise that we found in a survey in 2001 that 45.7% of the teachers were very dissatisfied with the merger, and 23.8% dissatisfied. However, the general managers in five case studies were satisfied (Verhoeven et al. 2002: 109). In 1999, to form an idea of the leadership style of the general manager, we asked all the members of all of the kinds of college councils (N = 808) about the extent to which the general manager involved the teaching staff in the management of the college (Devos et al. 2001: 56, 279–297). Only 7% of them called the involvement strong, 27% spoke about a moderate involvement, and 66% called the involvement weak. The survey also showed that the involvement was higher in small colleges and in colleges with only a few campuses. The general managers and heads of the departments saw this differently. All the general managers thought that they involved the teaching staff strongly or moderately, and 10% of the heads of the departments spoke of strong involvement by the general manager and 46% of moderate involvement. About four years later, we surveyed teaching staff about their involvement in management decisions of the college (Verhoeven et al. 2002: 115).

Questioning the Binary Divide

61

On an 11-item scale scored from 1 to 5, the average score was 2.68. Thus, the teachers felt only weakly involved in the decision-making process. Nevertheless, this does not mean that general managers manage the colleges autonomously. They have to pay attention to the recommendations of many councils that have been established by decree or on the initiative of the college. In our 1999 survey, the collaboration between the board and the general manager was relatively highly appreciated (3.68 out of 5), but an even higher appreciation was expressed by all parties involved to the meeting of the general manager and the heads of the departments (3.75 out of 5) and to the meeting of the heads of the department and the representatives of the courses in the department (3.89 out of 5), the latter being very often similar to the meeting of the old college. Management of a college is a decision-making balancing act between the level of the college and the level of the department. These statements show that the management (Meek 2003: 12) of the colleges is mainly in the hands of the general manager, the heads of the departments, and their close collaborators (see also Section 2.4).

2.4

Internal Organisation

In Table 2 we see that each college is divided into several departments.15 A department is very often an old college or a conglomerate of the old colleges at the time of the merger. Therefore, teachers identify themselves much more with the department than with the college (Verhoeven et al. 2002: 123–125). For each department in a state college, there is a departmental council composed of the same parties as the board of directors. This council elects the head of the department, who serves as chairman of the council for a four-year term. The departmental council is responsible for the establishment of educational programmes and examinations, the establishment of the research programmes, the use of funds and staff, the recruitment of temporary staff, the nomination of staff for permanent appointment, the internal organisation of the department, the drawing up of annual budget proposals, and other matters (Decree of 13 July 1994). At grant-aided colleges, a departmental council has to be established for each department consisting of the head of the department (appointed by the board) as the chairman of the council and elected representatives of the teaching staff, the students, and the socio-economic and cultural sectors. This council has the right of information about all matters concerning the department and may advise on the departmental level when asked by the board of directors of the college or on its own initiative on a range of matters concerning the department (Decree of 13 July 1994). At state colleges, the departmental negotiation committee consists of representatives of the department council and of the personnel. At grant-aided colleges, it consists of the representatives of the departmental administration and of the personnel (Decree of 13 July 1994). 15

Contrary to universities, colleges have no faculties.

62

J.C. Verhoeven

All official decisions in a college have to be taken by the board or the general manager. However, the departmental structure could create a decentralized decisionmaking structure. Relying on the judgement of members of all kind of councils in the colleges, we arrived at the following conclusion: ‘Decentralisation did not occur in all domains of decision-making. Finance and equipment policy is seen to be mainly the domain of the college leadership and partly of the department heads. The Departmental Councils play only a minor role in this policy domain.… The educational policy domain, however, is different.… Educational policy seems to be the prerogative of the departments. What is interesting here is that the Departmental Councils also play a role, albeit a lesser role than the department heads. Humanresource policy is also perceived as decentralised.… However, this decentralisation differs from the decentralisation of educational policy. Human-resource policy is mainly the domain of the department head with the departmental councils playing only a minor role. The colleges have reached a certain level of what P. Hoggett called a “centralised decentralisation” (Henkel 2000: 57), but not to the same extent for all domains of decision making.’ (Verhoeven and Devos 2002: 159). Nevertheless, this view on decentralisation is not shared by the teaching staff, as we have shown above (see Section 2.3).

2.5

Participation of External Stakeholders in Governance and the Role of Local Authorities

Until the 1960s, it was not customary to have external stakeholders on the board of a college. But the student uproar at the end of the 1960s and in the beginning of the 1970s pushed the policymakers to open the boards of the universities to the wider society. The colleges followed this movement, though not at the same pace as did the universities. Nevertheless, the Flemish government in the last ten years has increasingly stressed the importance of openness of institutions of higher education to society. I noted above that the board and the departmental council of a state or grant-maintained college must have representatives of the socio-economic and cultural sectors. In provincial colleges representation of external stakeholders is taken for granted, since the provincial council is the board. Do they play an important role in governing the college? Case studies indicate that this might differ from college to college. To give a more general picture, we refer to our 1999 survey. In this survey, the council members of the colleges were asked about the importance of the role played by the social and economic stakeholders in the board of directors, in the directorate of the state colleges, in the academic council of the non-state colleges, and in the departmental councils (Devos et al. 2001: 164–182). We asked the members of the different councils to rate the item ‘External stakeholders play an important role in the decision making of the Board of Directors’ from 1 to 5, the latter being the most positive standpoint. The mean score of the members of the Board was 3.76, which is higher than the responses to a similar item concerning the contribution of the representatives of the personnel on

Questioning the Binary Divide

63

the board (score = 3.45) and of student representatives (mainly in state colleges) (score = 2.65). In the directorate, too, the influence is high (score = 4.77). While the external stakeholders seem to have some influence on the boards, this is less so in the departmental councils (N = 384). Their score here is 3.07, which is lower than those of student representatives (score = 3.16) and of staff representatives (score = 3.85), and the score for the academic councils is even much lower (score = 2.88). Who are these stakeholders? Although they sit on boards of higher education, not all of them have a higher education degree: 4% have only a secondary school diploma, 44% earned a college degree, and 52% a university degree. Professionally, 13% of them are self-employed, 8% are clerks or officials, 14% are teachers, 45% are executives, and 20% are retired (De Wit and Verhoeven 2000). With respect to the role of local authorities, we can be brief. They have no institutionalized influence on the colleges, although the provincial authorities do. In the latter case, the provincial council plays the role of the board (see Table 2), as described above. Local authorities, of course, may be represented on the board or on a departmental council.

3 3.1

Level of Autonomy The Level of Autonomy of Colleges and Universities

In the beginning of the 1990s, the Flemish government wanted a new highereducation law that would make possible a policy based on the principles of deregulation, autonomy, and accountability and that this would be similar for both the universities and the colleges. Although the College Decree of 13 July 1994 strongly resembles the University Decree, there are still differences. This is partly the consequence of the original position of the colleges, which emerged in part from a more state-regulated secondary school system. The colleges received their autonomy. For example, colleges and universities own their buildings, can borrow funds, can spend budgets to achieve their objectives, can design the curricula of the fields of study, which themselves are set by law, can employ and dismiss staff, can decide about the size of the student enrolment, and so on, what E. Ashby calls the “essential ingredients” of institutional autonomy (Meek 2003: 7). But at the same time, the Legislature has set limits and sometimes provided more freedom to the universities. In three domains, the colleges received less autonomy than the universities, namely as regards the appointment of staff, the curriculum, and research. First, as far as the staff is concerned, the colleges are bound by rules but are free to hire within these limits. There are many prescriptions about the proportion of the different ranks in the totality of the teaching staff of a college (see also Section 1.4). For instance since 1994, no more than 64% of the teaching staff could have a permanent appointment and since 2002, no more than 72%. Like the colleges, the universities may appoint no more than 70% of the teaching staff to the ranks

64

J.C. Verhoeven

of the Independent Academic Personnel (tenure holders), but no proportions for the different ranks are defined by decree. Universities are freer to advance the professional careers of their staff. Second, each college independently determines the curriculum of each course, but they are bound by prescriptions that limit its substantive autonomy (Meek 2003: 7). One of the prescriptions is that a college may offer only the courses allowed by law, which also applies to the universities. Nevertheless, colleges have less freedom to develop courses than do universities. Courses offered by a college should fit the professional profiles as composed by the VLOR (Vlaamse Onderwijsraad) and the SERV (Sociaal-Economische Raad van Vlaanderen) (Art. 12 of the College Decree). Nevertheless, looking back at the practice, these professional profiles did not acquire the role that could have been expected for them. One of the reasons is that professional profiles change too rapidly16 to be used as a point of reference for a curriculum. Universities could and can organise master’s degree courses (within the fields of study determined by the law) autonomously, while in the future academic bachelor’s and master’s courses in colleges will have to be organised with the university of an association (Art. 32–53 of the Decree of 4 April 2003). Nonetheless, in the future, universities also have to bring their training profiles in harmony with those of the colleges belonging to the association (see Section 1.2.). Third, while universities are free to organize the research they want to do, colleges have to co-operate with universities (in the future in collaboration with the university of the association) for the organisation of project-based scientific research. Moreover, a committee of three university professors is to assess the research work of a candidate for a full professorship at a college. At universities, this is the prerogative of the university.

3.2

The Degree of Academic Freedom

Because colleges emerged from professional schools, most of which were not considered as belonging to higher education until the second part of the 20th century, academic freedom was not a big issue with them. Article 24 of the Belgian Constitution guarantees the free choice of school and freedom of education, which means that everybody has the right to establish schools. Even under this principle of freedom of education, colleges were subject of inspection by the state inspectorate until 1998. Even in the new College Decree, academic freedom, seen as “the right (of the faculty) to pursue any line of inquiry in the course of their teaching or research without being censored, penalised or fired by university administrators” (Haskell 1997) is not mentioned. Indirectly, the Legislature recognises academic freedom while referring to the right of the Flemish Government (Art. 59 of the College Decree) to organise comparative quality surveys of fields of study in colleges 16

Contrary to universities, colleges have no faculties.

Questioning the Binary Divide

65

regularly, but by doing this the government should be very careful not to “impair ideological, scientific, educational, and artistic freedom”. On the other hand, the Legislature seems to be more interested in the protection of the rights of the college than in those of the individual researcher. Article 215bis of the College Decree states that the college becomes the legal owner and has the right of exploitation of the inventions made by researchers of the college. Moreover, the researcher is obliged to inform the responsible office of the college about his invention. Nevertheless, after 12 months, the researcher is free to publish the invention. These regulations, of course, are more important for the sciences than for the humanities. Nevertheless, the question is whether academic freedom is still seen as it was 50 years ago. A course is no longer a collection of individual courses offered by individual teachers, but it is supposed to be a systematic collection of scientific knowledge, information, practical training, seminars, etc. that fits within an educational profile and prepares students for a particular professional profile. That this picture acquires additional significance can be seen in our 1999 survey: about three quarters of the members of departmental councils were convinced that teachers influence decisions about the curriculum (Devos et al. 2001: 178). As far as scientific research is concerned, academic freedom was until recently for the majority of the college teachers more of a theoretical right than anything else, since most of them were not involved in research. Smolders et al. (2000: 25, 34, 76, 144, 176) calculated that the average weekly working time of full-time teachers is 46 hours (SD = 11.07) of which on average 30 hours are used to prepare lectures, to lecture, and to take care of follow-up activities. On average, teachers teach 14 hours a week. They also stated that about 60% of the college teachers did not conduct any research, and, for most of the other teachers, research did not take more than 20% of their workload. Of those that conducted research, about 70% spent less than one workday a week on research. Out of a sample of 4,043 teachers of the colleges, only 48 were preparing a Ph.D. and 35 were working on a publication. Moreover, the teaching load of teachers with a Ph.D. was no different than the load of those without a Ph.D., and more than 50% of the teachers who wanted to work on a Ph.D. complained that they did not get to use the time for this provided by law. In the future, this lack of interest in scientific research might change because the law provides special resources for project-oriented research and for the academisation of the education in colleges (Decree of 4 April 2003). Moreover, colleges have to collaborate with universities for offering academic bachelor’s and master’s degree programmes. Even though most of the college teachers are not involved in research, some have conducted research. Zwerts and Hollebosch (2000) found 230 research projects conducted by the colleges in the period of 1998–2000 of which 41.7% were in industrial sciences and technology and 15.7% in commercial sciences and business administration. Most projects were the result of the personal initiative of teachers, and in only a few instances did the interviewees mention a ‘research culture’ in the college. Most staff members are not sufficiently convinced of the benefits of research for their teaching and also argue for emancipation from the universities (for many research projects, college teachers cannot be the main applicant for grants).

66

3.3

J.C. Verhoeven

The Relationship Between Non-University Sector Institutions and the Government

Even though the colleges have a degree of autonomy, links are maintained between the colleges and the Government. First, there is the contact between the VLHORA, the Government, and the Department of Education. On the Board of this Council, the Minister of Education is represented by one of his staff, and this is also the case for AHOWO (Administration of Higher Education and Scientific Research of the Department of Education of the Ministry of the Flemish Community). This forum is an important informant for policymakers about the aspirations of the colleges. Second, the contact between the government and the colleges is also organized on the basis of regular reports sent to the Department of Education, some of them with the risk of a financial sanction if is not delivered before a particular date (Art. 234 of the Decree of 13 July 1994). For instance, each college has to publish an annual report and annual accounts according to the prescriptions of the law. This annual report is public and is sent to the Flemish Parliament. Among other things, it reviews the college’s education and project-based research activities, investments in buildings, social services for students, internationalisation, the results of the visitations (since 2002) within the external quality assurance system, and the actions taken to correct the defects. In short, it reports on everything the colleges are required to do by law. Moreover, every year each college has to submit a one-year and a five-year budget and a report on the staffing of the college to the Flemish government for approval. This has to be done in compliance with legal regulations. Third, colleges are also monitored by a commissioner of the Flemish government (Commissaris van de Vlaamse Regering). Three commissioners and one commissioner co-ordinator monitor all colleges. These commissioners have to make sure the colleges comply with the law as regards financial management (e.g. are the receipts and expenses of the college in accordance with the law?) and whether the budget of the college is balanced. They also check whether the accounts and the financial reports are in conformity with the law and general accounting practices. The commissioners publish an annual report for the government concerning the situation of the colleges. The “Vlaams Onderhandelingcomité voor het Hoger Onderwijs” (Flemish Negotiating Committee for Higher Education) was established for when negotiations are required between the Minister of Education, the unions, and boards of the colleges about the programming of measures concerning the regulation of the legal position of the staff (Decree of March 19, 2004).

3.4

Regulation Mechanisms of the Government

Contrary to the general principle of deregulation of higher education policy proclaimed by the different governments over the last decade, the same governments have ruled by law and finances. On the one hand, the government granted freedom

Questioning the Binary Divide

67

to the colleges to organise education and research themselves according to the principles determined by the college, but, on the other hand, the government wanted colleges to merge, to be governed according to the law, to offer quality education, and to maintain a healthy financial balance. It also wanted to keep control of the supply of fields of education in colleges. In order to attain these objectives, many regulations were created by decree. Here are some examples. 1. In order to motivate the colleges to merge, better financial conditions were offered to the colleges that did so. In a period of less than ten years, 163 colleges merged to 22. 2. The College Decree created a staff and salary structure similar to that of the universities. The college boards are not yet permitted to appoint freely but have to follow rules determining the proportion of staff that can be appointed in a particular rank. Every year the application of these principles is monitored by the government commissioners, who report to the government. In 2002, all colleges complied with these rules (Cottenie 2004: 90–100). 3. Quality assurance is no longer the responsibility of a government inspectorate. The colleges are individually responsible for their own internal and external quality assurance system. External quality assurance is organized within the framework of the VLHORA. For two-cycle courses in the future, the VLHORA will collaborate with the VLIR, and the VLHORA and the VLIR together have prepared a quality assurance protocol (Vlaamse Hogescholenraad 2004). The colleges are legally obliged to report every year about the results of the quality assurance process. 4. Direct supervision of the application of the legal principles by the colleges is provided by the commissioners of the Flemish government. Sanctions may follow if rules are broken (see also Section 3.3). 5. Starting in the academic year 2004–2005, the colleges will not have the right to offer courses that are not included in the National Register of Higher Education (Decree of 4 April, 2003). Apart from some exceptions, new bachelor courses may only be offered in 2006–2007. Decisions about the content of this register are taken by the government on the advice of the Erkenningscommissie (Recognition Commission),17 which then assigns particular courses to particular colleges. The register will be maintained by the independent NederlandsVlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie (NVAO) (Netherlands-Flemish Accreditation Organisation) in The Hague in the Netherlands. In the future, only accredited courses will be supported by state subsidies. The general principles of far-reaching autonomy and deregulation that were identified in the government’s policy purposes have not always been realised in practice, 17

National and international experts are composing this committee and have to assess whether a course fits principles of efficiency in the total higher education supply: the relation of the course with the existing supply, the number of students in the same or related courses, the expected demand for graduates in this or related courses, the social relevance of the course (Art. 62, §3 of Decree of April 4, 2003).

68

J.C. Verhoeven

as is shown by these examples.18 This policy has not been changed by the establishment of the associations in 2003. Although colleges could independently choose a university with which to associate, associations also have to follow the funding prescriptions, a prescribed bookkeeping system, etc. and to work under the supervision of a commissioner of the Flemish government. This description does not fit the model of deregulated government by B.G. Peters and has some characteristics of participative government (see Section 3.3), with consultation and negotiation between the government and the colleges (Maassen 2003: 40–41).

4 4.1

Future Trends Future Developments of the Colleges and Their Relation to Universities

It would not be correct to say that the innovations in higher education in Flanders are only the result of the Bologna Process, but the Bologna Process has obviously created more opportunities for change. There has not been much opposition against the Bologna Process in Flanders neither among politicians nor among university or college teachers and students. The main consequence of the Bologna Process was that all courses would be adapted to the bachelor-master schema (Decree of 4 April 2003). Although planning this process was an immense task, all the colleges and universities adopted the bachelor-master system in September 2004. The European option to mould the system of higher education into the same pattern everywhere has been put on track. But this is not enough for the internationalisation of higher education. Internationalisation of higher education also needs: (1) new rules for the use of the teaching language, (2) a clear study route, (3) a guarantee that quality education is provided, and (4) the acceptance of competences and qualifications acquired elsewhere. First, for the colleges, this meant that the laws concerning the use of Dutch as a teaching language had to be adapted. Under certain conditions, colleges are allowed to offer courses or parts of courses in a foreign language in order to attract foreign students (Art. 90 and 91 of Decree of April 2003). However, the internationalisation of college education cannot be promoted only by creating more language facilities. Second, foreign (and national) students need a transparent study route and, third, a guarantee that the education provided is of good quality. The Decree of 30 April 2004 will make the study route of students more flexible. This means that students no longer have to take examinations every year of all the parts of a course programme in order to go on to a next year. From 2005 on, it will be possible for students to collect credits for parts of a course programme, which will be combined to fulfil the requirements for obtaining a diploma. These credits will not have to be earned in specific 18

VLHORA recently advised the new government to stop the ‘trend of overregulation’ (VLHORA 2004b).

Questioning the Binary Divide

69

academic years but may be collected over several years. This was not possible until 2004. In this way, the Legislature wants to create a higher education system where everybody can follow a study route at his or her own pace thereby creating the possibility of combining work and study and opening the system to foreigners where the study route might differ. Fourth, the Government has also given attention to ‘transparency, comparability, transferability and recognition’ of competences and/or qualifications acquired elsewhere (outside of higher education or in another country), as stated in the Copenhagen Declaration of the EU (Council of the European Union 2002). Special committees are to be established in colleges to apply these principles and excuse students from parts of the course for which they have shown that they have attained qualifications or competences by study or work. Moreover, colleges will have the right to make agreements with foreign institutions to offer students a diploma granted by those institutions. All these new rules will be applied in the coming years. Only the future will show to what extent these new measures will open colleges more than before to foreign students and create another road to higher education, thus moving towards life-long learning. These measures are for colleges and universities alike, and it is not clear yet who will gain the most. Because student numbers are so important for the funding of colleges and universities and because the number of students in the universities has been declining since 1999–2000 while the number of students is still rising, albeit very slowly, in the colleges, it is clear that both expect these new regulations to help them to find new clients. Internationalisation might open new sources for clients, but it might also open routes for leaving the national higher education system. Students can choose an education abroad for several reasons. For instance, it could be because of the higher quality of the training abroad or because a foreign college offers a programme not available in Flanders. Colleges and universities alike have to offer education that is comparable in quality to that which can be obtained abroad. In order to guarantee this quality, the government has, in co-operation with the Dutch government, established the international, independent Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie (NVAO) (Netherlands-Flemish Accreditation Organisation).19 All the courses of colleges and universities have to be accredited in the near future. This measure should also protect students against low quality higher education institutions, both foreign and national. At the same time that the internationalisation process of higher education was being promoted within the Bologna Process, the colleges saw a way to bring courses that were defined as “academic” closer to the universities. The colleges did not become universities, but since 2004 have been united in associations with universities (see also Sections 1.1 and 1.2). Although universities are supposed to have the lead in academic education, colleges also play an important role in some parts of academic education. While the universities offer academic education to about 56,000 students, two-cycle academic courses in colleges have about 26,000 students. Academic bachelor and master programmes can no longer be organised by a college independently but have to be done within the framework of an association. 19

VLHORA recently advised the new government to stop the ‘trend of overregulation’ (VLHORA 2004b).

70

J.C. Verhoeven

Although some universities and colleges were eager to start an association, it will be a tremendous challenge for these associations to fulfil their purposes. To mention just a few of them: How can universities and colleges agree on a rational supply of courses when both offer courses with very similar targets? How can one co-ordinate staffing policy when the opportunities for promotion are different in colleges and universities? How can a research policy for university and colleges be devised when the college does not have a research culture? (see also Sections 1.2 and 3.2). Should the number of courses in some fields of study be reduced in order to provide the best teachers and the necessary research equipment in some colleges (rationalisation)? Will universities and colleges be partners or competitors in the association? In the future, these and other questions will have to be resolved to make the association a viable organisation.

4.2

Academic Drift

Above (see Section 2.1), it was stated that the college teachers and students were not filled with enthusiasm for academic drift. Both the teachers and the students favour more a vocational emphasis. Moreover, several surveys have shown that most of the teachers do not feel that the college curriculum is focused on the university curriculum or that teachers are eager to collaborate with universities on research. The number of college teachers working on a scholarly paper is extremely low, and 50% of the teaching assistants working for a Ph.D. complain that they did not get the time to work on it (see Section 3.2). This does not mean that research is totally lacking in the colleges. Some fields of study (for instance, commercial sciences and business administration, industrial sciences and technology) are more active in research than others. They also receive more financial support. In comparison with those of the universities, the research resources of the colleges are very small. From the college decree, one could easily gain the impression that the basic calling of the colleges is to provide college education: research does not belong to the core business of the colleges even though it is mentioned in the law. This also has consequences for the recruitment of personnel: the proportion of teachers with a Ph.D. is still low. This is not unreasonable because one-cycle higher education delivers BA diplomas that are not meant to prepare for a master’s degree. Consequently, the proportion of staff members in professorial ranks is very small. Moreover, the college teachers have a much higher teaching load than do the university teachers, which means less time for research. Moreover, the weekly teaching load of the college teachers with a Ph.D., who are the people who are the best prepared to conduct research, is not less than the teaching load of the teachers without a Ph.D. degree. Taking all this into consideration and knowing that the colleges have a staff of which 60% is more than 45 years old, we can well expect that it would be hard to get the college teachers to go along with academic drift as the vocational orientation has always been the standard attitude in the colleges.

Questioning the Binary Divide

71

In spite of all this, the Legislature wants to promote this academic drift among the staff of the two-cycle colleges. By creating the associations, the Legislature, while explicitly assigning participation in scientific research to the colleges (Art. 10 of the Decree of April 4, 2003), did not take for granted that college representatives in the meetings of the association would be inspired to support academic drift just by sitting together with the representatives of the universities. Thus, Article 152 of the Decree of April 4, 2003, provides funding20 for two-cycle programmes that invest in “academisation”, and other research resources are being made available for the colleges. What does the Legislature mean by academisation? The colleges have to provide: (1) detailed planning until 2006 to guarantee that all academic courses offered by the association are based on scientific research; (2) assurance that the teaching staff of the colleges will be engaged in scientific research; (3) a system of evaluation of this process, and (4) a report on the spending of this special funding. By law, they have until 2012–2013 to reach this goal (Art. 124, §9 of the Decree of 4 April 2003). At that time, accreditation will depend on the extent to which the two-cycle colleges have attained the objectives of academisation. This is not an easy task for an organisation in which the research culture is weak, so the structure of the association can be an advantage. University and college staff will have to meet with each other and plan together. The rather short life of the associations offers no evidence as yet that this be easily done, and it is not clear that all involved in this process are fond of this innovation. For example, the rector of one university complained in September 2004 on the occasion of the opening of the academic year that associations were too heavy a burden for the universities because they do not have enough resources to do their own work. There is no doubt that the colleges will need to change if they are to achieve this ideal of academisation. It is also clear that these goals will not be attained if the staffs of the two-cycle colleges do not acquire a research-oriented habitus, and this habitus cannot survive if there is no room for change. Among other things, the following changes might help this innovation: the teaching load of the teachers has to be reduced, which means an increase of the budget in order to create more room to do more research and teach less; interest in research has to be promoted among the staff; the recruitment of teachers interested in research must increase, and more Ph.Ds. be hired; teachers who become involved in research have to have a realistic view of their chances for promotion, which means that promotion should not be frozen for financial reasons; and the colleges need an expanded research infrastructure. Not only do changes have to be made in the colleges to meet these new requirements, but structural changes of the financial and science policy will also be necessary. VLHORA (2004b: 3), the organisation of the Flemish colleges, is aware of this and is demanding a fair share of the research money, which is at present monopolized by the universities, and for a larger part of the Flemish education budget.

20

In 2003 €5 million was provided, in 2004 €8 million, in 2005 €10.9 million and in 2006 €12.9 million. These are small amounts since they have to be distributed among 22 colleges.

72

5

J.C. Verhoeven

Conclusion

It is clear that political changes in Flanders have contributed to more alignment between the universities and the colleges, but this has not led to an abandonment of the binary system. The federalisation of Belgium in 1989 gave Flanders an opportunity to make its own important decisions concerning higher education policy. The new law was passed for the universities (1991) and a little later also the one for the colleges (1994). This was the first step in diminishing the distance between the colleges and the universities. Important for the colleges was that the college decree applied many of the principles of the university decree, although the Legislature still specified that colleges had a different calling than did the universities. For instance, the position and the ranking of the teaching staff, the salaries, and the administrative organisation of the colleges are now very similar in the colleges and the universities. Moreover, the college decree required that the colleges merge in order to create larger, more viable units. Although this merger process did not proceed without problems, in the long run the colleges did take advantage of it. Just like the universities (VLIR), they created a council of the college general managers (VLHORA), which was recognised by decree, in order to defend their interests. Nevertheless, some differences were retained, one being that the state financial support of the colleges is much less than that for the universities. The second important political event for the alignment between the colleges and the universities was the Bologna Process. This is a good example of how national higher education policy might be determined by international events. Once the political decision makers had determined to join the Bologna Process, a decision in Flanders that was certainly also influenced by the universities and the colleges, a new opportunity was created to bring the universities and the colleges closer to each other. One of the challenges was the academisation of college education, so a new law created the structures necessary for this process. Where the colleges and the universities until recently lived separate lives, the Decree of 4 April 2004 created an institution, namely the association, in which they are compelled to cooperate in many areas. These associations bring the members of two kinds of institutions together to work for the academisation of the master’s education in the colleges. A new bridge between the two poles is being built. The question will be whether the two parties are eager sufficiently and have enough resources to use that bridge to each other’s advantage. We have shown above that not everything that is needed is present, but the first steps have been taken. Bridging the universities and the colleges by means of the associations in order to improve the academisation process in the colleges is unobjectionable. However, the society also needs trained, professionally oriented people. This has been the main task of the colleges ever since they were established, and most college teachers are of the opinion that the colleges should first of all prepare students for the labour market. The vocational orientation has not disappeared – quite the contrary. We can only wonder how long it will take before the structural integration of the universities and the colleges will have an effect on everyday life

Questioning the Binary Divide

73

in the colleges. Will the universities become more like the colleges or will the colleges become more like the universities? At present, no one can say with certainty.

References Bollens, J., S. Groenez, and I. Vleugels. Studiekosten in Het Hoger Onderwijs: Wat Het Kost om Deel te Nemen aan Het Hogeschool- en Universitair Onderwijs. Leuven, Belgium: Hoger Instituut voor de Arbeid, 2000. Brown, P., A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, and A. S. Wells. “The Transformation of Education and Society: An Introduction”. In Halsey, A. H., H. Lauder, P. Brown, and A. S. Wells (eds). Education: Culture, Economy and Society. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 1–37. Cottenie, P. Verslag over de werking van de hogescholen in 2002. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/ hogeronderwijs/download/jaarverslag2002.doc (June 22, 2004). Council of the European Union. Declaration of the European Ministers of Vocational Education and Training, and the European Commission, convened in Copenhagen on 29 and 30 November 2002, on enhanced European cooperation in vocational education and training. “The Copenhagen Declaration”, 2002. http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/copenhagen/copenahagen_declaration_en.pdf. Decree of 12 June 1991. Decreet betreffende de universiteiten in de Vlaamse Gemeenschap (University decree). Belgisch Staatsblad, 04/07/1991. Decree of 13 July 1994. Decreet betreffende de hogescholen in de Vlaamse Gemeenschap (College decree). Belgisch Staatsblad, 31/08/1994. Decree of 4 April 2003. Officieuze coördinatie van het decreet van 4 april 2003 betreffende de herstructurering van het hoger onderwijs in Vlaanderen. Belgisch Staatsblad, 14/08/2003. Decree of 19 March 2004. Decreet van 19 maart 2004 betreffende de rechtspositieregeling van de student, de participatie in het hoger onderwijs, de integratie van bepaalde afdelingen van het hoger onderwijs voor sociale promotie in de hogescholen en de begeleiding van de herstructurering van het hoger onderwijs in Vlaanderen. Vlaams Parlement, 15/08/2004. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/regel/regelgeving/decreten/aanvdecreet.pdf. Decree of 21 April 2004. Decreet van 21 april 2004 betreffende de studiefinanciering en de studentenvoorzieningen in het hoger onderwijs van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap. Vlaams Parlement, Stuk 2208 (2003–2004)-Nr 4. Decree of 30 April 2004. Decreet van 30 april 2004 betreffende de flexibilisering van het hoger onderwijs en houdende dringende hogeronderwijsmaatregelen. Belgisch Staatsblad, 12/10/2004. Devos, G., and J. C. Verhoeven. “Fusies in het Hoger Onderwijs, of hoe Verschillend top en Basis Kunnen Denken”. Personeel en Organisatie. Aflevering 3, Juli Mechelen; Wolters-Plantyn (2003): 5–32. Devos, G., J. C. Verhoeven, S. Maes, and K. Vanpée. Bestuur en Medezeggenschap in VlaamseHogescholen. Leuven, Belgium: Departement Sociologie, 2001. De Wit, K., and J. C. Verhoeven. “Stakeholders in Universities and Colleges in Flanders”. European Journal of Education 35(4) (2000): 421–437. De Wit, K., and J. C. Verhoeven. “The Context Changes but the Divisions Remain. The Binary Education System in Flanders (Belgium). The Case of Information Science”. Studies in Higher Education 28 (2003): 143–156. De Wit, K., and J. C. Verhoeven. “Conditional Autonomy. Governmental Policy on Higher Education and the Economy in Flanders”. In Fulton, O., A. Gornitzka, and P. Maassen (eds). Higher Education, the State and the Economy: Relationships and Policies in Eight European Countries. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston, MA/London: Kluwer, 2005, pp. 123–146. Haskell, R. E. “Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Student Evaluation of Faculty: Galloping Polls in the 21st Century”. Educational Policy Analysis Archives 5(6) (1997). Retrieved on August 4, 2004 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v5n6.html

74

J.C. Verhoeven

Henkel, M. Academic Identities and Policy Change in Higher Education. London/Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000. Kerr, C. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982. Maassen, P. A. M. “Shifts in Governance Arrangements: An Interpretation of the Introduction of New Management Sstructures in Higher Education”. In Amaral, A., V. L. Meek, and I. M. Marsen (eds). The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? Dordrecht, The Netherlands/ Boston, MA/London: Kluwer, 2003, pp. 31–54. Maassen, P. A. M., and A. Gornitzka. “Integrating Two Theoretical Perspectives on Organisation Aadaptation”. In Jongbloed, B., P. Maassen, and G. Neave (eds). From the Eye of the Storm. Higher Education’s Changing Institution. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston, MA/London: Kluwer, 1999, pp. 295–316. Mallinson, V. Power & Politics in Belgian Education 1815 to 1961. London/Melbourne, Australia/ Toronto, Canada: Heinemann, 1963. Meek, V. L. “Introduction”. In Amaral, A., V. L. Meek, and I. M. Marsen (eds). The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston, MA/London: Kluwer, 2003, pp. 1–29. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Onderwijs (MVG). Statistisch Jaarboek van het Vlaams Onderwijs. Schooljaar 2001–2002. Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2002. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Onderwijs (MVG). Vlaamse Onderwijsindicatoren in Internationaal Perspectief. Editie 2003. Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2003a. Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Departement Onderwijs (MVG). Statistisch Jaarboek van het Vlaams Onderwijs. Schooljaar 2002–2003. Brussels: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, 2003b. Onderwijs.Vlaanderen.be. Studeren aan een Hogeschool, Hoger Onderwijs (2004) ‘Associaties’, June 11, 2004. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/vragen/studiereglementering. htm#inschrijving. Onderwijs.Vlaanderen.be. Statistische Gegeven, July 29, 2004. http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/ hogeronderwijs/beleid/statistische-geg.htm. 2004a. Salter, B., and T. Tapper. The State and Higher Education. Ilford (Essex), UK: Woburn, 1994. Smolders, C., J. Velghe, and A. Verstraete. De Taakbelasting van het Onderwijzend Personeel in de Vlaamse Hogescholen. Onderzoeksrapport in opdracht van het Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, departement Onderwijs en VLHORA. Gent, Belgium: Departement Handelswetenschappen en Bestuurskunde, Hogeschool Gent, 2000. Sociale Hogeschool Heverlee. Sociale Hogeschool Heverlee Studiegids. Heverlee, Belgium: Sociale Hogeschool, s.d. Vaes, M., and G. Posson. “Een Stralende Toekomst met Slinkende Middelen? Financiering van Hogescholen Doorgelicht”. Delta. Tijdschrift voor Hoger Onderwijs 1 (1) (2004): 37–43. Van Vught, F. A. “Innovations and Reforms in Higher Education”. In Van Vught, F. A. (ed). Governmental Strategies and Innovation in Higher Education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1987, pp. 47–72. Verhoeven, J. C., and I. Beuselinck. Higher Education in Flanders (Belgium). A Report for the OECD. Brussels: Ministry of the Flemish Community, Education Department, Policy-Directed Division, 1996. Verhoeven, J. C., and I. Beuselinck. “Belgium: Diverging Professions in Twin Communities”. In Farnham, D. (ed). Managing Academic Staff in Changing University Systems: International Trends and Comparisons. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press, 1999, pp. 35–57. Verhoeven, J. C., and G. Devos. “Interdepartmental Functional Integration and Decentralisation of Decision Making in the Merged Colleges of Higher Education in Flanders, Belgium”. In Amaral, A., G. A. Jones, and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston, MA/London: Kluwer, 2002, pp. 141–162.

Questioning the Binary Divide

75

Verhoeven, J. C., and L. Dom. Flemish Eurydice Report 2001: Education Policy and Education Organisation in Flanders. Brussels: Ministry of the Flemish Community, Education Department, Education Policy Coordination Division, 2002. Verhoeven, J. C., L. Vandeputte, and K. Vanpée. Universiteiten en Hogescholen: Elk Hun Eigen Roeping? Leuven, Belgium: Departement Sociologie, 2000. Verhoeven, J. C., G. Devos, C. Smolders, W. Cools, and J. Velghe. Hogescholen Enkele Jaren na de Fusie. Antwerpen, Belgium/Apeldoorn, The Netherlands: Garant, 2002. Vlaamse Hogescholenraad. Visitatieprotocol. Versie juni 2004. Brussels: VLHORA, 2004. VLHORA. 21 juni 2004 VLHORA ontvangen door informateur Yves Leterme, July 30, 2004a. http://www.vlhora.be/vlhora.asp?link = 03, 2004a. VLHORA. Memorandum verkiezingen 2004, July 30, 2004b. http://www.vlhora.be/vlhora. asp?link=04, 2004b. Zwerts, E., and B. Hollebosch. Inventarisatie van het Projectmatig Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek en de Maatschappelijke Dienstverlening. Brussels: VLHORA, 2000.

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education Jussi Välimaa and Marja-Liisa Neuvonen-Rauhala

1

Introduction

Finnish polytechnics (AMK institutions) are in transition. They are in transition as organisations after a number of merger operations which amalgamated over 200 vocational institutions to form 32 polytechnics. They are in transition also because of the challenges stemming from new national legislation and the Bologna Process. The aim of this study is to describe the characteristics of Finnish polytechnics and analyse their development from the perspective of governance and institutional autonomy. The study is based on published research on Finnish higher education complemented by personal experiences gained in universities and polytechnics.

1.1

The Historical Contexts of Finnish Higher Education

In 2004, Finland had 20 universities located in all parts of the country. These include ten multi-faculty institutions, three technical universities, three schools of economics, and four art academies. All Finnish universities are state-owned public institutions in the sense of the traditional continental model. They are autonomous institutions but subordinate to the Ministry of Education. In addition to universities, Finland has 32 polytechnics based all over the country, most of which are multidisciplinary institutions operating under the Ministry of Education (see Appendix). Present-day Finnish higher education is a mass higher education system with over 360 years of history (see Välimaa 2001a). Its historical development can be outlined with the help of the idea of historical layers deposited over time one upon another like archaeological layers. The latest historical layer forming Finnish higher education has been added through the expansion of higher education in the direction of a mass higher education system. This development began in the late 1950s. Measured by student numbers, higher education in Finland became a mass higher education system during the 1970s. In 2003, the universities admitted 21,031 students, and the polytechnics 25,806 students (KOTA 2004; James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

77

78

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

AMKOTA 2004).1 A comparison of these numbers with the size of the relevant age cohort reveals that about 70%2 are offered a starting place in higher education, even though only some 40% to 50% begin their higher studies in the same year as they pass their Matriculation Examination.3 In 2003, there were 302,950 students in Finnish higher education institutions. Of those students 173,732 attended universities and 129,218 polytechnics (KOTA 2004; AMKOTA 2004).4 The expansion of Finnish higher education was closely related to and at the same time one of the results of a welfare-state agenda supported by the major political parties. The provision of equal educational opportunities became one of the most important objectives on this agenda, implemented over a period extending from the 1960s to the 1990s. The founding of a university was seen not only symbolically but also culturally and economically important to the development of the given region. All major provinces were allowed to establish a university of their own in the 1960s, the 1970s, and the 1980s (see Välimaa 2001a). This policy has also been successful in promoting national development because it has turned out that areas with higher education institutions have been able to support knowledge-based regional economic growth, whereas other – and often rural – areas are losing their labour force and economic dynamics. This state of things has also meant that those provinces which did not succeed in founding a university have been very active in establishing polytechnics. National policy with the aim of creating regional centres of growth has also supported the foundation of new higher education institutions. Historically, therefore, it can be said that the creation of a non-university sector in Finland is a logical expansion of the mass higher education system. However, the reform was not an unavoidable development but a result of particular political processes, as will be shown in the following section.

2 2.1

The Establishment of Polytechnics Background to the Reform

At the turn of the 1990s the Finnish state was hit by a severe and sudden economic recession after a decade-long national economic boom. The consequences were soon felt in higher education institutions as a part of budget cuts in the public sector. The context of a social crisis made new initiatives both politically and practically desirable. The major reform introduced in the 1990s was the establishment of a non-university sector in Finland.5 1

Polytechnics have 7,036 adult students in addition to the young students mentioned above (25,806). 2 According to the Statistics Finland, the average size of the 1983–1985 cohorts is 66,442 people. 3 Within two years, about 60–65% of the cohort is in higher education (Ahola 2004). 4 Polytechnics had 107,603 young and 21,615 adult students. 5 The other major reforms were a reform of doctoral training (Määttä 2001; Lampinen 2003), and the expansion of the Open University to admit unemployed young generations (see Piesanen 2001).

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

2.2

79

The Reform Process

The Finnish Government launched the polytechnics reform by authorising, in 1992, 22 temporary vocational higher education institutions. In other words, the reform was initiated as an experiment – which is a typical Finnish reform strategy (see Välimaa 2004a) – also because the decision-makers were quite unprepared for such a grand move: ‘there was a lack of political maturity’ – as Lampinen (2000 in Nieminen and Ahola 2003) put it – to accept the rapid establishment of a new sector of higher education. These new institutions consisted of one to eight former vocational education establishments. The experimental institutions were based in all parts of the country and included practically every type of institution and study field. After a few years of experiments the government decided that the experimental polytechnics would be granted permanent licences in the autumn of 1996. In accordance with official procedure, each temporary polytechnic applied for a permanent status, granted by the Council of State (Välimaa 2004a, b). All Finnish polytechnics were established as temporary institutions. However, by August 2000 most of them had developed into polytechnics operating on a permanent basis. The Ministry of Education summed up the methods used in the reform as follows (OECD 2002): ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Integrating several vocational schools and institutes to form polytechnics Reforming the degree system Raising the standard of teaching Improving teaching methods Promoting interaction between school and work Making education and training more international Improving library and information services

From the perspective of governmental steering, the polytechnics reform was intended (1) to reconstruct the overall educational structure to meet the needs of society (students and the labour market); (2) to expand and develop higher education to meet needs stemming from international economic competition and European integration; and (3) to enhance educational provision and flexibility through more effective cooperation between institutions. A further aim was to broaden the scope for individual student choice. It was also assumed that a dual system would respond better to the needs of working life and society. The Ministry of Education stated that one of the main objectives of the reform was to “clarify and streamline the education system and to create a viable channel from secondary education to the university and non-university sectors” (Higher Education Policy in Finland 1994: 13). Ahola (1993: 10–14) argued that one of the main concerns of the reformers was to solve the problem of student flow. Recent studies have revealed still further factors. Mäenpää (2000 in Nieminen and Ahola 2003) found also international pressures to reform Finnish higher education. The EU had issued a directive (89/48/ETY) stating that all three-year degrees should be recognised across the member states of the European Union. This boosted the development of vocational education in France, Belgium,

80

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

Sweden and Finland (Teichler 1998). According to the then-Minister of Education, Olli-Pekka Heinonen, the OECD country report on the polytechnics reform (1992) was used in these debates. This indicates a close relationship between Finnish higher education policy-making and international models of organising higher vocational education, even though the outcome of the reform has been defined as representing a Finnish system of polytechnics rather than a copy of international models (Liljander 2002). A variety of main actors were involved in the process of establishing the polytechnics. The context of the recession made it necessary to take visible political action to address the economic problems. It is against this background that the government decided to create a new sector of higher education. The ideas behind these institutions had been developed as early as the 1970s and 1980s as a solution to problems besetting vocational upper secondary education and training. The Ministry of Education with its experienced civil servants was an important agent in the implementation of the reforms. No political party opposed the reform even though the establishment process was felt to be too rapid. The representatives of provinces and provincial institutions, in favour of raising the status of their upper secondary education institutions, backed the new establishments. The universities in most cases opposed the polytechnics even though they actually had mixed feelings about the new sector of higher education. The academics and the universities were initially critical of the founding of a dual system, fearing that it would shrink the higher education budget. Resistance was not, however, systematic or sharply defined, possibly because of the obvious advantages that higher education institutions and individual academics could foresee as a result of the expansion of the educational market following the higher qualification requirements that would be set for teachers in vocational higher education. The vocational colleges and the emerging polytechnics themselves supported the reform. Academic drift was, thus, one of the driving forces behind the reform. The student organisations were rather neutral on this topic, whereas the representatives of employees demanded that the polytechnics should have a practical and vocational orientation (Liljander 2002; Nieminen and Ahola 2003).

2.3

The Size of the Non-University Sector in Finland

After the reform, each of the 19 regions of Finland has at least one polytechnic, while the more densely populated regions have several. The 29 polytechnics steered by the Ministry of Education have about 150 units in their regions – from single small units in small towns to several units in bigger towns. About 80% of the volume of education provided by the old post-secondary vocational education establishments was raised to the standard of polytechnic education, with the remaining 20% continuing to represent initial vocational education (OECD 2002: 48). Altogether, 29 polytechnics have been formed by merging some 215 vocational education institutions.

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

81

Finnish polytechnics are most often local and regional establishments operated either by a federation of municipalities (11 polytechnics), a limited company (8 polytechnics), an urban municipality (7 polytechnics) or a registered Finnish foundation (3 polytechnics) (see Appendix). The exceptions to the rule are the Police College (funded and steered by the Ministry of Interior) and Ålands Yrkeshögskola which is subordinate to the self-governing Åland Islands. The National Defence College, again, is a hybrid between the university and non-university sectors because it has both elements of a polytechnic orientation (initial vocational training programmes) and structures and functions in common with universities: professors, research activities and the right to grant doctoral degrees (Laine et al. 2001). In this study the National Defence College is included in the polytechnic sector because of its small size (only five professors) and its orientation to serving the needs of national defence (by training officers) rather than those of the academic community. Polytechnics can be divided into three categories on the basis of their student numbers (see Table 1). The category of small polytechnics consists of eight institutions, including three polytechnics not steered by the Ministry of Education (Åland Polytechnic, Police College and National Defence College). These are the polytechnics with the smallest number of students (300–400 students each in 2004). This category contains also three Swedish-speaking polytechnics (Arcada, Svenska Yrkeshögskola and Sydväst Yrkeshögskola), two nation-wide polytechnics (Humanities Polytechnic, HUMAK and Diaconia Polytechnic, Diak), and three polytechnics located in the more remote regions of Finland (Kajaani, Kemi-Tornio, Southern Carelia). The category of medium-sized polytechnics consists of 11 higher education institutions based all over the country, whereas the largest polytechnics (nine institutions) can be found mainly in the Southern parts of Finland. The number of study fields offered by a polytechnic depends mainly on its traditions and region without there being any connection with its size. The smallest polytechnics may have three to seven study field, while medium-sized and big polytechnics may have four to eight study fields. The variety in ownership means, in principle, that polytechnics are private institutions because they are maintained by foundations, limited companies, municipalities or federations of municipalities. In practice, however, they are public institutions because they are funded from public sources – mainly by the Ministry of Education on the basis of the number of their students. In addition, the limited companies are normally owned by one or several municipalities. In fact, the distinction between public (in the sense of owned by the state) and private (in the sense of being operated by an organisation other than the state) institution is not relevant here because Finnish polytechnics are public institutions which provide their students with Table 1 Finnish polytechnics by student numbers in 2004–2005 (OPM 2005:7, 2006:42) Categories of polytechnics Number of students Number of polytechnics Small polytechnics Medium-sized polytechnics Large polytechnics

<3,000 3,000–5,500 >5,500

8 11 9

82

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

public goods free of charge (see Marginson 2004), as the Polytechnics Act (351/2003) stipulates. However, the variety in their forms of ownership does affect the analytical categories used to examine their differences. It also has an impact on their functioning because of the differences in their decision-making structures and practices, discussed in Section 4.

3 3.1

The Functioning of Finnish Higher Education On the Cultural and Political Contexts of Finnish Higher Education

After the above account of the establishment of Finnish polytechnics we need to describe the cultural and social contexts of the Finnish higher education system. The social dynamics of Finnish higher education can be understood on the basis of its Nordic tradition. In Nordic higher education, universities and polytechnics derive their formal degree-awarding capacity from the nation state. In Finland, national degrees are assumed to be comparable and to represent equally high standards. Therefore, the aims, scope and general structure of degrees are prescribed by law. The state, in turn, safeguards the value and quality of degrees by controlling which institutions are allowed to award them and which educational programmes qualify for them (see Hämäläinen et al. 2001). Finnish tertiary education institutions enjoy a high degree of institutional autonomy, which is both secured in the Finnish Constitution and guaranteed by laws governing universities (Universities Act 715/2004) and polytechnics (Polytechnic Act 351/2003). In this context, it is only natural that the institutions themselves take full responsibility for the standard and quality of the educational services they provide. In the social context of trust, the steering of the national higher education system is based on performance agreements. In the Finnish cultural context it is, again, natural for the institutions and academics to take the agreements seriously. The performance agreements are, therefore, political acts contributing quite significantly to the promotion of educational improvement and change.

3.2

The Steering and Funding of Finnish Higher Education

The principles of the Finnish Constitution securing the freedom of science and scholarship, the arts and the highest level of education are operationalised through the Universities Act (645/1997 and 715/2004). It ensures the autonomy of the universities by defining their functions, operation and objectives in general terms only. The Universities Act is a skeleton law covering all Finnish universities (see Välimaa and Jalkanen 2001). It also regulates the relationship between universities and society. The most recent update of the Universities Act (715/2004) pays more

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

83

attention to the ‘Third Mission of Universities’ – that is, the social utility of higher education and cooperation among higher education institutions, business enterprises and society (see Kankaala et al. 2004). According to the act, When performing their basic functions (the promotion of free research and provision of scholarly, scientific and artistic general education and the education of students to serve mankind and fatherland) universities should work in interaction with society and promote societal impacts of their research outcomes and artistic activities (free translation by JV after the Universities Act 715/2004).

This addition to the previous Universities Act (645/1997) not only shows that the Finnish government wishes to regulate the functioning and objectives of the universities but also indicates that universities are seen as an integral and useful part of society. The same is even more true of the polytechnics, which are not expected to carry out research but, instead, train professionals for the labour market. The administration of polytechnics is regulated in the Polytechnic Act and Decree (351/2003, 352/2003). National legislation defines polytechnics’ status as a part of the higher education system and their mission to provide high-quality professional education. It defines also the principles underpinning their administration (each polytechnic must have a rector and a governing board), their obligation to evaluate their own functioning, the fields of study delivered and the degrees conferred by them, the eligibility of polytechnic graduates for further studies, their teachers’ qualification requirements, and the principle of free polytechnic degree programmes. Major policy guidelines and development targets are established at a general level in the six-year Government Development Plans for Education and Research, revised every four years. As described by the Ministry of Education, the steering of Finnish higher education is based on a consultation procedure called management by results, where the ministry and individual higher education institutions agree jointly on the objectives to be achieved by each institution. The ministry and each individual university and polytechnic sign a performance agreement in which both parties commit themselves to certain production objectives (measured in the numbers of degrees), development projects and objectives and a certain level of funding. The agreement is signed for a three-year period but the financial aspects are checked and negotiated every year (Higher Education Policy 2001).6 The Ministry of Education and each polytechnic agree on objectives and target outcomes for three years, except for funding and educational provision, which are determined separately for each year (Management 2004: 14–15). The performance agreements between the Ministry of Education and the individual polytechnics have the same structure. The performance agreements cover the following issues: ● ●

The polytechnic’s assessment of its performance General objectives for all polytechnics

6 An important context for Finnish universities is a change in the funding structure in the 1990s. The proportion of public university funding coming from the Ministry of Education fell by 21% between 1990 and 2001 (from 84% to 63%) while external funding from both private and public sources grew almost sixfold (KOTA 2001). This has led Finnish universities into something of a fiscal crisis; they have responded to the challenge by looking for external funding sources.

84 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

The mission statement of the individual polytechnic Goals for structural development The number of study places in each field of study, including adult education Other development objectives Development of teaching Regional development, cooperation with the world of work, and R&D Internationalisation Staff development Resources: core funding, project funding, performance-based funding (Management 2004: 15)

The Polytechnic Act also states that the licence to operate a polytechnic can be granted to a municipality, a federation of municipalities, or a registered limited company or foundation which meet conditions regarding educational needs, quality and other such issues (Polytechnic Act 351/2003, 6§). From a policy perspective, it may be said that Finnish polytechnics are professionally-oriented higher education institutions that in addition to their educational duties have the objective of conducting research and engaging in development activities which serve teaching and the world of work (see also Management 2004: 4). Finnish higher education policy objectives reflect managerial ideas which have been defined as New Public Management (Pollit 1995). In higher education, the decentralisation of management authority has been a strong element. The official arguments emphasise that universities and polytechnics have autonomy (actually, only procedural autonomy) in deciding how to reach the targets (the number of academic degrees completed) set by the Ministry of Education. The second main trend has been the introduction of market- or quasi-market-type mechanisms. The marketisation of Finnish higher education has led to competition both among and within higher education institutions. In this sense, the social context of Finnish higher education may be described as academic capitalism as defined by Slaughter and Leslie (1997). The shift in the funding structures is another contributing factor in academic capitalism because it is strengthening the impacts of market-like behaviour in the academic world and in reshaping universities’ internal social dynamics. The third major trend has been the requirement that staff work to performance targets and output objectives. In universities and polytechnics, this has meant an increasing number of “project researchers”, that is, academics who have been appointed for a certain fixed period only to carry out a specific research or development project (see Välimaa 2001b).

3.3

Teaching and Other Staff in Polytechnics

In 2003, Finnish polytechnics employed 10,506 senior teachers (38.4% women), lecturers (64.3% women) and full-time teachers (54% women) and 5,921 other staff (AMKOTA 2004). The composition and structure of the polytechnic teaching staff differs significantly from that of the universities because there are neither

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

85

Table 2 Staff in Finnish polytechnics by gender and degree in 2003 (absolute numbers, in %) (AMKOTA database 2002, 2004) Degree

Senior teacher Lecturer Full-time teacher Part-time teacher7 Other staff8 Total9

Proportion of female staff (%)

Ph.D. & Lic. (%) MA (%)

BA (%) Other (%) Total (N)

38.4 63.1 52.9

64.3 7.9 7.6

33.0 82.9 82.9

1.3 2.0 2.0

2.43 7.4 7.4

950 (100%) 3,425 (100%) 1,547 (100%)

–

–

–

–

–

490 4,595 10,516

professorships nor assistantships. This is due to the polytechnics’ tradition and mission of providing high-quality vocational education. The most prestigious category of polytechnic teachers is senior teacher (yliopettaja), responsible for developing their professional fields. Polytechnics are looking for Ph.Ds. or holders of licentiate degrees to fill these positions and have also succeeded rather well in this, as can be seen in Table 2. Polytechnic lecturers’ job profiles resemble those of traditional university lecturers, since neither are expected to do research. Most lecturers and full-time teachers in AMK institutions hold either an MA or a professional degree. Senior teachers, lecturers and full-time teachers have a permanent position, unlike part-time teachers. The high proportion of women teachers may be explained by the AMK institutions’ orientation. In social work, health care, culture and tourism women are the majority. These are also strong fields in most polytechnics (OECD 2002). Increasing numbers of staff are engaged in research and development activities. In 2003, polytechnics had 482 people with duties of this kind, in addition to 421 project workers. These expanding staff groups account for as much as 8.6% of all polytechnics personnel. They are also interesting from a policy perspective, indicating a growth in research and development activities not included in the tasks of polytechnics when they were established in the 1990s. This expansion shows, therefore, that as regards their functions polytechnics are coming closer to universities.

7 Not persons but the number of working years paid to part-time teachers and occasional lecturers. 8 The proportion of other staff in polytechnics: administrators 42,3%, teaching support 11.9%, librarians 9.3%, persons in public funded projects 9.2%, R&D personnel 10.5%, persons in business activities 6%, other tasks 10.9%. 9 Calculated from the number of permanent positions.

86

3.4

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

University and Polytechnic Degrees

Finnish universities grant professional degrees, bachelor’s degrees, master’s degrees, licentiate degrees and doctoral degrees.10 All Finnish polytechnics grant bachelor-level degrees differing from the academic degrees in the sense that they are targeted at a particular job area in working life. Polytechnic degrees comprise 160 credits (which is four years of full-time studies) in the technology, natural resources and culture sectors, and 140 credits (3.5 years) in business and administration, tourism, catering and institutional management and health care and social services, whereas the polytechnic degree in music requires 180 credits (4.5 years). In summer 2001, the Parliament passed an act on experimental post-graduate polytechnic degrees. In 2005, it was decided that these degrees will be approved as official second-cycle polytechnic degrees. People with a bachelor’s degree and a minimum of three years of work experience have an opportunity to complete a 40–60-credit (18 months of full-time studies) post-graduate degree (Kantola 2002; OECD 2002). In 2001, there were about 150 polytechnic degree programmes. The education provided by the polytechnics falls into seven main sectors: technology and communications; administration and business; health care and social services; culture; tourism, catering and institutional management; natural resources; and humanities and education (OECD 2002: 53). Most of the polytechnics are multidisciplinary institutions covering several (four to eight) sectors. Only five polytechnics have only two or three educational sectors. Universities and polytechnics select their own students, and competition for study places may be stiff in popular fields of study. Numerus clausus is in use in all university study fields, with entrance examinations an essential element. Polytechnics similarly decide on their own selection criteria, and in many sectors there is an entrance examination. Polytechnics use a national joint application for entry, system operating once or twice a year depending on how often each polytechnic admits students. This does not apply to degree programmes taught in foreign languages or to adult education, which have a separate procedure for applying for a degree programme. In addition to selection based on numerus clausus there are entrance examinations, in most cases organised simultaneously in the same study fields in every polytechnic. Thus, a student can be admitted through a single entrance examination, which often includes also an interview. In the student selection at polytechnics points are awarded for grades in the matriculation exam, general upper secondary school leaving certificate and a vocational upper secondary qualification of a three-year or corresponding international or foreign qualification (International Baccalaureate, European Baccalaureate or

10

There are national decrees regulating the university degree systems in each discipline. The decrees define the broad framework for each degree (extent, structure, main objectives) but the universities have autonomy to decide on the contents of each degree programme (Higher Education 2001).

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

87

the Reifeprüfung examination), for work experience in the relevant field and for the entrance or aptitude test. An applicant who is considered to have enough knowledge and skills for polytechnic studies can also be admitted by a polytechnic itself. An applicant admitted as a student to a polytechnic or a university is allowed to take up only one study place during a single academic year (see www.oph.fi). The requirements listed above are starting points; an individual polytechnic can demand some other qualifications such as motivation and suitability (this might be checked through psychological tests) or a knowledge base (this might be tested in an entrance examination based on the relevant literature or other material) or language/mathematics skills (in business and administration/engineering) or work experience, especially in programmes catering for adults. In practice, most applicants have passed the Matriculation Examination, although the Ministry of Education has set a target according to which 25% of polytechnic and university entrants should, by 2008, have a initial vocational qualification (Education and Research 2003–2008: 19). In principle, there are no big differences in entrance requirements between polytechnics and universities but in practice the differences are many. It has been argued (Liljander 2000: 136) that polytechnics are successfully giving preference to professionally-oriented applicants instead of status- or academically-oriented ones. As for the applicants themselves, the main difference stems from their orientation. Most say that study field is the most decisive factor in their choice of institution. It is the main motivation of 68% of polytechnics and 72% of university applicants. In addition, about 40% of polytechnics applicants prefer a practical orientation, whereas about the same percentage of university applicants say that universities offer the most interesting study fields. About 40% of university applicants value also the quality and prestige of university studies as compared to polytechnics. About 25% of polytechnics applicants report that it was easier to gain admission to a polytechnic, about 20% that a polytechnic offers them an interesting education. The applicants’ educational background and socio-economic status also help to explain the differences in their orientations. The sons and daughters of higher-status families who have received an academic education normally apply to university, whereas sons and daughters of working-class families tend to enter polytechnics (Vuorinen and Valkonen 2003).

4 Institutional Governance, Management, Decision-Making and Funding in Polytechnics An important concept in the governance and management of Finnish polytechnics is that of ylläpitäjä, which can be translated as the “maintainer”, the maintaining body of a polytechnic. It refers to an association or organisation responsible for the organisation, management and functioning of a polytechnic. The maintaining body allocates resources to the polytechnic, recruits the rector and other staff, and nominates

88

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

the governing board. It is also responsible for the polytechnic’s strategic planning. The maintaining organisation is also the polytechnic’s owner. The nature of this ownership varies, however, because of the variety of the maintaining organisations. The legal status of a limited company is regulated in the Finnish Companies Act (Osakeyhtiölaki 29.9.1978/734), whereas the legal rights of foundations are laid down in a different act (Säätiölaki, Foundations Act, 5.4.1930/109), and the rights and duties of municipalities in yet a third act (Kuntalaki, Local Government Act). It seems that practical considerations linked with the organisation and combination of different types of traditional vocational institutions have been the most significant factors when deciding about polytechnics’ maintaining organisations. A foundation or a limited company has been considered a good solution when a polytechnic has been established on the basis of traditional private institutions with considerable assets. The Ministry of Education has solved the problems caused by the variety of maintaining bodies in two main ways. Firstly, the Polytechnic Act (Ammattikorkeakoululaki 351/2003) and Decree (352/2003) define the general frameworks for the functioning of polytechnics. The act gives polytechnics autonomy in their internal matters. Internal management is in the hands of a governing board and a rector. The maintaining body also decides on the budget and strategic development of the polytechnic. Secondly, major policy guidelines and development targets are determined at national level in the Government Development Plan for Education and Research, revised every four years. Thirdly, the Ministry of Education steers the operations and activities of polytechnics with the help of performance agreements. These contracts are negotiated between the Ministry of Education and each individual polytechnic in a consultation procedure called management by results. These contracts state the polytechnic’s objectives (in terms of new starting places and development challenges for the polytechnics) and specify the resources to be allocated to it.

4.1

Analysing Governance Structures in Polytechnics

A typical method used to analyse the functioning of polytechnics is to categorise them on the basis of their maintaining organisation. This categorisation is widely used because the maintaining organisation influences the management, funding and functioning of the institution. Another important factor affecting the operations of a polytechnic is the fact that government funding is given to the maintaining body, which then decides how to allocate the resources (OECD 2002: 60). An alternative approach to categorising polytechnics is presented by Rikkinen (2002: 9–12), who has classified them according to how they defined their field of activity. Rikkinen (2002) identified three types of polytechnic. The first group consists of institutions which serve the principal town of their province. The activities of this type of polytechnic have a mainly local focus, and they cooperate mainly with the provincial capital. Polytechnics of the second type serve their province

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

89

in its entirety. The aim is to cooperate with the whole province. Normally a polytechnic of this type has specialised units all over the province to strengthen its identity and cooperation with various economic and social agents. The third type of polytechnic defines itself as a part of the Finnish higher education system. These polytechnics operate in regions with several polytechnics or universities. They find it, therefore, difficult to define their region geographically and determine their regional tasks (Rikkinen 2002). However, there seems to be no connection between the location of a polytechnic, the type of organisation maintaining it and its educational objectives. From the mission statements found in the performance agreements concluded with the Ministry of Education (www.minedu.fi) it can be seen that polytechnics normally describe their objectives in very general terms and declare that their aim is to serve local, regional and national needs alike. Another aim is to produce high-quality professionals and cooperate with business enterprises in their regions (see also Tammilehto 1999). A closer analysis of the relationship between a polytechnic’s location and its maintaining organisation shows that irrespective of their maintaining organisation, all polytechnics operate on a national, a regional and a local level even though different polytechnics may emphasise their objectives somewhat differently. It is evident that polytechnics run by a single municipality may have a somewhat stronger local focus than other types of polytechnics, even though there are no sharp differences to be seen among the various institutions. The above combination of focal points is quite easy to understand. Polytechnics must be local institutions serving local needs. They need regional credibility in their provinces also because the legislator expects them to promote regional development. Further, polytechnics need national recognition of their high quality in order to attract students from other provinces. In addition to these focal points, polytechnics are also expected to be active in the field of international cooperation. This helps them to achieve local and national credibility.

4.2

Funding Polytechnics

The current polytechnics financing system is a part of the national economy, consisting of governmental and municipal contributions whose proportions are decided by the government. In principle, the organisations maintaining polytechnics receive their core funding from the government, which covers 100% of their total funding. In practise, there is a clear general principle that the main responsibility for public services, among them education including polytechnic education, rests with the local authorities. Local authorities receive their core funding from the government.11

11

Universities are an exception to this rule because they are state-run institutions with no local contribution to their basic funding.

90

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

By law, the Ministry of Education provides 57% of the core funding of polytechnics as a net sum while local authorities cover the remaining 43% (which they have received from the government). The state subsidy received by each local authority is based on the number of residents in the municipality. In other words, the municipal state subsidy depends not on the volume of education the municipality provides or the number of its residents participating in education but on its population (OECD 2002). The system is criticised for a lack of transparency and for a very complicated process which is difficult to explain and not comparable with the funding system of universities (OPM 2002: 7–8, 27). The Ministry of Education and the polytechnics agree in their performance negotiations that the polytechnics shall spend all of their core funding on running costs. Polytechnics have three main sources of funding: 1. Core funding. This government funding is based on unit prices (yksikköhinta), varying between study fields. The core funding of polytechnics is based on their student numbers. 2. Project funding. Most of this funding is allocated to support the polytechnic reform (internationalisation, library and information services, continuing education for teachers, etc.). The aim is to gradually shift the priority to financing R&D projects. 3. Performance-based funding. This funding depends on performance either according to general criteria which may change over time or on the basis of an evaluation carried out by FINHEEC (centres of excellence in teaching, centres of excellence in regional impact) (see Impiö et al. 2003) (OECD 2002). Core funding is provided on the basis of unit costs determined in advance for the coming year and calculated per student for different fields of study. The funds are paid directly to the maintaining organisation of the polytechnic which has admitted the student. Polytechnics also receive project-based funding for joint ventures with all the polytechnics and for staff development. The performance-based funding is assessed on the basis of five theme entities: ● ●

● ● ●

The development of teaching and teaching methods The attractiveness of the polytechnic’s educational provision and student progress Relevance to the world of work and R&D Regional impact and operations Capacity for renewal

Table 3 shows polytechnics’ expenditure and income in 2000. The establishment projects consist mainly of building investments (€22,796,000). The biggest source of income is unit-price financing, paid according to the number of students. In 2000, the average unit price was €5,148.06 per student, increased to €6,289.43 per student in 2004.12 The polytechnics also receive external funding, mainly for

The highest unit price in polytechnics in 2004 was €9,046.5 per student, the lowest €5,383.7 per student.

12

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

91

Table 3 Polytechnic expenditure and income in 2000 (OECD 2002: 61) Euro 1,000 % Income Establishment projects Operating income Unit-price financing Sep. govt. financing Other funding Charged services Operating deficit + funding from maintaining body Total income Expenditure Establishment projects Total operating expenses Core functions Charged services Other expenses Total expenses

22,796 563,330 440,923 26,904 18,320 77,183 110,343

3.3 63.3 3.9 2.6 11.0 15.9

696,469

100.0

39,172 648,459 555,153 78,359 14,947 687,631

5.7 80.7 11.4 2.1 100.0

continuing education services and R&D. This funding amounts up to 22% of their budgets (OECD 2002; Management 2004: 15–16).

4.3

Internal Organisation and Decision-Making

Polytechnics are autonomous in their internal affairs. Their decision-making structures are regulated by the state even if the frameworks that national legislation provides for polytechnics are mainly general ones. The previous Polytechnic Act (255/1995) stated only that each polytechnic must have a governing board and a rector, whereas all other matters were left to the discretion of the maintaining body and the polytechnic. For instance, the legislation included no guarantees of students or staff members being represented in the administrative bodies. There was also considerable variation between different polytechnics. The new Polytechnic Act (351/2003, 11 §) prescribes that internal administration shall be managed by a governing board and a rector. The rector – nominated by the maintaining body – chairs the governing board, which consists of representatives of polytechnic directors, full-time teachers and other staff members and full-time students, together with representatives of working life. The total number of board members is decided by the maintaining organisation, which also nominates them, though the legislator states that no group should have more than half the board members. It is also stipulated that representatives of working life may not exceed a third of the board members. The governing boards are responsible for developing the polytechnic’s operations, submitting action proposals to the maintaining body and preparing the economic plan and budget, deciding on the grounds on which the funds are used,

92

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

preparing changes in educational tasks, nominating multi-member administrative bodies, approving the polytechnic’s administrative regulations, approving regulations for internal administration, and dealing with and deciding on other issues referred or submitted to it. The rector manages the polytechnic and deals with and decides on issues concerning the polytechnic’s internal administration and management. One or more vice-rectors can also be appointed. The relevant legislation lists the duties of the maintaining body as follows: ● ● ● ●

Deciding on the strategic development of the polytechnic Deciding on its action and economic plan and budget Submitting proposals for changing educational tasks to the government Nominating the rector, the vice-rector(s) and the governing board

The polytechnics’ internal organisation varies depending on whether they are maintained by public organisations (a federation of municipalities or an individual municipality) or private organisations (a limited company or foundation). The common features in their organisation stem from the study fields and degree programmes offered by them, because these are regulated by legislation. According to OECD examiners (2002: 28–30), polytechnic administration and governance is to a large extent locally determined, leading to variations among polytechnics with respect to their administration. Some are functioning well, while others are less efficient. Some polytechnics are also struggling with the various objectives set and demands expressed by the Ministry of Education and local authorities. For instance, the previous Polytechnic Act laid down that the members of the governing board shall be selected on the basis of their municipal involvement, not on the basis of any knowledge or interests they might have regarding the polytechnic. This easily led to a situation where some of the decision-makers lacked a commitment to developing the polytechnic. Furthermore, and as the OECD examiners (2002: 29) observed, the support that polytechnics receive from their maintaining organisation may also vary. The following analysis of polytechnics’ internal organisations is based on information gathered from polytechnic web pages. The data found on 20 polytechnics varied a lot. Some of the institutions present their organisations very thoroughly and transparently, including management rules and minutes, whereas some others focus on their administrative principles, following, perhaps, a more marketingoriented style. Two main types of organisational idea can be identified among the polytechnics. Polytechnics of the first type are organised on the basis of their educational units or profit centres. These may be called faculties, schools or departments. The essential point is that the polytechnic’s functioning is based on educational outcomes, with the resources allocated to these units or centres. Often the units are based on the former independent educational establishments. The other type of organisation places more emphasis on lines of business or branches. The aim of this business-line idea of organisation is to combine independent units into larger educational branches which are responsible for the efficient delivery of their educational outcomes. Such lines of business are not limited by traditional institutional

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

93

boundaries or geographic location because the aim is to create larger and innovative units. This categorisation is, however, tentative because various polytechnics use the same terminology to mean different things. The documentation also varies from one polytechnic to another. It does, however, describe the main differences in the organising principles underpinning their operations and activities and the difficulties involved in reorganising and rethinking the functioning of polytechnics. The main reason for these difficulties may lie in that polytechnics originally consisted of independent vocational institutions with their own traditions and cultures. Empirical studies suggest that such traditional cultures change only slowly (see Jaatinen 1999). The rector may delegate tasks according to the operational needs of the polytechnic. The amount and quality of delegation varies from polytechnic to polytechnic. Usually the directors of units or lines of business manage their spheres of duties independently, delegating minor tasks to other personnel. The internal management rules are often written as a decision of a higher body in accordance with the maintaining organisation’s traditions. For instance, polytechnics operated by municipalities or a federation of municipalities have rules determining how decisions are prepared and made, who decides what, what tasks are performed by the governing board, the rector, the management board, the units, the senior staff, the teachers. Usually the rules also specify how students and staff should be heard. The educational or functional units may also have their own management groups. Their structure depends on their leaders. To conclude, the governance structures, administration and management of polytechnics may be characterised as more managerial than academic. The position of the rector differs from that of university rectors, who are elected by academics, whereas the rectors of polytechnics are nominated by the maintaining organisation. In principle and often also in practice, this makes a polytechnic rector resemble an executive director of a corporation more than a primus inter pares among fellow academics. Moreover, external stakeholders take more active part in the operations of polytechnics than do those of universities (see Välimaa and Jalkanen 2001). This may mean that polytechnics are governed and managed with more attention paid to the expectations of their external stakeholders. Furthermore, the role of local authorities varies from polytechnic to polytechnic, but it is clearly more prominent than what is normal in universities. Finally, the Ministry of Education encourages polytechnics to cooperate with municipal and regional authorities and with universities. This cooperation covers regional development and research and innovation strategies and includes practical cooperation.

5

Discussion and Future Trends

The establishment of a non-university sector coincided with the emergence of two processes in Finnish higher education, which may be called a ‘vocational drift’ in universities and an ‘academic drift’ in polytechnics. Vocational drift refers to the fact that in universities every student is expected to practise at an authentic workplace during their studies. This social force can be seen also in the formulation of

94

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

the new Universities Act which requires universities to be more useful to society and business enterprises. Universities, behaving in the spirit of pragmatic university, are themselves willing to be useful members of society (Välimaa 1997). Vocational drift also rewards universities in the context of management by results. Academic drift, again, is taking place in polytechnics mainly in two related ways. Among the social forces promoting academic drift is that today polytechnics are allowed and encouraged to carry out applied research and cooperate in research and development projects with private enterprises. This policy shift from forbidding polytechnics to conduct research to supporting R&D in polytechnics took place at the turn of the millennium. The trend is reflected in the increase of the numbers of researchers working in polytechnics noted above. The second factor promoting academic drift is the recruitment of doctors to senior teacher’s posts. It is quite natural for doctors to want to do research no matter whether they have been recruited from universities or have finished their dissertations while working in a polytechnic. It seems that the functions of universities and polytechnics are beginning to converge even though polytechnics are still oriented mainly towards the training of professionals, whereas universities base their activities on the Humboldtian unity of teaching and research. The issue of institutional autonomy is one of the topics featuring in public debates in Finland on higher education institutions. Here it is essential to analyse how autonomy is operationalised in the functioning of polytechnics. In principle, polytechnics do not have the same autonomy as institutions as universities have, rooted in the Humboldtian traditions of institutional autonomy and the freedom to study and teach. In practice, however, with respect to some of their activities polytechnics may enjoy even greater autonomy than universities. Among these activities is personnel policy. Polytechnics have more freedom to decide about the salaries of their teaching and development staff; this is especially true of those polytechnics that are maintained by foundations or limited companies. This is because they are not state-owned institutions and are not, therefore, bound by the salary structures of civil servants. As a consequence, polytechnics have more variation in their salary scales than universities. This may be one of their relative advantages in the competition for high-quality staff. The question of institutional autonomy is, again, related to the topic of academic freedom in polytechnics, even though it hasn’t been raised as an issue in Finland. However, senior teachers in particular may have the same kind of responsibilities as university teachers. This seems to make this an emerging issue, even though at the moment it has been interpreted mainly as a question related to the number of working hours. For this reason it is also seen by national trade unions as a subject to be discussed in collective bargaining negotiations. The influence of the maintaining body on the functioning of a polytechnic has been mentioned many times in this study. It is evident that it really matters who maintains (and owns) the institution, even though the Ministry of Education has rather neglected the issue. The OECD examiners (2002: 18) saw the variety in forms of ownership as one of the strengths of the Finnish system of polytechnics, especially as regards cooperation on regional development with employers and other regional bodies. The examiners (2002: 30) were, however, critical of the fact

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

95

that representatives of the maintaining organisation take part in the negotiations with the Ministry of Education also when academic objectives and results are being discussed. The OECD examiners (2002: 29) argued that a maintaining organisation represents the owners of a polytechnic, whereas the internal “autonomous” administration of the polytechnic represents the academic community. The OECD examiners therefore suggest that there is a real challenge to separate the legal and administrative responsibilities of the state and the owners from the academic development responsibilities of the polytechnic itself. These views have been accepted as valid analyses of existing problems, as is indicated by some of their suggestions having been taken into account by the legislature in the new act.13 The question of ownership also raises an interesting question for the future. It is clear that there is overcapacity in the Finnish system of higher education. The number of new entrants to higher education is falling whereas the number of starting places tends to grow. Which are the institutions most capable of changing their strategies so as to adapt to new situations? The challenge of overcapacity is also related to the Bologna Process. That is, what will happen to the relationship between polytechnics and universities as a result of the new two-tier structure of degrees? The Bologna Process has the potential to change the relationship between polytechnic and university degrees if polytechnic degrees are considered as first degrees relevant to university application. This may transform the structure of Finnish higher education if (and when) polytechnic degrees are regarded as bachelor’s degrees which can give access to universities. If this happens, it most probably means the end of the dual system and the beginning of the development towards a binary system in Finland. Why? Because if and when bachelor’s degrees are regarded as “equal but different” qualifications, it means that a polytechnic student with a BA degree needs to update their studies before becoming a full-time university student. Such updating will most probably consist of bridge studies in those fields (such as business studies, social work and IT) where there are overlapping professional qualifications. This could mean polytechnics developing, in some disciplines, into stepping-stones to universities. We assume that the relationship between polytechnics and universities will become one of the major political issues in Finnish higher education policy-making.

References Ahola, S. “Diversification and the Mass Higher Education System in Finland. Martin Trow Revisited”. In Jalkanen, H. and Lestinen (eds). Korkeakoulutuksen kriisi? (Higher Education in a crisis?). Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, 1993. Ahola, S. Yhteishausta yhteisvalintaan. Opetusministeriön työryhmämuistioita ja selvityksiä, 2004:9, Helsinki, 2004.

13

As reflected in, for example, the decision to give staff and students representation on polytechnic governing boards.

96

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

AMKOTA. Database maintained by the Ministry of Education, http://www.csc.fi/amkota.html, 2002, 2004. Education and Research 2003–2008. Development Plan. Finland: The Ministry of Education. Hämäläinen, K., J. Haakstad, J. Kangasniemi, T. Lindeberg, and M. Sjölund. Quality Assurance in Nordic Higher Education. ENQA Occasional Papers 2. Helsinki, 2001. Higher Education Policy 2001. Higher education policy in Finland. The Ministry of Education, http:// www.minedu.fi/minedu/publications/55.html. Higher Education Policy in Finland. Helsinki: Ministry of Education, 1994. Impiö, I., U.-M. Laiho, M. Mäki, H. Salminen, K. Ruoho, M. Toikka, and P. Vartiainen. Ammattikorkeakoulut Aluekehittäjinä. Ammattikorkeakoulujen Aluekehitysvaikutuksen Huippuyksiköt 2003–2004 (Polytechnics as Developers of their Regions. Centers of Excellence in Regional Development 2003–2004). Finheec Reports 12: 2003. Helsinki: Edita, 2003. Jaatinen, P. Synergian Siemenet já Torajyvät. Tutkimus Monialaisen Ammattikorkeakoulun Organisaatiokulttuurista (Synergy – a Study of the Organisational Culture in the Multidisciplinary Polytechnic in Finland). Annales Universitatis Turkuensis C 148. Turku, Finland: Painosalama, 1999. Kankaala, K, E. Kaukonen, P. Kutinlahti, M. Nieminen, T. Lemola, and J. Välimaa. Yliopistojen Kolmas Tehtävä? (The Third Mission of Universities?). Sitra Publications 264. Helsinki: Edita, 2004. Kantola, I. Ammmattikorkeakoulun Jatkotutkinnon Kokeilulupahakemusten Arviointi (The Evaluation of Applications for Polytechnic Post-graduate Degrees). Finheec reports 1: 2002. Helsinki: Edita, 2002. KOTA. Database maintained by the Ministry of Education, http://www.csc.fi/kota/facts.html, 2001, 2004. Lampinen, O. Suomalaisen Korkeakoulutuksen Uudistaminen. Reformeja ja Innovaatioita (Reforming of Finnish Higher Education). Opetusministeriön julkaisuja 2003: 25. Helsinki, 2003. Laine, I., A. Kilpinen, L. Lajunen, J. Pennanen, M. Stenius, P. Uronen, and T. Kekäle. Maanupuol ustuskorkeakoulun Arviointi (An Evaluation of the National Defence College). Finheec Reports 2: 2001. Helsinki: Edita, 2001. Liljander, J-P. “Pohjakoulutuksen Mukainen Valikoituminen Ammattikorkeakoulutukseen (Social Selection to Higher Education on the Basis of Basic Education)”. In Honkimäki, S., and H. Jalkanen. Innovatiivinen Yliopisto (Innovative University). Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, 2000, pp. 132–142. Liljander, J.-P. (ed.). Omalla Tiellä. Ammattikorkeakoulut 10 Vuotta (Taking One’s Own Course. Ten Years of Polytechnics). Helsinki: Arene & Edita, 2002. Määttä, P. “Doctoral Studies in the 1990s: From Elite to Mass Training?”. In Välimaa, J. (ed). Finnish Higher Education in Transition –Perspectives on Massification and Globalisation. Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, 2001. Mäenpää, H. “Suomalaisen Ammattikorkeakoulun Synty, Kasvu ja Kehitys”. In Hämeen Härkätieltä Tiedon Valtateille. Hämeen Ammattikorkeakoulun Synty ja Kasvu (Establishment and Development of Häme Polytechnic). Hämeenlinna, Finland, 2000. Management. Management and Steering of Higher Education in Finland. Helsinki: Publications of the Ministry of Education in Finland, 2004, p. 20. Marginson, S. Somersaults in Enschede, Paper presented at the CHER Annual Meeting, Enschede, 17–19 September, 2004. Nieminen, M., and S. Ahola. Ammattikorkeakoulun Paikka. Hakijanäkökulma Suomalaiseen Ammattiko rkeakoulujärjestelmään (The Position of Polytechnics. An Applicant’s Perspective on the Finnish Polytechnics System). Turku, Finland: Research Unit for the Sociology of Education, 2003. OECD. Review of Education Policy in Finland: The AMK Sector Examiners’ Report, 2002. OPM. Ammattikorkeakoulujen Rahoitustyöryhmän Muistio (Report of the Working Group on Polytechnic Financing). Opetusministeriö 4, 2002. Piesanen, E. “The Open University in a Massifying Higher Education System”. In Välimaa, J. (ed). Finnish Higher Education in Transition – Perspectives on Massification and Globalisation. Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, 2001.

Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education

97

Pollit, C. “Justification by works or by faith? Evaluating the new public management”. Evaluation 1(2) (1995): 133–154. Rikkinen, K. “Ammattikorkeakoulujen Erilaiset Alueet (Different Polytechnic Regions)”. In Katajamäki, H., and T. Huttula (eds.). Ammattikorkeakoulut Alueidensa Kehittäjinä. Näkökulmia Ammattikorkeakoulujen Aluekehitystehtävän Toteutukseen (Polytechnics as Developers of their Regions. Perspectives on the Implementation of Polytechnics’ Regional Development Task). KKA Julkaisuja 11 (2002), 8–13. Slaughter, S., and L. Leslie. Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997. Tammilehto, M. Osaamisen Spatiaalinen Diffuusio ja Ammatilliset Koulutusorganisaatiot KemiTornion Alueella (The Spatial Diffusion of Expertise and Vocational Education Organisations in the Kemi-Tornio Regions). Publicationes Instituti Geographici Universitatis Helsingiensis C 11, 1999. Teichler, U. “The Changing Roles of the University and Non-university Sectors in Higher Education in Europe. European Review”. Interdisciplinary Journal of the Academia Europea 6 (4) (1998), pp. 475–487. Välimaa, J. (ed). Korkeakoulutus Kolmiossa (Higher Education in a Triangle). Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, 1997. Välimaa, J. “A Historical Introduction to Finnish Higher Education”. In Välimaa, J. (ed). Finnish Higher Education in Transition. Perspectives on Massification and Globalisation. Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, 2001a, pp. 13–54. Välimaa, J. “The Changing Nature of Academic Employment in Finnish Higher Education”. In Enders, J. (ed). Academic Staff in Europe: Changing Contexts and Conditions. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 2001b, pp. 67–90. Välimaa, J. “Social Dynamics of Higher Education Reforms: The Case of Finland”. In Amaral, A., M. Kogan, and Å. Gornizka (eds). Reform and Change in Higher Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2004a, pp. 245–267. Välimaa, J. “Three Rounds of Evaluation and the Idea of Accreditation in Finnish Higher Education”. In Schwarz, S., and D. F. Westerheijden (eds). Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2004b, pp. 101–125. Välimaa, J., and H. Jalkanen. “Strategic Dlow and Finnish Universities”. In Välimaa, J. (ed). Finnish Higher Education in Transition. Perspectives on Massification and Globalisation. Jyväskylä, Finland: Institute for Educational Research, 2001, pp. 185–202. http://www. minedu.fi/education/polytechnics http://www.oph.fi/ Vuorinen, P., and S. Valkonen. Ammattikorkeakouluun vai Yliopistoon? Korkeakoulutukseen Hakeutumisen Orientaatiot (Choosing Between Polytechnic and University: Educational Orientations of Applicants to Higher Education). University of Jyväskylä. Institute for Educational Research. Occasional Papers 18, 2003.

Appendix The main forms of maintaining organisation are as follows: 1. Limited company. This refers to polytechnics maintained by a company owned by a municipality. Normally this means that the rector of the polytechnic also acts as the managing director of the limited company. It also means that the functioning of the governing board is regulated by the companies act. The following eight polytechnics are maintained by limited companies: DIACONIA POLYTECHNIC; HUMANITIES POLYTECHNIC; JYVÄSKYLÄ

98

2.

3.

4.

5.

J. Välimaa, M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala

POLYTECHNIC; OSTROBOTHNIA POLYTECHNIC; KYMENLAAKSO POLYTECHNIC; LAUREA POLYTECHNIC; PIRKANMAA POLYTECHNIC; SYDVÄST POLYTECHNIC Foundation. Some of the polytechnics are maintained by a private foundation. Foundations are private by definition and regulated by Foundations Act. The following three polytechnics are maintained by a foundation: ARCADA POLYTECHNIC; HAAGA POLYTECHNIC; HELSINKI BUSINESS POLYTECHNIC Municipality. This refers to polytechnics which are organisationally a part of a municipal administration. The following seven polytechnics are maintained by municipalities: HELSINKI POLYTECHNIC STADIA; KAJAANI POLYTECHNIC; NORTH KARELIA POLYTECHNIC; SATAKUNTA POLYTECHNIC; TAMPERE POLYTECHNIC; TURKU POLYTECHNIC; VAASA POLYTECHNIC Educational federation of municipalities (kuntakoulutusyhtymä). This refers to polytechnics which are maintained by a federation of municipalities. They have a shared responsibility for organising education in their region. Quite often these federations are responsible also for other types of vocational education. The following eleven polytechnics are maintained by a federation: ESPOO VANTAA INSITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; SOUTH CARELIA; HÄME POLYTECHNIC; KEMI-TORNIO POLYTECHNIC; LAHTI POLYTECHNIC; MIKKELI POLYTECHNIC; OULU POLYTECHNIC; SAVONIA POLYTECHNIC; ROVANIEMI POLYTECHNIC; SEINÄJOKI POLYTECHNIC; SWEDISH POLYTECHNIC Polytechnics not steered by the Ministry of Education: ● ●

●

POLICE COLLEGE (funded and steered by the Ministry of Interior) ÅLANDS YRKESHÖGSKOLA (subordinated to the self-governing Åland Islands) THE NATIONAL DEFENCE COLLEGE (funded and steered by the Ministry of Defence)

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story? Matthias Klumpp and Ulrich Teichler

1

Introduction

In 1971, the first Fachhochschulen (since the 1990s officially translated “Universities of Applied Sciences”) were established in the Federal Republic of Germany as a second type of higher education institutions beside the existing universities. This was the consequence of a long-lasting debate about the best possible response to the rising student enrolment quotas most countries experienced since about the 1960s. This debate absorbed views widespread in the U.S. that diversification of higher education is needed in the process of expansion of higher education, as, for example, expressed by Trow (1974, 1978), but led to different consequences than those in the U.S., i.e. the establishment of a two-type structure of the German higher education system. Though eventually the establishment of the Fachhochschulen (FH) was widely praised as a success story, public debates on the best possible modes of diversification of higher education did not vanish, but continued to yield interest in Germany and also the international higher education research community (see Neave 1989; Meek et al. 1996; Teichler 1998). In Germany, for example, the view was shared by most key political actors in the early 1970s that universities and Fachhochschulen should be merged into Gesamthochschule (comprehensive universities). GHs were supposed to be the model institutions according to the Framework Act of Higher Education of 1976, but in the event only eleven such institutions were founded during the 1970s, and they remained an exception. Only six GHs established integrated study programmes and only a single institution, the University of Kassel, established a stage model of study programmes and degrees similar to a Bachelor-Master structure (see Cerych et al. 1981). Obviously, the majority of actors preferred clear dividing lines of inter-institutional diversity, and claims gained momentum that intra-institutional diversity, as, for example, realized in GHs, was likely to water down academic quality on the part of research and was likely to reinforce an academic drift as far as curricular approaches and students’ choices are concerned. The debates regarding the establishment of Fachhochschulen or Gesamthochschulen clearly showed that most actors in Germany – and certainly in many other European countries as well – were in favour of a clear, consistent structure of the higher James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

99

100

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

education system, i.e. either a consistent two-type structure or a consistent comprehensive system of higher education. Many actors were involved in the debate, and it turned out to be difficult to agree on any structural model, as every model seemed to have some strengths and weaknesses. This may also explain why there was no clear international direction of development or convergence regarding the institutional structure of higher education from the 1960s to the 1980s (see OECD 1972, 1991; Teichler 1988). Whereas the UK and Australia, for example, moved in the early 1990s away from a binary to a unified system, other countries, e.g. Austria, Finland, Switzerland and others, took the opposite direction with the establishment of a two-type structure (see Meek et al. 1996; Klumpp and Lenk 2004). These continued debates notwithstanding, Fachhochschulen seemed to be generally accepted in Germany, while any suggestions to establish a diversity of study programmes within universities failed until the late 1990s. Since 1996, however, proposals to establish a stage structure of study programmes and degrees got momentum in Germany. Germany was among the early countries in this reform movement, which eventually led to the Bologna Declaration of 1999 calling for the establishment of stages of study programmes and degrees all over Europe, i.e. for intra-institutional diversification as the prime principle. The German higher education system, thus, is in the process of reconsidering its principles and modes of diversification (see Friedrich 2004). After a period of initial experimentation beginning in the late 1990s characterized by controversial debates, the majority of actors in the German higher education system seems to agree – this might be said about the political debates since 2003 – that a stage system of study programmes and degrees ought to be established on the way to the “European Higher Education Area” expected to be realized in 2010 (see Alesi et al. 2005). It is not yet clear, however, whether the introduction of bachelor and master degrees will remain optional alongside or instead of the old structure of study programmes and degrees, or will eventually become the overall pattern of the German higher education system (the latter was legalized in 2004 in North Rhine Westphalia, the largest of the 16 German Länder). And it is not yet clear, either, whether the two different types of higher education institutions will continue to exist and offer study programmes with distinct curricular profiles, as the majority of actors advocate at present, or whether the institutional divide will be blurred or even cease to exist.

2

Rules, Aims, Players and Fields in the Game of Distinction

Many reports on the German system of higher education suggest that the German Fachhochschulen were in stark contrast to the universities in many respects and remained so over the first three decades. According to this view, the Bologna Process is a sudden challenge to a hitherto dichotomous structure of the German higher education system. There are indications, though, that the differences between the two types of higher education institutions had become smaller over the years.

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

101

As will be pointed out later, the difference in the required length of study became smaller. Moreover, the FHs, starting off as mere teaching institutions, gradually increased their activities in applied research. Finally, while graduates from FHs in the 1970s and 1980s had to study at universities and to be awarded a university diploma in order to progress to doctoral work and study, they eventually could embark on doctoral work without such a tedious route since the 1990s. It is less clear, though, whether the links between study and subsequent employment are less distinct for FH graduates than those for university graduates now compared with the 1970s. As will be shown below, the existing data provide an ambivalent picture. Therefore, a close view is needed to observe the “game” of underscoring distinctions on the part of both types of higher education in order to strengthen their respective positions on the one hand, and the opposite “game” whereby the Fachhochschulen aim to get closer to the universities in order to achieve a similar academic reputation. We have to examine the dimensions of distinction, the policies of the actors as well as the actual developments with respect to the extent to which the two types of institutions preserve distinctions or the extent to which the differences erode.

3

Basic Information on Fachhochschulen

In 1968, the prime ministers of the Länder (states) of the Federal Republic of Germany signed a treaty agreeing to establish a new type of higher education institutions. Former engineering schools (Ingenieurschulen) and higher vocational schools (höhere Fachschulen), predominantly in business studies and social work, were upgraded into Fachhochschulen, which started operation in 1971 (cf. the overview on the developments of FHs in Teichler 1996). The Fachhochschulen were expected to differ from the universities, by preparing the students more directly for professional work and in having an applied emphasis. The Framework Act for Higher Education, the national framework for the higher education laws of the Länder, which are actually legally binding for the institutions of higher education and which was first enacted in 1976, formulates a common task of higher education institutions while leaving it to the Länder legislation to specify the distinctions between the universities and FHs. The Framework Act formulates the common tasks as follows: “According to their specific functions, the institutions of higher education shall contribute to the fostering and development of the sciences and the arts through research, teaching and studies. They shall prepare students for occupations which require the application of specific findings and scientific methods or creative ability in the artistic fields” (§2.1). The educational tasks of higher education institutions are defined as follows: “Teaching and study are to prepare students for a profession in a certain sphere of activity, imparting to them the particular knowledge, skills and methods required in a way appropriate to each course so as to enable them to perform scientific and artistic work and to act responsibly in a free, democratic and social state governed by the rule of law” (§7).

102

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

Entry requirements to the two types of higher education clearly differed from the outset. The Hochschulreife (maturity for study at institutions of higher education) is required for entry to universities. Four years of primary education and 9 years of secondary education at a Gymnasium, that is 13 years of schooling altogether, completed by the Abitur examination, is the typical entry route. The Fachhochschulreife (maturity for study at Fachhochschulen), in contrast, is typically based on four years of primary education, six years of lower secondary education at the intermediate level (Realschule), and two years at a vocational upper secondary school (Fachoberschule), thus a total of 12 years of schooling. Actually, however, about half of the new entrant students at FHs have acquired the Hochschulreife as well and are entitled to enrol at a university. The duration of course programmes at Fachhochschulen was typically defined as three years of study until the late 1980s. As a rule, they comprised three years of taking lectures, but often required mandatory periods of work experience up to one year as well as examination periods subsequent to the three years of taking lectures. Since 1990, study programmes at FHs leading to a “Diplom” are called four-year programmes, whereby the four-year period comprises eventual periods of work experience and examination periods. In comparison, university programmes in Germany require mostly four to five years of study possibly extended by examination periods. The Verwaltungsfachhochschulen established in the 1980s offer three-year study programmes to persons already employed in the second rank career of public administration. These three-year programmes comprise work experience periods of one year or even more. Regulations regarding the transfer ensured from the beginning, i.e. the early 1970s, that Fachhochschule students without university entry qualification actually achieved qualification to university study in their field of study after successful completion of the first half of the FH programme, and actually achieved entry qualification to many other fields when graduating from a FH programme. There was no general regulation about the modes of transfer from a FH degree to a university programme in the same field of study – a kind of transfer opted for by about 10% of the FH graduates in the 1970s and 1980s. The individual university department was in the position to decide how much prior study was recognized as equivalent to university study. In the early 1990s, a provision was made that talented Fachhochschule graduates could go on to doctoral study without acquiring a university degree. In those cases, doctoral students were expected to be supervised jointly by a FH professor and a university professor and the universities remained responsible for the assessment and awarding of the doctoral degree. With respect to professorial appointments both at universities and Fachhochschulen, candidates are expected to have acquired a doctoral degree and to provide evidence of teaching or training experiences. Additionally, candidates for a university professorship are expected to have pursued several years of research beyond the doctorate and to have attained the Habilitation or equivalent scholarly achievements. In contrast, according to the Framework Act of Higher Education (§44), candidates for a FH professor position are expected to fulfil “…particular

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

103

achievements with regard to the application and development of scientific findings and methods in at least five years of professional activity, of which a minimum of three years shall have been spent outside higher education”. University professors are equally in charge of teaching and research, which is reflected in a weekly teaching load of eight hours over the two annual lecture periods of at most a total of 30 weeks. Fachhochschule professors are in charge of teaching, and their weekly teaching load is 18 hours over a period of mostly 34 weeks. The FH professors might be granted a temporary reduction of teaching loads for research purposes. The legislation of the individual Länder varies with respect to applied research function of the FH, but by and large it is justified to state that the applied research function of these institutions has increased over time both de lege and de facto. Until recently, the national legislation in Germany for civil servants provided for two categories of professor positions both for universities and Fachhochschulen, whereby the upper category for FH professors corresponded to the lower category for university professors. Recently, the categories for each career were merged in order to use financial differentials as visible rewards for achievement. However, the difference for the lower positions remained the same. On average, the salaries of FH professors are about 20% lower than those of university professors. Universities are in charge of training the junior academic profession. They provide doctoral programmes or supervision of doctoral work, award doctoral degrees, offer post-doctoral positions and undertake research projects in which staff on a postdoctoral level qualify for a professorship. On average, universities have more than three junior staff positions per professor. In contrast, there are no specific junior careers for Fachhochschule professors within higher education, and they tend to be trained both by universities and within other professional activities. Junior academic positions in FHs are rare.

4

Differences of Potential and Performance

4.1

Major Criteria

Differences between the potential and performance of German Fachhochschulen and universities can be described according to four criteria of distinctions, as Teichler (1996) suggested in an analysis of the development of the FHs from the time of their establishment in the early 1970s to the mid-1990s. Institutions of higher education may vary according to: ● ● ● ●

Resources Conditions of steering and administration Study conditions and actual study behaviour Graduate employment and work

Of course, one could add other outcomes to the list, such as research (cf. Friedrich 2003). But in this respect, FHs cannot be viewed as real competitors to universities at all.

104

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

In the subsequent paragraphs, available quantitative data will be presented regarding the first, third and fourth theme. The second theme will be discussed later, because relevant information has to be presented differently.

4.2

Resources

The budget as well as the teaching staff represent the most interesting data regarding resources. As regards financial resources for teaching and research, the average basic funding per student at German public universities was equivalent to €8,033 in 2001 and €4,277 at Fachhochschulen (see BMBF 2004: 279). Assuming that 90% of the resources of FHs are spent on teaching and learning as compared to 50% of the resources of universities (this estimate was chosen in a study of HIS, a publicly funded institution in Germany known for undertaking a broad range of studies of students and being a service institution for German higher education institutions with respect to various administrative matters), one could argue that: ● ●

Universities spent €4,017 for each student on average While Fachhochschulen spent €3,849, i.e. about 95.8% as much

It should be noted that Fachhochschulen often lobbied for substantial increases in support with the argument that they are substantially cheaper than universities. The figures, however, suggest that they are only substantially cheaper if the research function of universities is viewed as superfluous, for example, merely as fitness training for the professors. The estimated costs for teaching a student, however are quite similar at FHs and universities. In 1996, Fachhochschulen had spent the equivalent of €3,727 per student, while universities had spent €3,827. Thus, the former institutions spent 97.4% of the sum the universities spent per student. A detailed analysis of the available data suggests that expenses per student have declined in Germany since 1999 and this decline was more substantial on the part of the FHs than on the part of the universities (BMBF 2004: 279). However, the data do not necessarily suggest a trend in favour of the FHs. The ratio of students per academic staff was 11:1 at German universities in 1994 and 10:1 in 2002; the respective ratio at Fachhochschulen was 27:1 in 1994 and 26:1 in 2002. The ratio of students per professor (including teachers for specific tasks) at universities was 49:1 in 1994 and 50:1 in 2002 (BMBF 2004: 230). The respective ratios at FHs were 31:1 in 1994 and 32:1 in 2002. It is difficult to draw conclusions from these data about the actual staff resources for teaching, guidance, etc. One has to bear in mind that the majority of academic staff at universities are junior staff teaching fewer hours than professors or not having any teaching function, while most academic positions at FHs are senior academic positions exclusively or primarily in charge of teaching. The normal teaching load for FHs professors is 18 hours per week in contrast to 8 hours for university professors. Traditionally, FHs offered courses in classes of up to 30 students, while at universities course size varied

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

105

between just a few students in selected seminars up to more than 1,000 students in mass lectures of key subjects at large universities. Altogether, the data available suggest that the financial and teaching staff resources for teaching purposes do not differ substantially between German universities and Fachhochschulen. Also, the available data do not show any major changes between the mid-1990s and the early years of the 21st century in those respects. With regard to the research function, the academic staff structure might be most revealing. Among university academic staff, the proportion of professors declined from 19% in 1994 to 16% in 2002. At Fachhochschulen, the proportion of professors declined from 75% to 72%. The data suggest that both professors at universities and FHs had an increase of junior academic staff supporting them in their academic activities. More precisely, the ratio of “other scientific and creative arts staff” to professors increased from 4.1:1 to 4.9:1 at universities and from 0.1:1 to 0.2:1 at FHs. This does not suggest, however, any significant narrowing of the gap.

4.3

Enrolment

The number of new entrant students at Fachhochschulen was 91,468 in 1992 and 115,077 in 2002, as Table 1 shows. Its ratio among all new entrant students at institutions in German higher education increased marginally during that period from 31.5% to 32.1%. The rate of new entrant students at Fachhochschulen among the corresponding age group increased from about 7% in 1992 to 11% in 2002. During the same period, the rate of new entrant students at universities increased from 17% to 24% (see BMBF 2004: 156–159). In Table 1, data are presented from 1992 onwards, i.e. from the year in which the procedure of establishing Fachhochschulen in Eastern Germany after the unification was almost completed (cf. the prior development in Kehm 1999: 35–47). The number of Fachhochschulen was slightly less than 100 in the 1980s. It increased to about 120 in the 1980s as a consequence of the establishment of Verw altungsfachhochschulen. In the early 1990s, about 35 new FHs (including VHs) were established the new Länder in the Eastern part of Germany. A further increase of more than 30 FHs up to 2002 is a noteworthy development, whereby about half of the new institutions are private establishments. Actually, in 2002, the overall figures were ● ● ● ● ●

●

Ninety-nine universities, among them 14 non-governmental Six teacher colleges Seventeen theological colleges, all of them non-governmental Fifty colleges of fine arts, music, etc., among them five non-governmental One hundred and fifty-eight general Fachhochschulen, among them 55 non-governmental Twenty-nine Verwaltungsfachhochschulen

106

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

Table 1 Institutions of higher education, new entrants, students and graduates in Germany 1992–2002 (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung 2004) Institutions

New entrantsa

Studentsa

Graduatesa

Year

Universityb

FH

University

FH

University

FH

University FH

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

165 157 158 158 159 159 161 163 168 170 172

153 157 167 168 176 178 183 182 184 185 187

199.3 188.1 181.5 179.9 186.7 187.1 186.8 199.6 216.1 236.8 243.9

91.5 91.5 86.4 82.5 80.6 81.3 85.7 91.8 98.9 108.0 115.1

1,414.6 1,427.1 1,423.7 1,409.3 1,398.3 1,386.7 1,364.8 1,330.8 1,341.1 1,382.3 1,422.7

419.8 440.1 448.8 448.6 439.8 437.5 436.4 443.2 458.2 486.4 516.5

115 118 126 133 139 138 132 127 123 118 124

62 63 71 75 75 76 71 70 66 66 65

a

In thousands Including other colleges

b

Most non-governmental institutions are very small and specialised in a single disciplinary area; a large proportion of them are church-related and predominantly funded by the government. Only about 3% of the students were enrolled in nongovernmental institutions. The percentage of students opting for Fachhochschulen has remained small as compared to frequently-stated policy goals since the late 1960s that about 60% of new entrant students should enrol in study programmes shorter than the typical university programmes. Actually, the percentage of new entrant students at FHs was ● ● ● ●

Twenty-six percent in 1975 Twenty-nine percent in 1980 Thirty-one percent in 1985 (see Teichler 1996), and, as pointed out above About 32% from the early 1990 until most recently

The increase in the 1970s and 1980s was almost entirely due to the fact that vocational schools of public administration had been upgraded to Verwaltungsfachhoch schulen, i.e. FHs for public administration. However, as representatives of the FH sector point out, many FH study programmes restrict admission, while many university programmes are open to qualified applicants. Thus, the relatively small ratio of new entrant students at FHs is determined only in part by individual demand and to a substantial extent by public funding policies. More than 80% of the students at Fachhochschulen are enrolled in four broad fields of study: engineering, business studies, social work and social policy, and public administration. In comparison to the Dutch hogescholen, which accommodate more than half of the Dutch new entrant students, the German FHs do not play a major role in teacher training, health sciences and in the training of laboratory

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

107

occupations. Proposals were frequently made to increase the range of fields of study at FHs. For example, the Science Council in the early 1990s suggested that study programmes at FHs be extended to legal fields, area studies, applied sciences, vocational education and health studies (Wissenschaftsrat 1993: 32), but steps taken in that direction turned out to be slow. The proportion of new entrant students at Fachhochschulen who are also qualified for entry to universities increased from 46% in 1992 to 59% in 2002. This is generally seen as an indication that the entry pools of universities and FHs have become increasingly similar over time (BMBF 2004). The transition from a Fachhochschule degree towards a doctoral degree, made feasible in the 1990s, remained an exception. During the three academic years from 1999/2000 to 2002/03, 220 doctoral degrees were awarded this way (see Friedrich 2004). This corresponds to 0.3% of FH graduates about five years earlier. In comparison: the number of doctoral degrees during those years excluding medical doctorates was about 48,000, i.e. equivalent to more than 12% of the university degrees about five years earlier. Traditionally, Fachhochschulen are more open than universities to students from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Access via the academic track leading to the universities instead of the intermediate track of secondary education ensured better opportunities for socially disadvantaged groups. Actually, the proportion of students at universities from parents of high socio-economic status was 31% in 1994, 36% in 1997 and 38% in 2000. This more strongly reflects an increase of this status group than an increase of social selectivity. As regards FHs, we note that 14% of the students came from families of high socio-economic status in 1994, 19% in 1997 and 21% in 2000 (Schnitzer et al. 1995: 54, 2001: 110). Thus, FHs remained more open socially than the universities, but the difference between the two types of higher education became somewhat smaller. This finding is linked to the fact stated above that an increasing proportion of FH students came via the academic track of secondary education.

4.4

Study Conditions, Provisions and Study Behaviour

The study conditions and teaching environments can be viewed as indicators for measuring the differences between the two types of higher education institutions. The conventional wisdom in Germany is that teaching and learning at Fachhochschulen differs from teaching and learning at universities, notably in three respects. First, Fachhochschulen traditionally provide a school-like environment with classes of moderate size, a larger number of lectures than universities and correspondingly less time for independent study, a stronger emphasis on the teacher and a few books as the source of wisdom rather than individual collections of information, limited choice of courses, a stricter control of presence, and a larger number of regular tests.

108

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

Second, a strong applied emphasis of the Fachhochschulen is visible in various respects: most teachers are professionally experienced outside higher education and research, the number of part-time teachers with professional experience is higher, the teachers emphasize application both in the substance and the modes of teaching, and a larger proportion of FH students is professionally experienced and participates in internships during the course of study. Third, study at Fachhochschulen tends to be viewed as more efficient. Prolongation of study and drop-outs seem to be more frequent at universities than at FHs. Available information by and large confirms this conventional wisdom. However, differences actually seem to be smaller in some respects than convention suggests. Moreover, it is widely assumed that the differences between the two types of higher education have become somewhat smaller over time. Around 1990 and through the early 1990s, ERASMUS students from other countries spending a period of study at German institutions of higher education described the prevailing modes of teaching and learning and the study environment at German Fachhochschulen and universities as surprisingly similar (see Teichler and Maiworm 1997; Teichler 2001). According to the foreign students’ views, the educational environments at German FHs and universities differ only marginally. For example, the foreign students noted a strong emphasis on independent learning and an academically demanding climate at both types of institutions. The most valuable source in Germany for identifying differences of the academic climate between Fachhochschulen and universities as well as changes over time are representative surveys on the study orientations and experiences of German students conducted by a research team of the University of Constance. The most relevant findings in this framework are the following: ●

●

●

Asked about their reasons for study, both students from universities and Fachhochschulen emphasized intrinsic motives (interest in the subject matter and fostering one’s talents) most strongly, with employment opportunities and job security ranking substantially lower. The latter are somewhat more strongly advocated by FH students than by university students, whereby most ratings remained more or less constant from the early 1990s to the early 2000s (Bargel et al. 2004: 52). The surveys confirm the conventional wisdom that Fachhochschule students spend more time in classes than university students. But the average weekly time of FH students in classes declined from 23 hours in 1990 to 21 hours in 1998, while that of university students remained constant at about 16 hours. In contrast, university students spent more time on self-study in recent years (data on 2001 were not available; see Bargel et al. 2001: 184). The surveys show as the most striking result that an increasing proportion of West German Fachhochschule students report occasional and frequent contacts with professors. This proportion increased from 26% in 1993 to 42% in 2001, while fewer university students reported occasional and frequent contacts in 1993 (19%) and the increase of this proportion was smaller over time (23% in 2003). The proportions of students assessing the contacts with professors positively were similar and changed similarly over time (Bargel et al. 2004: 67–77). As

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

●

●

●

●

109

regards counselling and advice, the assessments by FH students were more positive than those of university graduates. They also improved over time, but the differences were smaller in the early 1990s and did not increase over time (ibid.: 97–101). Students at FHs stated more often than students at universities that new media (Internet, multimedia, etc.) were frequently employed in the framework of lectures. This was stated by 12% of the West German FH students in 1998 and by 23% in 2001 as compared to 9% of the West German university students in 1998 and 16% in 2001 (Bargel and Ramm 2003: 34). Altogether, West German – both FH and university – students assessed the quality of study conditions and provisions increasingly more favourably. Positive ratings of the overall programme design increased from 43% in 1993 to 52% in 2001, of the substance of the programme from 52% to 62%, of the carrying out of teaching and learning from 33% to 44%, and of guidance and counselling from 24% to 35%. FH students rated the latter two areas more positively than university students (Bargel et al. 2004: 163–168). Regarding typical institutional profiles, only 17% of West German university students in 1993 and 18% in 2001 considered their study as strongly research oriented; the figures for Fachhochschule students were considerably lower (4% and 5%). Conversely, 28% of the FH student in 1993 and even 36% in 2001 noted a strong orientation towards practice of their study, while the respective figures were 6% and 8% for university students (ibid.: 168–171). Overall, more university students than Fachhochschule students believed in 2001 that their institution promoted intellectual abilities, study and work abilities, as well as autonomy and problem-solving abilities. In contrast, more FH students considered that their institution fostered practical skills, cooperation in teams as well as an attitude of social responsibility. There were changes over time, but by and large the differences between the ratings by university and FH students remained similar (ibid.: 174–182).

Generally, the representative surveys suggest that students at Fachhochschulen consider the socio-communicative setting of teaching and learning more positively than the university students. This difference grew in recent years as a consequence of substantially increasing favourable assessments on the part of FH students and only somewhat increasing favourable assessments on the part of the university students. A stronger emphasis on theory, intellectual competencies at universities and on applied learning at FHs is confirmed by the students. While these differences did not become smaller during recent years; the distinctions seem to be smaller than conventional wisdom suggests. The proportion of foreign students is certainly of interest in this respect as well. In 1992, 5.1% of students at Fachhochschulen had a foreign nationality. Up to 2002, i.e. within ten years, this proportion grew by almost 80% to 9.1%. The proportion of foreign students at universities increased during that period by more than 70%, i.e. from 7.2% to 12.4%. FHs traditionally tended to be less internationally oriented than universities; thus a lower ratio is by no means surprising. As many

110

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

FHs strongly embarked on internationalisation policies in the late 1980s and early 1990s, at the time of the take-off of the ERASMUS programme, one could have expected a narrowing of that gap. From that point of view, the marginally higher relative increase of foreign students at FHs is surprising. Precise statistics on drop-outs do not exist. However, calculations undertaken in the early 1990s came to the conclusion that about 30% of university students and about 25% of Fachhochschule students eventually leave the higher education system without any degree. A recent study estimated that about 26% of university students and about 22% of FH students drop out (Heublein et al. 2005). As the measure of calculation was not identical in these two studies, we cannot be certain whether drop-outs had actually decreased. But obviously the drop-out rate was about a sixth lower at FHs than at universities at both points in time. The difference can be viewed as surprisingly small, if we take into consideration that the course at FHs are somewhat shorter than at universities and that FHs seldom offer fields of study with a loose link between higher education and employment, i.e. those fields in which the drop-out rates at universities tend to be high. The duration of study can be defined as the period from first enrolment to graduation. According to this definition, the average duration of study remained constant from 1994 to 2002 at 6.7 years at universities, 5.2 years at Fachhochschulen and 3 years at Verwaltungsfachhochschulen. Assuming that the average programme at universities requires somewhat less than five years and that at the FHs four years, the average prolongation at universities is at most 40% while that at FHs is about 30%. One can also define the duration of study according to the number of years spent within the field of study in which the students graduate. In that case, periods of interruption of study as well as of study in other fields prior to a change of fields of study, if not counted as equivalent to the new field, would be eliminated. According to that calculation, university graduates both of 1994 and 2002 had spent 5.8 years of study, while the duration of study at FHs increased from 4.6 to 4.8 years. The average prolongation according to this definition is about 20% both at FHs and universities. These findings suggest that the differences of duration of study and of drop-outs between universities and Fachhochschulen have only marginally changed from the early 1990s to the early years of the 21st century. The data do not indicate a higher efficiency of FHs in terms of fewer drop-outs per year of study or less relative prolongation per year of study within the field of study. If there was a superiority of efficiency of FHs at all, this was based on two aspects: A somewhat shorter required period of study, and less frequent changes in fields of study.

4.5

Graduate Employment and Work

Fachhochschulen tend to be praised by German employers and by the majority of politicians and governmental representatives for preparing students for employment and work in a more targeted manner than universities. Moreover, they are

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

111

viewed as a successful countermeasure to the students’ inclination to choose the highest possible level of education. This praise is often combined with warnings that FHs should not yield to pressures of academic drift. This general tone did not change substantially during the 1990s and the first years of the 21st century, even though two circumstances could have led to changes. First, the opinion prevailing since about the mid-1970s that higher education expansion has gone too far gave way in the mid-1990s to a widespread concern that Germany lags behind the leading economically advanced countries in its higher education enrolment rate. Second, as already mentioned, Fachhochschulen have had the opportunity since 1998 of establishing masters programmes, thus moving closer to the educational functions of universities than before. Employment and career opportunities for graduates from Fachhochschulen and universities were clearly distinct prior to the introduction of the Bachelor-Master system. University degrees were the entry qualification for the highest career ladder of public service, the Höherer Dienst. In contrast, a FH degree was the entry qualification to the second-ranking career ladder, the Gehobener Dienst. This ensured the university graduates an income advantage of about 20% and left little room for FHs graduates to be promoted to high-level positions in the public sector. In contrast, surveys have shown that in the 1970s and 1980s the career opportunities of FH and university graduates overlapped and that the average income advantage of university graduates in the private sector was only about half as much as in the public sector (see Teichler 1996). Regular representative graduate surveys undertaken about one and a half years after graduation in 1993, 1997 and 2001 and again five years after graduation (of the 1993 and 1997 cohorts) show the following results: ●

●

●

As one might expect, graduates from Fachhochschulen transfer more quickly to the employment system than university graduates. More than 70% of the former were regularly employed half a year after graduation as compared to less than 50% of the latter. These figures for the 2001 cohorts were each about 10% higher than for the 1993 cohorts (Briedis and Minks 2004: 58–61). Various factors come into play: fewer FH graduates continue study, fewer are in fields where mandatory training periods follow graduation, and fewer are enrolled in fields of study not clearly geared to certain occupations. Similarly, graduates from Fachhochschulen were in a more favourable position than university graduates regarding remuneration and getting a permanent contract when they were employed for the first time after graduation. This gap widened in favour of FH graduates from 1993 to 2001 (ibid.: 119–135). Five years after graduation, the income of the 1993 FH graduates was 4% lower than that of university graduates, and the survey of 1997 graduates showed a 3% difference (Kerst and Minks 2004: 60–62). As discussed below, however, the income situation of FH graduates did not become more favourable to that of university graduates within the same fields of study. Asked about problems they face during the period of their job start, Fachhochschule graduates did not differ substantially from university graduates

112

●

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

according to most issues addressed in the questionnaire. There was one exception: FH graduates stated substantially more often than university graduates that the decision-making processes in the company were not transparent for them (Briedis and Minks 2004: 115–118). Fachhochschule graduates of 2001 were slightly more satisfied with their occupational situation about one and a half years after graduation than university graduates. According to an average across 13 variables, FH graduates of 2001 expressed 54% satisfaction as compared to 51% of the university graduates. Among 1993 graduates, 51% had expressed satisfaction with their occupational situation (ibid.: 145–150). Five years after graduation, satisfaction did not differ according to type of higher education institution: 1993 FH and university graduates expressed on average 56% satisfaction with their occupation situation, while the corresponding ratings were 55% of the FH graduates and 54% of the university graduates of the 1997 cohort (Kerst and Minks 2004: 85–89).

One should bear in mind, though, that the occupational outcomes for all Fachhochschule graduates tend to look quite favourable because the FHs do not provide study programmes in those fields that are not closely geared to occupational areas. A field-by-field comparison shows a different picture. Table 2 suggests that FH graduates barely earn less than university graduates in the same field of study about one and a half years after graduation, but about 10% less about five years after graduation. Thus, the differences have not become smaller over time, but on the contrary have grown in favour of the universities in recent years. Other surveys undertaken in Germany show a less favourable picture of Fachhochschule graduates as compared to university graduates even with criteria that can be considered status-neutral. According to a survey in 1994/95 about four years after graduation (see Schomburg et al. 2001), FH graduates: ●

●

●

Stated a greater discrepancy on average than university graduates between their skills at the time of graduation and the job requirements four years later Reported slightly less often than university graduates that they use the knowledge on the job which they had acquired in the course of their study Considered their employment status less often appropriate than university graduates

Overall, the available data confirm that the employment opportunities between Fachhochschule graduates and university graduates differ to a smaller extent on average than their different ranks in the public sector suggest. However, the available data also show that the existing gap did not decrease further in the 1990s, but might have increased moderately. This might suggest that the growing emphasis by employers and in labour market policies on the flexible graduate does not portend a continuous advantage for the traditional practice-oriented specialised education at Fachhochschulen.

FH University FH University FH University FH University

29,100 28,800 25,650 25,950 26,600 24,800 30,350 28,450

1½ Years after

+7

+7

−1

+1

∆ (%)

1993

∆ Income of FH graduates compared to university graduates in percent

Economics Business Studies

Mechanic. Engen.

Electrical Engen.

Civil Engen.

Field of Study

Type of HE institution 39,600 38,600 39,800 43,000 40,900 43,800 45,300 49,400

5 Years after ∆ (%)

−8

−7

−7

+3

29,050 29,900 30,800 33,300 30,600 31,650 31,200 31,150

1½ Years after

0

−3

−8

−3

∆ (%)

1997

39,800 45,800 49,000 55,400 49,600 54,900 51,300 55,200

5 Years after

∆ (%)

−7

−10

−11

−13

31,700 33,850 39,950 40,250 36,600 39,750 37,700 37,600

1½ Years after

2001

0

−8

−1

−6

∆ (%)

Table 2 Mean annual gross income of German university and fachhochschule graduates 1993, 1997 and 2001 one and a half and five years after graduation by select fields of study (Briedis and Minks 2004: 134; Kerst and Minks 2004: 62)

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story? 113

114

5 5.1

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

A New Game? Changing Conditions

As already stated above, Fachhochschulen have tried over the years to improve their status as compared to universities by both reinforcing their specific strength of an applied study programme orientation on the one hand and, on the other hand, by getting closer to the universities as regards the length of study programme and involvement in research. In addition, three factors have to be identified which suggest a further blurring of the functions of the two types of institutions and a resulting narrowing of the status gap. First, in recent years, efforts increased on the part of the Fachhochschulen to reduce the symbolic barriers between universities and FHs. Developments in this domain will be referred to briefly. Second, the equal legal status of universities and Fachhochschulen was not considered in the past as a possible vehicle of advancing the status of FHs. There are indications, though, that this might have changed recently and is likely to change in the future. Third, the introduction of a bachelor structure of study programmes and degrees seems to blur the distinction of the educational function between the Fachhochschulen and universities. Currently, we note regulations both challenging and reinforcing the traditional divide simultaneously.

5.2

Symbolic Means

The name of the institutional types – universities and Fachhochschulen – underscores a clear distinction of the function of the institution, i.e. a stronger degree of specialisation and professional emphasis for the latter. The name, however, never suggested that the FHs were not in charge of training some of the most prestigious professions, e.g. medical doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and high level public administrators. Representatives of the FHs occasionally claimed that medicine, law, teacher training and similar subjects ought to be transferred from universities to FHs, but this was never taken seriously. In the 1990s, FHs began to name themselves in the English language as “universities of applied sciences”. Some individual Fachhochschulen no longer called themselves FH, but rather “Hochschule”, for example, “Hochschule Bremen” instead of “Fachhochschule Bremen”. But they stopped short of naming themselves “universities” in the German language. By the 1970s, senior teaching staff at Fachhochschulen were awarded the title “Professor”. The university professors succeeded in a court case in claiming a distinction of title and officially were renamed “Universitäts-Professor” in the 1980s. Initially, the titles awarded to Fachhochschule graduates were distinct from those awarded to university graduates. A graduate of the former type of institution

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

115

in engineering was called “Diplom-Ingenieur (FH)” while a graduate from a university was called “Diplom-Ingenieur”. This distinction was abolished in the 1980s; the distinction is not visible in the title, but only if one looks at the certificate in order to identify the awarding institution. In the 1980s, the Fachhochschulen became members of the West German Rectors’ Conference (now called “Hochschulrektorenkonferenz”). They are regular members now and ceased to keep their traditional “Fachhochschulenrektorenkonfe renz” in the 1990s. However, the voting rights of the individual FHs in the HRK are not on equal terms with those of individual universities. Also, FHs became regular members of Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (German Academic Exchange Service) and became eligible for research support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Many university professors are members of the Hochschulverband, while many FH professors are members of a separate association, the Hochschullehrerbund. At present, negotiations are underway to merge these two associations.

5.3

Changing Governance and Management

Fachhochschulen did not differ substantially from universities in their legal status, governmental supervision and internal administration from the outset. As a rule, they were corporations under public law. They had to negotiate with the government of their respective Land about the increase of staff positions, the establishment of new fields of study, construction of buildings etc. The budget was allocated by the government annually as a line item with hundreds of lines. The government appointed professorial positions on the basis of a list of three proposals by the institution of higher education, approved the so-called “examination regulations” of the individual study programmes and supervised the financial affairs of the institutions of higher education in a very detailed manner (cf. the overview in Kehm 1999; Jonen and Boele 2001). One should bear in mind, though, that the extent to which government embarked on a detailed process of control varied among the German Länder, and it changed over time. The Fachhochschulen were founded at a time when two major administrative changes took place at German institutions of higher education. First, the traditional divide between an “academic self-administration” and governmental resource administration was abolished. The presidents or rectors now became heads of an integrated administration. Second, a participatory decision-making model was established whereby representatives of professors, junior academic staff, other staff and students formed the university council, the senate, the faculty council, etc. and had a final say about academic and administrative policies. In most German Länder, a single higher education law provided the legal framework both for universities and Fachhochschulen. Informally, conventional wisdom suggests that presidents/rectors and deans of faculties/departments at FHs have de facto a stronger say than at universities. This is due, first, to the fact that constitutionally guaranteed “academic freedom” was interpreted in most court cases as the

116

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

right of freedom of research by the academic senior staff at universities. Second, the informal power of the university professors rests to a considerable extent on the acquisition of research funds from outside sources – a privilege which few FH professors enjoy. Third, the internal climate of FHs was influenced for a long time by the administrative traditions of the predecessor organisations. Altogether, the Fachhochschulen could consider their legal status and the modes of governmental supervision as an indication of high respect on the part of government. They were treated more or less the same as universities. But the total system of regulations and actual state supervision rarely provided opportunities for the FHs for strategic options through which they could change their functions substantially in comparison to the functions of the university. For example, they could not decide to reduce the teaching load of their staff substantially, to set up major research centres or to establish some university-type programmes. Since the 1990s, the governance and management system of higher education in Germany gradually began to be reformed in a similar way as in most other European countries, e.g. reduced procedural supervision of the individual institutions of higher education, broad target-setting by government leaving room for strategic options for the individual institutions of higher education, and a stronger emphasis on evaluation and accountability. A comprehensive overview of these changes in Germany cannot be provided in a few pages, because the 1998 version of the Framework Act for Higher Education barely addresses any element of national coordination of administration of higher education and the individual countries opted for different solutions of governance. Moreover, some individual institutions of higher education opted for specific managerial approaches. Among others, these included: ●

●

●

●

●

●

Some institutions of higher education were moved from corporations under public law to legally private foundations. Detailed line-budgets were substituted by broad line budgets or so-called “global budgets”. In some Länder, governments and institutions of higher education signed contracts that guaranteed pluri-annual budgets. In many cases, governments and individual institutions of higher education negotiated and eventually signed contracts about mid-term planning. The power of the executive positions of the rectors/presidents and deans of faculties/departments were significantly strengthened at the expense of professors, junior academic staff, other staff and students, and intra-institutional committees. In many cases, major supervisory rights were transferred to a board comprised of external representatives. Institutions of higher education were mandated to establish regular evaluation measures. In some Länder, common evaluation schemes were established while in others the implementation was completely left to the individual institutions of higher education. An accreditation system was established for the new bachelor-master study programmes. Governments, as a rule, agreed to accept the decisions made within the accreditation system, but did not formally forego the right of approval of study programmes (or more precisely, the approval of examination regulations).

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

117

Actors and experts agree that the individual German institutions of higher education have more room for bold strategic options than ever before. Some of them see room for manoeuvring that will allow some Fachhochschulen to challenge the traditional functional divide between the two types of higher education. Those interpreting the changes of the governance and management systems as moves towards marketisation of higher education and the advocates of increasing quality differences among the universities and among the FHs predict that diversification of higher education will substantially grow in the near future and that the most successful FHs will have the opportunity of becoming more similar to some of the universities. Others, in contrast, believe that the remaining instruments of regulation and state-higher education institutions coordination will safeguard that the FHs have to act within a continuous functional divide. According to this view, the functions of universities and FHs are likely to overlap in the future only if the strict two-type policy is discontinued.

5.4

The New Study Programmes and Degrees

In 1996, first proposals were made in Germany to transfer the existing structure of study programmes and degrees in Germany towards a bachelor-master structure in order to increase the attractiveness of German higher education for prospective students from outside Europe. In 1998, Germany was one of the signatory countries of the Sorbonne Declaration. Already in 1998, the Framework Act for Higher Education was revised in order to provide the opportunity for establishing a bachelormaster structure of study programmes and degrees. The number of bachelor and master programmes increased from about 100 each early in 2000 to about 1,300 each in late 2004. Recent findings seem to suggest that 23% of the study programmes have been transformed to a bachelor-structure, but this would be an exaggeration because single university programmes were often divided up into two programmes, i.e. a bachelor and a master programmes. In winter 2002/03, 7% of new entrant students were enrolled in bachelor programmes, and 3% of all students were in the new bachelor and master programmes About 2% of graduates had successfully completed a bachelor or a master programme (see Chválová and Kleinheidt 2004: 196–209). The process of establishing bachelor and master programmes at German institutions of higher education started relatively early from a European perspective, but is by no means very rapid. The initial decision for an optional new structure – old study programmes might be preserved, might be continued along the new structure or might be abolished – was a successful step to calm down objections at the outset, but turned out to be a barrier for rapid change in the long run. Moreover, the decision to establish a new accreditation system solely for the bachelor and master programmes turned out to be a delaying factor because developing a complex accreditation process under the conditions of a Federal system could not get in full-fledged operation within a short period. Thus this spread uncertainty for newly emerging bachelor and master programmes (cf. Schwarz-Hahn and Rehburg 2004; Schade 2004).

118

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

One could have expected on the one hand that Fachhochschulen would have moved more quickly in implementing the new course structure because it could be viewed as a status enhancement to offer master programmes like the universities. On the other hand, it was clear that the FHs had to commit major resource allocations in order to establish bachelor programmes, since FHs more or less need as much teaching staff capacity for offering bachelor programmes as they needed in the past to offer “Diploma” programmes. In contrast, universities might divide up the resources traditionally needed for the long university programmes in order to offer both a bachelor and a master programme. Neither of the hypotheses is confirmed by the facts, as a survey on the implementation of the bachelor-master structure (see Schwarz-Hahn and Rehburg 2004) and statistics (see Chválová and Kleinheidt 2004) show. Rather, universities and FHs moved at a similar pace towards the establishment of new study programmes and established almost equal proportions of bachelor programmes and master programmes. Advocates of a strong Fachhochschule sector successfully fought off three restrictions against the participation of FHs on equal terms with the universities. Proposals were shelved that suggested FHs should: ● ● ●

Only provide bachelor programmes Only provide applied master programmes, and/or Award distinct titles from those of universities

Instead, the new bachelor programmes are not formally divided into any categories. Master programmes have to be divided in theoretically oriented and practically oriented ones, whereby the universities are free to also offer practically oriented programmes and the FHs theoretically oriented ones. Moreover, master programmes either have to be “consecutive”, i.e. to continue master studies in the same field as bachelor studies, or non-consecutive, and either have to be regular programmes or programmes of continuing professional education. Thus, the programmes of FHs and universities might overlap, although the traditional divide is expected to show up again in the curricular emphases. Finally, master programmes of FHs are only accepted as entry qualification for the highest level of public service (Höherer Dienst), if representatives of the public are involved in the accreditation, if the accreditation commissions consider the master programme as appropriate for this level of public service and if the representatives of the public service agree to this assessment (cf. Chválová and Kleinheidt 2004). Thus, a specific hurdle remains. Undoubtedly, the educational functions of Fachhochschulen und universities overlap more strongly since the start of the establishment of a bachelor-master structure of study programmes and degrees. First, university graduates with a bachelor degree transferring to the labour market are likely to get similar or less attractive positions than FH graduates of the old system. Second, the FH master will be able, in the majority of cases, to transfer to the same professional levels as a university graduate. Of course, it is premature to establish to what extent this formal overlap or equalisation of status will actually have as a value on the labour market.

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

6

119

Closing Remarks

The German Fachhochschulen can be viewed, in comparative perspective, as one of the most ambitious alternative types of higher education institutions to the universities in Europe. They claim to offer study programmes distinct from those of the universities as far as the curricular approach is concerned, but equivalent as far as the status is concerned. And FH professors, as a rule, have to be awarded a doctoral degree and subsequently have to be professionally active in the area of their expertise as entry qualification to the professoriate, i.e. not merely in higher education and research; but rather both academically and professionally. The history of the German Fachhochschulen is similar in principal matters to that of other non-university types of higher education institutions in Europe. In contrast to non-university institutions in the U.S. or in Japan, the institutions in Europe, as a rule, do not try to change their status individually, but rather collectively. We observe in Germany that the FHs constantly underscore their distinction to the universities, i.e. their applied emphasis, their shorter study periods and their lower costs, as a valuable asset. On the other hand, they try to become more similar to the universities by being more strongly involved in research and in advanced study programmes, by calling for similar positions of their professors to those of university professors and by taking a maximum overlap of their graduates’ careers with those of university graduates as criteria of success. An analysis of the changes of the German Fachhochschulen from the mid-1990s to the first years of the 21st century is a methodologically difficult task. First, few changes of the framework under which the FHs operate took place prior to this period. Notably, one can point to the decision to make four years of study (including internship periods and final examination periods) the norm instead of three years plus possibly internship and examination periods, as well as the decision that a FH graduate can progress under certain circumstances towards doctoral study without being awarded a university degree in between. Second, a major change in the role of the FHs might be triggered by the Bologna Process, but it is premature now to assess its actual impact on the FHs. Third, we might assume that the equal legal status of the FHs to that of universities, as far as governance and administration is concerned, has offered the FHs widened strategic options since the late 1990s, when governmental policies gradually withdrew from detailed supervision and moved towards strategic steering. However, these changes of the framework are too recent to allow an in-depth analysis of their impact at this point in time. Therefore, the analysis focuses on the actual changes of student enrolment, the composition of the student body, teaching, learning and study behaviour as well as graduate employment and work during the period under observation. Available statistics and surveys suggest that the proportion of new entrant students at FHs among all students at German institutions of higher education did not grow substantially during that period. The composition of students at FHs, however, became more similar to that at universities in two respects: a higher proportion of them were qualified as well to enrol at universities, and the proportion among them grew substantially whose parents were higher-education trained. In contrast to conventional

120

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

wisdom, FHs are not substantially more efficient than universities as far as drop-out rates or prolongation of study is concerned, and this did not change substantially during the period examined. Over the years under observation, students at FHs and universities assessed the socio-communicative climate and the teaching and learning conditions increasingly more favourably. The increase of positive ratings was more pronounced among FH students than among universities. Available data on graduate employment and work, however, do not suggest gains of FH graduates as compared to university graduates. On the contrary, some data suggest the pendulum swung in favour of universities in recent years. The decision made in the late 1990s in Germany to establish a stage structure in the study programmes and degrees clearly implies a rise in the status of German Fachhochschulen as compared to universities. The FHs are entitled now to offer masters programmes. The profiles of masters programmes also might overlap because both universities and FHs can opt for an academic or a professional approach. Though masters programmes of FHs do not automatically qualify for the highest careers of the civil service, accreditation agencies are entitled to decide which FH programmes will qualify for them. First figures available suggest that FHs are more or less equally active as universities in establishing bachelor and masters programmes. The Bologna Process can be expected to reduce the distinction of the curricular roles between the FHs and universities, but it is not yet clear what this will mean in the long run: a consolidation or the “beginning of the end” of the two-type structure. It is also not clear how the FHs will use their increasing opportunities for making strategic choices. The changes noted above take place at a time when policies are gaining popularity in Germany to contribute to a somewhat steeper hierarchy of the academic quality among the universities and to concentrate the resources of the individual universities more strongly around their strengths and possibly to discontinue relatively weak areas of study and research. It will be interesting to note whether these policies in the university sector will have an impact on the Fachhochschulen. One could imagine, for example, that the Fachhochschule sector will become substantially more heterogeneous than in the past. Some institutions might become centres of excellence for professional training and applied research, some might opt for mergers with universities, some might become teaching institutions more distinct from the universities than in the past, some might cease to exist, and some might merge with other FHs. It would not be surprising to find that some FHs are the winners in the declining distance of the official functions of FHs and universities, while others might be the losers. Last but not least, the role of German Fachhochschulen might change as a consequence of a possibly changing role of other tertiary education institutions and programmes. Currently, only about 1% of the age group is enrolled at Berufsakademien, the third type of tertiary education institutions, but more than 10% of Germans are awarded vocational qualifications annually which are considered “tertiary” in publications of the OECD and the European Commission. Examples would include technicians, health professions, laboratory occupations as well as advanced vocational training programmes in the areas of business studies, information

German Fachhochschulen: Towards the End of a Success Story?

121

technologies, etc. We predict that graduates from these training programmes will be awarded a bachelor degree once the “European Higher Education Area” is realized, but it is difficult to predict the future institutional patterns. It could be a multi-type system and a new divide between the universities and FHs or Berufsakademien and other tertiary education institutions. Only time will tell.

References Alesi, B. et al. Bachelor and Master Study Programmes in the Bologna Process in Selected European Countries Compared with Germany: The State of Implementation. Wissenschaftliches Zentrum für Berufs- und Hochschulforschung. Kassel, Germany: Universität Kassel, mimeo, 2005. Bargel, T., and M. Ramm. Studiensituation und Studentische Orientierungen: 8. Studierendensurvey an Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Bonn, Germany: Kurzfassung, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2003. Bargel. T., M. Ramm, and F. Multrus. Studiensituation und Studentische Orientierungen: 7. Studierendensurvey an Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2001. Bargel, T., M. Ramm, and F. Multrus. Studiensituation und Studentische Orientierungen: 8. Studierendensurvey an Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2004. Briedis, K., and K. H. Minks. Zwischen Hochschule und Arbeitsmarkt: Eine Befragung der Hochschulabsolventinnen und Hochschulabsolventen des Prüfungsjahrgangs 2001. Hannover, Germany: Hochschulinforfmations-System, 2004. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Wissenschaft. Grund- und Strukturdaten 2003/2004. Bonn, Germany: BMBF, 2004. Cerych, L. et al. The German Gesamthochschulen. Paris: Institute of Education, European Cultural Foundation, 1981. Chválová, E., and B. Kleinheidt (eds). “Bologna-Reader: Texte und Hilfestellungen zur Umsetzung der Ziele des Bologna-Prozesses an deutschen Hochschulen”. Hochschulrektorenk onferenz (Beiträge zur Hochschulpolitik, No. 8/2004), Bonn, 2004. Friedrich, H. R. Forschung an Fachhochschulen, Fachhochschulen in Deutschland und Europa: Festschrift für Dietmar von Hoyningen-Huene. Mannheim, Germany: Pylon Verlag, 2003. Friedrich, H. R. “Fachhochschulen in Europa: Entwicklungsperspektiven in der EU-25 und im Bologna-Prozess”. Die Neue Hochschule 4–5 (2004): 8–11. Heublein, U., R. Schmelzer, and D. Sommer. Studienabbruchsstudie 2005: Die Studienabbrecherquoten in den Fächergruppen und Studienbereichen der Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Hannover, Germany: Hochschul-Informations-System, HIS Kurzinformationen A1, 2005. Jonen, G., and K. Boele (eds). The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany 2000. Bonn, Germany: Secretariat of the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic of Germany, 2001. Kehm, B. M. Higher Education in Germany: Developments, Problems and Perspectives. Bucharest/Wittenberg, Germany: UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education and Institute for Higher Education Research Wittenberg, 1999. Kerst, C., and K.-H. Minks. Fünf Jahre nach dem Studienabschluss – Berufsverlauf und aktuelle Situation von Hochschulabsolventinnen und Hochschulabsolventen des Prüfungsjahrgangs 1997. Hannover, Germany: Hochschul-Informations-System, 2004. Klumpp, M., and T. Lenk. New Public Management am Beispiel der Hochschulen in Österreich und der Schweiz. Leipzig, Germany: Universität Leipzig (Arbeitspapier Nr. 30 des Instituts für Finanzwissenschaft), 2004.

122

M. Klumpp, U. Teichler

Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Paris: IAU Press/Pergamon, 1996. Neave, G. “Foundation or Roof? The Quantitative, Structural and Institutional Dimensions in the Study of Higher Education”. European Journal of Education 24, 3 (1989): 211–222. OECD (ed). Short-Cycle Higher Education: A Search for Identity. Paris: OECD, 1972. OECD. Alternatives to Universities. Paris: OECD, 1991. Schade, A. “Shift of Paradigm in Quality Assurance in Germany: More Autonomy but Multiple Quality Assessment”. In Schwarz, S., and D. F. Westerheijden (eds). Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2004, pp. 175–196. Schnitzer, K. et al. Das Soziale Bild der Studentenschaft in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: 14. Sozialerhebung des Deutschen Studentenwerks. Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft, Forschung und Technologie, 1995. Schnitzer, K., W. Isserstedt, and E. Middendorf. Die Wirtschaftliche und Soziale Lage der Studierenden in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Bonn, Germany: Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, 2001. Schomburg, H. et al. (eds). Erfolgreich von der Uni in den Job. Regensburg, Germany: Fit for Business, 2001. Schwarz-Hahn, S., and M. Rehburg. Bachelor und Master in Deutschland – Empirische Befunde zur Studienstrukturreform. Münster, Germany: Waxmann, 2004. Teichler, U. “Diversity in Higher Education in Germany: The Two-type Structure”. In Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Paris: IAU Press/Pergamon, 1996, pp. 117–137. Teichler, U. “The Changing Roles of the University and Non-university Sectors of Higher Education in Europe”. European Review 6, 4 (1998): 475–487. Teichler, U. Changing Patterns of Higher Education Systems. London, Jessica Kingley Publishers, 1988. Teichler, U. “Erfahrungen der Studierenden mit dem Auslandsstudium – das Beispiel ERASMUS”. Recht der Jugend und des Bildungswesens 49, 2 (2001): 199–207. Teichler, U., and F. Maiworm. The ERASMUS Experience. Luxembourg, German: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1997. Trow, M. “Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education”. In OECD (ed). Policies for Higher Education. Paris: OECD, 1974, pp. 51–101. Trow, M. “Elite and Mass Higher Education: American Models and European Realities”. In Research into Higher Education: Processes and Structures. Stockholm: National Board of Universities and Colleges, 1978, pp. 183–192. Wissenschaftsrat. 10 Thesen zur Hochschulpolitik. Köln, Germany: Wissenschaftsrat, 1993.

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education Patrick Clancy

In common with many other countries, higher education in Ireland was largely co-terminus with university education until the second half of the 20th century. The key strategic decision taking in the late 1960s was to establish a network of Regional Technical Colleges, which were to provide the bulk of additional places in an expanding third-level system. This diversified system has continued to be endorsed by government as the optimum means of catering for national needs and sustaining an increasingly successful economy. This paper will review the evolution of the technological sector, the main element of the non-university sector. While this sector also includes part of the college of education sector and a relatively small private college sector (Clancy 1999) these will not be considered in this paper. The paper is divided into five main sections. The first will provide an overview of the evolution of higher education policy and situate the technological sector within the context of the overall system. The second section will describe some key parameters of the current system, focusing on the distribution of students between sector and field of study. It also provides a brief description of access to the system, staffing and academic careers, and funding mechanisms. The next section describes the institutional governance structure of the technological sector while the fourth section examines the level of autonomy of the system in comparison to the university sector. The final section will deal with future trends, which are likely to be influenced by the Bologna Process and more particularly by the report of the OECD Advisory Group, which has, at the request of the Irish Government, recently reviewed the Irish higher education system. The recommendations of this report have not yet been implemented.

1

The Higher Education System in Ireland

The transformation of the higher education system, which dates from decisions taken in the 1960s, coincides with changes in the approach to economic policy. Since achieving independence in 1921 Ireland had a heavy reliance on the agricultural sector. With respect to industrial policy, it operated a largely protectionist strategy attempting to develop indigenous industry based on import substitution James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

123

124

P. Clancy

and catering to the home market. By the late 1950s, this policy was judged to have failed as reflected by high levels of unemployment and massive emigration. The 1960s marked a fundamental policy shift. The pursuit of economic growth was established as the dominant project in Irish political life. Economic development was to be pursued through a policy of rapid industrialisation to be achieved with the help of foreign investment and to be sustained by export-led growth. A reoriented educational system was seen as being a key facilitator in this transformation process. Human capital theory was enthusiastically embraced, replacing the previously dominant personal development paradigm. This paradigm shift is well illustrated by the differential impact of two major education reports published within a relatively short period of one another. Human capital theory finds explicit endorsement in the Investment in Education (1965) report, which was jointly sponsored by the Irish Government Department of Education and the OECD. This report has been described as the foundation document of Irish modern education (Coolahan 1981). In contrast, the report of the Commission on Higher Education (1967), which might have been expected to provide a blueprint for the future development of higher education, was not very influential, largely it would seem because its focus on the personal development and cultural mission of higher education was out of step with the emerging utilitarianism in public policy. While the report of the Commission provides a valuable, if unflattering, portrait of the higher education system as it existed in the 1960s, most of its recommendations were not heeded. Perhaps its main legacy was its recommendation for the establishment of a planning authority, to be called the Higher Education Authority, which continues to play a central role in Irish higher education. Although the Commission on Higher Education did not deal explicitly with the question of aims and objectives, the following quotation serves to establish some of the thinking which lies behind the report. It would be wrong to view our institutions of higher education, particularly our universities, simply as professional academies for the training of various categories of skilled personnel; their functions as centres of learning and scholarship and liberal education should not be allowed to become overshadowed by the claims made upon them to provide the country with its requirements of skilled manpower. Likewise the value of higher education for the community is not alone the content of expert knowledge which a modern community requires to have at its service. Irrespective of service to these needs, higher education must be looked at as a good in itself, as an intrinsic asset that confers a particular benefit on the community as well as on the individual. The kind of society into which we are moving calls not only for greater numbers of skilled persons but also for an educated community capable of achieving and sustaining the higher purposes of that society in its own life and in its relationship with other peoples. (p. 118)

It was the view of the Commission that the proper concern of the university was with first principles and basic research as distinct from professional training. Consistent with this view of the demarcation between basic research and pure scholarship versus applied research and vocational relevance, it recommended the establishment of a separate National College of Agriculture and Veterinary Sciences rather than locating these faculties in the universities. This recommendation was not implemented.

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

125

The Commission’s main recommendation for the expansion of the system was for the establishment of a new type of institution to be called ‘the new college’. The new college would operate in three major fields – the humanistic, the scientific and the commercial – and would work up to the standard of the pass degree. While it was envisaged that the courses would have a ‘stronger vocational bias than would be appropriate for university courses’, it was suggested that they be planned ‘to provide a broad and balanced education together with a certain measure of specialisation. The humanistic course, for example, would include scientific studies and the science course would contain an arts element’ (pp. 127–128). The proposals for the new colleges, the conceptualisation of which seems to mirror the university model, never seem to have been given any serious consideration since, prior to the publication of the report, the government had already decided to establish eight regional technological colleges. In doing so it had chosen to endorse a binary structure and to ensure that the major expansion would be concentrated in the non-university sector. The proposal to establish Regional Technical Colleges was first mooted in 1963 by the Minister for Education, Dr. Hillary, following the ‘confrontation meeting’ with an OECD survey team which was examining the Training of Technicians in Ireland (OECD 1964). It is clear that in its original concept the RTCs were conceived as primarily second-level institutions since the Minister’s announcement was made in the context of a statement on second-level education when he indicated his intention to establish Comprehensive Schools and in a related development to introduce a Technical Schools Leaving Certificate. To achieve the latter he indicated that the Department of Education would establish a limited number of technological colleges with regional status in which to provide the new certificate programme. Some months later he elaborated on the remit of the proposed Regional Technical Colleges, suggesting that they would provide for: the Technical Schools Leaving Certificate; apprentice training; and higher level technician training. Initial progress to establish the RTCs was slow, mainly because of the implications for other second-level providers. Both existing vocational schools and more particularly existing secondary schools were unhappy with the notion that new well-resourced regional technical schools would cream off significant numbers of senior-cycle pupils thus depressing their own enrolments. It was not until 1966 that a fresh impetus was provided when a new minister, Donogh O’Malley, established the Steering Committee on Technical Education. Its remit was to advise the minister generally on technical education and more specifically to provide a design brief for the colleges for the consortium of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors who were appointed to supervise the erection of the colleges. The Committee provided an unambiguously utilitarian brief for the colleges: We believe that the long-term function of the Colleges will be to educate for trade and industry over a broad spectrum of occupations ranging from craft to professional level, notably in engineering and science, but also in commercial, linguistic and other specialities. They will, however, be more immediately concerned with providing courses aimed at filling gaps in the industrial manpower structure, particularly in the technician area. (Steering Committee on Technical Education 1967: 11)

126

P. Clancy

The Committee recommended that the Minister should proceed with the building of the eight new colleges, the location of which was already decided: Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Galway, Sligo, Dundalk, Athlone and Carlow. Their advice in respect of Letterkenny, on which their views were sought, was that a local technical college rather than a full regional technical college should be built. Five Regional Technical Colleges were established in 1970 and four more were added between 1971 and 1977. Limerick did not get a new college but instead the existing technological colleges were expanded and merged to form the Limerick College of Art, Commerce and Technology, which subsequently became designated as an RTC. The Committee’s advice in respect of Letterkenny was not accepted and it too got a fully-fledged RTC, while a further college not on the original list was opened in Tralee in 1977. The system has been augmented further in recent years with the establishment of two new Institutes of Technology in Dublin (Tallaght and Blancherstown) and with the evolution of what was previously a college of art and design into the Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art, Design and Technology. From their inauguration the new colleges concentrated their provision of thirdlevel courses in Engineering and Construction Studies, Business Studies, Applied Science and Art and Design. In addition to their strong vocational emphasis the course offerings of the RTCs were also distinctive in that they were short-cycle or mainly sub-degree level courses. The majority of courses were of two-year duration leading to a National Certificate validated by the National Council for Educational Awards, a body which was also established on the advice of the Steering Committee. The colleges also award National Diplomas, either as ab initio three-year programmes or, more commonly, as one-year add on programmes accessible to those with an appropriate level of attainment at Certificate level. While, in keeping with the Minister’s original intention, the Committee’s enrolment projections were that the third-level component of these colleges would constitute only 28% of stock enrolments, the colleges quickly shed all second-level teaching and evolved as third-level colleges. The proposal to introduce the Technical Leaving Certificate was quietly dropped, thus removing the rationale for the colleges’ involvement in second-level senior cycle work, while the new colleges’ role in apprenticeship training was also curtailed by separate developments within the Industrial Training Authority (AnCO), which reduced the role of the educational system in the training and education of apprentices. The remit of the Committee included an injunction to harmonise with any future thinking on third-level technician education, and while the Report of The Commission on Higher Education had not yet been published, a summary of the report was available to the Committee. While the Committee did not explicitly disagree with the concept of the ‘new college’ it is evident from its caveats in respect of several aspects of the proposal, such as entry standards, level of academic qualifications and its role in the provision for teacher education, that it was not well disposed to the proposal (White 2001). Although it is unlikely that members of the Committee were fully aware of it at the time, it is clear that their endorsement and specifications for the development of a network of Regional Technical Colleges offered an alternative pathway for the expansion and diversification of higher education,

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

127

which would prove more attractive to government than that outlined by the Commission on Higher Education, which reported in the same year. In a recent review of developments in higher education, White (2001: 41–64) has juxtaposed the relative impact of the Steering Committee Report with that of the report of the Commission on Higher Education. The ‘tale of two committees’ is indeed an important watershed in the development of Irish higher education. One committee sat for seven years and produced a vast report spanning two large volumes plus a summary volume. The majority of its recommendations were not implemented. The other committee reported within eight months of its establishment and found its succinct recommendations implemented with enthusiasm. The implementation of its recommendations was to transform the structure of the higher education system. However, it would be a mistake to over-emphasise the independent impact of the Steering Committee’s report and to juxtapose its logic with the apparent inappropriateness of the Commission’s recommendations. The latter was a commission of inquiry while the former was asked to advise on the implementation of decisions already taken by government. In retrospect what is clear is that the two committees were not equally in tune with the rapidly-changing circumstances and economic and social policies of the Ireland of the 1960s. The recommendations of the Commission might have been acceptable if it reported within a year or two of its establishment. Its limited acknowledgement of human capital theory, which was to be so cogently exemplified by the influential Investment in Education report which appeared in 1965, left it out of sync with emerging economic and social policy. In contrast, the report of the Steering Committee could call on the authority of the Investment in Education report and the legitimacy of the OECD, which sponsored this report and a related report on the Training of Technicians in Ireland (OECD 1964). The recommendations of the Steering Committee report also found legitimacy in the new economic development programmes initiated in the late 1950s and pursued with vigour and with considerable success through the 1960s. Not surprisingly, its proposals, rather than those of the Commission, found favour with the government. The strategy chosen by the Irish government to expand third-level provision by choosing the binary option and developing a large non-university sector to cater to the labour market needs of an expanding industrial economy conforms to a pattern found in many European countries. This is the second in the general sequence of strategies identified by Scott (1985) in his review of changing priorities in higher education. This strategy involves dividing national systems of higher education into distinct categories and assigning to each category short-cycle vocationally-oriented programmes. The remit of colleges in the new sector was designed by government and the institutions enjoyed less autonomy than that of the longer-established university sector. This replaced an earlier strategy which Scott describes as the ‘trust the institution/faculty/department approach’. This policy involved allowing the college or constituent unit within it to decide what to teach and to how large a constituency it should be offered. The main alternative to a binary system, that of a unitary system, might have been less amenable to such a policy reorientation. If a unitary policy was to have been successful it would have required an explicit acceptance of the desirability of a policy reorientation by the then-dominant and

128

P. Clancy

largely independent university sector. It is clear that in the late 1960s and indeed for at least two further decades the government had little confidence that the university sector would be sufficiently adaptable to meet the growing diversity of expectations which government and market forces had for higher education systems. While the development of the RTCs represents the most significant addition to the higher education infrastructure in Ireland, the development of two National Institutes of Higher Education (NIHEs) is also highly significant. The initial impetus behind the establishment of the NIHEs came from the campaign to establish a university at Limerick (at that time the third-largest city in the Republic of Ireland). This claim was rejected by the Commission on Higher Education, which instead recommended that a ‘new college’ be established there. The Limerick claim for a university was subsequently referred by the Minister for Education to the newly constituted Higher Education Authority. The HEA supported the views of the Commission that ‘there is no national need at present for another university college’. However, it recognised another national need, observing that Ireland was ‘to a great extent lacking in a new and important form of higher education of which the primary purpose is the application of scientific knowledge and method.’ Technological education, it argued, had not yet found its proper level; its content needed to be upgraded and the scope of its operation extended. Furthermore it suggested that technological and higher technician roles needed to become ‘statuscarrying in their own right’ (HEA 1969: 9). The HEA was impressed by the success of the Polytechnics in Britain and saw this as offering a model which would meet both national and local needs. The colleges recommended were to become known as National Institutes for Higher Education and were designed to provide ‘the prestige of degree-granting courses with an extensive range of certificate and diploma courses’. In common with the RTCs, the NIHEs, once established, experienced ‘academic drift’ and operated primarily at degree and postgraduate levels. The first NIHE was established at Limerick in 1972, and a second in Dublin in 1980. While the new institutions, the RTCs and NIHEs, transformed the structure of higher education we must also take account of the evolution of the longer-established component of the technological sector, principally the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT). It was formally established in 1977 by the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee from an amalgamation of six colleges. This amalgamation involved two colleges of technology, a college of commerce, a college of marketing and design, a college of catering and a college of music, all of which were established at various times between 1881 and 1941. In the early years of these colleges the courses on offer were mainly second level but gradually, in responding to changing needs, tertiary level courses came to dominate, although they continued to serve the needs of apprenticeships training. The colleges focused on applied courses catering to the needs of a wide range of occupations and professions. Prior to the establishment of the RTCs the Dublin colleges were almost the sole providers of technician and technological training in Ireland, although there was also a very limited provision in the cities of Cork and Limerick, also under the auspices of their local Vocational Education Committees. The latter activities became incorporated

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

129

in the new colleges which now constitute Cork Institute of Technology and Limerick Institute of Technology. Enrolment in the Dublin colleges of technology expanded rapidly in response to the growing demand for technician-level training. In the mid-1970s the government intended to transfer the more advanced third-level courses from these colleges to a single site to constitute the National Institute of Higher Education in Dublin’s northside. However, the City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee successfully resisted this initiative and instead planned to restructure its colleges as a distinct entity under its own management control. The NIHE opened its doors in 1980 on a site which the CDVEC had earmarked for its own combined colleges. In anticipation of this, the Dublin Institute of Technology was set up on an ad hoc basis as a confederation of its six colleges. A Governing Body was formed with a more broadly-based membership than the CDVEC itself. The individual College Councils, the Academic Council and the Apprenticeship Board reported to it, rather than to the parent CDVEC. It was hoped that staff and students would identify with the DIT rather than with the individual colleges. However, this change of allegiance was slow in developing, in that staff continued to identify with their own colleges rather than the new confederation. Gradually the DIT did bring about greater co-ordination and established a brand image. In all of this the DIT did not identify with the RTC movement and did not seek NCEA accreditation for its courses. It awarded some of its own certificates and diplomas and had long established links with external awarding agencies and some professional bodies. A significant development in the evolution of DIT took place in 1976, when a partnership agreement was negotiated with Trinity College Dublin whereby Trinity would validate some of the degrees courses offered by DIT. Much of the control of the degree courses was retained by DIT, subject to the assessment of each course by the university together with joint approval of external examiners. A range of degree programmes was validated in Applied Arts, Built Environment, Business, Engineering, Science, Tourism and Food, and a total of 12,000 degrees was conferred by Trinity College on DIT graduates between 1975 and 1999. Coolahan (2004) has argued that the academic link with Trinity College acted as a stimulus for staff to pursue postgraduate degrees helped by the provision of a fee-waiver. By 1992, a memorandum of agreement was reached concerning the registration of DIT students for higher degrees by research. The partnership between the two institutes was a valuable one for DIT, allowing for the growth of degree programmes and the development of research activities. It was a prelude to the subsequent demand by DIT for university status, a matter which will be discussed below.

2

Parameters of a Transformed Higher Education System

The impact of the policy decisions taken in the late 1960s and early 1970s are fully reflected in the changing patterns of higher education enrolments which are shown in Table 1. This table contrasts the distribution of enrolments by sector for 1967/68,

130

P. Clancy Table 1 Enrolments of full-time students in higher education by sector for 1967/68, 1983/84 and 1999/2000 1967/68 1983/84 1999/2000 Sector

N

%

N

%

N

%

University Technological Colleges of Education Other Colleges Total

16,881 1,202 1,543 2,111 21,723

77.7 5.5 7.1 9.7 100

26,040 18,771 3,068 1,935 49,814

52.3 37.7 6.2 3.9 100

66,057 46,424 2,776 7,138 122,395

54.0 37.9 2.3 5.8 100

the year in which the two committees reported, with that for 1999/2000 (Clancy 2003). The distribution for 1983/84, the midpoint in this period, is also shown. Table 1 reveals a very strong pattern of growth over the 32 year period with total enrolments increasing by an impressive 463%. However, the main feature of the table is the differential growth by sector. While university enrolment showed a fourfold increase the technological sector increased 39-fold. The balance between the two main sectors is illustrated more clearly by the flow of new entrants, where the technological sector has now become the largest sector. In 1999, 48%, while 42% commenced their studies in the university sector. The difference between the percentage of new entrants and that of total enrolments is accounted for by differences in the duration of courses. Most of the colleges in the technological sector specialise in short-cycle courses, thus achieving a greater throughput of students. The pattern of growth in the colleges of education is more varied. Enrolment doubled in the first half of this period, partly accounted for by the lengthening of the programme of study. In contrast, in the more recent period enrolment has declined. The anomalous position of the Colleges of Education, over this period, is partly accounted for by a reclassification of some of these colleges to become part of the university sector. The pattern of enrolment in the more heterogeneous ‘Other Colleges’ sector also reflects variability over the period. The first half of this period records a small absolute decline in enrolments, mainly accounted for by the drop in enrolment in seminaries and other religious institutions, while over the more recent period this continuing decline has been more than compensated for by the growth in private colleges, many of which specialise in business studies. The development of a large non-university sector has led to changes in the fields of study of higher education students. As we noted above the remit of the new RTCs was to develop courses in the four main areas of Engineering, Business Studies, Applied Science, and Art and Design. The impact of this policy is clearly evident in Table 2, which shows the distribution of new third-level entrants into the overall non-university sector for 1980 and 1998 (Clancy 1982, 2001). By 1980, when the initial network of ten RTCs was fully operational, Engineering (including Construction Studies) accounted for the largest percentage (30%) of third-level enrolments outside the university sector. This was followed by Business

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

131

Table 2 Distribution of new entrants to the non-university sector by field of study in 1980 and 1998 1980

1998

Field of study

N

%

N

%

% Change 1980–1998

Construction Studies General Engineering Science Art and Design Computer Studies Business, Administrative and Secretarial Studies Hotel, Catering and Tourism Education General Studies Total

513 1,523 868 385 304 1,861

7.5 22.2 12.6 5.6 4.4 27.1

1,074 3,456 1,590 844 2,182 5,537

6.0 19.3 8.9 4.7 12.2 31.0

+109 +127 +83 +119 +618 +198

239 1,047 123 6,863

3.5 15.3 1.8 100

1,164 874 1,146 17,867

6.5 4.9 6.4 100

+387 −17 +832 160

Studies, which accounted for a further 27%. By the end of the 1990s, the relative ranking of these fields of study was reversed, with Business Studies emerging as the largest field of study. Overall, the non-university sector increased admissions by 160% and, with the exception of Education, all fields of study shared in this increase. The area which showed the largest percentage increase was the heterogeneous ‘General Studies’ area but this is still a small part of the sector. By 1998, Computer Studies accounted for 12% of admissions in this sector having experienced a sevenfold increase over the period. While admissions in Science almost doubled over the period, by 1998 they constituted a smaller percentage of total admissions than in 1980 (9% versus 13%). Finally, Hotel, Catering and Tourism experienced an almost fivefold increase in admissions while the growth in admissions in Art and Design was somewhat lower (+119%) than the average for the sector. It is clear from these data that the developments in the technological sector helped to fashion a fully-fledged binary system which explicitly met the policy objectives of government. In this context it is no surprise that in turn the university sector would also be affected by these instrumental policies. The change agenda at university level was partly a result of pressure from government wishing to adopt a more interventionist approach and partly an adaptive response by university institutions to the changed socio-economic environment in which they found themselves. With respect to the former, it is appropriate to revisit Scott’s typology of strategies, which many governments have pursued. The third general strategy identified by Scott was whereby rather crude institutional stratification was replaced by more finely-grained programmatic discrimination. The third strategy shows governments attempting to determine the disciplinary balance in all of higher education. Having successfully developed a highly vocationally oriented non-university sector the government gradually became less accepting of the autonomy previously enjoyed by university institutions (Clancy 1991).

132

P. Clancy

Whatever the causes of policy changes may have been, it is evident that universities in Ireland adapted to the more utilitarian values of the late 20th century. One example of the universities’ adaptation to vocational imperatives can be found in their willingness to incorporate as recognised colleges, the teacher-training colleges which prepare primary teachers and home economics teachers. Similarly, the education of physio-therapists, speech therapists and more recently that of occupational therapists have all been integrated within the universities. However, the universities themselves have also changed and this is reflected in the distribution of students by field of study. In the 30 years from the end of the 1960s to the end of the 1990s, university enrolment grew by 274%. However, over this period enrolment in Commerce increased by 658%, Science by 377% and Engineering by 287%. And while the combined fields of humanities and social sciences continue to account for the largest percentage of enrolments, their share of the total has declined from 50% to 40% (Clancy 2003). Perhaps the most eloquent testimony to the changing ideological climate concerning the universities’ role is the legislation in 1989 establishing two new universities, the University of Limerick and Dublin City University, based on the two National Institutes of Higher Education. This ministerial decision followed the recommendations of an international study group which was established to examine arrangements for technological education outside the universities and to consider the case for a technological university of which the two NIHEs would be constituent colleges (Report of the International Study Group to the Minister for Education 1987). The study group expressed the view that the standards of scholarship at the NIHEs are as high as those of universities and that they had reached a stage of development and achievement where they should be self-accrediting. While noting that the mission statements of the NIHEs hold that their teaching and research are largely determined by what is needed in Ireland, the study group expressed the view that there is no inherent conflict between what is useful and what is scholarly. In advocating the granting of university status, the study group decided against the title ‘technological university’ because of the likelihood of confusion and because ‘its appellation to the universities might appear to diminish the excellent work of the existing universities in the area of technological education and research’. It is clear that the concept of university which prevailed at the end of the 1980s is quite different from that which prevailed in the mid 1960s. The complementary development of the two sectors to form a single system is underlined by the development of a standardised process of admission to higher education regulated by the Central Application Office. A ‘points system’ operates whereby students are assessed on the basis of their performance in six subjects in the Leaving Certificate, the national examination taken at the end of second-level education. Points are allocated for different levels of performance in the Leaving Certificate Examination and places are allocated on a competitive basis. In general, points requirements are higher in the universities than the institutes of technology and are especially high in some professional faculties such as Medicine, Pharmacy and Law. All colleges now make some special provision for the admission of nontraditional students, including mature students, students with disabilities and those

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

133

from disadvantaged backgrounds. Official policy encourages the movement of students between sectors. Since the universities only offer degree and post-graduate level programmes it is expected that a higher level of transfer would occur from the institutes, which specialise in sub-degree programmes. In practice, the level of transfer is quite modest. This is partly explained by an increasing tendency of Institutes of Technology to offer more progression routes within the sector. Given the cumulative award structure within the sector and a gradual ‘academic drift’, increasingly students progress from Certificate to Diploma to Degree level within the sector, thus reducing the need to seek progression routes to the university sector. No national figures are available on the movement of degree-level graduates from the institutes to postgraduate work in the university sector. However, the number of students making this transition is very limited. The massive expansion of higher education enrolments has been facilitated by the structure of second-level education and by the associated high retention rates (in excess of 80%) at the end of the second-level cycle. Although the second-level system is highly differentiated with four types of school, each with a different origin and history and each catering for different clientele, all of these school types prepare students for the same Leaving Certificate examination (Clancy 1996). Gradually, over recent decades, the vocational schools, which were established in the 1930s to emphasise technical and practical training in preparation for skilled and semi-skilled occupations, have evolved to provide a full range of academic and technical subjects in preparation for the Leaving Certificate. Contrary to the policy objectives adopted in the 1960s, this academic drift of the vocational schools has not, to any extent, been compensated for by the introduction of technical subjects into the more academic secondary schools. These schools remain dominant both numerically, catering to 57% of pupils, and in terms of prestige. The newer Comprehensive and Community schools which offer a more broadly-based curriculum combining academic and technical subjects still cater to only 15% of all second-level pupils. Enrolments in vocational schools accounted for the remaining 28%. In recent years there has been some diversification of second-level provision at senior cycle level with the introduction of a Leaving Certificate Applied programme which does not lead directly to higher education entry and a Leaving Certificate Vocational Programme which, although more vocationally-oriented does qualify for third-level entry. However, it is still the case that 94% of those who complete second-level education are formally eligible (subject to a satisfactory level of academic performance) to transfer to higher education. Student-Staff ratios in higher education average about 15:1 for the sector as a whole. The ratio is slightly lower in the Institute of Technology sector at 14.5:1, by comparison with 15.2:1 for the university sector. Academic careers within both sectors are not greatly dissimilar. The main distinction relates to the much higher priority given to research performance within the university sector. This is reflected both at the recruitment stage and as a criterion for promotion during the academic career. While increasingly the possession of a doctorate is not uncommon for recruitment within the IT sector this is by no means a general requirement; relevant professional qualifications and experience are equally and sometimes more highly

134

P. Clancy

valued. By contrast, with a small number of exceptions, a doctorate and some publications are prerequisites for attaining a permanent university post. Within the IT sector there are four grades of Lecturer each attracting different salary scales with provision for promotion up the academic and organizational hierarchy. The university sector also has four principal grades, that of Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor and Professor. Although this pattern is changing, typically there is only one position of Professor in most departments and when vacated there is an open international competition for a replacement. In contrast the positions of Senior Lecturer and Associate Professor are promotional posts for those initially recruited as Lecturers. Research productivity is the principal factor in determining promotion within the university sector. A characteristic of the binary system is the differential relationship between higher education institutions and the Department of Education and Science with respect to funding. In the case of the universities state funding comes via the Higher Education Authority. In theory the state makes an allocation under two headings, one current and one capital, to the Higher Education Authority, which has the statutory autonomy to decide how this is allocated to the different universities. In contrast, the Department of Education and Science deals directly with the institutes of technology in allocation each college’s budget. Traditionally both funding bodies followed an incremental funding model although the HEA has moved towards a formula-based funding mechanism. A recent HEA (2002: 109) publication describes the process in the following terms: Unit cost data per student across a range of academic subject groupings are used to compare performance and cost effectiveness of each university versus the average for the sector. The outcome of this analysis informs the grant allocation process. (Italics added)

The latter account draws attention to the fact that this formula-based approach to budgeting is not followed exclusively; the incremental approach continues to be significant. Recurrent funding to universities contributes both to teaching and to basic support for research. Allocations are made on a “block grant” basis; institutions have discretion to allocate these funds internally as they see fit across departments, faculties and administrative units and between teaching, research and other activities. Additional funding for research is allocated on a competitive basis both between institutions, on the basis of institutional research plans, and between individuals on the basis of the quality of project applications. Funding allocations to the institutes of technology are made in response to budget submissions. The Ministry of Education and Science describe the process in the following terms: The allocation takes into account the complexity of the Institute, the range of courses and facilities offered to students, the total number of students (both full-time and part-time) and the nature of the infrastructure. Decisions on the allocations also have regard to government policy and priorities. (Internal Memo, Department of Education & Science, October 2004)

In contrast to the universities, there is considerably less discretion given to colleges in spending their allocated budget (see discussion below). In this sense it has the characteristics of a line budget. There is no specific allocation made for research in

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

135

the core budget allocated to colleges although there is a small, designated research budget for the whole IT sector.

3

Institutional Governance Structure

As discussed above, the initial conception of Regional Technical Colleges envisaged that they would be primarily senior-cycle second-level institutions with provision for some third-level work as well as providing educational support for apprenticeships. Thus it is not surprising that their governance structure was more analogous to that of second-level schools than to universities. In the 1960s, secondlevel education had two main sectors. The dominant sector consisted of Secondary Schools, which were private mainly church-controlled but state aided, while the small but publicly-controlled sector was made up of Vocational Schools. The arrangement whereby the new RTCs came within the remit of the Vocational Education Act (1930) and under the control of the local Vocational Education Committees, which administered the Vocational sector, was partly a result of political lobbying by those involved in the governance of the publicly-controlled sector of the Irish educational system (White 2001: 82–84). In all there were 38 Vocational Education Committees (VECs), most of which were mainly small-scale localised organisations with relatively limited functions. Each of the RTCs had a Board of Management which operated as a subcommittee of the local VEC. Originally the boards were comprised of seven members: one representative each from agriculture, employer and trade union interests; one representative from the government Department of Education, one from the VEC, the chief executive officer of the VEC and the college Principal/Director. Subsequently the boards were increased to 12 members to allow for more representatives of the VECs in each region or from industrial interests. Underlining their dependent status, it was necessary for the decisions of the board to be ratified by the local VEC. The board’s remit was to propose the annual programmes, both educational and financial, sanction all expenditures, select and appoint staff (other than the college principal) and receive reports on progress generally. The Principal under the direction of the board was responsible for the administration of policy within the colleges. There was also a college council broadly representative of educational, industrial, agricultural and general developmental interests within the wider region served by the college (Coolahan 1981: 263). In a review of the first 21 years of operation in one college, Galway RTC, it has been suggested that because of a lack of clarity about its role the college council never functioned as an effective body (O’Hara 1993). From the outset an important element in the authority structure within which the RTCs were located was the National Council of Education Awards. Its establishment in 1972 (becoming a statutory body in 1980) had been recommended by the Steering Committee on Technical Education and by the Higher Education Authority (1969). The functions of the Council were ‘to promote, facilitate, encourage, co-ordinate and develop technical, industrial, scientific, technological and professional

136

P. Clancy

education, and education in art and design, provided outside the universities, whether professional vocational or technical, and to encourage and promote liberal education’. It gives effect to these responsibilities primarily through the approval and validation of courses and the conferring of certificates, diplomas and degrees offered by colleges which have been ‘designated’ under the NCEA, Act 1979. Because of strains concerning the limited autonomy of the RTCs, discussed in the next section, the government introduced legislation in 1992 establishing the RTCs as autonomous institutions (The Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992 – Government of Ireland 1992a). This Act defined the functions of the colleges: To provide vocational and technical education and training for the economic, technological, scientific, commercial, industrial, social and cultural development of the State with particular reference to the region served by the colleges.

Other important functions included engaging in research, consultancy and development work; exploiting any research, consultancy and development work; and entering into arrangements with other institutions inside or outside the State for the purpose of joint programmes in both teaching and research. Each college has a Governing Body, which is made up of a Chairman and 17 ordinary members and the Director. All members are appointed by the Minister on the recommendation of the VEC. Six members are to be nominated by the VEC in whose functional area the college is situated, with a provision that the Minister may specify that some of these may be nominated by one or more other VEC situated within the wider region served by the college. Three members of staff are elected to the Governing Body, two academic and one non-academic. One person is nominated by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions while the remaining five members are nominated representatives of industry, agriculture, commerce, the professions and other interests which the VEC consider appropriate to the activities of the college. The Governing Body is charged with the responsibility to control and manage the affairs of the college including its property, subject to the terms of the Act and to such policies as may be determined by the Minister and to the programmes and budget approved annually by the VEC and the Minister. The Act imposes an obligation on the Minister to achieve appropriate gender balance in governing authorities. While the Act specifies that a function of the Governing Authority is to appoint a Director for each college, this appointment must be made in accordance with the procedures, which include the composition of a selection board determined by the Minister. Each college has an Academic Council appointed by the Governing Body to assist in the planning, co-ordination, development and overseeing of the educational work of the college and to protect, maintain and develop the academic standards of the courses and the activities of the college. Membership of the Academic Council is determined by regulation of the Governing Body subject to some specifications in the Act, such as that the majority of members shall be holders of academic appointments within the college. The Act specifies the functions of the academic council. These include to design, develop and assist in the implementation of courses of study; to be responsible, subject to the approval of the governing body,

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

137

for making the academic regulations of the college; and to make recommendations to the governing body on a whole range of academic matters including the establishment of appropriate structure to implement courses of study, arrangements for research and development, the selection, admission, retention and exclusion of students, arrangements for assessment and evaluation (subject to the National Council for Educational Awards), and the award of scholarships and prizes. The Act provided for the appointment of Officers in additional to the Director, subject to the approval of the Minister with the concurrence of the Minister for Finance. Subsequently all RTCs were allowed to appoint a Registrar and a Secretary/Financial Controller to professionalise the administration of the colleges. In tandem with the introduction of the Regional Technical Colleges Act a broadly similar Act was introduced to establish the Dublin Institute of Technology as an autonomous institution (Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992 – Government of Ireland 1992b). An importance difference between the two Acts was that DIT was empowered to grant its own academic awards with consequential additional power being given to its Academic Council such as appointing external examiners and conferring honorary awards (Duff et al. 2000: 63).

4

Levels of Autonomy

Since their establishment, the limitations on autonomy have been a major concern of the RTCs. The constraints under which they operated emanated from three main sources. The first was the government Department of Education (now Department of Education and Science). The second was the Vocational Education Committees, while the third was the National Council for Educational Awards. The desire of the Department of Education to regulate the activities of the RTCs can be understood with reference to the widespread perception that the universities were not responsive to emerging needs of a rapidly industrialising society. There was a clear perception of a strong academic bias deeply ingrained in Irish education both at second and higher level. In parliament, there were allegations of an abuse of autonomy by the universities which could not be relied on to give due regard to government programmes where these required an increasing emphasis on technological education (see White 2001: 105–108). In deciding to set up a rival system outside the universities, the government was determined that these new institutions would be moulded to meet labour market needs as identified by central government. It was axiomatic that these new colleges would not enjoy the autonomy given to universities. The establishment of the NCEA was one of the mechanisms which explicitly constrained the workings of the colleges. Unlike the universities, which statutorily have the freedom to decide which courses they will offer and also have the freedom to validate their own courses, the RTCs were required to submit all their courses for approval and validation to the National Council for Educational Awards. This dependence was explicitly recommended in the Report of the Steering Committee (1967). Its vision of the NCEA was that it would have responsibility for the standard

138

P. Clancy

of entry and qualification, syllabus and courses, the awarding of certificates and diplomas and the negotiation of reciprocal recognition with other countries. While the detailed working arrangements of the NCEA evolved somewhat from the time it was established as an ad hoc Council in 1972 until the NCEA Act was formally passed in 1979, it remained true to the spirit of the original proposal. In the early 1970s, the Council established a procedure of course validation which was to become the norm. Colleges were asked to submit proposed courses of study according to a set format. These in turn were examined by panels of assessors who made one or more visits to the colleges for discussions with staff and students and for the inspection of facilities. When approved, courses were given recognition for a period of years, normally three to five (White 2001: 89). The Council then appointed external examiners who were responsible for monitoring the examinations and assessment process and the grading of student achievement. The certificates, diplomas and degrees granted were from the NCEA, not the colleges. While noting this ‘dependency’ it is important to take account of White’s (2001) observation that the NCEA was not an examining body. It did not see its role as devising courses, issuing syllabi or setting examinations. Initiatives on these matters rested with the colleges, the Council’s role being to validate their proposals and validate their implementation. This control over course offerings by the NCEA was complemented by that exercised by the Department of Education. With an eye to the resource implications for the funding body, it has always been government policy that prior approval from the Department of Education be granted before any new course is offered. The same restriction applied to staffing. Prior approval was required. Furthermore the Department of Education specified the level of academic qualification required for teaching appointments to the RTCs. The Department took a special interest in regulating the level of awards offered in each college. In responding to the inevitable tendency towards ‘academic drift’ whereby institutions wished to offer more higherlevel qualifications, the government attempted to ensure that the colleges would specialise in offering two-year Certificates with a smaller number of Diploma programmes and only a limited number of Degree programmes. While sometimes reluctantly legitimating the provision of degrees, it discouraged ab initio enrolment on degree programmes, favouring the cumulative award structure whereby students were allowed to progress from Certificate to Diploma to Degree provided they achieved an appropriate standard (achieving merit or distinction) at the lower level. This desire to control the direction and output of the colleges was especially demonstrated by the Lindsay Report (1989). An additional source of constraint emanated from the Vocational Education Committees, under whose auspices the colleges were to be administered. The arrangements whereby the Board of Management of each RTC was in effect a subcommittee of the Vocational Educational Committee have been described above. This subsidiary reporting relationship was likely to cause tension between the Colleges Principals and the Chief Executive Officers of the parent VEC. This was evident in the relationship between the colleges and the NCEA. White (2001) describes a ‘trial of strength’ between the Principals and the CEOs in defining their

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

139

relationship with the NCEA. Prior to the passing of the NCEA Act, the Assistant Registrars of the NCEA, who worked as secretaries to boards of studies through which the validation and assessment of the Council was effected, met periodically with the heads of the appropriate schools in each college. This was described as a sensible management arrangement (p. 216). After the passing of the legislation this practice ceased for a number of years. Instead it was decreed that the assistant registrars should meet with the College Principal and that, as a corollary, the CEOs should meet with the Director of the NCEA. A further matter which caused differences of opinion between some VECs and the colleges was the inclusion of research and consultancy as part of the remit of the RTCs. This matter was first raised in 1980 by the National Board for Science and Technology who argued in favour of such a role. The issue was pursued by a Steering Committee of the Association of Vocational Education Colleges who argued that each college should establish a management framework to foster such activity, including the setting up of companies limited by guarantee. White (2001) notes that this kind of proposal did not fit neatly into the culture of the VECs and quotes one college principal who commented that some VEC members saw such proposals as a ‘device for getting nixers for lecturers’ (p. 242). This matter may have been decisive in convincing the Department of Education to introduce revised legislation to give the RTCs the necessary autonomy to pursue these activities. The issue was taken up by the then Minister for Education, Gemma Hussey, and in a 1985 Green Paper (Department of Education 1985). It was suggested that the work of the colleges had grown and changed from the original concept of the RTC, that it was no longer valid that their administration should be undertaken by the VECs and that they should be more closely related to the rest of the third level area, operating with more autonomy. This argument was not immediately decisive and although it was strongly supported by the Hardiman study group which advocated the granting of university status to the National Institutes of Higher Education at Limerick and Dublin, it was criticised by several deputies in the parliament, most noticeably by a subsequent Minister for Education, Noel Dempsey (then a young deputy), who argued that the new legislation pandered to the wishes of a small group who saw an enhancement of their status and an opportunity to rid themselves of the shackles of democratic control and accountability (White 2001: 218). It is of interest to note that the new legislation did not turn out to be a panacea, as evidenced by a sequence of events at Letterkenny RTC, the smallest of the colleges, where local political involvement caused the Minister for Education to send in an Inspector to inquire about a range of matters concerning the college. The publication of her Report (Hederman O’Brien 1994) was followed by the resignation of the Governing Body Chairperson, the transfer of the Director to another post and the appointment of a Commissioner to manage the college. Since the passing of the Regional Technical Colleges Act in 1992, the most important development in this sector has been the change in title whereby each of the former RTCs was designated as an Institute of Technology. This development emanated from the report of the Steering Committee on the Future Development of Higher Education (HEA 1995) and the separate report of its Technical Working

140

P. Clancy

Group (1995). One of the issues examined by these committees was the claim for a university in the city of Waterford to meet the perceived inadequacy in higher education provision in the south-east of the country. The Technical Working Group which supported the work of the Steering Committee did not support the establishment of a university in Waterford but instead argued that the existing RTC should be upgraded to an Institute of Technology, similar to that of the Dublin Institute of Technology, with an acknowledgement that it should be allowed to offer more degree level programmes than that offered in other RTCs. This recommendation to introduce differentiation between existing RTCs and to favour enhanced status for one proved to be politically naïve, and while Waterford RTC became Waterford Institute of Technology, the Government was forced to accede to pressure from other RTCs to re-designate all RTCs as Institutes of Technology. This action followed the advice of a high level group, which was set up by the Minister for Education to make recommendations on the matter. In our account of developments in technological education in Ireland we have necessarily described separately the evolution of the RTCs (subsequently ITs) and of the Dublin Institute of Technology. While these two elements have much in common there have always been significant differences. While, in common with the other ITs, DIT in its current formation is governed by legislation which dates from 1992, it has a much longer lineage and different aspirations. Also its course provision has tended to be different, with a higher percentage of its students on degreelevel courses. These factors account for some of the differences between the RTC Act and the DIT Act. We have referred above to one of these differences, noting that the DIT Act provided for the conferring of its own diplomas and certificates and other awards. During the course of the passing of the legislation great pressure was put on the Minister to alter the provision of the Act to allow DIT to confer its own degrees. What it succeeded in getting was the insertion of a clause stating that “other functions which could include the conferring of degrees, postgraduate degrees and honorary awards which under the Act could be assigned by the Minister for Education”. Another difference was that the title of President was allocated to DIT while that of Director was allocated to the chief officer of the RTCs. While the DIT Act made possible the granting of degrees, the prerogative on this matter rested with the Minister for Education. In response to pressure on this issue, the Minister for Education requested that the HEA appoint an international review team to advise on the granting of degree awarding powers. The recommendations of the review team were accepted by the HEA and by the Minister and degree awarding power was extended to DIT with effect from 1998/9 (Report of International Review Team 1996). This marked an end to the existing relationship with TCD, which was to be phased out from this date. The final push for institutional autonomy was to seek formal recognition as a university. In responding to this request a new Minister in 1997 appointed another international review group to advise him on this issue. Its recommendation was that it did not favour the immediate establishment of a university, but that university status should be granted at a later date (Report of the International Review Group to the Higher Education

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

141

Authority 1998). The HEA did not agree with this latter conclusion. The more recent OECD report concurs with this view and recommends that for the foreseeable future there be no further institutional transfers to the university sector. This latter injunction seems to fit well with the Government’s view on the necessity of holding the line on maintaining the binary system. The determination to retain the binary division puts in perspective the lack of realism in the earlier moves by the RTCs to call for the establishment of a National Technological University of which the individual RTCs would be constituent colleges. While this movement was never likely to succeed some progress has been achieved. All RTCs have achieved a change in name to Institute status and at the time of this writing eight of the institutes have been granted delegated authority to make awards, in most cases up to the Masters level. This process of assessment for the granting of delegated authority to make awards is carried out by the Higher Education and Training Awards Council, the successor to the NCEA. In the case of Waterford IT, where the campaign to achieve university status is still a political issue, delegated authority to make awards at doctoral level was granted although as we note in the next section, the OECD Review group recommends that that this power be revoked.

5

Future Trends

Two particular developments are likely to be significant in determining the future development of the Irish higher education system. As in other EU countries, the implementation of the Bologna Process will inevitably bring some changes. However, of more immediate influence will be the response to the publication in September 2004 of the OECD review of the Irish higher education system (OECD 2004). While the Bologna Process has exerted an influence over higher education developments in Ireland, its implementation has not been pursued with the same vigour as in some other countries. Perhaps the main reason for this is that the existing degree structure is already compatible with the Bachelors/Masters two-cycle structure which is a key component of the process. In contrast, some countries’ governments have seized on the Bologna Process to effect a shortening in the duration of courses leading to the first degree. However, in Ireland legislative reforms consistent with the Bologna Process were enacted in the late 1990s. The Qualifications (Education and Training) Act 1999 provided for the establishment of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI), which is responsible for establishing and maintaining the National Framework of Qualifications. As part of this Act, the Higher Education and Training Awards Council (HETAC) was established as the qualifications and awarding body for the Institutes of Technology and other non-university higher education colleges and institutions, although as noted above HETAC may delegate the authority to make awards to the ITs. The National Framework of Qualifications involves ten levels, of which five refer to higher

142

P. Clancy

education qualifications. These are, respectively: Level 6, Higher Certificate; Level 7, Ordinary Bachelor Degree; Level 8, Higher Bachelor Degree or Higher Diploma; Level 9, Masters Degree or Post-Graduate Diploma; and Level 10, Doctoral Degree. The NQAI has determined that awards at levels 6–10 will be made by HETAC and the Dublin Institute of Technology while the universities make the awards from levels 7 to 10. The framework does not impose any requirements in relation to the duration of programmes; rather, the emphasis is on the development of learning outcomes. While the National Qualifications Framework maps well with the Bologna process in respect to the two-cycle process, some problems remain. The typical duration of Bachelor’s degrees varies from three for some degrees in the Humanities, Business and Law to six years in Medicine, while the duration of Masters degrees varies from one to two years. Thus, while the majority of Masters degrees conform to the 3 + 2 or 4 + 1 format, some are awarded within a 3 + 1 format. Government has not moved decisively to resolve these anomalies; the official line appears to be that academic awards should be defined by learning outcomes rather than by duration of study. A national steering group has been established to oversee the implementation of the Bologna Process. A National Template has been developed for the Diploma Supplement and its implementation is being encouraged throughout the system. Movement towards the adoption of the European Credit Transfer System is to date also couched in terms of ‘official encouragement’ rather than in terms of a requirement. Its use is associated mainly with students in the Socrates (Erasmus) programme, although most institutions are moving towards the adoption of a credit system, which is consistent with ECTS. Quality assurance processes, which are underpinned by legislation, have become a priority within all higher education institutions. While Ireland does not operate a single quality assurance system there is an Irish Higher Education Quality Network which brings together the main participants in this field from the universities, the institutes of technology and the main co-ordinating agencies. The OECD Review was carried out at the invitation of the Irish Government and reflects a pattern of seeking external advice in determining the future direction of the educational system. It is not clear whether this propensity to seek external advice, which is analogous to the frequent employment of consultants, be they Irish or foreign, throughout the public sector, is a function of the small size of the country or a reflection of a genuine commitment to innovation and reform. The terms of reference given to the OECD examiners were wide ranging in that they cover the whole higher education system and invite the examination of policy issues and options in all aspects of the system including its role, its strategic management and structure, teaching and learning, research and development, investment and financing and international competitiveness. In particular, the Review was set in a context of the Government’s strategic objective of placing its higher education system in the top rank of OECD countries in terms of quality and levels of participation and by the priority of creating a world-class research, development and innovation capacity and infrastructure in Ireland as part of the wider EU objective for becoming

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

143

the world’s most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy and society, as agreed in Lisbon in 2000. It is not feasible to consider all aspects of this report in this paper, which is necessarily focused on the non-university sector. While the review team endorsed the diversity of the higher education system and recommended that this be maintained, it argued that the components needed to be better integrated. It was critical of the separation of the two management systems, the HEA for universities and the Department of Education and Science for the institutes of technology, and recommended the establishment of a new Tertiary Education Authority (TEA), which would be responsible for the operation of the entire higher education sector. However, in contrast to existing Government proposals, which envisaged a transfer of responsibility for the ITs to the HEA, risking mission drift and a blurring of the binary system, its proposals recommended the setting up of two Committees, to be served by a single secretariat, one responsible for the universities and one responsible for the institutes of technology. The two Committees would have a common Chair. Both Committees would be statutory in the sense that their structure and terms of reference would be embodied in legislation and their members would be subject to Ministerial appointment. The TEA itself would primarily exercise a coordinating and strategic role and would comprise a Chair, who would also chair the two Committees and a small Board drawn from the two Committees. The Committees would recommend to the Board. In recommending the removal of the ITs from the direct control of the Department of Education and Science (DES) the Review team endorsed the inappropriateness of the existing constraints. It accepted that the institutes were at a disadvantage, vis-à-vis universities, in terms of their ability to respond quickly to pressures and opportunities. The constraints listed include the absence of a block grant; the requirement that they gain approval from the DES for the filling of vacancies or the establishment of new posts or for the declaration of redundancies; the requirement to provide monthly accounts; the absence of borrowing rights; the reversion to the DES of income from entrepreneurial activities; and the need to gain approval from the DES for new academic programmes. The Review group also recommended changes in the governance and management of the institutes. It identified a lack of clarity in the Regional Technical Colleges Act, in the respective roles of Governing Bodies and Institute Directors as to which should be responsible for the control and conduct of their institutions. It recommended that those powers pertaining to the managerial rather than governing function of institutions be removed from the remit of the Governing Body. It recommended that institutes be given discretion in the nomination of external (lay) members using the nominations committee system, that Governing Bodies should elect their own chairs rather than having them appointed from outside and that the governors should appoint the Director using whatever committee system they deem appropriate rather than through the mechanism defined in the 1992 Act. The Review group’s recommendations in relation to the institute’s role in research may be perceived as less favourable. It noted that the current situation is such that the ITs are designated as being restricted to applied research. The institutes had

144

P. Clancy

argued that they should receive infrastructure support for research as part of their recurrent grant. In view of the necessity to achieve greater institutional concentration in research the Review group recommended that the Government should not seek to support a generalised research function in the institutes similar to that of the universities. The role of the ITs should be “much more targeted towards particular areas of applied research so that they can act as technology development partners to industry, especially small and medium sized enterprises, particularly on a regional or even national basis” (p. 35). It also recommended that the necessary infrastructure to support such research should be supplied by Enterprise Ireland (the National Industrial Development Agency) rather that the by the Tertiary Education Authority. This specification was made to ensure that such support is targeted against clear national or regional economic priorities and that it be aligned to specific designated areas of activity. This delineation of the ITs role in research is paralleled by a recommendation in relation to the award of doctoral degrees. With the single exception of the Dublin Institute of Technology, it recommended that Ph.D. awarding powers be restricted to the university sector and where this degree awarding power had been granted to Waterford Institute of Technology, it should be rescinded. What emerges most clearly from the OECD report is a strong rationale supporting the main thrust of existing higher education policy to retain the existing binary policy. It concludes: For a country with a population of a little more than 4 million, Ireland has a significant number of HEIs and it is essential that their missions are differentiated so that institutions can concentrate on particular defined functions. The present differentiation between universities and institutes should be preserved and we recommend that there should be no further institutional transfers into the university sector. (p. 60)

It acknowledged the fragmentation in policy which is reflected in existing separate funding arrangements. Its recommendation for unification under a single Tertiary Education Authority is tempered by a desire to prevent ‘mission drift’ in either direction. If its recommendations are implemented it will lead to greater institutional autonomy for the Institutes of Technology but will retain the binary model. This conclusion is consistent with the Review Group’s recognition that in Ireland, perhaps more strongly than in any other country in Europe, that tertiary education is a key driver for the economy.

References Clancy, P. Participation in Higher Education. Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 1982. Clancy, P. “Numerical Expansion and Contracting Autonomy in Irish Higher Education”. Higher Education Policy 4(1) (1991): 30–36. Clancy, P. “Pathways to Mass Higher Education in the Republic of Ireland”. European Journal of Education 31(3) (1996): 355–370. Clancy, P. “Non-official Higher Education in the Republic of Ireland”. In Tsaoussis, D. G. (ed). Non-Official Higher Education in the European Union. Athens: Gutenberg, 1999.

The Non-University Sector in Irish Higher Education

145

Clancy, P. College Entry in Focus: A Fourth National Study of Access to Higher Education. Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 2001. Clancy, P. “The Vocationalisation of Higher Education; the Evolution of Policy in the Republic of Ireland”. International Journal of Vocational Education and Training 111 (2003): 62–82. Commission on Higher Education. Report. Dublin: Stationery Office, 1967. Coolahan, J. Irish Education: History and Structure. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, 1981. Coolahan, J. Higher Education in Ireland: Country Background Report for the OECD Review Group. Dublin: Department of Education and Science, 2004. Department of Education. Partners in Education – Serving Community Needs (Green Paper on Education). Dublin: Stationery Office, 1985. Duff, T., J. Hegarty, and J. Hussey. The Story of the Dublin Institute of Technology. Dublin: Blackhall, 2000. Government of Ireland. The Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992. Dublin: Stationery Office, 1992a. Governmnet of Ireland. Dublin Institute of Technology Act, 1992. Dublin: Stationery Office, 1992b. HEA. A Council of National Awards and a College of Higher Education for Limerick. Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 1969. HEA. Report of the Steering Committee on the Future Development of Higher Education. Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 1995. HEA. Creating and Sustaining the Innovation Society. Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 2002. Hederman O’Brien, M. Report to Niamh Bhreathnach TD, Minister for Education under Section 20 of the Regional Technical Colleges Act, 1992 on Letterkenny Regional Technical College. Dublin: Stationery Office, 1994. Investment in Education. Dublin: Stationery Office, 1965. Lindsay Report. Full-Time Courses in VEC Colleges – Report of a Committee Established to Examine Third Level Courses Which Lead to Awards of NCEA and Other Bodies Outside the Universities. Internal Department of Education Report, 1989. OECD. Training of Technicians in Ireland. Paris: OECD, 1964. OECD. Review of National Policies of Education: Review of Higher Education in Ireland, Examiners’ Report. Paris: OECD, 2004. O’Hara. Regional Technical College Galway: The First 21 Years. Galway, Ireland: RTC, 1993. Report of the International Study Group to the Minister for Education. Technological Education. Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 1987. Report of the International Review Team. Review of Quality Assurance Procedures in the Dublin Institute of Technology. Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 1996. Report of the International Review Group to the Higher Education Authority. Dublin: Higher Education Authority. 1998. Scott, P. “Higher Education: The Next Twenty Years”. International Journal of Institutional Management in Higher Education 9(2) (1985): 195–207. Steering Committee on Technical Education. Report. Dublin: Stationery Office, 1967. Technical Working Group. Interim Report of the Steering Group Committee’s Technical Working Group. Dublin: Higher Education Authority, 1995. White, T. Investing in People: Higher Education in Ireland from 1960 to 2000. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration, HEA, 2001.

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education: Dutch Hogescholen on the Move1 Jeroen Huisman

1

Introduction

This chapter presents the Dutch case in the CIPES project “The role of polytechnics in higher education”. The chapter focuses on the Dutch equivalent of the Portuguese polytechnics: the hogescholen or HBO-institutions (HBO is the Dutch acronym for higher professional education). The contribution is divided in two sections: “the state of the art” and “reflections”. The structure is as follows: In the state of the art section, first the general structure of Dutch higher education is presented. Then some background is given on the development of the hogescholen sector. Subsequently, specific issues are discussed: staff, labour market situation and graduates, governance structure and management, funding, the Bachelor-Master structure, accreditation and the relationship between hogescholen and their environment. In these sections there is also some information on the university sector, in order to show the similarities and contrasts between the two sectors of Dutch higher education. The second section of this chapter is more of a reflective nature. It discusses the level of autonomy in the hogescholen sector and the current (policy) debates and tensions in the binary structure.

2 2.1

The State of the Art General Features of the Educational System

In Fig. 1 a general overview is given of the Dutch educational system. At the end of comprehensive primary education, pupils at the age of 12 are assigned to move on to secondary education, which consists of two stages: the first tier (two years of

1 The following sources have been used for presenting the overview: Boezerooy (2003), Huisman (2001), and de Weert (2005, forthcoming).

James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

147

148

J. Huisman

basic education) and the second tier. After the first tier of basic education, pupils either continue in vocationally-oriented educational paths (in Dutch abbreviated to VBO and MAVO, right side of Fig. 1) or tracks preparing for higher education (in Dutch abbreviated to VWO and HAVO, left side of Fig. 1). In the vocationallyoriented path, the VBO is known as junior vocational secondary education and the MAVO can be characterised as general junior secondary education. These two types of the vocationally-oriented path last two years and provide a basis for further vocational training in senior vocational education (SBO), either in full-time tracks or in part-time tracks combining learning and working. Whereas the structure may seem rather rigid in terms of predetermined educational paths, it must be stressed that there are various formal and informal possibilities to move from one part of the system to another. A considerable percentage of graduates from SBO, for instance, continue their studies at hogescholen. For related fields of study there are even specific (shorter) programmes for such graduates. The same goes for moving from HAVO to VWO. Pupils can opt to “upgrade” their HAVO examination subjects to the VWO level (and consequently enter universities).

WO

HBO

Secondary education

Age 18

VWO HAVO VMBO (MAVO and VBO)

Age 14 Preparatory higher education track Age 12

Primary education

SBO

Vocational track

Basic education

Primary education Age 4

Fig. 1 The structure of the Dutch educational system

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

2.2

149

The Structure of Higher Education

The Dutch public higher education system is a binary system and consists of 13 universities and approximately 50 hogescholen. Next to hogescholen and universities, the Open University also provides higher education (at a distance). It offers a wide range of courses, which may lead to both formal university and higher professional education degrees. In addition to the public system, there are a number of private higher education institutions. A few of these are in the university sector (four theological universities and a humanistic university), most are in the higher professional education sector. At present there are about 60 private hogescholen, most of these – like the private universities – of much smaller size than the public hogescholen, many mono-disciplinary (Jongbloed et al. 2004). The universities prepare students for independent scientific work in an academic or professional setting. Together the universities offer some two hundred different programmes; some of these are provided in part-time mode or in a working-learning mode (co-operative education or so-called dual tracks: duale leerwegen). The hogescholen prepare students to practise a profession. According to the 1993 Higher Education and Research Act (WHW) the hogescholen are assumed to “offer theoretical instruction and to develop the skills required for practical application in a particular profession”. The hogescholen offer around 500 different programmes, including a substantial number of part-time programmes. About one third of the higher education students enrol in universities (180,000 students, 91% of these full-time), while two-thirds enrol in the hogescholen sector (334,000 students, 80% full-time). Table 1 gives an overview of the development of student numbers in both sectors. Academic research as well as the granting of Ph.D. degrees is reserved to the university sector, but hogescholen are allowed to carry out research of a more applied nature. Hogescholen offer four-year Bachelor programmes (240 ECTS credit points). Students receive the qualification baccalaureus (bc) or Bachelor (B). Universities offer three-year Bachelor programmes (B of Science; B of Arts) and one- to threeyear Master programmes (M of Science; M of Arts). The length of the programmes varies from discipline to discipline. In engineering, agriculture and natural sciences, Master programmes last two years. In health, programmes last two or three years. In other disciplines (social sciences, arts and humanities, law, economics) programmes last one year, with the exception of research masters (two years). Hogescholen may offer Master programmes as well, but the Minister decides on the

Table 1 Student numbers at hogescholen and universities 1993–2003 (× 1,000) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Hogescholen Universities Total

270 188 458

272 185 457

272 178 450

276 166 442

291 159 440

291 160 451

306 162 468

315 167 482

324 173 497

326 181 507

334 188 522

150

J. Huisman

funding. At present, the number of Master programmes at the hogescholen is limited. There are a number of programmes that are offered in cooperation with UK universities. Recently, a number of Master programmes in health have been approved by the Minister (e.g. nurse practitioner). Admission to universities is open to students who have a certificate of preuniversity education (six-year VWO) or a first-year certificate from a hogeschool. Admission to the hogescholen is open to students holding a certificate of senior general secondary education (five-year HAVO), secondary vocational education (MBO) or pre-university education (six-year VWO). The latter route is actually a detour, but a considerable number of students enrol in the hogescholen with a VWO certificate (about 20%). Higher education institutions may require programmerelated demands. Institutions may set limits based on the nationally-determined ‘profiles’ in secondary education. These profiles can be described as a consistent set of knowledge and skills acquired in the second tier of secondary education. In both HAVO and VWO there are four profiles: culture and society (in general preparing for programmes in the social sciences, arts, languages and culture), economy and society (preparing for economy and the social sciences), nature and health (preparing for medical sciences, nursing and biology) and nature and technology (preparing for natural sciences and engineering). Government and the higher education institutions can determine further restrictions to access. In the case of an oversupply of graduates (e.g. in some professions in the health sector), government – after consulting the organizations most involved – determines the maximum number of first-year students to be enrolled (numerus fixus). Weighted lotteries are used to allot places to students. Since September 1999, the higher education institutions are allowed to apply a combination of a system of weighted lottery (based on average secondary education results) with its own selection mechanisms (e.g. tests, interviews, work experience, etc.) for a maximum 20% (minus those with an average secondary education grade above 8: these students have to be admitted anyway) of the enrolling first-year students. A specific restriction concerns the hogescholen. In particular fields, they may require knowledge and skills in connection with the profession they prepare for (e.g. teacher training and art). The colloquium doctum is an entrance examination both for the university and hogescholen sector for people aged 21 and over who do not have a regular secondary education certificate. Once enrolled in either sector of higher education, students may consider enrolling in the other sector. Moving from the university sector (if it were only for having the appropriate secondary education qualification) to the hogescholen sector is considerably easier than the other way around. In the past decade or so, the government tried to limit crossing the borders of the sectors for reasons of efficiency (they would prefer students to make the “right” choice when they enter higher education). Policies to limit the total number of years of student support (grant system) in higher education are in this respect to a certain extent successful. This short structural overview indicates that – at present – there are rather strong differences between the two sectors of the Dutch higher education system (compared to a number of other European binary systems, see Huisman and Kaiser 2001). Three elements stand out: differences in entrance qualifications, the exclusive

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

151

basic research function of the universities (including the right to award Ph.D. degrees), and variations in the degrees awarded. There are, however, also similarities. There are no extreme differences in the length of the programmes, and professionallyoriented programmes are offered on both sides of the binary divide.

2.3

History of the Hogescholen Sector

The history of the sector of the hogescholen, also known in the Netherlands as HBO-institutions, can be traced back quite some time, but developed under very different circumstances (see Goedegebuure 1992). Most of the older institutions have their roots in the 19th century and evolved out of the guilds. The first legal framework was provided by the 1919 Domestic Science and Technical Education Act, which differentiated, among others, primary, secondary and technical education. In 1968, higher professional education was introduced as a separate type of education with the passing by Parliament of the Secondary Education Act (SEA) that codified all forms of education between primary and university education. One of the characteristics of the SEA was a detailed regulation of institutional affairs, thus severely restricting the autonomous development of the HBO-sector. It was a sector that was extremely diverse and fragmented in those days, both in terms of student numbers and in the disciplines offered. The mono-disciplinary institutions were in general much more geared towards the related professions than to other disciplines, leading to, e.g., a considerable variety in length of study and the nature of preparation for the professions. The period from the late 1960s to the early 1980s can be characterised as one of substantial growth of and systemic discussion on the HBO-institutions. Student numbers rose rapidly in higher education, creating the beginning of budgetary pressures that were to dominate the 1980s. In line with developments in other countries, the hogescholen sector was considered ideal to take care of this increasing student body, as it (1) was considerably cheaper than the university sector and ‘education on the cheap’ even then was considered an asset; (2) catered to part-time education; and (3) provided the kind of orientation perceived as beneficial to the growth of the Dutch economy (Goedegebuure 1992). Expansion of the hogescholen sector, however, also gave rise to discussions about both the internal structure of the sector and its relationship with the university sector. This resulted in a multitude of governmental white papers with different scenarios for the higher education system. Apart from the interesting rituals, diverging political views, and considerable rhetoric that accompanied these initiatives, the actual results were meager. The hogescholen sector was praised for its values and efforts, but little was done to take it out of the developmental straitjacket of the 1968 SEA. It took until 1983 before the Dutch government took decisive action. In 1983, the then-Minister of Education and Science published the white paper ScaleEnlargement, Task-Reallocation and Concentration (STC), proposing a major restructuring of the HBO-sector with far-reaching consequences for the structure

152

J. Huisman

and functioning of the Dutch higher education system. The main objectives of the STC restructuring were: (1) a considerable increase of institutional size through institutional mergers; (2) an increase in institutional autonomy regarding the use of resources, personnel policy and the structuring of the educational processes; and (3) an increase in institutional efficiency through economies of scale. The Minister envisaged that as a result of the implementation of the STC operation, a limited number of multidisciplinary, medium-sized institutions with considerable autonomy would arise. As an extra impetus, the Minister set a minimum size of 600 students enrolled for each HBO-institution (to be eligible for state funding), with some lower limits for teacher-training colleges for primary education (partly because of the denominational character of many of these colleges). The outcomes of the merger processes, however, surpassed all expectations. By July 1987, the original 350 + institutions had merged into 85 institutions of which some 45 were large to very large, multi-purpose institutions. Some of the latter turned out to be larger than most of the existing universities. Thus, in terms of structure, the Dutch higher education institutional landscape had changed dramatically. In terms of function, increased autonomy was to be attained through the implementation of the new governmental steering philosophy as well as through the framework provided by the HBO-Act (1986) that finally took the hogescholen out of the realm of secondary education and placed them formally in higher education, thereby formalising the already existing binary structure. After the more or less enforced merger operation, some hogescholen continued to merge voluntarily, which decreased the number of hogescholen through time to about 50 today. The largest hogescholen are at present bigger (in terms of student numbers) than the largest university.

2.4

Through- and Outflow and Labour Market

In 1986, the standard period of study at universities and hogescholen was set at four years. At hogescholen there are only slight differences between the actual duration of study and the prescribed standard period of study for full-time programmes. The number of students graduating from hogescholen has risen to a total of over 61,000 in the year 2002/2003 (an increase of about 50% compared to students graduating in 1980). In 2002/2003, 21,000 students graduated from the Dutch universities. The unemployment rate for university and hogescholen graduates remains relatively low compared to graduates who have lower educational qualifications. The unemployment rate (18 months after graduation) amongst hogescholen graduates was about 3% in 2002, and 3.6% amongst university graduates (the general unemployment rate being 4.1%). Recently, the general unemployment percentage has increased to 6.2% in Fall 2004 (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek 2005). It is expected that the demand for higher education graduates will further increase on an annual basis, with an estimated need for 4.8% more graduates from hogescholen and 4.7% from

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

153

universities (Research Centre for Education and Labour Market 2003). At the same time there are signs that recent higher education graduates take up jobs below their qualification level. The returns to higher education are relatively high. Taking a junior secondary education diploma as the benchmark, university graduates in 1999 on average earn more than 60% more than holders of the junior secondary education diploma, hogescholen graduates earn on average 40% more. Since 1994, the returns have increased for higher education graduates (Leuven and Oosterbeek 2000). About 75% of recent hogescholen graduates work in jobs that require at least their level of education. However, for university graduates the corresponding figure is 65%, although this varies between fields of study. Graduates from economic, technical and medical studies show a high assessment of the match between their qualifications and their work. Furthermore, over 80% of hogescholen graduates work in jobs that require either their own or a closely related qualification. This is not surprising, since the hogescholen sector is specifically intended to provide vocational/professional training. For university graduates the link between subject field and job is less specific, and graduates from several fields have rather broad employment outlets. Dutch employers overall attach considerable value to the difference between hogescholen and university graduates in terms of jobs and wages, especially in the earlier phases of a career. Although in some economic areas the difference is less pronounced, employers, in general, would not like to see the differences vanish. Several research findings in the last decade have stressed the growing importance of multi-disciplinary knowledge, generic and transferable skills, as well as personal and social skills. In order to enhance the employability of their graduates, universities and hogescholen have broadened their curricula with general programmes, especially in the earlier phases of the curriculum, with specialist courses in the later study phase. A relatively new development is competency-based learning. Competencies are derived from work activities, tasks, professional roles and practices. The future functioning of students in the workplace is taken as a touchstone. Other approaches emphasize the coupling of competencies with personal characteristics or disciplinary contexts, including analytical skills and the ability to integrate and synthesize. Due to developments like life-long learning, increasing flexibility in higher education, education at a distance and labour market developments, higher education institutions have become more and more interested in the various concepts of combining learning and working. Since the academic year 1991/1992, hogescholen (and universities) can offer programmes that combine learning and working (duaal leren). More and more students participate in these programmes; an increase from 200 (1992/1993) to over 6,800 students in the academic year 2000/2001 can be seen. The first few graduates finished their programmes in 1995, while in the year 2000/2001 this number increased to about 350 (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen 2001).

154

2.5

J. Huisman

Personnel

Most recent data indicate that teaching staff amounts to 13,500 full-time equivalent (fte) in 2001 and support staff amounts to 9,800 (HBO Council 2002). In 2003, the total number of staff amounted to 24,900 fte (33,600 persons), which brings the student/staff ratio for that year to 1:13.2, a ratio that is fairly stable through the past five years (HBO Council 2004). The academic staff at hogescholen predominantly consists of (senior) college teachers and instructors. The percentage of female staff increased from 33% in 1992 to 42% in 2002. Until 1990 academic staff at hogescholen spent all their time on teaching. This changed in the beginning of the 1990s, when hogescholen started contract-research activities. Estimates based on the income of flows of hogescholen imply that academic staff spend about 8% of their time on research activities. An important change during the 1990s has been a decentralization policy through which the central government devolved to higher education institutions the responsibility for determining employment conditions of staff. In 1999, this policy culminated in a practice in which terms and conditions of service are no longer determined by the government, but are settled bilaterally between employers and employees through their representative bodies. The underlying argument for this decentralization was that institutions would be better able to cope with external constraints and to introduce modern instruments for personnel management (De Weert 2001). During the process of decentralization, an important debate was whether the civil servant status of the staff should be abolished and replaced by employment contracts under private law. This would be a logical step, and the universities would arrive in a similar position as the three denominational universities as well as the hogescholen which are regulated by private law. University managers advocate the privatisation of universities, whereby staff are employed by universities as the legal employers. Although the juridical possibilities and consequences of such a transition would not change the nature of universities – universities should remain public institutions – it was decided that for the time being university staff would keep their civil servant status. In the process of transferring powers and responsibilities from the government to universities and hogescholen, a trend can be identified – movement away from uniformity in dealing with staffing issues, and towards the devising of personnel management systems that allow for individual, subject, or market differences and flexible reward systems. An important development is the current implementation of a new system of job profiles for academic staff at universities. This system aims at making explicit the various roles, tasks, and responsibilities that must be carried out to achieve the stated objective. Individual development plans become possible, in which different staff roles are to be acknowledged, both vertically and horizontally within the same ranks. Individual staff members can apply for specific roles on the basis of an assessment of their qualifications – for example, to be more involved in either teaching or research. Teaching activities are classified in four specified tasks,

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

155

such as teaching, curricular development, counselling student projects or evaluation. Research activities consist of coordination, acquisition of contract research, and participating in research working groups and committees. The system of job profiles has been designed to function as a basis for advanced personnel management regarding assessment (on the basis of output and competencies), personnel development plans and distinctive career paths. It challenges the traditional view that research performance is the all-determining factor in a career path of an academic. Although in this system teaching and research are intertwined, it distinguishes separate career tracks for academics, giving equal value to excellence in teaching and in research. The challenges facing the academic profession are twofold: first, how to break out of the spiral of the dominance of research and to assess teaching qualifications equally; and secondly, how to guarantee that the diversification of job roles would not result in a fragmentation of academic work tasks, but rather would contribute to a new conception of what academic scholarship is all about. Another new challenge to the profession is the introduction of the lectorate in the hogescholen. The lectorate – not to be confused with the traditional rank of lecturer or reader in the Anglo-Saxon world – is considered a highly-qualified individual with significant expertise in the subject field and in the professional domain. The leading idea here is that lectors are not appointed as isolated staff members but as leaders of so-called knowledge circles (kenniskringen), each consisting of a group of 10–15 staff members. A knowledge circle aims to enhance contacts and knowledge exchange with industry and consultancy – for example, in the field of applied and developmental research. Through such a circle the lector plays a crucial role in strengthening the linkages between hogescholen and industry and other organizations. Lectors are expected to acquire contracts from outside and to develop professional networks in particular fields. With special government funding, hogescholen have appointed a considerable number of lectors and the aim is that in a few years’ time about half of all teaching staff will belong to some knowledge circle. This initiative challenges the view of hogescholen as a ‘teaching only’ type of institution simply conveying the standard canon. By involving staff in broader knowledge networks, it is expected that this will enhance their professional development and keep their teaching up-to-date.

2.6

Financial Issues

The income of universities and hogescholen derives from three so-called flows of funds. Apart from these, there are tuition fees paid by the students. The first flow of funds represents the core funding of the higher education institutions. It consists of block grants (i.e. lump sums) that are allocated in proportion to the teaching, research and related activities of the institutions. The first flow of funds also contains a number of specific (i.e. targeted) allocations, the most important one being the compensation for unemployment benefits that are paid by the institutions

156

J. Huisman

themselves to laid-off staff members. If we exclude the grants paid to academic hospitals (which co-operate closely with universities), the first flow of funds to universities is almost two-thirds of total university income. For hogescholen, this is 74%. The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture supplies the first flow of funds for both the universities and the hogescholen. Agricultural institutions (one university and a small number of hogescholen) receive their grant from the Ministry of Agriculture. Some 36% of the universities’ core funds is allocated in relation to teaching activities, whereas 64% is related to research. In practice though, universities are allowed to make their own decision with regard to the distribution of resources across teaching and research. They also make their own distribution across faculties, departments and institutes. For hogescholen, the block grant only covers teaching tasks. The way the block grant for both the universities and the hogescholen is calculated and built up is described in the next two paragraphs. From 1994 (hogescholen) and 1995 (universities) on, the public subsidies supplied for covering the higher education institutions’ capital costs (for the institutions’ property, i.e. buildings and equipment) have been integrated into the recurrent (i.e. block) grant. From these years on, hogescholen and universities own their buildings and land. The second flow of funds consists of projects-based public payments for research, allocated to the universities by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Science (KNAW). NWO acts as an intermediary in granting funds for separate research proposals submitted by individual researchers or research teams. Projects are funded on a competitive basis. NWO pays the salaries of the researchers (and support staff) it funds, but allocates the budgets directly to the university concerned. It also contributes partly to non-staff costs (mainly investments). However, the larger part of material and overhead costs are to be paid (i.e. ‘matched’) by the receiving university. Research council funds represent around 5% of total university revenues and 7–8% of the universities’ total research income). The third flow of funds concerns income from contract research and contract teaching. Contract activities are carried out for government organisations (especially ministries), non-profit organisations, private companies, charitable boards, and (increasingly) the European Community. For universities, this supplementary source of income has been growing fast since the early 1980s. It currently represents around 25% of university income for teaching and research. For the hogescholen, it is difficult to obtain figures for income from contract work. Surveys reveal that this lies in the neighbourhood of 8% of their income. For all modes of attendance students are required to pay a tuition fee, which is equal for students in hogescholen and universities. Income from tuition fees represents some 6% of total university revenues. For hogescholen the figure is about 18%. For the funding of hogescholen the following basic formula generates the amount of funds allocated for teaching: Amount = funding tariff × dynamic demand factor × enrolment There are two funding tariffs for full-time students, one for programmes with a strong practical character and a 20% lower one for programmes with a social science

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

157

(so-called gamma) character. Previously there were six so-called profiles. There are still some special arrangements for students in performing arts, music, theatre and teacher training. Until January 1998, part-time students were funded at a rate of 75%. From that date on, the tariffs for part-time students have been raised up to the level of full-time students. The funding rates are not applied to the number of registered students, but to an estimate of the teaching load (‘student demand’). This teaching load is a multiplication of enrolment and a so-called dynamic demand factor. The formula for the latter is as follows: Dynamic demand factor = [DG × 4.5 + DO × 1.35]/(TG + TD) where: DG: the number of degrees awarded (during previous year) DO: the number of students that have dropped out (during the previous year) 4.5: the normative funding period for graduates (4.5 years) 1.35: the normative funding period for drop-outs (1.35 years) TG: total period (in years), during which graduates have been registered before graduation TD: total period (in years), during which drop-outs have been registered The dynamic demand factor can be interpreted as the ratio of the normative funding period and the actual registration period for graduates and drop-outs. In case graduates or drop-outs take more time before leaving the hogescholen, the operation of this factor implies that the hogescholen receives less funding. In case an institution would be able to bring down the time to degree or the time to drop out, this will only affect funding if the graduation (or success) rate rises simultaneously. This is due to the fact that total enrolment also decreases along with shorter periods of stay. A hogeschool thus has two options to raise its funding amount: through a permanent rise in numerical success rates; and/or through a rise in student intake. However, both options bring along larger costs for the institution. In any case, the funding formula intends to stress performance, especially in terms of graduation rates.

2.7

Governance and Management

For an understanding of the governance structure of hogescholen, it is important to make a distinction between types of hogescholen: those having the regulatory status of legal person and those not having that status. Since most hogescholen are legal persons, we describe the governance structure of those institutions. The governance structure of hogescholen comprises an executive board and a governance council. Besides these two boards every hogeschool has a participation council (medezeggenschapsraad). The executive board consists of a maximum of three members. The chairman of the executive board and the other members are appointed by the Minister of Education, Science and Culture. The executive board is responsible for managing policy preparation and implementation, and co-ordinating the day-to-day affairs of

158

J. Huisman

the institution as a whole. The executive board is supposed to provide relevant information both to the Minister and the governance council. The executive board determines the internal regulations of the hogeschool (bestuursreglement) having heard the governance council. The Minister approves the regulations. The governance council consists of a chairman and at most 11 other members. According to the WHW this council oversees the policy formation process of the executive board. It supports the executive board with advice. A royal decree regulates the appointment of members, their terms and the dismissal of members. Unlike the universities, the hogescholen sector has participation councils, consisting equally of staff and students. If a hogeschool has organizational units (departments), each unit should have a participation council (deelraad) as well. Staff members and students choose staff and student members of the council respectively (mostly annually or bi-annually). The phenomenon of participation councils at hogescholen is due to the 1981 Participation Act in Education (WMO). The Participation Act was at that time in force for primary and secondary education and included a long list of subjects for which the advice or approval of the participation council was required. At that time the hogescholen sector was formally part of secondary education and this meant that hogescholen were legally obliged to introduce participation councils. With the acceptance of the HBO Act in 1986, the general regime of the Participation Act was integrated in the regulations for the hogescholen. The HBO Act specified that each institutional regulation should contain a listing of “exceptional” decisions of the executive board for which the participation council has the right to approve, the right to advise or none of the two rights. The list of decisions comprised, e.g. the change in denomination of the institution, budgeting rights, the acceptance or change of the institutional planning document, the participation in experiments, fundamental changes in the organisation, changes in personnel policies, and changes in the regulations regarding students (access policies, student facilities). Whereas a discussion emerged at the universities in the 1990s to change the existing governance structure – eventually leading to a new governance act in 1997, inspired by ideas of new public management – this debate hardly took place at the hogescholen. Part of the explanation was that particularly in the universities there were complaints about the lack of decisiveness due to the right of staff and students to participate in decision-making. Another element was that universities in particular needed more leeway regarding the governance structure, given the changing competitive, international environment. It seems that the hogescholen at that time were fairly confident with the existing governance structures. Some changes took place regarding the governance structure with the introduction of the Higher Education and Research Act (WHW) in 1993. The regulation states that the executive board needs the approval of the participation council in the following matters: the hogeschool plan; the system of quality assurance; the students’ charter; the institutional regulations; and regulations regarding the labour circumstances. Other matters can be settled per hogeschool through regulations at that level (Hoefnagel and Vermeulen 1997). If the executive board and participation council do not agree on a certain matter, either party can submit the disagreement

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

159

to a committee of dispute (geschillencommissie). The judgment of the committee of dispute is binding. The executive board may delegate certain tasks and responsibilities to organizational units within the hogeschool. To what extent this is practiced in the sector is very much dependent on the nature and size of the hogeschool. The same goes for the organisational structure below the central level. Executive boards may decide to set up departments, faculties, units, etc. and are free to change existing structures without consent of the government. At present, the existing important differences between the governance structure of the hogescholen and universities pertain to the appointment of the executive board (by the Minister for hogescholen and by the Supervisory Board for the universities), and the regulations at the decentralized level of the institutions (not regulated by national law for the hogescholen, to some extent regulated for the universities). Whereas there are clear differences between individual hogescholen and universities, in general the amount of influence of staff and students on institutional and departmental decision-making is rather similar. In the context of the debate on a new act for higher education (see below), there is discussion over whether hogescholen and universities should have similar governance structures.

2.8

Bachelor-Master Structure

The existence of Bachelor and Masters degrees described in the beginning of this paper is fairly recent. In the wake of the 1999 Bologna agreement, the Dutch government formulated the plan to reform the degree structure. In early 2002, the Dutch Parliament approved the change in the Higher Education and Research Act (WHW), making it legally possible for Dutch Higher Education institutions to grant Bachelor and Masters degrees as of the academic year (2002/2003). Together with this change, a new law on accreditation was also approved (see below) and the European Credit Transfer System was implemented. Interestingly, most universities and some hogescholen had already made the decision to implement the Bachelor-Master system before the change in the WHW was approved by Parliament. Contrary to the German situation, for example, in the Netherlands the Bachelor-Master system (BaMa) is going to fully replace the current higher education system (Lub et al. 2003). From the academic year 2002/2003, university graduates will be able to adopt the title of bachelor and master (of arts and sciences) in addition to the traditional diplomas of doctorandus (drs.), ingenieur (ir.) or meester (mr.). Graduates from the hogescholen will be able to adopt the title of bachelor in addition to the traditional diplomas of baccalaureus (bc) or ingenieur (ing). Under the Bachelor-Master system, university students will first take a Bachelor’s programme lasting at least three years and will then be able to go on to enter a more specialised Master’s programme. Universities are encouraged to set up elite Masters programmes for exceptional students. Students at hogescholen will be awarded a Bachelor’s degree after four years of study. Like the universities, the HBO-sector will also be able to

160

J. Huisman

set up Masters degree programmes, but contrary to the universities, these Masters degree programmes will not be funded by the government. The main motive for the Dutch government to implement the new system was that this new system is seen as an essential condition for a modern and internationally oriented higher education (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2000). The Bachelor-Master system intends to make the Dutch higher education system more flexible and open, so that the anticipation of new societal developments, for instance internationalisation, globalisation and ICT developments, is simplified. The system should be flexible enough to meet the needs of students of all ages and open enough to allow Dutch students to study abroad, as well as allowing foreign students to enter the Dutch system (Lub et al. 2003). Governmental funding for the universities for the introduction of the Bachelor-Master system has been 45 million euro: 50% in 2001 and 50% in 2002 (Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 2001).

2.9

Accreditation

Because of the introduction of the Bachelor-Master system in Dutch higher education in 2002, the Minister wanted to introduce an accreditation system as well, incorporating and largely replacing the existing quality assurance mechanisms. In November 2000, the Minister of Education, Science and Culture installed a ‘trailblazers’ committee chaired by a former education specialist in the Parliament. A year later, the committee issued its report “Activate, Achieve and Advance” (Franssen committee 2001). The most important recommendations of the report were: 1. The establishment of a frame of reference concerning accreditation of all bachelors and masters programmes in public and private higher education institutions 2. The foundation of a National Accreditation Council (NAO) 3. Accreditation of new programs On the basis of the findings of this report, the Minister of Education, Science and Culture submitted a bill to the Parliament, which was discussed and approved in June 2002. The National Accreditation Council (NAO) was established in January 2003. Accreditation will be mandatory for programs to award recognised bachelor and masters degrees; to make students enrolled eligible for study grants and loans; and to get State funding (for public higher education institutions only). Implicit in the above is that private higher education institutions will be included in the accreditation procedures on an equal footing with public ones, apart from the issue of public funding. This will open up the Dutch higher education system to globalisation forces. At the same time, the accreditation framework allows universities to propose professional Bachelors and Masters, and hogescholen to propose Bachelors and Masters of Arts and Sciences. That is, the former strict connection between type of higher education institution and type of degree is loosened. It remains to be seen, however, to what extent Dutch higher education institutions are willing to cross the border and whether the NAO will value the proposals of the higher

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

161

education institutions (see also Dittrich et al. 2004). A potential problem relates to the issue that the Dutch accreditation system should be open for all international visiting and evaluating institutions. However, the practical criteria used for accreditation have a very specific Dutch nature. As a result it can be questioned to what extent the system is really open to foreign or international evaluation institutions (Van der Wende and Westerheijden 2003). Nevertheless, the NAO cooperates with the Flemish neighbours, leading to the establishment of the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisation (NVAO).

2.10

Hogescholen and the World Outside

The perceived gap between higher education and society is a continuous topic of debate. Several national agencies and committees in which members of industry have a prominent role have advocated strong linkages between higher education institutions and firms and branches of trade. In a similar vein, the Advisory Council on Science and Technology Policy and the Education Council (AWT/Onderwijsraad 2001), as well as the Social-Economic Council (SER 2003), have advocated a strengthening of knowledge circulation by creating more systematic partnerships between higher education institutions and their external constituencies. Examples of concrete policies include: collaboration on research and educational projects; more working visits and exchange of personnel on either side; more flexible forms of learning (such as co-operative education); and competency-based learning. The most recent initiative to close the gap between higher education and industry and to create new partnerships is the Innovation Platform launched in 2003 to develop a grand design for the knowledge-based economy. Under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, leading figures from the scientific and business communities have been brought together with other constituencies to develop creative ideas for bringing about innovative roles for science in the knowledge-based economy. A larger involvement of industry in university research, a concentration of research in ‘strategic innovation networks’ and the enhancement of knowledge valorisation are among the issues discussed. Although this initiative has met considerable scepticism because of its ambitious objectives, it typifies the Dutch feature of bringing together people from various interest groups to arrive at consensus and to increase the commitment to the various measures proposed.

3 3.1

Reflection Steering and Level of Autonomy

In general, the Dutch higher education system has a considerable level of autonomy, although it must be stressed that such a judgment is partly in the eye of the beholder. Comparative research on this issue (Gornitzka et al. 1999) indicates that steering of

162

J. Huisman

higher education in the Netherlands is characterised by a mixture of governmental planning and market mechanisms. In addition, the consensus model (i.e. much discussion and negotiation with different stakeholders before and during the development of policies and policy implementation, although stripped of its denominational characteristics) is also still recognisable in policy-making. Regarding the level of autonomy of higher education institutions themselves, this level should be judged to be relatively high. The period from the mid-1980s to the beginning of the 1990s is marked by attempts to deregulate the higher education sector. The 1993 Higher Education and Research Act (WHW) can be seen as an intermediate legislative reflection of deregulation and centralisation. But also in the decade after the WHW further deregulations took place (see, e.g. Van Vught 1997). In the most recent three to four years the most striking developments regarding flexibilisation are: a more flexible take-up of student grants through time; less rigid – but performance-based – funding mechanisms; more institutional leeway in matters of selection and access; more leeway for universities to adapt their governance structure to local circumstances; and cooperation between universities and hogescholen, possibly leading to the integration of higher education institutions on different sides of the binary divide. At the same time, many issues have been reregulated (Bachelor-Master structure; quality assurance and accreditation; and programme supply). Compared to the last decade of the previous century, in recent years much less deregulation took place (Maslowski and Huisman 2005; see also Huisman and Toonen 2004). One explanation is that the limits of deregulation have been reached (within the context of Dutch legislation), another is that government is of the opinion that no more deregulation should take place. Particular elements of decentralisation relating to the hogescholen concern decision-making and budget spending. Decision-making on the mission of the hogeschool is up to the executive board, as well as the spending of the budget. The present situation in terms of the level of autonomy is considerably different from the situation in the mid-1980s, where hogescholen were under severe regulatory constraints imposed by the government. Nowadays, institutional leeway is to some extent limited by national regulations regarding accreditation, programme supply, access and of course the overall budget for higher education. OECD data indicate that government expenditure on higher education has decreased considerably during the last decade, whereas the performance is expected to be the same or even at a higher level than present.

3.2

Cooperation Between Universities and Hogescholen

There is at present growing collaboration in the form of networks and joint ventures among various universities and between universities and hogescholen. For example, the three technical universities have agreed to form a federation aiming at strengthening education and research in engineering. Another illustration of the growing cooperation during the 1990s, but particularly in recent years, has been the

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

163

mushrooming of partnerships between universities and hogescholen. Cooperation is not limited to joint facilities (such as buildings, the library and services) but also includes better student counseling and advice, the development of credit transfer systems across the binary line, smoother transformation from hogescholen Bachelors to university Masters (through bridging courses and programmes). The most far-fetched cooperation is between some hogescholen and universities (e.g. University and hogeschool of Amsterdam; Free University of Amsterdam and hogeschool Windesheim Zwolle), who are in fact at the brink of entering an agreement that comes close to merging the institutions. Such collaborations are not limited to institutions that are in the same region.

3.3

Academic Drift: Blurring Boundaries

There are certain indications of academic drift. An expression of this is that the Minister of Education, Science and Culture officially gave the hogescholen the right to use the title of “university of professional education” when they market themselves to international audiences. However, inside the Netherlands the hogescholen are not allowed to promote themselves as a university. Quite a few hogescholen however “forget” to add “of professional education” and call themselves “university” in their official communication and on their websites. Whereas one can argue whether this is an issue to worry about, there is a risk of (particularly foreign) students being misguided on the status of the institution. Such students may expect to receive an academic education, expressed in the certificate of Master of Arts or Science, whereas such degrees are as yet rarely offered by hogescholen. A second indication of academic drift is the fact that from the 1990s on, hogescholen started to offer Masters programmes in cooperation with British universities (mostly former polytechnics). Students were granted the degree of the foreign institute but actually took their courses at a Dutch hogeschool. The wish of hogescholen to offer Master programmes has been fuelled by the present debate on the funding of Masters at hogescholen. Whereas the hogescholen maintain that they are in a disadvantaged position compared to the universities, the government argues that hogescholen can in fact offer Master’s programmes, but that this is dependent on whether the NVAO accredits the programme and whether the government is of the opinion that the programme merits public financial support based on the criterion of the significance of the contribution to the Dutch knowledge society. A third indication is related to the emergence of the lectorate at hogescholen. Whereas the aim was to appoint persons that in a general sense would contribute to knowledge transfer and circulation, many hogescholen took a much more specific approach and recruited staff appointed at universities. There is some criticism from the field of SMEs (small and medium sized enterprises) that the lectors appointed have only limited contacts with SMEs. However, the phenomenon of the lectorate is too recent to jump to conclusions (the organisation of Dutch SMEs, MKBNederland is currently carrying out research), but the interpretation of many hogescholen of the lectorate is another indication of academic drift.

164

J. Huisman

The hogescholen sector is aware that it has a long way to go to become equal to the university sector in terms of carrying out basic research. Yet, it is realistic to expect that the relatively strong barriers between universities and hogescholen will disappear in the near future (also taking into account the cooperative efforts between universities and hogescholen, see above). To a considerable extent this has been the effect of governmental measures, of which the consent to build structural co-operation between hogescholen and universities, the consent of both sectors to offer – in theory – both academic and professional programmes are the most important.

3.4

A New Act for Higher Education

In the latest Higher Education and Research Plan (Ministry of Education, Culture and Science 2003), new ideas and policies have been launched. Of particular relevance to the hogescholen sector is the explicit attention to the strengthening of the relationship between higher education (universities and hogescholen) and business and industry. Concrete proposals relate to knowledge innovation in the hogescholen sector and, experiments with knowledge circulation between hogescholen and SMEs. A second important issue is the rethinking of governmental steering of higher education. In more concrete terms, this concerns the funding of higher education (new models for funding), the modernisation of governance (performance contracts with higher education institutions) and the reconsideration of the steering concept (a new act on higher education). The latter issue may have considerable impact on present-day elements of the higher education system, for the new act is – according to the present State Secretary for Higher Education – not to be considered as piecemeal adjustment of the present-day legislation.

3.5

The Future: The Demise of the Binary Divide?

Through time there have been proponents and opponents of the Dutch binary system (see, e.g. Hulshof et al. 1992), and understandably there are different views on how the binary system will/should develop. The reflection above may hint at the possibility or even likelihood that the Dutch binary divide will soon disappear. But let us be very careful: already in the 1980s the end of the binary line was predicted and yet the distinction in hogescholen and universities is still there. It may therefore be relevant to sketch a few possible developments. In a recent study, De Boer et al. (2001) set out three different scenarios for Dutch higher education in 2010, with different consequences for the binary divide. In the first scenario, the distinction between hogescholen and universities are stronger than nowadays. The main reason being that the Dutch accreditation organisation has been very reluctant to accept proposals for masters programmes of the

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

165

hogescholen and at the same time has been very critical regarding a number of university programmes that – in the eyes of the accreditation organisation – were not considered sufficiently “academic”. A number of programmes in both sectors therefore lost their accreditation status and their funding base. As a consequence, both hogescholen and universities were forced to stick (return) to their original trade, implying a rather rigid distinction between the two sectors. In this scenario, even a number of merger initiatives had to be cancelled, for the efficiency of such operations were deemed highly inefficient. In the second scenario for 2010, the government has abolished the binary divide. There are in 2010 some 35 Dutch universities that differ considerably in size, scope and mission. In fact, a similar situation as in the present higher education system in the United Kingdom has emerged. All higher education institutions are labelled as universities. But – like in the United Kingdom – it does not imply that all institutions are similar or are treated in a similar way (e.g. in terms of funding). Indeed, most of the former hogescholen have not been able to achieve the status of a traditional research university. Only a few have been able to climb the ranks and are on their way to meet the requirements of a classical research university. The third scenario for 2010 is again different. In this perspective government has largely stepped back from higher education and market mechanisms abound. Consequently, the higher education system is hardly comparable anymore to the situation in 2001. Only a few traditional universities and hogescholen are still recognisable. A substantive number of traditional institutions has disappeared or formed networks with either existing higher education institutions or private enterprises. At the same time, quite a number of new (mostly private) higher education institutions has entered the market. One of the consequences of the emerging pattern is that the higher education system is healthy, but far from transparent. Actually, nobody knows in 2010 how many higher education institutions will be offering courses and programmes. Neither is it known how many students are actually enrolled in higher education. And one can imagine that hardly anybody is occupied with the binary divide anymore. It simply is not relevant anymore to discuss on which side of the binary line one resides: the distinction between hogescholen and universities has become outdated. Which scenario will evolve is difficult to say. Given the developments in the past years, the second scenario may seem the most likely scenario. But institutional strategy-setting and national policy-making are human activities, subject to interpretations, unintended side effects and … unexpected intervening factors. Only time will tell whether the Dutch binary system will survive.

References Adviesraad voor het Wetenschaps – en Technologiebeleid (AWT) and Onderwijsraad. Hogeschool van Kennis: Kennisuitwisseling tussen Beroepspraktijk en Hogescholen. Den Haag, The Netherlands: AWT en Onderwijsraad, 2001.

166

J. Huisman

Boezerooy, P. Higher Education in the Netherlands. International Higher Education Monitor Country Report. Enschede, The Netherlands: CHEPS, 2003. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek. Unemployment Data. www.statline.cbs.nl, 2005. De Boer, H., J. Huisman, and D. Westerheijden. De Tuinen van Het Hoger oOnderwijs. Scenario’s voor 2010. Enschede, The Netherlands: Twente University Press, 2001. De Weert, E. “Pressures and Prospects Facing the Academic Profession in the Netherlands”. In Altbach, Ph. G. (ed). The Changing Academic Workplace: Comparative Perspectives. Boston, MA: Center for International Higher Education, 2001, pp. 105–133. De Weert, E. “The Netherlands”. In Forrest, J. J. F. and P. G. Altbach (eds). International Handbook of Higher Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2005, forthcoming. Dittrich, K., M. Frederiks, and M. Luwel. “The Implementation of ‘Bologna’ in Flanders and the Netherlands”. European Journal of Education 39(3) (2004): 299–316. Franssen Committee. Prikkelen, Presteren, Profileren. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Eindrapport Commissie Accreditatie Hoger Onderwijs, SDU, 2001. Goedegebuure, L. Mergers in Higher Education. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Lemma, 1992. Gornitzka, Å., J. Huisman, P. Maassen, O. Van Heffen, A. Klemperer, L. Van de Maat, and H. Vossensteyn. State Steering Models with Respect to Western European Higher Education, Thematic Report Monitor. Enschede, The Netherlands: CHEPS, 1999. HBO Council. Kengetallen HBO. Den Haag, The Netherlands: HBO-Raad, 2002. HBO Council. Hogescholen Management Informatie 2004. Den Haag, The Netherlands: HBORaad, 2004. Hoefnagel, H. J. M., and B. P. Vermeulen. “Recent Developments in Dutch Legislation on Education”. European Journal for Education, Law and Policy 1 (1997): 155–161. Huisman, J. “The Netherlands”. In Huisman, J., and F. Kaiser (eds). Fixed and Fuzzy Boundaries in Higher Education. A Comparative Study of (Binary) Structures in Nine Countries. Background Study for the Advisory Council for Science and Technology Policy. Den Haag, The Netherlands: ATW, 2001, pp. 27–33. Huisman, J., and F. Kaiser (eds). Fixed and Fuzzy Boundaries in Higher Education. Den Haag, The Netherlands: AWT, 2001. Huisman, J., and T. Toonen. “The Netherlands: A Mixed Pattern of Control”. In Hood, C., O. James, G. Peters, and C. Scott (eds). Controlling Modern Government: Variety, Commonality and Change. Chettenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004, pp. 108–113. Hulshof, M. J. F., J. M. H. M Willems, and J. F. M. J. van Hout (eds). Het Binaire Stelsel. Een Non-Issue? Nijmegen, The Netherlands: IOWO, 1992. Jongbloed, B., C. Salerno, and J. Huisman. Bekostigd en Niet Bekostigd Hhoger Onderwijs. Programma’s en Klanten, Achtergrondstudie voor de Onderwijsraad. Enschede, The Netherlands: CHEPS, 2004. Leuven, E., and H. Oosterbeek. “Rendement van onderwijs stijgt”. Economisch Statistische Berichten 85(4262) (2000): 523–524. Lub, A., M. van der Wende, and J. Witte. “Bachelor-Master Programmes in the Netherlands and Germany”. Tertiary Education and Management 9(4) (2003): 249–266. Maslowski, R., and J. Huisman. “Deregulering en Autonomievergroting in Relatie tot Onderwijsvernieuwing en Onderwijsopbrengsten”. In Onderwijsraad (ed). Deregulering en autonomievergroting. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Onderwijsraad, 2005. Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. “Meer Flexibiliteit in Hoger Onderwijs Door Introductie Bachelor – Masterstelsel”. Press release. Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: MOCenW, 2000. Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Kerncijfers 2002. Zoetermeer, The Netherlands: MOCenW, 2001. Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. Ontwerp Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoek Plan 2004. The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Education, 2003. Research Center for Education and Labour Market (ROA). De Arbeidmarkt naar Opleiding en Beroep tot 2008. Maastricht, The Netherlands: ROA, University of Maastricht, 2003.

Shifting Boundaries in Higher Education

167

Sociaal-Economische Raad. Nederlandse Kenni – en Innovatiebeleid. Den Haag, The Netherlands: SER, 2003. Van der Wende, M., and Westerheijden, D. “Quality Assurance and Recognition in Europe. Recent Trends and Developments”. CHEPS working paper for the INQAAHE Conference, Dublin, Ireland, 2003. Van Vught, F. A. “Combining Planning and the Market: An Analysis of the Government Strategy Towards Higher Education in the Netherlands”. Higher Education Policy 10(3–4) (1997): 211–224.

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway Svein Kyvik

1

Introduction

The higher education system in Norway has been continuously reformed over the last 10–15 years. This reform process started at the end of the 1980s, when many politicians seemed to regard universities and colleges as slowly adapting institutions with little ability to adjust to new social needs. The general discontent led to the establishment of a governmental commission set up in 1987 to evaluate the goals, organisation and priorities of higher education towards the years 2000–2010 (NOU 1988: 28). Nearly all aspects of higher education were discussed by the commission, including the organisation of non-university higher education. The outcome of this process was a major reorganisation of this sector in 1994. A formal binary system was established through the merging of 98 vocationally-oriented institutions into 26 state colleges (statlige høgskoler). The majority of these new institutions are multi-disciplinary and multi-programme colleges encompassing the previous specialist colleges of teacher training, engineering, health education, and social work, as well as the district colleges and various other institutions offering a specialist range of teaching programmes. In 1995, a new Act on Universities and Colleges was approved by Parliament, and, since 1996, all public higher education institutions have been under the same act. Until 1989, most universities and specialised university institutions were regulated by separate acts, while the non-university higher education institutions were guided by governmental or ministerial regulations. Within the non-university sector, only teacher training was regulated by law. In 1989, Parliament passed an act covering all institutions in the university sector. By and large this act gave more autonomy to the universities by delegating decision-making authority on a number of issues. This process of making higher education institutions more responsible for the results of their activities was extended in the 1995 Act and in amendments to this Act in 2002. This process of delegation from the state to the higher education institutions was continued by the 2005 parliamentary approval of a new act on universities and colleges, both public and private. Three trends are typical for the evolution of the non-university higher education sector in Norway: academic drift, standardisation, and regionalisation.

James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

169

170

S. Kyvik

A common trend in most countries seems to be that non-university higher education institutions are striving to raise their status. Since the non-university institutions historically have suffered from a lack of academic status, their common strategy has been to orient most of their activities in ways that bring them closer to the university image. This process has been referred to as academic drift (Burgess 1972). There seems to be a universal tendency that organisations try to imitate other organisations they regard as more successful (Meyer and Rowan 1977). Processes of academic drift may thus inhibit the intended development of functional differentiation between universities and non-university institutions. In Norway, academic drift may be broken down into several different, though related, processes: (a) Vertical extension of teaching programmes. Examples of such processes are the extension of two-year programmes to three-year programmes, and the introduction of Master’s degrees and Ph.D. degrees in some of the colleges. (b) Horizontal extension of teaching programmes. Examples are the introduction of university programmes in the district colleges and later in the colleges of teacher training. (c) Development of research activities. This is one of the most pronounced tendencies of academic drift, and research is now by law a task of the non-university higher education institutions. (d) More emphasis on theory in vocationally-oriented programmes. This process has taken place for a long time in the semi-professional teaching programmes. (e) The introduction of an academic appointment system and reward structure. Traditionally, the appointment system and reward structures in the non-university and the university sectors have been different from each other to sustain a diversified higher education system. A successful strategy to raise the status of the non-university sector has been to try to copy the system and structures of the universities. In most countries the development of a tertiary education system has been a balancing act between diversity and convergence (Meek et al. 1996). From a political point of view the shaping of a diversified tertiary education system with a combination of academic and vocational studies as well as long and short programmes usually is regarded as important to meet the varied demands of society for skilled labour and the needs of a heterogeneous mass of young people for education. On the other hand there is an administrative need for standardised regulations of the educational system, and a political desire to homogenise different educational systems. From this perspective the development of the non-university education sector in Norway can be described as a standardisation process. There has been a standardisation of steering and organisation principles in this sector, there has been a standardisation of structure and content in teaching programmes, and there has been a standardisation of working conditions and career structure among academic staff. These standardisation processes have taken place over a very long period irrespective of policy aims of creating and maintaining a diversified higher education system, and probably without any clear vision by policy makers at different points in time.

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

171

Another trend in Norway is the tendency towards regionalisation of public services. The regional level has gradually increased its importance at the expense of the local level and the state level in most public sectors. The same trend can be found within the non-university higher education sector. Several reasons can be put forward to explain this process. First, the central educational administration has been functionally overloaded, and decentralisation of tasks and authority to the local and regional level has been an objective for many years. Second, the government assumed that economies of scale could be obtained by the concentration of study programmes in regional centres due to better utilisation of buildings and administrative capacity. Third, the government assumed that large educational units will be conducive to high-quality teaching and research as well as quality in administrative services. Fourth, the co-localisation of study programmes will have positive effects on collaboration patterns between staff across different disciplines. This trend has coincided with and been inspired by new steering principles in the public sector, where it has become a model for the organisation of public administration. In this respect, the establishment of a relatively small number of colleges – one in each region through mergers – is in line with new trends in public policy. In addition, there is a growing consciousness in the regions themselves that higher education institutions should contribute to a larger extent in developing the local economy, and that one large and visible institution will be better equipped to undertake such a role than many small entities. These three processes – academic drift, standardisation, and regionalisation – are likely to continue in the coming years.

2

The Basic Structure of the Higher Education System

In 2003, higher education in Norway was provided by 4 universities, 6 specialised university institutions (economics and business administration, agriculture, veterinary science, sport and physical education, music and architecture), 26 state colleges, and about 25 private institutions (see Table 1). With the exception of a school of business and management studies, the latter are small institutions, mainly with religious affiliations. Three of the private institutions are accredited as specialised university institutions and

Table 1 Students and staff in Norwegian Higher Education Institutions, 2003 (Statistics Norway and National Database on Higher Education) Number of students Number of staff Universities Specialised university institutions Colleges Other colleges Private colleges Total

71,200 7,500 98,300 2,200 30,400 209,700

13,400 2,000 9,000 – – –

172

S. Kyvik

the rest are defined as institutions on a college level. All institutions of higher education are subject to the authority of the Ministry of Education and Research, but public and private institutions are regulated by different acts. In 2003, a new act formally established vocational college education as a shorter alternative to higher education. The vocational college education builds upon upper secondary education or corresponding competence, and lasts a minimum of six months to a maximum of two years full-time (covering subjects such as technical education, education within health and social work, etc.). According to the Act on Universities and Colleges, the universities and the specialised university institutions shall be responsible for the major part of basic research, and be given main responsibility for graduate education and research training. The state colleges shall be responsible for a wide variety of professionallyand vocationally-oriented teaching programmes. In addition they shall take on some of the university programmes for basic and undergraduate education. Within certain fields, where the universities do not offer similar programmes, the colleges can offer graduate education. Concurrently, the colleges should undertake research and other relevant activities, preferably connected to practice within specific fields, or to problems particularly relevant to their regions. Highly competent research environments with adequate depth could also play a role in research training in collaboration with a university or a specialised university institution. The state colleges are dispersed throughout the country. In most cases there are 1 or 2 in each of Norway’s 19 counties. The size of these colleges varies considerably from less than 1,000 students to more than 10,000 students. The colleges offer a total of 500 teaching programmes of —one to four years’ duration, —two to four year programmes in professional and vocational fields, and one to one and a half year university courses. Fifteen of the colleges also offer academic course programmes for a higher academic degree, frequently in collaboration with a university. In addition, five colleges offer doctoral training in specific subjects. Half of the colleges have programmes only in professional fields, while the other half offers programmes in both professional and academic fields. An important characteristic of the Norwegian higher education system is the permeability between the university and the non-university sector. The access requirements are the same for universities and state colleges: an upper secondary certificate qualifying for higher education entrance. Since the late 1960s political authorities have underlined the importance of increasing student mobility between these two sectors. A central aim has been to develop credit transfer systems so that students who change their educational objectives “lose” as little time as possible. The government has therefore encouraged institutions to recognise courses from other institutions as far as possible, and they have been quite successful in their efforts. In addition, a flexible degree structure has been developed that makes it quite easy to combine courses from different types of institutions and fields of learning. In 1998, the government set up a committee to assess the need for change in the higher education sector brought about by new demands from the government, students, industry and commerce, as well as by internationalisation and globalisation

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

173

processes. Two years later, the committee presented a comprehensive report suggesting major changes in the inner life of universities and colleges, and also in the relationship between central authorities and the higher education institutions. The work of the committee was generally approved by government and parliament and has led to a major reform in Norwegian higher education, coined the ‘Quality Reform’ (NOU 2000: 14). The main elements of this reform can be summarised as follows: ●

●

●

● ●

From 2003 on, the traditional degree structure of German origin is replaced by the Anglo-American Bachelor’s Degree, the Master’s Degree and the Ph.D. in the majority of teaching programmes. The time frames of these degrees generally follow the recommendations given in the Bologna declaration of a 3 + 2 + 3-year higher education system. New forms of student guidance, evaluation and assessment have been introduced. An agency for quality assurance and accreditation in higher education (NOKUT) was established in 2003. The higher education institutions have been given greater autonomy. A new funding formula for higher education institutions is gradually being developed and implemented.

The Parliament decided that the ‘Quality Reform’ should be fully implemented at all higher education institutions beginning with the autumn term 2003.

3

The Development of a Non-University Higher Education Sector

The main purpose of non-university institutions in Norway – as in other countries – has been to offer a wide spectrum of vocationally-oriented teaching programmes, either to qualify for a specific occupation or to prepare for a profession. In addition they should also meet regional needs in the labour market. Although non-university institutions for teacher training, engineering, and nursing were established in many of Norway’s nineteen counties before 1965, it was not until the latter part of the 1960s that decentralisation of higher education became an important political issue. The establishment of new institutions outside the traditional university centres was regarded as an important tool in this respect, both in terms of offering educational opportunities to people in the regions, and creating new jobs. These two trends, the vocational and the regional, were the main reasons for a major innovation in Norwegian higher education: the establishment of district colleges in the early 1970s in various parts of the country. This reform started with the establishment in 1965 of a governmental commission on post-secondary education to assess the future needs for higher education in Norway. One of the proposals of the committee was that all non-university institutions in each of twelve regions should be administratively and organisationally integrated in study centres called

174

S. Kyvik

district colleges.1 Concurrently, these new colleges should develop short-term vocationally-oriented education as an alternative to the universities and the traditional institutions for teacher training, health education, engineering, social work, etc. Many of the colleges and their affiliated professional organisations, however, did not want to merge with other educational institutions in the region as they feared this would limit their autonomy. The issue of integration was postponed and later abandoned by the government and the district colleges were established as autonomous institutions on the basis of new types of short-term vocationallyoriented programmes and some first-year university programmes (Kyvik 2004). Between 1976 and 1994, an increasing number of non-university colleges were governed by 17 regional boards. The main purpose of setting up regional boards was to decentralise decision-making authority and to ensure that planning and the establishment and development of short-term higher education in a region were considered as a whole. The regional boards however, had limited power, and the non-university higher education sector in each region remained nearly as fragmented as it was before the creation of these bodies in 1976. Most colleges found it more efficient to try to influence their situation by direct contact with the Ministry than by addressing the regional boards. Many colleges also had rather negative attitudes towards these boards. The boards were often regarded as superfluous bureaucratic organisations standing between the individual institutions and the Ministry. The district colleges differed from the other more vocationally-oriented colleges in that in addition to offering shorter vocationally-oriented programmes, especially in economics and business administration, they should also relieve the universities with regard to some undergraduate-level studies. But the ‘academic drift’ among the staff was significant, and some of the largest district colleges started to offer courses at the Master’s degree level. Some of the district colleges did indeed have clear university ambitions that were resisted by the universities and the government. In addition, the establishment of the many new colleges gradually met resistance, with many thinking that geographical decentralisation had gone too far. Some of these issues were taken up by the governmental commission on higher education set up in 1987 (NOU 1988: 28). The commission stated that the number of colleges was too high and recommended a stronger concentration within each region. The white papers that followed supported the commission’s recommendations and, in 1994, 98 regional colleges were amalgamated into 26 state colleges. The purpose was to enhance the quality of administrative functions and academic work through the creation of larger administrative and academic units, to develop new and broader study programmes, and to break down barriers between the various course programmes. In addition, economies of scale would yield more efficient use

1 The Norwegian name of these colleges is ‘distriktshøgskoler’. The standard translation of this name was regional colleges. I now prefer to use the term district colleges, because all tertiary nonuniversity colleges were later given the umbrella name ‘regionale høgskoler’ (regional colleges).

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

175

of physical resources like lecture halls, seminar rooms, laboratories, libraries and computer facilities (Kyvik 2002). The colleges that were merged were very different with regard to teaching programmes, staff competence and research activities. First, the colleges mainly offered courses of one to four years’ duration, but at some colleges it was possible to study for a major university degree and even a Ph.D. in co-operation with a university. Second, each of the various college types had developed its own strong traditions, for example with respect to teaching methods. Most of the professionallyoriented colleges were intensive in teaching and instruction, while other colleges copied the universities by putting more emphasis on lecturing and independent studies. Third, there were big differences in staff competence among the previous colleges. At some colleges, more than 90% of the teachers had formal research qualifications at the university-staff level, while this applied to less than 20% at other colleges. Fourth, due to historical reasons, different goals and traditions, as well as different competence levels among staff, there have been large variations in research orientation between the various types of colleges (Kyvik and Skodvin 2003). A survey of R&D among teaching staff at various colleges undertaken in 1993 showed that the research profiles and the outcomes of R&D at district colleges were more similar to universities than to other colleges. Most of the professional colleges had an institutional culture where little interest was shown in research activities. The staff members regarded themselves predominantly as teachers. It was mainly through the recruitment of new staff who had interest in and ability to carry out research that this activity became established. The legitimacy of R&D in all non-university higher education programmes was confirmed in 1993 when the new joint working agreement for universities and colleges was ratified. According to this agreement, R&D was generally considered to carry equal weight to teaching in all universities. Regarding the colleges, it was maintained that the current level of research should be considered the minimum, but that possibilities should be given for further development. As the level of research to be undertaken by the colleges was not specified, discretion was left to the individual institutions to determine the amount of research to be undertaken.

4

State Steering of Institutions

The reorganisation of the non-university higher education sector in 1994 has to be viewed in a broader national context in order to understand the objectives of the reform and the processes that took place (Kyvik 2002). At the end of the 1980s, to a larger extent than hitherto, higher education institutions came to be regarded as regular state agencies subject to a common steering system. This change in thinking was widespread in other European countries and came to influence Norwegian public policy in important ways. This applied in particular to the ‘new public management’ ideas developed by the OECD, and, in line with the recommendations by this organisation, the government introduced a general programme for renewal of

176

S. Kyvik

the civil service. The main steering principle was that decision-making authority and administrative tasks should be delegated and decentralised from the government to the individual institutions. Further, increased importance would be attached to a market orientation through the introduction of market and quasi-market mechanisms in the funding of institutions. The condition for the achievement of these governmental objectives was that the governance and the management system in the colleges be strengthened. The creation of larger institutions through mergers was regarded as a precondition for an effective implementation of the modernisation programme in this sector. In addition, the rapidly increasing student numbers in the 1990s, as the driving force behind growth in the higher education sector, provided a powerful argument for a managerial approach in handling the expansion of the system (Bleiklie et al. 2000). The merging of colleges in 1994 also implicated another shift in the steering of non-university higher education. Traditionally, this sector was organised according to functional specialisation, meaning that the various types of institutions offered specific programmes as parts of national professional educations (for instance teacher training, engineering, nursing and social work). These educational programmes were administered by separate offices in the Ministry, and their educational profiles were outlined by different national boards, one for each programme, to secure national norms and standards. The reform led to a stronger regional integration of the programmes through the merging of institutions based upon their geographic location. This change was supposed to provide better opportunities for students to combine various subjects for a degree. This objective of the reform soon came into conflict with the demand for preserving nationally coherent programmes in teacher training, social work, health education, engineering, economics and business administration (Kyvik 2002). For all these professional educations, new national framework plans were introduced after the launching of the reform, making it difficult for individual colleges to make innovations across study programmes. As an example, it proved to be difficult for students to combine teacher training with courses in economics and business administration without extending the total period of study time. Until 2002, the state colleges had to submit applications to government if they wanted to establish new programmes. The government, in its annual State budget, set target figures for student numbers and enrolment of new entrants for most programmes in each institution, and funds were allocated accordingly. The colleges today have considerable freedom to establish new teaching programmes at a Bachelor’s degree level or to close down programmes. They also are relatively free to decide on how many students to enrol.

5

Financing of Higher Education Institutions

The funding of higher education institutions has changed over time from a system where the total budget was broadly based on the number of students and specified in great detail on expense categories (salaries, other current costs, scientific

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

177

equipment, etc.) to a system where the institutions are relatively free to decide for themselves on how to allocate their block grant between different types of costs. The relative size of the block grant in relation to the total budget has, however, decreased gradually over the last two decades. To stimulate universities and colleges to improve quality and efficiency, a new model for basic funding of higher education institutions was introduced in 2002. The old model was mainly based on historical traditions and the number of students. The new model is to a greater extent based on performance in teaching and research. It differentiates between a basic grant (about 60% of the total grant), a performance-based grant for teaching (about 25% of the total grant), and a performance and strategic-based grant for research (about 15% of the total grant). These are average percentages which may vary between institutions and from year to year. The performance-based grant for teaching is first of all allocated on the basis of earned credit points in the respective fields. The criteria for performance-based research funding are, among other things, based on the number of associate and full professors and grants from the EU and the Research Council of Norway. So far, scientific publishing is not included in the formula because of lack of reliable data. How a database including numbers and types of publications should be established is currently being discussed. The distribution of the basic grant is mainly based on the number of students, infrastructure, and regional and national priorities in research and education. The different elements in the model were constructed in a way that did not change the allocation of resources between institutions the first year. Because the model is composed of performance-based and strategic as well as historical elements, it is difficult to assess the implications of this reform, although the funding model will obviously have some effect on the internal distribution of resources in the universities and colleges. The institutions have already become much more concerned about the recruitment of students, dropout rates and time to degree, as well as research quality and number of publications (Kyvik and Smeby 2004).

6

Quality Assurance and Accreditation

An output-based funding model may in itself improve efficiency in teaching and research, but hardly quality. The institutions were therefore instructed to establish their own quality assurance systems before the end of 2003. A new accreditation body, Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT), was established in 2003 to audit these systems. The consequence of not having established quality assurance systems covering a minimum standard is that the institutions are not allowed to establish new educational programmes. NOKUT is also responsible for the accreditation of education programmes. All established programmes that the respective institutions have the right to offer receive accreditations. Universities and special university institutions may establish new programmes at all levels without any further procedures. State colleges may apply for accreditation of new programmes on the Master’s degree and Ph.D. levels.

178

S. Kyvik

Private institutions are regulated by a separate act and have to apply for accreditation of new higher education programmes at all levels (Stensaker 2004). Parliament has specified by law that there are formally three types of institutions; universities, specialised university institutions and colleges (either public or private). Institutions can apply for a changed status, but have to be accredited by NOKUT to attain the status according to specific criteria. NOKUT must approve a change of status before the Ministry gives permission. However, the approval of NOKUT does not have to be accepted by the Ministry. On the other hand, the Ministry cannot change the status of a given institution without the institution being formally recognised by NOKUT as having the necessary qualities (Stensaker 2004). For a state college to be accredited as a specialised university institution, the following main criteria must be fulfilled (Stensaker 2004): ●

●

●

●

●

●

●

The institution must have the right to award a Ph.D. degree in one or several areas, and must have successfully graduated students from the Ph.D. programme. In academic areas/disciplines where a Ph.D. degree is awarded the institution must demonstrate that accreditation standards specified by NOKUT for such degrees are met. The institution must have the right to award a Master’s degree in a minimum of one academic area/discipline, and must have graduated students in at least two years. In academic areas/disciplines where a Master’s degree is awarded, the institution must demonstrate that accreditation standards specified by NOKUT for such degrees are met. In other academic areas/disciplines the institution must demonstrate that it produces R&D of high quality and that it has a scientific staff with formal qualifications. The institution must have an infrastructure that is relevant for the research activities conducted, i.e. with an updated research library that covers the Ph.D.awarding areas of research and with a sufficient collection of books and journals, with modern ICT-facilities, laboratories, with separate budget and plans for the research, and with a management structure that secures the quality of the research activities. The institution must have a well-established academic network, both nationally and internationally.

For a state college to be accredited as a university, the following main criteria must be fulfilled: ●

●

The institution must fulfil all criteria necessary to obtain status as a specialised university institution. In addition, the following criteria apply: The institution must have the right to award Master’s degree programmes in a minimum of five academic areas/disciplines, and must have bachelor’s programmes in more academic areas/disciplines than those covered by the Master’s degree programme.

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway ●

179

The institution must have the right to award Ph.D. degrees in a minimum of four academic areas/disciplines, where two of these must be related to regional needs and at the same time be of national importance. The institution must demonstrate a stable and continuing production of Ph.D. graduates in at least two of the four areas.

The possibility for state colleges to achieve university status in 2004 led to an application from the college in Stavanger. NOKUT approved the application, and the Ministry of Education and Research decided that, from 2005, this college is Norway’s fifth university.

7

Organisational Structure of Institutions

One of the objectives of the mergers in the non-university sector was that previous boundaries between different kinds of educational programmes should be toned down, and that different programmes might be integrated within the same faculty to secure cross-fertilisation between staff and former independent professional educations. The state colleges vary greatly in organisational structure, both with regard to geographic co-localisation and academic and administrative integration. The geographical location of each of the 98 original colleges made it politically unacceptable to move all educational programmes within each region to one regional centre. Many of the new colleges that appeared as a result of the reform are therefore multi-campus institutions; they have their faculties dispersed throughout several municipalities and counties. We may distinguish between three types of geographic localisation (Skodvin and Kyvik 2000): (a) co-localised colleges; (b) colleges having teaching programmes located in different places within the same municipality; and (c) colleges having teaching programmes located in different municipalities. More than half of the state colleges have their faculties located within the same municipality. Still, the same physical location is rather rare. The rest of the colleges have their faculties spread around in different municipalities. In their study of multi-campus universities in the USA, Lee and Bowen (1971) defined such universities as institutions organised across municipal borders with three or more geographically separate campuses. Using this definition, eight of the Norwegian colleges are multi-campus institutions or network organisations. Concerning academic integration, there are great differences between institutions. Some colleges have organised their activities in faculties responsible for a wide range of subjects; others are organised in faculties with a relatively unified profile, for example, nursing education, while still others have established faculties with related activities, for example, health and social work education. The reorganisation in 1994 resulted in many different organisational solutions, especially for teacher training, where one may distinguish between three models: (a) The pure model, that is, a faculty responsible for teacher training; (b) the fragmented model, that is, teacher training spread over several faculties; and (c) the mixed model, that

180

S. Kyvik

is, one faculty responsible for most teacher training, but with some integration between teacher training subjects and subjects in other fields. There are also considerable differences between the colleges in the way the administration is organised. Some colleges have a small joint administration and relatively large faculty administration; others have concentrated most of their administrative resources in a joint secretariat. These differences depend partly on the degree of geographical co-localisation of the various teaching programmes. For multi-campus colleges, the central administration constitutes a far lower proportion of the total administration than for co-localised colleges (Skodvin and Kyvik 2000). The 1995 Act stated that academic activities at the institution were to be organised in faculties. The institutions themselves might establish departments as a third formal governing level under the faculties. As a result of the policy of further delegation of decision-making authority from the government to the individual institutions, amendments in 2002 gave the institutions themselves the authority to decide on the internal organisation of their activities. This means that it is now up to the board of the individual state colleges to decide whether they will have faculties.

8

Institutional Governance Structure

Over the last 15 years, several initiatives have been undertaken to strengthen academic and administrative governance and leadership functions in Norwegian higher education institutions. The Act on Universities of 1989 replaced the large representative collegiate structure with a smaller executive board with personally-elected members. The former was regarded as an inefficient body that had trouble making strategic decisions (Larsen 2002). The representative principle was embodied in the creation of a large council with advisory competence. However, the colleges have had difficulties in getting the council to function according to the intentions of the Act. The council has been regarded as a superfluous agency, because the representative principle at many colleges has been taken care of through informal weekly meetings between the rector and the deans (Dimmen and Kyvik 1998). Through the 2002 amendment to the Act, the advisory council is no longer obligatory. Before the mergers of the non-university institutions in 1994, academic leadership and the management of the colleges were organised in various ways (Dimmen and Kyvik 1998). At some colleges, the practice was similar to university regulations with elected academic leaders and a permanent director. Most of the colleges however, were headed by a rector who was appointed by the Ministry upon the recommendation of the regional board. The rector was head of the economic section, the leader of academic affairs, the personnel supervisor, and the administrative head at the same time. On the whole, the rector was responsible to the Ministry, and also for representing the institution externally. At the end of the 1980s, some

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

181

colleges appointed a rector for a six-year period. However, most rectors were permanently employed. The intention behind the introduction of elections for a term of years was to bring new blood into the management and to enhance the institution’s ability to reorganise its activities. In this context, the two most important changes in relation to former steering principles, introduced by the 1995 Act, were more emphasis on stronger academic and administrative leadership of institutions and a clearer division of responsibility between academic and administrative leaders (referred to as ‘divided leadership’). The board and rector of an institution thus were given more power and authority, as well as stronger academic leadership roles for elected deans and department heads. In addition, the administrative director was given a stronger formal role in the management of an institution, and now has regulatory authority over this administration at all levels. The basis for the steering regulation is that all institutions should have a responsible and effective governing body which can be delegated authority from the Ministry. The objective of a clearer governing system, with definite boundaries between administrative and academic activities and the principle of ‘divided leadership’, implied that institutions should have two leaders, an academic and an administrative one. Academic leaders would have less administrative responsibility than they had before, and a stronger ‘political’ role within the governing system. Under the Act on Universities and Colleges of 2004, the principle of divided leadership is to be discontinued, and the rector is to be the head of the institution including the administration. The reason for this change is that the principle of ‘divided leadership’ between a rector and an administrative director is difficult to sustain.

9

Governing Bodies

The 1995 Act stated that each institution is to be governed by a board, where the rector is chairman. The Act identified five areas where the board has particular responsibility. First, the board is ‘responsible for maintaining a high standard of academic quality’. Second, the board shall ‘draw up a strategy for the institution’s educational programme, research, and other academic activities’. Third, the board is responsible for the institution’s financial resources. Fourth, it is responsible for ensuring that the internal organisation of activities is appropriate and cost-effective, and fifth, the board is responsible for the budget, accounts and the reporting of results (Larsen 2002). The Act stated that an institution’s board should have 9, 11, or 13 members. The board was to consist of the rector, the pro-rector, two to five members elected from among the academic staff, one or two members elected from among the technical and administrative staff, two or three student representatives, and two to four external members appointed by the Ministry upon nomination by the institution’s council. The council should determine the size of the board and its specific composition. The board should have a majority consisting only of members of the

182

S. Kyvik

academic staff and students. Members of the board were to be elected for three years (students one year). Through amendments in the Act in 2002, the composition of the board was changed to strengthen the decision-making capacity and to make external stakeholders more influential. The number of board members was decided to be 11 and consist of the rector, the pro-rector, two academic staff elected by and from this staff, one representative of the technical and administrative staff, two student representatives, and four external members. As a result of this change, staff members are now in a minority position in the board. The appointment period was increased from three to four years. Many of the colleges, and in particular professional colleges, have had external members in their governing bodies for a long time. These external members have often been associated with the fields towards which the education is directed. The colleges thus have not been as sceptical as the universities towards external representation in their highest governing bodies. The impression is that the colleges view external members in their boards as valuable contributors in the governance of the institution. They give the board professional and organisational competence, and increase an institution’s contacts and networks toward the labour market where its graduates will work (Dimmen and Kyvik 1998; Larsen 2002). The 1995 Act stated that at each faculty and department, there should be faculty and departmental boards which are delegated authority from the institution’s board. Decisions which are made by bodies other than those of an institution’s board are taken with authority delegated by the board and on its behalf and responsibility. Concerning the relationship between the college board and a faculty and department board, the delegation model which the Act builds upon entails that the institutional board can reverse a delegation resolution, make decisions itself in regard to specific matters which originally were under delegation, instruct a subordinate board on how to decide upon particular matters, and reverse a resolution to the same extent as it could if it had made the resolution itself. The board determines the size and composition of the faculty and department board, which shall have a majority of academic staff, and can include external members. Through the 2002 amendment to the 1995 Act, it is now up to the institution’s board to decide on the internal organisation of the institution, and whether there should be boards on faculty and department levels. Some colleges have used this opportunity to abolish these boards.

10

Academic Leadership

According to the 1995 Act, elected academic leaders are rectors, deans and department heads. The rector is the chairman of the board. On behalf of the board, the rector has supreme responsibility for and manages and supervises the institution’s activities. Similarly, the dean is the chairman of the faculty board, and the department head is chairman of the departmental board. These academic leaders have similar

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

183

duties at their respective levels as the rector has for the whole institution. Furthermore, the rector is the institution’s lawful representative and its spokesperson in relation to political authorities and the public. Other people may act as external spokespersons or representatives, but only if they are granted the authority to do so by the rector. According to the 1995 Act, the elected leaders were not superior to administrative leaders at their level, and they did not have responsibility for preparing issues for their boards, nor was it their job to implement resolutions which had been taken. The Act did not give academic leaders direct decision-making power or contain descriptions of the work to be performed beyond that which is connected to formal board leadership functions. The governing bodies were hierarchically ranked, but elected academic leaders were not legally superior or subordinate to each other. At the basic unit level, two different organisational models appeared. The college system builds upon two culturally different institutions: the district colleges and some of the other previous colleges undertook some research, and the professional colleges that put most emphasis on teaching and practice. Most colleges and faculties which have an academic teaching and research profile established a third formal governing level with departments following the university model, while most colleges offering professional education kept the traditional governing structure at the basic level and organised their activities around teaching programmes headed by elected course directors. This is an informal organisational solution in relation to the Act. Course directors have no legal function, but they are elected by the staff affiliated with specific teaching programmes. As opposed to department heads, they exert unified leadership more or less in the same way as they did at the previous colleges. However, in some faculties, the principle of divided leadership was implemented at a programme level with an elected course director and a permanent head of the programme administration. Through the 2002 amendment to the 1995 Act, it is now up to the institution’s board to decide on how academic leadership at faculty and department levels should be organised. A majority of colleges have already made changes in the governance structure and appointed deans for a term period who have supreme authority as the head of the faculty administration.

11

Administration

According to the 1995 Act, in the same way as governing bodies were organised hierarchically in relation to each other, the administration of an institution was headed by an administrative director appointed by the board. The director had the authority to instruct and direct all administrative personnel. The authoritative competence of the director in relation to the whole administration was a consequence of the fact that the Act considered the institution as one administrative unit and not a group of faculties, each with its own administration.

184

S. Kyvik

The principles of the 1995 Act required that the administrative directors of faculties and departments were directly responsible to the director. Governing bodies or academic leaders did not have authority to instruct or direct the activities of the administrative leaders or personnel at their level. The Act specifically stipulated that the director was responsible for the total economy and assets, and for ensuring that the overall management of these was in accordance with the Ministry’s general provisions concerning financial management and the conditions on which allocations are made. This economic responsibility could not be overruled by governing bodies, and this meant that the director had the right and duty to make statements on every current recommendation undertaken by the governing bodies. The director might bring the matter to the attention of the Ministry for a decision if in doubt as to whether the board’s decision was in accordance with the rules or conditions for allocation, etc. The director had twofold responsibilities by being personally responsible in relation to external authorities (the Ministry, auditors, etc.), and at the same time by being responsible for preparing proposals for governing bodies’ meetings, and for ensuring that they are implemented in accordance with existing resolutions. Concerning faculties and departments, their respective administrative leaders were responsible for preparing documents for their boards and implementing resolutions upon delegation from the director. As pointed out above, according to the 2002 amendment to the 1995 Act, it is now up to the institution’s board to decide on whether this arrangement should be continued. In a majority of colleges, it is now the dean who has supreme authority of the administration at this level, not the director of the faculty administration. In administrative matters, the dean is, however, subject to the authority of the administrative director of the college.

12

Academic Staff

Since 1995 the higher education sector has had what is essentially a common appointment structure (Kyvik and Smeby 2004). The permanent academic positions are professor, college reader (only in university colleges) associate professor, assistant professor, senior lecturer and lecturer. In addition, colleges apply college teachers in practice-related subjects, mainly in teacher training and health education. The post of assistant professor was removed in 1995, and after this date there have been no new appointments to assistant professorships, though those who still have this title are entitled to use it. The senior lecturer and lecturer positions, which are held by close to 60% of the permanent staff at the state colleges (compared to slightly more than 10% of the permanent university staff), are predominantly teachingoriented. While 5% of the permanent staff in the colleges are full professors, 50% of the tenured staff in the universities hold this position (see Table 2). A doctoral degree (or equivalent qualification) is a mandatory requirement to obtain tenure as an associate professor in both sectors. All applicants for tenured positions as associate

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

185

Table 2 Academic staff in Norwegian Higher Education by type of institution, 2003 (Research Personnel Register, NIFU STEP) Specialised Universities University Institutions State Colleges Total Professor

1,963 77%

274 11%

1,250 50% 53 11% 206 52% 420 13%

295 12% 4 1% 35 9% 69 2%

685 76% 647 92% 2,524 82% 369 94% 8,117 53%

105 12% 41 6% 254 8% 15 4% 1,092 7%

College reader Associate professor Senior lecturer Assistant professor University/college lecturer College teacher Researcher Post doc Research scholar Research assistant All academic staff

303 12% 38 100% 962 38% 420 88% 156 39% 2,814 85% 881 100% 116 13% 13 2% 297 10% 8 2% 6,008 39%

2,540 100% 38 100% 2,507 100% 477 100% 397 100% 3,303 100% 881 100% 906 100% 701 100% 3,075 100% 392 100% 15,217 100%

and full professor in the university and college sector are assessed by peer review committees and appointed by the institution in question. In addition to these permanent positions, four types of temporary positions are found: post doc, research assistant, researcher, and research scholar. The latter is a temporary position for doctoral students, with a normal duration of three, or occasionally four, years, including 25% teaching responsibility during the period. The distribution of the various positions by institutional type clearly documents the strong role of universities and specialised university positions in research and research training, and the role of colleges as primarily teaching institutions. Promotion to the rank of full professor has traditionally been dependent on vacant positions and competition with other applicants. However, since 1993, associate professors in both the university and the college sectors can apply for promotion to full professorships on the basis of individual research competence (Olsen et al. 2005). This reform made it possible to become a full professor in three different ways: (a) by applying for a vacant professorship in open competition and becoming appointed as the best-qualified applicant, (b) by applying for a vacant professorship in open competition, being found competent but not the best-qualified by the evaluation committee and then being promoted to full professor at his or her department, and (c) by applying for promotion to full professor on the basis of individual

186

S. Kyvik

research competence and being found competent by a national peer review committee. The latter strategy has now become the most important way of attaining a full professorship, while very few are appointed to an ordinary professorship due to limited vacant positions. As in the universities, the reward system gives particular credit to traditional academic merits with an emphasis on research. A logical consequence of such a career system is that staff members will emphasize research and subsequently enhance academic drift processes in the state colleges (Kyvik and Skodvin 2003). The most important resource for R&D is the proportion of regular working hours that may be used for such activities. A survey among all tenured staff members in state colleges (not including college teachers) showed that in 1997, staff used on average 20% of their total working time for R&D and related work. There were, however, large differences between individual colleges, varying between 10% and 35%. These differences can for the most part be attributed to the educational profile of the colleges. Institutions offering many vocationally- and professionally-oriented programmes, particularly in engineering and health education, spent relatively little time on R&D. At some of these colleges more than 40% of the staff reported that they did not take part in such activities. Unlike in universities, there are significant differences between the members of various academic ranks in time used for R&D. Full professors used on average about the same proportion of their time for R&D as their counterparts in universities, while college lecturers used half as much time (Kyvik 2000). College teachers have no formal research competence and are therefore generally not allocated time for R&D. On average they may, however, use about 15% of their working time for scholarly activities and competence development. Unlike in the universities, the government has made it clear that in the state colleges undertaking research is neither an individual duty nor right, but an institutional responsibility. The Norwegian Association of Research Workers is however seeking to have this changed, but so far without any success, and there is also internal disagreement in the college system on this matter. Others have argued that instead of a universal research obligation and research right, the colleges should rely on a differentiation of their staff. Research-competent staff should have the opportunity to undertake research, while others could concentrate on keeping themselves abreast of developments in their own field and those skills in which students are to be trained (Kyvik and Skodvin 2003). At the present time there is nothing to indicate that the college sector will receive further resources above the current level in order to expand R&D activity. If the colleges with low R&D activity wish to use more resources for research and development, this will subsequently result in a reduction in teaching hours. The question is, therefore, whether a transfer of resources from teaching to research is desirable and appropriate in the light of vocational education as the prime function of these colleges. R&D activity can just as well contribute to reducing the focus on teaching as well as to improving it, particularly when promotion will essentially be based on documented scientific activity. In addition, there is the question as to whether the staff are able and motivated to undertake R&D, and whether it is ultimately in the interests of the staff, students or the college to reduce the volume of teaching.

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

13

187

Future Trends

As indicated in the introduction, processes of academic drift, standardisation, and regionalisation in the non-university higher education sector are likely to continue in the coming years. Some of the largest state colleges have for many years aimed at obtaining university status, and the government has now introduced a system that makes this objective achievable. State colleges can apply for accreditation of Ph.D. programmes, and need accreditation of four programmes in order to apply for university status. This opportunity has led to the concentration of academic and material resources in certain fields at the larger state colleges to reach the necessary critical mass of a Ph.D. programme. Other colleges are now planning to merge into larger entities to fulfil the criteria of four Ph.D. programmes to obtain university status. Finally, in two of the university cities, the local colleges have announced that they wish to merge with the university. Accordingly, academic drift processes and regionalisation processes will most likely lead to some of these colleges receiving full university status in the coming years. Thus, one of the colleges achieved university status in 2005. There is now an ongoing public discussion over whether the binary system is about to disappear in favour of a unified system. Even though the government’s policy documents state that the division between the university and the college sector should remain, the differences seem to have become more blurred. The two sectors are now regulated by a common act. Teaching in the college sector is supposed to be research-based, and the university academic rank system has been implemented in the college sector. For many years there has been a clear tendency towards academic drift in the colleges driven by the aggregate of individual actions from staff, the Association of Research Workers, and to some extent the institutions themselves, as well as by the reward system embedded in the common national appointment system. Even though countervailing processes take place, the development over the last two decades has shown gradually more emphasis on academic norms and values at the expense of traditional vocational and practice related education. Post-graduate education (at the Master’s degree level) already takes place at half of the colleges, and five of them offer Ph.D. training. On the other hand there are counter-movements to this development. The relevance of higher education for society and industry has been increasingly emphasised. Clear demands have been placed on the higher education system that it must be able to meet the rapidly changing requirements of society for a qualified labour force. The demands of society, more so than those of universities, colleges and students, should guide priorities in higher education. In addition, the large growth in the numbers of staff and students at universities and colleges has placed increasing demands on public sector finances. Short-cycle vocational programmes are less costly for society than long university studies. Thus, there are several arguments in favour of sustaining a binary system. Still, in Norway the process towards a unified university system is likely to continue. As has been documented in this article, the binary system is eroding.

188

S. Kyvik

Externally, the colleges justify their needs for higher degrees and doctoral programmes, and to develop research in order to strengthen industry and society in the regions where they are located. Through active lobbying in Parliament they frequently acquire political support for their demands. As the colleges gradually develop along these lines, their claim for university status is advanced. Concurrently, there are clear signs of ‘vocational drift’ in many universities. As a response to societal needs for new types of education as well as the competition for students, universities have established vocationally oriented programmes to broaden their educational profile. An important reason for this development is the Bologna process and the adoption of common Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in the universities as well as in the state colleges. In the non-university higher education sector, the former three-year vocational programmes with their specific certificates have been transformed into Bachelor’s degrees, while in the universities the time frame of the first university degree was reduced from 4 to 3.5 years and finally to 3 years. In the non-university higher education sector the majority of the colleges already offer Master’s degrees in a number of subjects, and the colleges plan to expand the number of degrees considerably, although they need the permission of the Ministry of Education to do so. Teacher training is in this respect a special case. It is a four-year programme which subsequently is too long for a Bachelor’s degree and too short for a Master’s degree. Due to the strength of the current standardisation process in higher education, teacher training will most likely be adapted to the 3 + 2 year structure and develop a two-year Master’s degree on top of a three-year Bachelor’s degree. Several of the colleges also have established doctoral programmes in selected subjects. Over time this development will reduce the differences between universities and colleges, and the arguments for abolishing the division between the two sectors will become stronger, like in Great Britain in the years preceding the introduction of the unified system. Another explanation of why a binary system is difficult to sustain is that largescale state planning in general has become less politically-fashionable than market solutions. Scott (1995) argues that binary policies which assign different missions to different groups of institutions are difficult to reconcile with market values, because they inhibit institutional initiative and discourage entrepreneurial behaviour. Moreover, there is now a debate about whether Norway should be divided into five to seven regions instead of 20 counties. This reasoning will most likely affect the future organisation of the higher education system.

References Bleiklie, I., R. Høstaker, and A. Vabø. Policy and Practice in Higher Education. Reforming Norwegian Universities. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000. Burgess, T. The Shape of Higher Education. London: Cornmarket Press, 1972. Dimmen, Å., and S. Kyvik. “Recent Changes in the Governance of Higher Education Institutions in Norway”. Higher Education Policy 11 (1998): 217–228.

The Non-University Higher Education Sector in Norway

189

Kyvik, S. “Academic Work in Norwegian Higher Education”. In Tight, M. (ed). Academic Work and Life: What It Is to be an Academic, and How This Is Changing. Amsterdam: JAI, 2000, pp. 33–72. Kyvik, S. “The Mmerger of Non-university Colleges in Norway”. Higher Education 44 (2002): 53–72. Kyvik, S. “The Implementation of the Norwegian College Reform”. In Gornitzka, Å., M. Kogan, and A. Amaral (eds). Reform and Change in Higher Education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Springer, 2004, pp. 69–82. Kyvik, S., and O. J. Skodvin. “Research in the Non-university Higher Education Sector – Tensions and Dilemmas”. Higher Education 45 (2003): 203–222. Kyvik, S., and J. C. Smeby. “The Academic Workplace. Country Report Norway”. In Enders, J., and E. De Weert (eds). The International Attractiveness of the Academic Workplace in Europe. Frankfurt/Main, Germany: Gewerkschaft Erziehung und Wissenschaft, 2004, pp. 310–331. Larsen, I. M. “Between Control, Rituals and Politics: The Governing Board in Higher Education Institutions in Norway”. In Amaral, A., F. A. Jones, and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance, 2002, pp. 99–119. Lee, E. C., and F. M. Bowen. The Multicampus University. A Study of Academic Governance. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne. The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996. Meyer, J., and B. Rowan. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony”. American Journal of Sociology 89 (1977): 340–63. NOU. Med Viten og Vilje. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste, 1988. NOU. Freedom with Responsibility. On Higher Education and Research in Norway. Oslo: Statens forvaltningstjeneste, 2000. Olsen, T. B., S. Kyvik, and E. Hovdhaugen. “The Promotion to Full Professor – Through Competition or by Individual Competence?” Terciary Education and Management 11 (2005): 299–316. Scott, P. “Unified and Binary Systems of Higher Education in Europe”. In Burgen, A. (ed). Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1995, pp. 37–54. Skodvin, O. J., and S. Kyvik. “Network Colleges in Norwegian Higher Education”. In Nordling, J. (ed). Higher Education in Remote Areas – Enrolment Trends and Network Problems. Sundsvall, Sweden: Mid-Sweden University College, 2000, pp. 83–101. Stensaker, B. “The Blurring Boundaries Between Accreditation and Audit – The Case of Norway”. In Schwarz, S., and D. E. Westerheijden (eds). Accreditation in the Framework of Evaluation Activities. Current Situation and Dynamics in Europe. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2004, pp. 342–365.

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal José Brites Ferreira, Maria de Lourdes Machado, and Rui Santiago

1

Introduction

The higher education system in Portugal has been reformed over recent decades. For many reasons, Portuguese higher education continues to receive attention in the educational political agenda and it seems reasonable to expect this will continue in the coming years. Higher education (HE) in Portugal is a binary system, organized into universities and polytechnic institutes. From the time of the creation of a binary system in 1973 until today, many things have transpired in Portugal. First, there was the democratic revolution in 1974, and then the real institutionalisation of the binary system in 1977. In 1986, some months after Portugal’s entry into the European Union, the Education Act consolidated the binary system. More recently, the Bologna Process is exercising influence and largely determining the political agenda of HE. Among other things, it is presenting a challenge to the binary system. This chapter has several objectives. First, we will present some perspective on the Portuguese HE system, explaining how it evolved and developed into the current binary system with the creation of polytechnic institutes. Second, we will provide a picture of the governing structure and organization of polytechnic institutes. Third, we will examine and critically discuss their levels of autonomy. Finally, we will highlight some trends about future developments and challenges for the polytechnic institutes within the environment of the Portuguese HE system.

2 2.1

The Portuguese Higher Education System The Structure of Portuguese Higher Education

The Portuguese educational system is regulated by the Education Act of 1986 (Law no. 46/86, amended by Laws no. 115/97 and no. 49/2005), which established the general rules and organization for all levels and types of education, including HE. The education system includes: non-compulsory preschool education; compulsory James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

191

192

J.B. Ferreira et al.

basic education organized in three cycles of four years each, followed by two more, concluding with three final grades; non-compulsory secondary education organized in one cycle of three grades; and higher education. HE is a binary system which includes universities and polytechnic institutes, both public and private. The system includes 190 institutions that are distributed as shown in Table 1. Until 2005, the Education Act provided for the granting of the following degrees: bacharelato (three years), licenciatura1 (four, five or six years), mestre (two years) and doutor. The first two are granted in both universities and polytechnic institutes, while the mestre and doutor are granted exclusively in the universities. HE institutions may also hold courses that do not lead to an academic degree, but lead instead to a diploma when successfully completed. In 2005, a new amendment of the Education Act was discussed and approved by the Parliament. One of the points of the new amendment regarding higher education is to organize higher education into three degrees: first licenciatura, second mestre and third doutor. In this context, the degree bacharelato will be eliminated and the first two degrees, licenciatura and mestre will be granted in universities and polytechnic institutes, while the third degree, doutor, will be granted exclusively in the universities. But the amendment is not regulated by the Government. This means

Table 1 Number of Portuguese higher education institutions (December 2005) Number of Sub-systems of higher education Type of institution institutions PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION University higher education Polytechnic higher education Military and police higher education

Universities 15a Polytechnics 33 Military and police 7 institutes PRIVATE, COOPERATIVE AND CONCORDATORY HIGHER EDUCATION Private and cooperative Universities and university 49 schools higher education Polytechnics 68 Concordatory Catholic University 1 TOTAL 190 a Two public universities (Aveiro and Algarve) include polytechnic schools

1

In polytechnic higher education, depending on the scientific area of the course, the licenciatura may be direct, that is, organized in a single cycle, or organized in two cycles (licenciatura bietápica), the first of which leads to a bacharelato. The general regulations for cursos bietápicos de licenciatura, approved by legislation passed in 1998 (after being amended by the Education Act of 1986 by Law no. 115/97), stipulates that the syllabus for each course, the allocation of the respective curricular units per year, or per semester, as well as any options or branches, if they exist, should be approved on a case-by-case basis. These regulations also determine that the first cycle of the course lasts for six semesters, and the second between two and four academic semesters. Each semester and each academic year will have no less than 15–30 teaching weeks respectively.

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

193

that the question will remain on the higher education agenda, influenced by national and international agendas, which primarily means the Bologna Process.

2.2

Origin and Development of Polytechnic Higher Education

Until the decade of the 1970s, the Portuguese HE system was very homogenous and elitist. The systemic and programmatic differentiation, as described by Huisman (1995) and Meek et al. (1996), was non-existent. There were only four public universities under very strong ideological governmental control. This control was reflected in the recruitment of academic and administrative staff, curricular design and program offerings, and teaching and research. The number of students in higher education was extremely low. Enrolment in 1960/61 was approximately 19,500. In 1965/66 it had grown to approximately 28,000 (Arroteia 2002). Just before the 1974 democratic revolution, a new educational reform (Law no. 5/73) was approved by the Parliament (the National Assembly) which deeply transformed the previous system. In fact, this reform act created a new higher education system that reflected “human capital” theories and was supported by OECD reports and recommendations (Amaral and Magalhães 2003). Following the Education Act, the system was diversified and expanded. New universities were established (Decree-Law no. 462/73) and a network of public polytechnic institutes emerged (Decree-Law no. 402/73). This set of reforms was designed to expand and develop the university sector and transform the “medium-level” schools in the non-university sector (Arroteia 2004). However, implementation did not follow design. The process was disrupted by the revolution of 1974. In fact, the program was halted and did not resume until 1977, with the creation of short-term higher education (Decree-Law no. 427-B/77). This was then renamed in 1979, as polytechnic higher education (Decree-Law no. 513-T/79). From this point forward, the polytechnic sector was championed and promoted by successive ministers of education, along with important support from the World Bank (Teixeira et al. 2003). According to Correia et al. (2002), from 1977 to 1981 a policy evolved that was more firm regarding the creation of the public network of polytechnic institutes. An important component of this was the clarification of specific objectives related to economic activities and regional development (Amaral et al. 2002). According to these authors, this was supported by beliefs wherein: ●

●

● ●

There would be social and economic benefits lost from a narrow vocational training function added to the general training profile already guaranteed by universities. The traditional universities had little (or no) vocational orientation to assume training programs designed for specialized labour market niches. The binary system would promote diversity with respect to student choice. The network between higher education and regional development was an important feature to establish a more equitable social balance within the country.

194

J.B. Ferreira et al.

Looking back at the plan of 1973, one can see many changes. Specifically, there was the transformation of two polytechnic institutes into universities. There was also the inclusion of the Higher Education Schools of Teacher Training into the polytechnic institutes and, in some cases, into the universities. This integration was controversial. It resulted in duplicate program offerings in the polytechnic institutes and universities. Soon after this, the development of private HE began. The first private HE institution was created in 1979. The period from 1987 to 1991, however, created conditions for the explosive development of private HE (Amaral and Magalhães 2003). In fact, the Minister of Education approved a large number of new institutions and also approved lower requirements for student access to HE. As Table 2 shows, after the revolution of 1974 there was an enormous growth in HE. In fact, total enrolments doubled in each decade. In addition, the percentage of students in polytechnics as well as private institutions changed significantly during this time. This overpowering enrolment growth was a catalyst for profound transformations in the Portuguese HE system; however, the total number of enrolled students has begin to decline. The number of students enrolled in the polytechnics today represents about one third of students enrolled in all of Portuguese higher education, making polytechnics an important cohort. One can note changes in the social well-being and democratisation of the secondary and higher education systems, as well as the exponential expansion of the higher education system into public and private universities and polytechnic institutes. The Portuguese HE system consists of public and private universities, public polytechnic institutes, other public institutions (health and military), other private establishments (both university and polytechnic schools), and the unique multicampus Catholic University. Polytechnic higher education is an important sub-sector of the Portuguese higher education system. Today, polytechnic higher education (public and private) enrols over 40% of all students in higher education. In fact, there are polytechnic institutions in every region (Costa 2003; Teixeira et al. 2004).

Table 2 Evolution of enrolments by HE sub-system

Public universities Public polytechnics Private Total

1971/72

1981/82

1991/92

2001/02

No. Students %

No. Students %

No. Students %

No. Students %

2004/05 No. Students %

43,191

87.3 64,659

76.8 103,999 55.7 171,014 43.6

167,218 44.7

2,981

6.0

14.5 31,351

108,318 29.0

3,289 49,461

6.7 7,319 100 84,173

12,195

16.8 109,624 27.9

8.7 51,430 27.5 111,653 28.5 98,355 26.3 100 186,780 100 392,291 100.0 373,891 100

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

2.3

195

Access to Higher Education

Access to higher education, both in universities and polytechnics, is subject to some restrictions due to the maximum number of places available, which is fixed annually by the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education. The students seeking entrance into higher education are assessed through entrance tests. Each candidate may indicate one to six optional choices of school or course. Those candidates who meet all of the following conditions may apply for the entrance test: (a) have passed a secondary school course or have legally-equivalent qualifications; (b) have done the national secondary school exams in the disciplines selected for the entrance test for each school/course, or the tests expressly selected for this purpose, and obtained the minimum mark fixed by law; (c) have met the prerequisites if and when these are required for the school/course to which application is being made; and (d) have an application mark equal to or higher than the minimum fixed mark. The selection of candidates for each course in each school is based on: (a) entrance tests in which the minimum mark, fixed annually, must be obtained; (b) prerequisites, if required; and (c) the application form, on which the minimum mark, fixed annually, must be obtained. Candidates will be placed in the order of their marks which include: (a) final classification in secondary school courses worth no less than 50%; (b) classification of entrance test or tests, with a percentage of no less than 35%; (c) classification of prerequisites when demanded, with a percentage of no more than 15%. The access to schools and courses of state higher education is common to both sub-systems of higher education. But in the case of the polytechnic institutes, it is possible to give regional preference (up to 50% of the vacancies) to candidates from the area designated for each school in this sub-system. In the first stage of the competition for students, candidates from secondary technological and professional programmes (cursos tecnológicos do ensino secundário, cursos técnico-profissionais), programmes from professional schools (escolas profissionais) and training programmes (cursos de aprendizagem) with the equivalence of the 12th year,2 may also be given preferential admission to polytechnic courses up to a maximum of 30% of vacancies available. The execution of the national competition for vacancies in HE is the responsibility of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Higher Education and the Ministry of Education, which includes the secondary schools.

2.4

Staff and Academic Careers

Teaching staff careers are different in universities and polytechnic institutes. The conditions of service for higher education teaching staff are regulated by the respective Career Status, as defined by the Decree-Law no. 185/81, for public polytechnics and

2

The 12th year is the last year of high school just before entrance into higher education.

196

J.B. Ferreira et al.

Decree-Law no. 448/79, amended by Law no. 19/80, for public universities. These Decree-Laws are complemented by further specific legislation that regulates particular aspects of conditions of service, e.g. definition of teaching qualifications, contracting schemes and teaching posts, performance assessment, absences, holiday leave and leave of absence. The categories of teaching ranks in universities are, from highest to lowest, professor catedrático, professor associado, professor auxiliar, assistente and assistente estagiário. The categories in polytechnic higher education are: professor coordenador, professor adjunto, assistente do 2° triénio and assistente do 1° triénio. In the university sector, the minimum acceptable qualification for admission to the positions of professor (catedrático, associado, or auxiliar) is the doctoral degree. In the polytechnic sector, the master’s degree or its equivalent is the minimum acceptable qualification for admission to the positions of professor coordenador or adjunto. In higher education, staff management is part of the autonomous responsibility of the universities and polytechnics. In the public HEIs, teachers are civil servants, with the rights and duties common to all members of the Civil Service. Teaching staff is hired for higher education through a tender requiring the submission of papers. The progress in a teaching career in higher education depends essentially on acquiring academic degrees (mestre and doutor), although the scientific and/or vocational curriculum are important, as well as the capacity for research and the value of teaching work. In the polytechnic institutions, recruitment for the position of professor is also possible by public examinations, which are obligatory for the position of professor coordenador. The Law no. 38/94 (law on Assessment in Higher Education) lays down the basis for assessment and supervision in state-supported or private universities and polytechnics by providing the framework for the assessment model. With DecreeLaw no. 205/98, the National Council of Assessment in Higher Education was created, establishing the necessary general rules for implementing the assessment and supervision system for higher education. The assessment and supervision system assesses and determines the quality of the scholarly and pedagogical performance of institutions. In the last decade, there was an enormous growth of the academic staff in higher education institutions. In the case of public higher education institutions (See Table 3), the number changed from 15,485 in 1993/94 to 22,934 in 2003/04 (OCES 2004). This represents a 116.9% growth in the universities and a 258.8% growth in the polytechnics.

Table 3 Growth of academic staff in public higher education (Observatório da Ciência e do Ensino Superior (OCES 2004)) 1993/94 1998/99 2003/04 Universities Polytechnics Total

12,079 3,408 15,485

13,368 5,472 18,840

14,115 8,819 22,934

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

2.5

197

Financial Aspects: Financial Models

Portuguese higher education has registered a remarkable growth. According to Taylor et al. (2005: 15), “Portuguese higher education institutions have always strongly depended on State Budget funds, which represent the overwhelming majority of the revenue for universities and polytechnic institutes.” However, the authors continue: “Over the last few years, serious problems regarding the financing of State institutions have arisen that have sometimes caused a great uproar in the budgetary process. … The State Budget supports most of the institutions’ expenses even though there is a growing tendency toward emphasizing internal revenues more” (ibidem). There are significant differences between public and private higher education institutions with respect to funding. Public HEIs are basically funded by the State. On the other hand, private HEIs are funded primarily through tuition and fees, though they may receive some help from the State for social support to students, support for projects of quality considered of high priority, training of academic staff, support for research, grants to exceptional students and support granted by mutual contracts as defined by the State. Over time, one notices that in addition to the financing for student support, training of faculty and financing of some programs, several facilities have been built with European funding (FEDER) with the national component funded by the State through the budget of the Ministry of Social Affairs. Because there are no available data on the funding of private institutions, this section focuses on public funding and the public higher education institutions. The funding of public higher education institutions has always been dependent on the State budget. HEIs have financial autonomy and manage the budget allocated to them; however they have to follow the budgeting and accounting laws of Portuguese public administration. One can observe a decrease in the State budget allocated to public HEIs. As an example, in 1989 institutional funding was 95% state-provided. It was 92% in 1993, and 70% in 1997 (Cerdeira 2003). Machado (2005: 75) stated that “In recent years, both the government and the institutions have been open to the idea of other sources of revenue. The State no longer can meet the costs and financing needs of an expanding higher education sector.” Since 1993, the budget of public institutions has been calculated on the basis of a formula (Amaral and Teixeira 1999). More recently, Law no. 37/2003 established the funding mechanism for higher education. This Law (art. no. 1) decrees that the funding for public institutions will be in accord with two basic principles: that the use of performance indicators to assess the excellence and quality of teaching, and that funding will be a shared responsibility of the State, the higher education institutions and the students (families). The funding of public institutions can be divided into three main revenue streams. The first is State funding. This has two components. First, the annual budget (orçamento de funcionamento) provides the funding for daily operations like salaries, support schemes to students, and facilities maintenance (water, electricity, housekeeping, etc.). The second component, Planning of Investments

198

J.B. Ferreira et al.

(PIDDAC), is the funding for major investments like facilities and significant laboratory equipment acquisitions. The second stream consists of the revenues from tuition and fees. The third stream of funding includes revenues from the sale of goods and services, European Funds and money for research coming from other public entities such as the Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT), and private sources. However, it is important to restate that the main source of revenue for the public institutions is the State. The Portuguese government informs institutions annually about the anticipated allocations for the coming year. The annual budget is calculated according to a formula that is based on criteria of quality and excellence, and includes indicators such as: the ratio of teaching staff to students, the ratio of teaching staff to nonteaching staff, incentives for improving the qualifications of the teaching and non-teaching staff, indicators of pedagogical efficiency, efficiency of the management of the institutions and the quality classifications of the research centres. The public institutions have to report annually to the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education concerning the way the funds are spent. The government has to formally approve these spending proposals. According to Cerdeira (2003), the application of the funding formula suffered reductions over time. The budget allocated to the institutions in the beginning, called the “standard budget” (orçamento padrão), covered 97.1% in 1994, but this shrunk to 77.4% in 2003 for the universities. For the polytechnics, it varied from 82.9% in 1994, 88.5% in 1995 and 73.1% in 2003. The capacity of the State to finance higher education suffered a significant decrease in the 1990s (Cerdeira 2003). Public universities absorb most of the budget, because they also enrol a larger number of students. According to Cerdeira (2003), between 1994 and 2003 the growth of the annual budget was 111% for the universities and 203% for the public polytechnics. The relative annual budget has grown in the last ten years, as can be observed in Table 4. The analyses of the annual budgets of the institutions show significant differences between the annual budgets of the universities and polytechnics. There is public criticism from the polytechnics about the distribution of the budget between universities and polytechnics. It is argued that the budget to polytechnics is not proportional to the number of students as at the universities.

Table 4 Evolution of relative annual budgets of public universities and polytechnics (Based on Cerdeira 2003) 1994 1997 2000 2003 Universities Polytechnics Total annual budget Relative annual budget of universities (%) Relative annual budget of polytechnics (%)

336,763,445 88,833,247 425,596,692 79.1

470,986,345 140,019,901 611,006,246 77.08

621,140,811 229,253,858 850,394,669 73.04

711,231,190 289,516,624 1,007,747,814 70.6

20.9

22.92

26.96

29.4

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

199

The polytechnic institutions do not have the same structure of programs,3 of research or qualifications for the teaching staff. Also, the average of salaries for the polytechnics is lower than that of the universities because of the qualifications of the teaching staff. Students pay tuition at public and private institutions. Taylor et al. (2005: 16) point out that “The revenues obtained from tuition fees have always been marginal to the financing of State higher education.” Until 1992, the cost of the set tuition fees was totally symbolic at approximately €6 per year. In 1992, Act no. 20/92 was passed and it instituted the payment of tuition fees in universities and polytechnic institutes, decreeing that the value of tuition be raised to €300 per year. Confronted with some criticism, the Law no. 5/94 was introduced to provide some changes, with the students as beneficiaries. However CRUP (the Portuguese Council of Rectors) and CCISP (the Coordinating Council of Polytechnic Institutes) were assigned responsibility to establish the amount of tuition and fees. Those Councils chose not to do so, and thus no changes occurred in the academic years of 1992/93 to 1995/96 by the Minister in charge of higher education. In 1996, the law of tuitions was cancelled (Law no. 1/96). In 1997, the Law no. 113/97 concerning financing was published and the tuitions were indexed to the minimum salary at the time. More recently, Law no. 37/2003 legislated that public institutions have to establish the value of tuition and fees between a minimum and a maximum (Cerdeira 2003). Financial assistance for students is provided by the State. All students (public and private institutions) can apply for financial aid of this type, provided their parents’ income qualifies them for it. All public HEIs also provide non-academic student support, offering welfare services that can take the form of grants, emergency aid, access to meals and accommodation, healthcare services and support for cultural and sporting activities. The student support services are granted administrative and financial autonomy, which they exercise through their own offices and departments. It is important to note that neither the State nor the public HEIs are happy with the structure of institutional financing. On one hand, the institutions believe they are under-financed and that it is not possible to accomplish their missions and conduct their institutional duties with the current level of State funding (Machado 2005).

2.6

Polytechnic Institutes: National or Regional?

One of the objectives of established higher education policy with respect to the polytechnic institutes was to promote and stimulate regional development and relations with economic and social activities. This philosophy continues at present.

3 The polytechnic institutes do not offer programs in Medicine or Veterinary Medicine, which are more expensive, and the ratio of professor to students is as low as one to six.

200

J.B. Ferreira et al.

But the political definition of region was not the same in the 1970s. The Portuguese Constitution of 1976 addressed the concept of regionalization, but the actual regions were not articulated until recently. When analysing the network of polytechnic institutions across the country, regional differences emerge. While the public polytechnic institutes are disseminated throughout all of the districts4 of the country and in some municipalities, the private schools are concentrated in the more developed regions with higher population density and/or more economic wealth. In fact, according to Amaral and Magalhães (2003: 17), “In relation to the total offer of vacancies (public + private), the private sector offers 25.4% of all its vacancies in Lisbon and Setubal, and 14.0% in Porto, while the public sector corresponds respectively to only 14.5% and 6.7%. On the other hand, in the Centre Region the private sector represents only 1.5% of the country’s total against 12.5% for the public sector.” In addition to this distribution imbalance, wherein the private sector has concentrated in stronger market segments, they have also focused on courses requiring less infrastructure and lower investments. The idea in 1973, which continued for a number of years, was to think of the polytechnics as having a strict connection with regional development, and economic and social activities. Now, the situation is different. Sometimes the polytechnic institutions are run like national institutions and, at other times, like regional institutions. In fact, there are many examples of course duplication in universities and polytechnics. Access to higher education is organized from a national perspective, rather than a regional one. So, even though the concept of regions is present in the Portuguese Constitution of 1976, their legitimization did not follow.

3

Governance of Polytechnic Institutions

3.1

Objectives of the Polytechnic Institutes

The Education Act (Law no. 46/86) states the specific objectives for the two sub-systems. The objective for the university sector specifies: The university education is designed to ensure a sound scientific and cultural background and provide technical education equipping people for administering professional and cultural activities and furthering the development of comprehension, innovation and critical analysis (Art. 11, no. 3).

The objective for the polytechnic sector states: Polytechnical education is designed to provide a sound higher level of cultural and technical education, develop a capacity for innovation and critical analysis and inculcate theoretical and practical scientific knowledge and its application to exercising professional activities (Law no. 46/86, art. 11, no. 4).

4

A district is a geographical region aggregating municipalities (concelhos).

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

201

Law no. 49/2005 updated the Education Act (Law no. 46/86). The objectives of both sub-systems were kept, however more was added. With respect to the universities, it is stated that they are to promote research and create knowledge. The polytechnics are to be oriented to provide permanent applied research and to promote the development of understanding and solutions to concrete problems. With a closer examination of the objectives of both sub-systems, it is suggested that the Legislature was challenged in its efforts to distinguish between the two sub-systems of higher education. However, there are other norms that distinguish the two sub-systems. The differentiation and distinctiveness between the two sub-systems can be seen when examining the access of students, the degrees offered, and the degree of institutional autonomy, financing, academic staff careers and research. A clearer perception of the objectives of the polytechnic sector comes with Law no. 54/90 (the autonomy statutes of the public polytechnic sector) and the changes introduced with the Laws no. 20/92 and no. 71/93. Another key point in the objectives of polytechnic sector is their vocational role. Santiago and Carvalho (2004: 439) stated “The majority of the polytechnics’ presidents emphasize this ‘vocational ideology’, which becomes the main topic of their discourses, probably to legitimize the existing binary system. According to them, polytechnics should offer professional training, supported on ‘know-how’ and be able to give answers to immediate labour market needs and regional economical development.…” Moreover, the definition of the objective of the polytechnic sector is not only confined to the polytechnics. The polytechnic institutes are “institutions of higher education integrating two or more schools broadly oriented to pursue the objectives of polytechnic higher education in the same region; those (schools) are associated with respective educational policies and resource optimization” (art. 1, no. 1). The objectives of the polytechnic schools are: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Undergraduate courses Updating courses Reconversion and horizontal and vertical training for technicians Support for regional development Research and development (art. 2, no. 6)

Despite the fact that the definition of the objective for the polytechnic sector has had some variations over time, Simão and Costa (2000: 27) stressed that “it oscillated several times and this raises a question about whether it is a semantic problem or the contextual sensibility of the legislature.” In fact, the same authors question whether: (a) “the evolution towards the objectives of the old sector, ensino médio, is derived from the assumed condition of higher education; or (b) is a distinction towards the university sector, that derives from the purpose of affirmation of an alternative modality in the higher education system” (Simão and Costa 2000: 27). It is interesting to note that the “tension” those authors express has been reflected in the recent history of the polytechnics. Proposals and recent debates in the

202

J.B. Ferreira et al.

Parliament (Assembleia da República) about the higher education system5 suggest that the “oscillating definition” is going to continue to be in a state of flux, and therefore have unsettling impact on developments towards the Bologna process. In fact, the National Council of Education (CNE 2004), referring to the implementation of the Bologna process, recently noted the February 5, 2003 position of the European Commission about the role of the university in the Europe of the knowledge society, where the term university was used to mean all higher education institutions, including, for example, the fachhoschulen, the polytechnics and the grandes écoles. This definition is very interesting when one considers the Portuguese binary system. More recently, Simão et al. (2004) presented a conceptual framework to justify the binary system. While it may be interesting to analyse, it seems not to contribute at the conceptual level toward a clarification of the differentiation between university and polytechnic higher education. The distinctions proposed by these authors have more clarity when looked at on the level of the organization and structure of the institution. But at this level the authors recognize the difficulty of maintaining this distinction between university and polytechnic education when they are examined in actual practice.

3.2

Governance and Organization of Polytechnics

Governance and management are defined in Law no. 54/90. According to this and the complementary Decree-Law no. 24/94, the polytechnic institutes have statutory, administrative, financial and patrimonial autonomy (Law no. 54/90, art. 1, no. 3). The model of governance is defined by law and is the same for all institutes. The governing bodies within the institutes are the president, the general council and the administrative council. ●

●

●

The president supervises the academic, administrative and financial management of the institute, and presides over all collegiate bodies of the institute. The general council approves planned activities; proposes the creation, alteration or elimination of units of the institute; issues opinions on annual activities reports; and establishes the rules and regulations by which the institute is run. The administrative council, along with its administrative responsibilities, develops annual and multi-annual financial plans and, once approved, allocates the resources to the various units and institute services.

The president is elected for a mandate of three years, renewable for a maximum of two consecutive mandates, from among coordinator professors, adjunct professors, associate professors and assistant professors, or distinguished individuals with considerable professional experience. This last category points to the fact that the president does not have to be an academic. While the president is typically an individual

5

See note number 2.

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

203

from higher education or from the broader realm of the educational world, he or she can also come from the business world. In fact, the president of a polytechnic institute can be an individual without any experience in higher education. The leadership of a polytechnic institute includes also one or two vice presidents and the administrator. The president appoints one or two vice-presidents, and he or she is also assisted by an administrator for predominantly administrative or financial matters. The administrator is usually a non-academic individual who could easily have come from the business world. According to the law, polytechnic institutes can create other governing bodies, particularly with disciplinary responsibilities or in other cases to promote the regional community. However, an examination of the statutes of polytechnic institutes shows very few having those bodies. Generally, they have chosen to adopt the model of the law, with few differences in the names of governing bodies. As stated above, the institutes are made up of two or more schools that are often perceived as a federation of schools (Lemos 2004). As stated by Amaral (2004: 40), “the management model of the polytechnic institutes is supported by the concept of a ‘federation of schools’, rather than a concept of a central and strong institution unified by a common strategy.” Therefore, several authors, such as Amaral and Magalhães (2003), Lemos (2004) and Simão et al. (2002), have stated that this federation is not compatible with the concept of a comprehensive institution, and therefore criticize the models of governance and management for the polytechnic institutes. As with the overall polytechnic institutes, the law also defines autonomy within the schools. The schools thus have defined scientific, pedagogical, administrative and financial autonomy. The governing bodies of schools include: ● ● ● ●

A director or board of directors A scientific council, pedagogical council or joint pedagogical-scientific council An advisory council An administrative council

The director may also delegate some responsibilities to them. The board of directors is made up of the president and two vice-presidents, a student representative and a representative from the non-teaching staff. The director, like the president and vice-presidents, is elected from the ranks of the college professors with a threeyear mandate, renewable for up to a maximum of two consecutive terms. The scientific council is made up of the school director or president of the board of directors, and the professors. Professors from other higher education institutions, researchers, or other individuals distinguished in the fields available in the college may also be appointed to the scientific council. The pedagogical council is represented by professors, assistant professors and students, each elected by their respective groups. The pedagogical council is chaired by a coordinating professor or adjunct professor, and is elected by the members of the professorial community. The administrative council is the body responsible for the management of the school and is made up of the director or the president of the board of directors, an assistant director or vice-president of the board of directors, and a secretary whose

204

J.B. Ferreira et al.

job is to assist management with predominantly administrative and financial matters. The composition of the advisory council and the duration of its mandate are established for each school in the statutes of the respective polytechnic institute. Like the polytechnic institute itself, the schools, by statute, can also create other governing bodies. However, as stated earlier, an examination of the statutes shows that very few schools have created those bodies. The administrative autonomy of schools within the polytechnic institutes provides for them having an annual budget, hiring teaching staff required to meet the school’s activities, suggesting the hiring of non-teaching staff required for pursuing its objectives, assigning responsibilities and tasks to the staff of the unit or school and distributing them throughout the different services in line with general regulations, ensuring the management and discipline of the staff without jeopardizing the authority of the bodies of the institute, promoting measures to acquire goods and services, and authorizing spending within legally established limits. Also, in the use of their administrative and financial autonomy, schools may use the funds generated by their own activities to meet their expenses through private financial plans. Besides the schools integrated into polytechnic institutes there are schools of polytechnic higher education that are not under polytechnic institutes. These schools also enjoy scientific, teaching, administrative and financial autonomy. The governance and management structures of these schools mirror those of the schools within polytechnic institutes. The law assigns to the leadership of the polytechnic institutes the central coordination of the governance of the entire institution, including the schools. Sometimes it is possible to increase those competencies by legislating statutes to assign some of the schools’ competencies to the leadership of the institutes. The law defines the competencies of the schools, but also permits centralization of those competencies in the institutes (Law no. 54/90, art. 8). It appears that the Legislature is more interested in clarifying and defining the identity of the schools of the polytechnic institutes than with the identity of the institutes themselves. In several cases, schools were created first, followed by the polytechnic institute. The definition of the objectives and models of governance and management for the polytechnic institutes frequently raises criticism. In fact, several authors, such as Amaral and Magalhães (2003), Lemos (2003), Almeida Costa (CNE 1999) and Simão et al. (2003), have stated that polytechnic institutes are really federations of schools rather than comprehensive institutions. The internal organization of each school, except the aspects mentioned above, is defined in the school’s own statutes. These are then ratified by the president of the polytechnic institute. In theory, it is possible for each school within one polytechnic institute to create a different model of internal organization. But when the statutes were reviewed, it was evident the polytechnic schools reproduce the model present in the Law no. 54/90, and sometimes utilize the academic organization of universities, especially regarding scientific areas or departments.

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

3.3

205

Participation of External Stakeholders in Governance and the Role of Local Authorities

Today, polytechnic institutes exist in all districts and in many municipalities, except in the islands. As stated above, one of the objectives of polytechnic institutes is to promote regional development. This raises questions about the participation of external stakeholders and the role of local authorities in the governance of institutes and their schools. Until recently, it was not typical to find external stakeholders on the boards of public schools. This situation, however, is changing as it becomes clear that the roles and responsibilities of higher education institutions are closely intertwined with society. The participation of external stakeholders is now obligatory in the public polytechnic institutes. This participation happens at the level of the polytechnic institutes themselves and at the level of each of their schools. At the level of the polytechnic institutes, the law defines two ways of participation. One of them is in the election of the president, who can be an academic or a non-academic from inside or outside of the organization. The other way is in the general council, where the law decrees that 20% of the elected members must be representatives of the community and its economic activities. In this case, the law determines that the general council must include representatives of the community and of professional activities related to the areas of teaching. The number of these members must not be greater than the number of the schools in the polytechnic institute. The general council is the governing body that approves planned activities, proposes the creation, alteration or elimination of organic units of the institute, issues opinions on annual activities reports and establishes the rules and regulations by which the institute is run. According to Simão et al. (2003), in practice, the number of external stakeholders in the general council6 varies between 10% and 15%, with an average percentage of 13.2%. At the level of the schools, the law provides for the existence of an advisory council. The number of the members of this council is defined in the statutes of each institute. The main competencies of this council are only to advise on: activity plans, programs, creation of new programs, the number of enrolments, organization of program curricula if requested by the school directors, and training programs. This council also has the duty to promote the network between schools and the local community (local authorities, business and cultural organizations). It is also possible to have external stakeholders in the scientific council. However, the law confines participation to those external stakeholders with a relevant background in the areas of activity of the school. The law is not specific as to who the external stakeholders should or could be. Each polytechnic institute or school decides the members of the general council

6 The external stakeholders can not be members of the permanent commission of the General Council.

206

J.B. Ferreira et al.

and/or the advisory council. Even though the law does not require a formal role for local authorities in the governance of the institutions, it is common that the external stakeholders are local authorities. In a recent document about “Consolidation of Higher Education’s Legislation”, Amaral (2003) refers to testimony in the polytechnics, the idea of a closer relationship to the national industrial and economic situation and of a stronger regional emphasis prevailing. As such, participation of external representatives is compulsory in the General Council and for the election of the president, but is optional in the Scientific Council”. It is important to note that very often the local authorities (whether or not members of the governing bodies of the institution) have placed pressure on the leadership of the polytechnic institutions and State to create schools or programs in theirs municipalities or regions that will meet particular needs. A final point about the presence of polytechnic institutions in their regions of Portugal is mentioned here. As stated above, there are polytechnic schools in all districts and in many municipalities. The visibility of polytechnics and of theirs schools is very different from one region to another, and depends on many factors. But in many circumstances, polytechnic institutions are the organizations with more presence and impact in the region, and their students represent more than 25% of the total resident population in those regions.

4

Autonomy

In Portugal, the autonomy of higher education is on the political agenda. Recently, the government presented new initiatives to change the legal framework of higher education with a specific focus on the autonomy of higher education institutions.7 The Portuguese Constitution of 1976 recognized the right of all Portuguese to an education, and preserves the freedom to learn and to teach as fundamental rights. The autonomy of universities, but not polytechnic institutes, was explicitly mentioned in the Constitutional Law. After the Education Act of 1986 (Law no. 46/86), new policy was written that applied to universities and polytechnic institutes based on principles of autonomy, de-regulation, quality and accountability. The Education Act was followed by Law no. 108/88, which covers university autonomy, and the Law no. 54/90, which defines the status and autonomy of polytechnic institutes and their schools. The intent of the Legislature was to produce different laws for each of the higher education sub-systems. A comparison of these laws shows that the legislation provides more autonomy to the universities than to the polytechnics, especially pedagogical autonomy. The polytechnic institutes and theirs schools have no autonomy to organize and approve their curricular offerings. These need to be approved by the Minister. Even a change

7

See Amaral (2003).

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

207

in the title of a course requires Ministerial approval. The universities have total autonomy in these areas, and simply need to register changes with the Ministry. The private sector has the maximum autonomy in administrative and financial areas but, like the polytechnic institutes, they have no pedagogical autonomy. Autonomy with regard to administrative and financial management is also a differentiating factor between universities and polytechnic institutes. Decree-Law no. 252/97 gave more autonomy and flexibility in these matters, but only to the universities. Some authors, particularly Simão et al. (2003), make the case that it is difficult to justify all of these differences. A recent research study by Machado (2005) based on Clark’s triangle points out that the public polytechnics are oriented toward ‘state authority’ while public universities are ‘academic oligarchy’ oriented and private institutions (this latter group includes private universities and other establishments) more ‘market oriented’ (see Fig. 1). In a public discussion held in 2003 regarding the government’s initiatives toward autonomy for higher education institutions, the opinions were quite varied. But according to Amaral (2003) there are matters where there appears to exists a quasi-unanimity. One of them is that the autonomy of institutions needs to be kept at the same level or increased. There are also strong opinions favourable to the position that the level of autonomy should be the same for universities and polytechnic insititutes.8 Despite the formal recognition of HEI autonomy and the opening of the system to some market mechanisms, by law the State remains the main regulator of Portuguese higher education funding mechanisms and quality evaluation. State

State Authority

PP

PU

PI

Academic Oligarchy

Market Legend: PU.- Public Universities PP.- Public Polytechnics PI.- Private Institutions

Fig. 1 An adaptation of Clark’s triangle to Portuguese higher education (Machado 2005)

8

See National Council of Education (CNE 1999).

208

J.B. Ferreira et al.

regulation of institutional quality assurance has become increasingly centred on outputs, and less on the inputs and processes. The higher education funding law (Law no. 37/2003, August 22) places an emphasis on accountability, efficiency and rationality principles. It further states that higher education financing must be connected to performance indicators, general patterns of teaching quality and other objective criteria. The policy for controlling access (numerus clausus for all the teaching programs, whether in the public or private sector, as discussed previously) is also regulated by the State, frequently after negotiations between the Ministry and the HEIs. The framework emerging from the autonomy laws pointed to the transition from a Weberian regime of direct State control over HEIs to a post-bureaucratic regime based on supervision mechanisms supported by the quality assessment of HEI processes and outputs. However, recent laws passed by the Portuguese government seem to suggest HEIs could face some severe future restrictions on their institutional autonomy to create and manage teaching programs. The higher education development and quality law (Law no. 1/2003) gives more power to government to interfere regarding the approval of new teaching programs and other initiatives proposed by HEIs. Following this law, the government decreed that a minimum of 35 students could be enrolled in a given program of study for it to be offered. This move was seen as a strong message that state interference was far from diminishing its authority and was not respecting the concept of autonomy as defined in 1989 by law. Today, HEIs do not have the complete freedom they once enjoyed to start, suspend or cancel courses (Amaral et al. 2002). The movement toward self-regulation has never been based on a purely marketdriven logic, but perhaps rather the emergence of a new mode of State regulation (Amaral et al. 2002). In fact, the State’s strategies for steering higher education are a mixture of market rhetoric and market-like devices to legitimize “remote control” (Neave 1988), coupled with forms of direct control of inputs (for instance, the funding mechanisms). The strategies have thus evolved with more complexity and ambiguity. These phenomena can, perhaps, be described under the name of political hybridism (Magalhães 1998), which represents the combination of State regulation and market coordination. Furthermore, in the higher education public sector, issues concerning organizational efficiency were never central, since market logic did not play a leading role in system differentiation/diversification. Even concerning the discourse of the academics about the Portuguese higher education system, the influence of a market ideology is still weak (Santiago and Carvalho 2004) when compared with the Anglo-Saxon world (Meek 2002, 2003). Following the view by Clark (1983), it could be said that the main features of higher education are knowledgerelated. More specifically, knowledge creation and transmission, and academic (individual) freedom form the main framework of the Portuguese HEIs (especially the universities). Protected from the market’s exigencies, public HEIs have assumed differentiation/diversification in a context of a “knowledge model” more than in a context of student or economic demands on manpower (Scott 1995). For private higher education institutions, these issues are more clearly market driven, constraining the differentiation/diversification process as a result of the students’

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

209

demands. Since the main source of funding for private institutions is tuition and fees, they have to be very careful to offer study programs that can attract enough students to ensure their financial survival.

5

Future Trends

In 1997, the governmental decision allowing the polytechnic institutes to confer the degree of “licenciado” with the same legal value as the university degree rendered the boundaries between universities and polytechnics less obvious. Even though this reduced the differentiation between the sectors, universities still kept a monopoly on basic and applied research, as well as the right to confer the Master’s and Ph.D. degrees. Even so, the interplay between universities and polytechnic institutes became a common practice regarding cooperation in the offering of master’s courses, as well as mutual recognition of the curricular programs offered in both institutions (Decree, 513-I/79). More recently, according to Law no. 49/2005 which updated the Education Act, the polytechnics can also award the master’s degree. Within the private higher education sector, institutions are faced with some important challenges. Until the end of the 1990s, legitimate scrutiny of proposals submitted for the approval of the Ministry by the private sector was almost nonexistent. Private institutions (or at least some of them) have had a strong lobbying capacity, allowing them to get official recognition without a thorough examination of the legal demands or the quality of teaching. Furthermore, many private institutions had illegally initiated study programs without the necessary governmental permission, being later favoured by retroactive governmental policy changes which served to legalize the situation under the social pressure of families and students. In this environment, uncoordinated programmatic diversity emerged throughout this period. There was no central planning or even minimal analysis of local, regional or national economic, social and cultural needs. Most recently, the number of student vacancies in private institutions has been decreasing. After a maximum in 1998/99 of 45,955, the private sector vacancies offered diminished by 12,000 in 2003/04 (OCES 2004). Within the HE public sector, the number of vacancies offered by public HEIs is higher than the number of applicants. Having the lowest costs in terms of tuition and fees, the public sector (despite the rising costs in 2003/04) posed a difficult, competitive challenge to private HEIs trying to remain fiscally solvent. This situation created a barrier to teaching quality in the private sector and severely limited the diversity of courses they could offer. As mentioned above, the Portuguese system of higher education has experienced an exponential expansion in recent decades. According to Teixeira et al. (2004), from 1961 to 2002 the system of higher education doubled its size in each decade, moving from a percentage of less than 10% of the age cohort to around 40%. This expansion seems to have not ever been very rational. Now, the explosion of students to higher education is finished. Over the last few years, the total number

210

J.B. Ferreira et al.

of vacancies has consistently exceeded the number of candidates. In 1997/98, many private institutions filled less than 50% of their vacancies. In 2000/01, the Ministry decided to penalize those institutions that did not set minimum marks, reducing their numeri clausi.9 According to Amaral and Magalhães (2003), in 2002/03 about 200 study programs in the public sector had less than half of their openings filled, and 16 study programs had no candidates at all. On the other hand, legislation was passed enforcing a minimum classification of 9.5 out of a maximum of 20 on the national access exams for all candidates in all sectors of higher education. The implementation of this legislation will have significant consequences for many institutions. In secondary schools, the number of students has been decreasing demographically. Furthermore, the academic performance and success rates are also lower. In this context, Teixeira et al. (2004) ask the question of whether there is a market for higher education in Portugal at this time. From their perspective, if the key to prosperity is a healthy student market, the future for higher education institutions does not seems bright in Portugal. When the higher education system moved from elitism to massification, a major theme was diversification. This spawned the move towards binary systems. The arguments in favour of this were several: responding better to the needs of students and to the demands of the market; promoting social mobility; and increasing the efficiency of higher education institutions. However, as Teichler (2003: 175) states, “Available information does not provide clear evidence whether diversity within national systems of higher education is increasing.” Many institutions have attempted to imitate other institutions, with polytechnic institutes primarily trying to emulate universities in Portugal. Magalhães (2001: 122) points out that the binary system in Portugal is becoming blurred through academic drift. He states, “[…] there [is] academic drift in the polytechnics, and signs of stratification within the higher education system as a whole – the ranking of institutions, in terms of status and prestige – and among the same types of institutions – ranking, for instance, within the public universities, between ‘old universities’ and ‘new universities.’” The Education Law of 1986 seems to have had difficulty distinguishing between the objectives of the two sub-systems. Many polytechnic institutes designed strategies to enable them to become universities. This movement was frequently supported by external stakeholders and local authorities. Transformation and change seems to be the only constant in higher education globally today. According to Clark and Neave (1992), in countries such Australia and the United Kingdom the creation of binary systems was initiated for both economic and ideological reasons. Today, in Europe, there are many countries with a binary system. The Bologna Process appears to have the potential to contribute to

9 Access to higher education, both in universities and polytechnics, is subject to some restrictions due to the maximum number of places available, which is fixed annually by the Ministry of Science, Innovation and Higher Education.

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

211

a stronger alliance, integration and articulation between the national higher education systems within Europe, but also between universities and polytechnics. This is and will always be a less than consensual process. According to Amaral and Magalhães (2004: 79) “…the Bologna Process may be interpreted as a step in the neo-liberal movement to decrease the social responsibility of the state by shortening the length of pre-graduate studies and transferring responsibility for supporting employability to individuals through graduate studies”. It would be incorrect to say that the changes and challenges facing European higher education are related solely to the Bologna process. It is clear that the Bologna process is influencing and determining the political agenda in European higher education. But it also seems clear that the ambiguity of this process can be used to justify or legitimize different national agendas and reforms, both national and supranational. The question is if this will promote another example of academic drift versus mission focus, standardization versus differentiation, and regulation versus autonomy. As stated above, the polytechnics are supposed to be more vocational, but the similarities between universities and polytechnics are many. Amaral et al. (1996: 14) state, “the theoretical/vocational driven opposition university/polytechnic is more formal than real, but it is important to underline its rhetoric structure in order to understand the political mandate addressed to HE, mainly the accent put on the necessity to respond to the needs of economic development”. However presently, the polytechnics try to offer the same programs as the universities. The universities, as a way to answer criticism that they don’t graduate students prepared for the needs of the Portuguese workplace, try to offer more vocational programs. Therefore, the differentiation of vocational foci between the university and polytechnic sectors is more official rhetoric than reality (Gomes 2003; Machado 2005). In 2003, the Minister in charge of higher education proposed changes in the legal framework of higher education, creating a public debate about subjects such as the structure of higher education, degrees and diplomas, access, autonomy and regulation, funding, governance, evaluation and accreditation.10 Expert opinion will contend that polytechnics lack strong leadership to move forward and to find their niche within the Portuguese binary system. From Ministry to Parliament to governing councils to institutions, coordinated, visionary institutional assertions are needed (Machado et al. 2004; Machado 2005). Under current circumstances, it is difficult to get answers about the future of higher education and particularly about the polytechnic higher education sub-sector. There are many pertinent questions, such as: ● ●

●

10

What is the mission of higher education? Does the present structure of the binary system of higher education, with universities and polytechnics, offer an adequate answer to the mission and needs of higher education? What is the mission of the universities and of the polytechnics? Are they the same? Are they different? To what extent? See Amaral (2003).

212

J.B. Ferreira et al.

Each of these questions could easily be sub-divided into many others, and the answer to each would inexorably lead to other questions and, hopefully, answers. If the mission of the polytechnics is that frequently presented, such as: teaching and vocational training; applied research and experimental development; support to regional development and relations with economic and social activities, do these criteria need to be expanded across all of higher education? What constitutes an adequate institution to meet this mission? Polytechnics? Universities? Both? If the binary system is adequate, how should a polytechnic be defined? And a university? If we adopt the concept of university used by the European Agenda of Higher Education, and more recently by the National Council of Education (CNE 2004), it appears difficult to deny that polytechnics are not universities. We are faced with several challenges to higher education institutions, and therefore a new agenda for higher education. The future of higher education needs to be reached with quality and dignity by all the actors regarding the structure of the higher education system, the degrees and diplomas, the governance of institutions, autonomy and regulation, staff careers, funding mechanisms, research; and social equity and mobility. To do less is to abandon the fundamental charge to higher education to contribute efficiently, effectively and meaningfully to the advancement of social well-being and prosperity. We cannot do less.

References Amaral, A. (Coord.). Avaliação, Revisão e Consolidação da Legislação do Ensino Superior. Matosinhos, Portugal: Cipes/Fundação das Universidades Portuguesas, 2003. Amaral, A. Untitled Speech to the Faculty of Economics. Porto, Portugal: University of Porto, 2004. Amaral, A., and A. Magalhães. “Implementation of Higher Education Policies: A Portuguese Example”. CHER Annual Conference, Porto, September, 2003. Amaral, A., and A. Magalhães. “Epidemiology and the Bologna Saga”. Higher Education 48 (2004):79–100. Amaral, A., and P. Teixeira. Previsão da Evolução do Número de Alunos e das Necessidades de Financiamento: Ensino Superior – 1995 a 2005. Matosinhos, Portugal: CIPES, 1999. Amaral, A., A. Magalhães, and P. Teixeira. “Management Structure in the European Union and South African Higher Education Systems – The Portuguese Case”. South Africa: CHEPS, 1996. Amaral, A., F. Correia, A. Magalhães, M. J. Rosa, R. Santiago, and P. Teixeira. O Ensino Superior pela Mão da Economia. Matosinhos, Portugal: Cipes/Fundação das Universidades Portuguesas, 2002. Arroteia, J. C. O Ensino Politécnico em Portugal. Aveiro, Portugal: Instituto Politécnico de Viseu/ Universidade de Aveiro, 2002. Arroteia, J. C. Da Regulação do Ensino Superior: Contributos. Aveiro, Portugal: Universidade de Aveiro, 2004. Cerdeira, L. “O Financiamento do Ensino Superior Português – a Experiência de Aplicação de uma Fórmula 1994–2003”. XIII Colóquio – Secção Portuguesa da AFIRSE/AIPELF Regulação da Educação e Economia, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, 2003. Clark, B. T. The Higher Education System: Academic Organization in Cross-National Perspective. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 1983. Clark, B. R., and G. Neave (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Higher Education (IV Vol). Oxford: Pergamon, 1992.

The Polytechnic Higher Education Sector in Portugal

213

CNE – Conselho Nacional da Educação. Autonomia das Instituições de Ensino Superior. Lisboa: Conselho Nacional da Educação/Ministério da Educação, 1999. CNE – Conselho Nacional da Educação. “Parecer no 6/2004 – Implementação do Processo de Bolonha”. In Diário da República 200 (II série), 25 August, 2004. Correia, F., A. Magalhães, and A. Amaral. Diversificação e Diversidade dos Sistemas de Ensino Superior: O Caso Português. Lisboa: Conselho Nacional da Educação/Ministério da Educação, 2002. Costa, A. Perspectivas de Evolução do Ensino Superior Politécnico (March 5, 2004); http://www. adispor.pt/pag03.htm, in 2003. Gomes, J. Análise das Fraquezas e Ameaças ao Sistema de Ensino Superior Português. Porto, Portugal: Universidade do Porto, 2003. Huisman, J. Differentiation, Diversity and Dependency in Higher Education: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij Lemma BV, 1995. Lemos, V. Autonomia e Gestão do Ensino Superior: O Caso dos Politécnicos. Lisbon: Conselho Nacional da Educação/Ministério da Educação, 2004. Lemos, W. “Autonomia e Gestão do Ensino Superior: O Caso dos Politécnicos”. In Forma de Governo no Ensino Superior. Lisboa: Conselho Nacional da Educação, 2003, pp. 137–140. Machado, M. L. Strategic Planning in Portuguese Higher Education Institutions. Ph.D. dissertation. Braga, Portugal: Minho University, 2005. Machado, M. L., M. Farhangmehr, and J. S. Taylor. “The Status of Strategic Planning in Portuguese Higher Education Institutions: Trappings or Substance?” Higher Education Policy 17 (2004): 383–404. Magalhães, A. “The Changing Relationship Between Government and Higher Education: The Portuguese Case”. Presentation at the Alpha-Bracara Conference, Recife, Brazil, 1998. Magalhães, A. Higher Education Dilemmas and the Quest for Iidentity: Politics, Knowledge and Education in an Era of Transition. Doctoral dissertation, Enschede, The Netherlands: University of Twente. 2001. Meek, L. “On the Road of the Mediocrity? Governance and Management of Australian Higher Education in the Market Place”. In Amaral, A., G. A. Jones, and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston, MA/London: Kluwer, 2002, pp. 235–260. Meek, L. “Governance and Management of Australian Higher Education: Enemies Within and Without”. In Amaral, A., V. L. Meek, and I. M. Larsen (eds). The Higher Education Managerial Revolution. Dordrecht, The Netherlands/Boston, MA/London: Kluwer, 2003, pp. 179–202. Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne. The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996. Neave, G. “On Being Economic with University Autonomy: Being an Account of the Retrospective Joys of a Written Constitution”. In Tight, M. (ed). Academic Freedom and Responsibility. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press, 1988. OCES/Observatório da Ciência e do Ensino Superior. O Sistema do Ensino Superior em Portugal: 1993–2003. MCTES Lisboa: 2004. Santiago, R., and T. Carvalho. “Effects of Managerialism on the Perceptions of Higher Education in Portugal”. Higher Education Policy 17 (2004): 427–444. Scott, P. “Unified and Binary Systems of Higher Education in Europe”. In Burgen, A. (ed). Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1995, pp. 37–54. Simão, J. V., and A. A. Costa. O Ensino Politécnico em Portugal. Lisboa: Conselho Coordenador dos Institutos Superiores Politécnicos, 2000. Simão, J. V., S. Santos, and A. Costa. Ensino Superior: Uma Visão para a Próxima Década. Lisboa: Gradiva, 2002. Simão, J. V., S. M. Santos, and A. A. Costa. Ensino Superior: Uma Visão para a Próxima Década (2a ed). Lisboa: Gradiva, 2003.

214

J.B. Ferreira et al.

Simão, J. V., S. M. Santos, and A. A. Costa. Resultados do Estudo Efectuado pelo Grupo de Trabalho para a Reorganização da Rede do Ensino Superior “Bolonha: Agenda para a Excelência”; http://www.mcies.pt/conteudo.php?id_categoria=19&id_item=1765&action=2, 2004. Taylor, J. S., M. L. Machado, M. L. Cerdeira, and B. Johnstone. “European Higher Education’s Need for Alternative Revenue Sources: Does the Culture of Fundraising Apply?”. CHER 18th Annual Conference – Higher Education: the Cultural Dimension, Innovative Cultures, Norms and Values, Jyväskylä, Finland, 2005. Teichler, U. “The Future of Higher Education and the Future of Higher Education Research”. Tertiary Education and Management 9 (2003): 171–185. Teixeira, P., A. Amaral, and M. J. Rosa. “Mediating the Economic Pulses: the International Connection in Portuguese Higher Education”. Higher Education Quarterly 57(2), April (2003): 181–203. Teixeira, P., M. J. Rosa, and A. Amaral. “Unusual Suspects? Expansion, Cost-sharing and Access in Portuguese Higher Education Policy”. The IV Douro Seminar. Pinhão, Douro Valley, Portugal, October, 2004.

The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education1 Josep M. Bricall and Martí Parellada

1

Introduction

Non-university higher education has played only a minor role in Spanish higher education. In order to understand the case better and to appreciate the characteristics of higher education in Spain, it might be useful to start by providing some remarks on the general system of education, particularly the role of universities within the overall framework. Education policies in European countries have undergone substantial changes over the last 20 years. Of course, such a transformation has very much depended on specific national characteristics as well as social and economic circumstances. In many aspects, the Spanish system of higher education differs from the main trends to be found in the principal European countries, such as France, Germany or Britain. This can be explained not only by the slower rate of social and economic development, but also by the difficulties that schools, other educational establishments and governments have had to face in order to overcome well-entrenched routines (Bricall 2000). In Europe the present situation has probably been the result of a long process of evolution that started many years ago due to the political and social changes of the 18th century. Prior to that century, the ultimate aim of institutions of learning was to prepare their students – admittedly very few in number – on their way to University. Everywhere, students or their families used to view learning as the obvious way to attain higher education, the University being only the end of their training. The highest level of education used to be higher education for a limited number of people alongside a huge number of illiterate persons. Since the 18th century primary education has become generalised and has reached everybody. Primary studies, and even the first years of secondary education, gradually came to be considered compulsory by European governments; and governments tried to ensure financial provisions for such a generalisation either directly or indirectly. That has been one of the consequences of modern times, 1 We would like to acknowledge the assistance of Dr. Montserrat Alvarez in preparing the graphs and charts forming part of this contribution.

James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

215

216

J.M. Bricall, M. Parellada

particularly because of the political changes that occurred on the continent after the French revolution. The ultimate goal of the education system has been to achieve such universal compulsory education as the first step on the path of education. Most students used to leave school after completing compulsory education. However, some other students used to pursue their studies up to University level in order to attain a university qualification (in accordance with the medieval origins of university studies, university degrees were classified as the grades of bachelor, master and doctor). Under such circumstances, upper secondary education – that is to say, non-compulsory secondary education – was considered to be a necessary step in order to be admitted to university. The most frequent educational level attained among the adult population was compulsory education, university education being reserved for a minority of the population. Upper secondary education was, therefore, of a transitory character so as to prepare for access to University. Upper secondary education used to be a “pre-university stage” in order to prepare students to enter University beyond the level of compulsory education. In addition to the French Revolution, the 18th century witnessed some of the most important changes in economic history. The Industrial Revolution – the market economy and the application of recent scientific discoveries to the production process – demanded qualified skills of job-seekers, and schools started to prepare for such skills beyond the level of compulsory education. Training in gilds was no longer sufficient for the job requirements: thus, compulsory education was no longer sufficient for people looking for work. Progressively, the number of students interested in continuing their training after the initial stages of secondary education increased dramatically to improve their opportunities of finding better work and higher salaries. As a consequence, the role of upper secondary education changed; it was no longer simply a transition stage for all students. It acquired a double meaning. It could be either terminal – preparing students for direct entry into working life, or it might be preparatory – preparing students for higher education. Hence, the percentage of people with upper secondary education as their highest level of educational attainment among the adult population grew because of the new conditions of the labour market. And, of course, the conditions of the labour market depended very much on regional social and economic development, particularly in those countries with faster growth. Technical progress after the end of the Second World War and the development of the welfare state increased both the demand for qualified employees and the opportunities for students to progress in educational terms. Furthermore, with the skills required exceeding the level gained at the end of secondary education; education systems were encouraged to consider the possibility of expanding vocational training in higher education, beyond the then-traditional technical preparation of engineers and managers. In fact, manual and routine labour input diminished, becoming more abstract, while related tasks were upgraded. Therefore new types of know-how were demanded by the economic system (Cohendet et al. 1991). Further requirements in terms of qualifications (specialists in automatic devices, robotics, etc.) were generated and the changing nature of jobs called for a new approach to the education schedule, generalising higher education on the one hand and linking education with the new needs of economy and society on the other.

The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education

217

The result of this evolution has been a major transformation of the nature of higher education. If, in the past, secondary education was mainly the bridge between compulsory education and higher education, that is to say university education, little by little the system has underlined the strategic place of upper secondary education in the learning system. The idea that vocational training pursued in upper secondary education should be completed in a more sophisticated way in higher education has given a substantial part of the latter a distinctly post-secondary flavour. Therefore, the self-sufficient role of secondary education as terminal studies in order to get a job in the labour market has been expanded to tertiary education. It seems to us that the development of non-university higher education is the obvious result of such a growth of vocational training. Of course, the process has been very clearly linked with the technical development of European economies. This may explain the characteristics of the Spanish system of higher education, in which non-university education has played a relatively minor role up to now. The fact that non-university centres had a different weight within the national higher education system arose not from a different way of managing education, or even differences in the national context, but differences in social and economic progress when compared with western standards. Consequently, in our view, the Spanish case displays what might be described as an unfinished evolution from a pre-university upper secondary education to a post-secondary higher education schedule.

2

The Spanish Case

The explanation above highlights the strategic role played by upper secondary education in the general educational framework in OECD countries. It allows us to comment better on some of the figures referring to Spain in the tables to be found in “Education at a Glance” 2004, published by the aforementioned organization. It is very risky to draw clear-cut lines when comparing figures. We have to take into account the unavoidable inaccuracy of national accounting systems in different countries with all the potential mistakes involved in the difficult process of homogenisation. The blurring of borders between university and non-university education is changing dramatically in different territories because of the overlapping process of convergence of studies and the flourishing development of new curricula set up in order to cope with the social and economic demands for vocational training. Be that as it may, these figures can offer an approximate, and likely, picture of reality. One of the tables in “Education at a Glance” details educational attainment and, by extension, labour force qualifications. These are very important inputs when determining economic outcomes and quality of life for both individuals and society as a whole. It has already been stressed that, today, studying at University is not the only aim of secondary education, and the large number of adults who have attained upper secondary education explains the weight of vocational training at that level and the probable existence of a strong non-university education sector in tertiary learning. Consequently, among OECD members, in general, there is a correlation between the size of this group and the size of the university group.

218

J.M. Bricall, M. Parellada

In Spain, more than half of the population aged 25–64 has not completed upper secondary education. This means that there is a small proportion of the population with upper secondary education as the highest level of education, because the percentage of students with higher education qualifications among the adult population is above the OECD average. And most such qualifications are university degrees, while the proportion of non-university qualifications is insignificant. This confirms our view that the Spanish system of higher education is a system undergoing an evolutionary process to cope with the normal requirements of change, although at present it largely consists of what we might consider oldfashioned tertiary education. Lower secondary education generally continues the basic programmes established at the primary level and forms part of compulsory education. The proportion of adults aged 25–64 years old that are in possession of only primary and lower secondary education is as follows in this sample of countries (Table 1). In spite of the abnormal percentage of individuals with a level of education below the OECD average, the proportion of Spanish higher education graduates is above the OECD average. This implies that the University system is highly developed in spite of the proportion of the population that only has a primary or lower secondary level, as shown by the following table (Table 2). In contrast, the percentage of the same age range with an upper secondary diploma as their highest level of educational achievement for Spain is very small if compared with the same countries (Table 3). Such a difference is more expressive if we add post-secondary non-tertiary education. This denomination, according to the OECD Glossary, “straddles the boundary between upper secondary education and post-secondary education from an international point of view, even though it might clearly be considered upper secondary or post secondary programmes in a national context. Although their content may not be significantly more advanced than upper secondary programmes, they serve to broaden the knowledge of participants who have already gained an upper secondary qualification; the students tend to be older than those enrolled at the upper secondary education” (OECD 2004). In fact, Spain, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom do not include any students in such a category of education. However, of the total adult population with this as their highest level of educational achievement, they constitute 5% in Table 1 Percentage of the population 25–64 with only primary or lower secondary education Spain 58% France 35% Italy 53% Germany 17% Finland 25% Ireland 39% United Kingdom 16% OECD average 32%

The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education

219

Table 2 Percentage of the population 25–64 with university degrees Spain 24% France 24% Italy 10% Germany 23% Finland 33% Ireland 26% United Kingdom 27% OECD average 23%

Table 3 Percentage of the population 25–64 with upper secondary education as the highest level of education Spain 17% France 40% Italy 34% Germany 55% Finland 42% Ireland 23% United Kingdom 56% OECD average 41%

Table 4 Proportion of type B programmes as the highest level of education in adult population Spain 7% France 12% Italy Included in the global figure for higher education (vid. Table 2) Germany 10% Finland 17% Ireland 10% United Kingdom 8% OECD average 8%

Germany, 12% in Ireland; 2% in Italy (the “formazione professionale post-maturita regionale o scolastica” for students between 19 and 21 years old), with the mean for all countries being 3%. In previous years Spain registered about 5%, and if this category has disappeared from the figures, it is probably due to the fact that students in the final years of secondary education were effectively following a preparatory programme to enter University. Higher education in Spain embraces two kinds of studies: type A diplomas and type B diplomas. Type A diplomas are “theory based and designed to provide sufficient qualifications for entry to advanced research programs and professions with skill requirements”, whereas type B diplomas are “focused on practical, technical or occupational skills for direct entry into the labour market” (OECD 2004). In Spain, most of the higher education qualifications held by those aged 25 to 64 are type A diplomas. The percentage of type B programmes as a proportion of total educational achievement is as follows in Table 4.

220

3

J.M. Bricall, M. Parellada

Two Forms of Non-University Higher Education in Spain

In Spain, the process has not yet finished evolving. Following the general trend, there is a tendency towards encouraging the development of a more balanced proportion of non-university curricula and university curricula in tertiary education. In fact, the employment and unemployment rates are slightly more favourable in Spain for males with type B studies than type A studies, which is the opposite of the general situation in OECD countries. In Spain the division among higher education studies has been very confusing due to the mixture established by the education laws, which in the 1970s organised both university and non-university curricula in the same establishment without a clear-cut system differentiation. Such a system differentiation has been achieved in France, where the “Instituts Universitaires de Technologie” have a special status, in spite of forming part of the university system. In 1970, the General Law of Education – a very positive law when compared with the general panorama of the dictatorship’s education policy – opened the door for entry into the university system of all kinds of technical or vocational training studies awarding higher qualifications and diplomas. These had previously been undertaken in separate institutions. This measure was generally well-accepted in the country since these institutions were frequently of doubtful tradition and were unable to guarantee either quality or good practice. In some regions, such as Catalonia, because of a long industrial and commercial tradition, a considerable proportion of students chose studies that focused on practical, technical or occupational skills for direct entry into the labour market. In the past, they had been organised in a different, more flexible way than universities, better prepared to serve the regional demands of small- and medium-sized companies and better adapted to the wishes of the population. As a consequence of the law of 1970, the rules and the organization schedules were made uniform. On the other hand, the possibility of establishing shorter programmes was subverted because of a very debatable approach which equated quality with longer courses (Bricall 2000). The traditional programmes, carried out in well-established university faculties, set the benchmark of quality and gave the higher, non-university studies organised inside the universities from 1970 onwards a feeling of inferiority. The teachers, who had hitherto been willing to only teach work-oriented studies, started to request time for research activities as well. The Law of University Reform (Ley de Reforma Universitaria) of 1983, bestowed on the universities an autonomous system of management. The only precedent in the history of the much-centralised Spanish system of higher education was the very short period of autonomy which was awarded to Barcelona University under the Republic in 1932 (Universitat de Barcelona 1934), but which was suspended by the dictatorship in 1939. Furthermore, the Law had to clarify as well as set up the change in weight of the educational authorities owing to the new, almost federal framework of the political system in Spain since 1978, whereby a considerable amount of power was transferred to regional governments. In addition,

The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education

221

the new law, followed in 1985 by a Science Law, enhanced the research role of Spanish universities. This was a very innovative policy given the traditional negligence of previous Spanish governments. Nevertheless, the 1983 Law was very cautious regarding its treatment of nonuniversity studies and did not improve the mixed approach. Consequently, the Law of 1983 confirmed the presence of non-university studies, defined as short-cycle studies, within the university system, in comparison with the long-cycle studies of the traditional Faculties (Facultades) and Higher Technical Schools (Escuelas Técnicas Superiores). Those completing such short courses are not entitled to go on to doctoral studies. Furthermore, the teachers of these studies are not able to carry out research and are considered as non-research teachers in the framework of university teaching categories. Thus they were considered as second-class university teachers in accordance with a uniform definition of quality in higher education as opposed to a diversification of curricula that takes into account the needs of society. The changes introduced by the most recent University Law (Ley Orgánica de Universidades) of 2001, did not alter the meaning and role of the short cycle courses within the university. The Law on the General Organisation of Education (Ley de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo, where university education is excepted) of 1990, substantially reformed the previous system of vocational training (formación profesional) in Spain in accordance with the new demands of the Spanish economy. In the past, vocational training lacked the prestige of the time-honoured system of upper secondary education (known, in Spain, as Bachillerato). Furthermore, a higher education qualification in vocational training (formación profesional especifica de grado superior) was introduced in the Spanish system as an innovation. In order to gain access to the higher level of vocational training, students are usually required to have completed upper secondary studies. The new law laid down specific norms to prepare for artistic professions such as music, dance, drama and other artistic activities, as well as sports. Several reasons were given in order to link them with the general framework of the system (in the case of Music and Theatre – Artes escénicas – the upper diploma is recognised as a university degree), although a certain degree of flexibility and specificity, in accordance with the particular characteristics of these kinds of studies, is also allowed for. A new Educational Law (Ley Organica de Educación) was approved in 2006. The new Law is not particularly innovative as were the general lines of the 1990 Law. Vocational training (Formación profesional) is divided into two levels, lower and higher (medio y superior); an upper secondary level of studies is required to enter higher vocational training, while those completing such studies are considered to have the level of the Técnico Superior diploma. The Law also envisages the future recognition of a system that bridges the gap between vocational training studies and university undergraduate studies, a system which, however, is to be decided on at a later date by the national government, once the advice of the Council of Universities (Consejo de Universidades) has been taken into account. As a result, there are two kinds of non-university higher education in Spain. First, non-university studies inside the University – this will follow short cycles of

222

J.M. Bricall, M. Parellada

studies at the university in order to obtain the university qualification of Diplomados (in accordance with the Ley de Reforma Universitaria of 1983 and the new University Law of 2002, known as the Ley Orgánica de Universidades) – and second, non-university higher education outside universities is, basically, which will follow higher vocational training studies in order to get a non-university qualification of Técnico Superior (as laid down by the Ley de Ordenación General del Sistema Educativo of 1990 and the Ley Orgánica de Educación of 2006).2 At this juncture, it should be mentioned that the university degree of Diplomado is a non-university degree (in spite of being bestowed by universities in Spain) according to the generally-accepted definition of university studies in Europe. This is because the centres able to award such qualifications are not centres for research, in spite of forming part of the Spanish university system. Nevertheless, as we explain below, some changes could be envisaged in such curricula in order to fit the Spanish undergraduate studies to the Bologna requirement to set up the European Higher Education Space. In contrast, in order to obtain the non-university qualification of Técnico Superior vocational training studies have to be undertaken in centres whose management, curricular organisation and diplomas depend on the policies of the educational authorities of the different regional and central authorities.

4

Non-University Studies Inside the University

It will be useful here to provide an outline of the university system in Spain. There are 70 universities in Spain, 49 of which are public universities, in general depending on regional authorities. Public universities in Spain provide educational facilities for 90% of the 1.5 million university students. All universities have to adhere to national and regional legislation. Private universities have to be recognised by a law passed by either the corresponding regional parliament (in the majority of cases) or the Spanish Parliament. Higher education authorities may be central: the Ministry of Education on one hand and the Council of Universities (Consejo de Universidades), made up by the rectors of universities and high ranking officials from the Ministry and Conference

2

As we mention above, apart from specific vocational training, there are others non-university higher education studies outside universities, like the higher art education, providing qualifications for future professionals of music, dance, dramatic art, plastic arts and design, or advance sport education. Moreover, there is a series of extremely varied, essentially professional post-secondary studies which are run by legal specific dispositions and which offer specific degrees not comparable to the rest of studies mentioned. However, they are usually included within the higher education system. Foremost among such studies are Advanced Military Training – Army, Navy and Air Force – and certain kinds of specialised schooling, such as Home Architecture, Private Investigation, Design and Fashion, Marketing, Civil Aviation, Public Relations, etc. However, all this studies play a minor role in Spanish education system, in terms of number of students involved.

The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education

223

of University Policy (Conferencia General de Politica Universitaria) assembling regional departments of education and representatives of central authorities as a consultative and coordination bodies. They may also be regional: the departments of education of the 17 regional governments. Generally, the central bodies have to define the general policy and main lines of legislation, regional authorities being responsible for financing the universities and adapting specific legislation. Universities in Spain are autonomous, but considerable restrictions are applied regarding university entrance for students, teacher selection and the completion of academic curricula and syllabi. Autonomy is limited in these fields, but in contrast is considerable with regard to the allocation of university resources. In public universities, the rector and deans of faculties and schools are elected by the members of the university, even including students and non-academic staff in different proportions. At the top, the rector and the Senate (Consejo Universitario) represent and manage the universities. Some decisions have to be approved by a Social Council (Consejo Social), where external people are included. Universities are funded by regional governments by means of non-targetoriented grants except for research. Research funding is provided to the universities to finance individual projects or people. Research funds are provided by national authorities, and are complemented, to a lesser or greater degree, by the regional departments of education. Fees are set by universities within the range defined by the authorities, representing on average about 10% of the universities’ budgets. Most research in Spain takes place in the universities. University research represents 30.9% of total research and development (R&D) in Spain. University research was 0.27% of the Gross National Product in 2001, a considerable distance from the 0.39% of the E.U. or the 0.37% of the OECD countries. The academic staff, professors (catedráticos) or lecturers (profesores titulares), of the longer cycles of studies are research professors, and the same categories in the shorter cycles (diploma courses and the like) do not carry out research functions as was mentioned earlier. Until now, studies have been organised in two main cycles: undergraduate studies and doctoral studies. There are two main kinds of programs: those leading to a degree or to an engineering or architecture qualification, which last four years or more, and shorter courses leading to a diploma or technical engineering or technical architecture qualification of less than four years in length. In both cases the overall framework of studies is set up by the authorities, mainly national authorities with the cooperation of the Consejo de Universidades. Furthermore, universities enjoy considerable autonomy regarding the establishment and organization of complementary studies, such as non-doctoral postgraduate studies. The longest of one or more years in length is the Masters. They are without any regulation on the part of the education authorities, for the moment. Up to now, the decrees that approve the general guidelines for each degree course also lay down their length. The contents of each academic programme or syllabus are grouped on the basis of subjects, each of which is assigned a certain number of formation credits. A credit has been traditionally defined in Spain as a unit of assessment for measuring the students’ performance, with each credit representing ten hours’ teaching. Subjects are classified in three categories:

224

J.M. Bricall, M. Parellada

1. Core subjects, which are the required necessary minimum contents to be found in all academic syllabi leading towards the same degree. These subjects must represent between 30% and 45% of the total number of hours’ teaching in the first part or cycle of all degrees. 2. Subjects to be defined by each university when their syllabi are accepted. This will include both subjects that are obligatory for students and others that are optional, the individual student being able to choose from among the different subjects offered by the university. 3. Finally, free choice or elective subjects that the individual student can choose from among those offered for any degree course by the university itself, or even by other universities provided the necessary agreement is in existence. In this way, students are able to complete their academic studies in a flexible way. They must represent at least 10% of the total number of class hours. Short cycles of undergraduate studies, in order to be entitled as Diplomado, last from two to three years, in which 180–270 credits have to be passed. Credits are presented separately for theoretical and practical classes, as are the equivalent number of credits for other academic activities (for example, practical work carried out in-company or elsewhere or academically supervised professional work). The qualifications officially approved up to the 2003–04 academic year for first cycle studies are listed in Table 5 by area of studies. Figure 3 shows the evolution of the number of students in the short cycle of university higher education in the past decade. It can be seen that, after having grown Table 5 Catalogue of university first cycle or short courses (EURYDICE, El Sistema educativo en España (2003–04)) FIELD Qualification EXPERIMENTAL SCIENCES

Diploma in Statistics Diploma in Human Nutrition and Dietetics Diploma in Optometry

HEALTH SCIENCES

Diploma in Nursing Diploma in Physiotherapy Diploma in Speech Therapy Diploma in Chiropracty Diploma in Occupational Therapy

LAW AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

Diploma in Librarianship and Documentation Diploma in Business Studies Diploma in Social Education Diploma in Public Administration and Management Diploma in Labour Relations Diploma in Social Work Diploma in Tourism Primary school teacher specialising in Language and Hearing Primary school teacher specialising in Special Educational Needs (continued)

The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education Table 5 (continued) FIELD

TECHNICAL STUDIES

225

Qualification Primary school teacher specialising in Physical Education Primary school teacher specialising in Infant School Education Primary school teacher specialising in Music Primary school teacher specialising in Primary Education Primary School Teacher specialising in Foreign Languages Technical Architect Diploma in Maritime Machinery, Maritime Navigation and Maritime Radioelectronics Aeronautical Technical Engineer (specialising in Aircraft engines; Aerial navigation; Aircraft; Airports; Air and Space Equipment and Materials) Civil Technical Engineer (specialising in Civil Construction; Hydrology; Urban Transport and Services) Industrial Technical Engineer (specialising in Electricity; Industrial Electronics; Mechanics; Chemical Engineering; Textiles) Maritime Technical Engineer (specialising in Marine Structures; Vessel Propulsion and Services) Agricultural Technical Engineer (specialising in Agricultural and Livestock Installations; Horticulture and Gardens; Agricultural and Food Production; Mechanisation and Rural Construction) Forestry Technical Engineer (specialising in Forestry Exploitations; Forestry Industries) Technical Engineer in Systems Management Technical Engineer in Systems Engineering Mining Technical Engineer (specialising in Mining Exploitations; Electrical and Mechanical Mining Installations; Metallurgy and Mineralogy; Energy Resources; Combustibles and Explosives; Mining Prospection and Exploration) Telecommunications Technical Engineer (specialising in Telecommunications Systems; Electronic Systems; Image and Sound; Telematics) Technical Engineer in Topography

considerably between the academic years 1994–95 and 1999–2000, the number of students registered in first cycle university courses levelled out from there. This situation contrasts with the uninterrupted growth of student numbers in non-university higher education upper level vocational training. Nevertheless, the proportion of students taking short cycle courses when compared with the total number of students registered at the university has continued to rise throughout this period (in 1994–95, the proportion was 33.9%, in 1999–2000 36.3% and in 2002–03 38.5%). In academic year 2001–02, for which definitive data are available at the moment of writing this chapter, 49.7% of those registered in short cycle university courses were undertaking technical studies, whereas 40.1% were registered in short cycle

226

J.M. Bricall, M. Parellada

studies in law and the social sciences. The remainder (10.2%) were taking diploma courses in health sciences or experimental sciences. See Fig. 1. Nevertheless, the academic staff teaching short cycles have staked their claim to be upgraded to research professors by means of using various legal loopholes that, generally speaking, rectors have not been able to oppose. Even national or regional ministers have been ambiguous regarding the process because of potential social or electoral consequences. This ambiguity has even been carried over into the guidelines to adapt the Spanish degree system to the Bologna requirements; hence, after a great deal of discussion, it has been stipulated that undergraduate studies (in order to obtain a university degree and to provide the student with adequate professional

600,000

580,000

560,000

540,000

520,000

500,000

480,000 1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03 (p)

Fig. 1 Evolution of the number of students registered in first-cycle university studies (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Consejo de Coordinación Universitaria)

Experimental Sciences Health Sciences Law and Social Sciences Technical studies

Fig. 2 Distribution of the number of students registered in first-cycle university studies organised by field of study for academic year 2001–02 (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Consejo de Coordinación Universitaria)

The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education

227

capacities to enter the labour market in accordance with the Bologna criteria) will have programmes of about 240 ECTS (European credit transfer system) and four years, leading to the degree of graduado.3

5

Non-University Higher Education Outside Universities

The general system of vocational training (formación profesional) in Spain includes the full range of studies that, within the official education system, prepare individuals to undertake different professional activities with a recognised qualification. At present, a total of 142 official qualifications are available. The system includes not only preliminary vocational training, but also more specific lower and higher vocational training (ciclos formativos de grado medio y superior). Preliminary vocational training is the basic professional training that students receive in compulsory secondary education and in the Bachillerato stage. On the other hand, specific vocational training includes a range of training programmes of variable length, organised on a modular basis, and made up by areas of theoretical and practical knowledge, depending on the requirements of the different professional fields. Access to lower specific vocational training (Formación Profesional Específica de grado medio), which forms part of secondary education, comes after having completed compulsory secondary education. Access to the higher level is after having satisfactorily completed the post-compulsory stage of secondary education (Bachillerato), and it thus forms part of non-university higher education. Similarly, access to the higher level of vocational training is also possible after passing an entrance examination. This examination, which is supervised by the various regional governments (Comunidades autónomas), must accredit candidates’ maturity as regards the overall aims and objectives of the bachillerato stage and their abilities as far as the specific professional field is concerned. However, those candidates who show suitable work experience in a relevant professional field may be declared exempt from this latter requirement. Higher level vocational training courses tend to be of between 1,300 and 2,000 hours in length spread over one and a half or two academic years. This stage of vocational training also includes the module of work-centre training (formación en centros de trabajo or FCT), which is carried out over a period of between 350 and 750 hours from September to December and April to June, and which includes both training and other activities in a specific place of work. The aims and objectives of this module are to complement the level acquired by students in the educational centre by means of contact with real-life production processes so that they could know and form part of a business organisation in which the students carry out 3 Recently, April 12, 2007, has been approved a substantial modification of the Ley Orgánica de Universidades, that included the three-cycle of university degrees adapted a Bologna and a new structure of university coordination among other aspects related with the university government, academic career and others.

228

J.M. Bricall, M. Parellada

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000

0 1994-95

1995-96

1996-97

1997- 98

1998- 99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03 (p)

Fig. 3 Evolution of the number of students registered in the upper level of specific vocational training (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, “Estadísticas de la Enseñanza no Universitaria”)

training and productive activities matching their professional profile and to evaluate the students’ professional skills in real-life work situations with the active participation of the company involved. In this module, the student is supervised by a tutor in the company concerned and by an academic tutor in the educational establishment. The number of students registered in the upper level of vocational training has increased considerably, as can be seen in Fig. 3. In the last academic year for which definitive data are available, the 2001–02 year, the largest proportion of those students registered in the upper level of vocational training were to be found in the administrative group of studies (18.9%), following by computing (17.5%), electricity and electronics (10.6%) and health (10.2%), as can be seen in Fig. 2. Those students who pass the upper level of specific vocational training (Formación Profesional Específica de grado superior) receive the qualification of advanced technician (Técnico Superior). This qualification entitles them to direct access, with no further entrance examination, to certain university courses related to the vocational training studies undertaken if they want to follow university studies and also obtain a type A diploma, that entitles them to go on further with doctoral studies.4 The upper level of specific vocational training is structured in different professional groupings, which are detailed in Fig. 4.5 4

At present, some possibilities exist for students in occupationally oriented type B programmes to transfer to type A programmes through bridging courses and credit recognition. The ministry has proposed to broaden these possibilities by facilitating and increasing permeability between the programmes in the new structure after implementing Bologna process. 5 Each grouping can include one or several upper level vocational training qualifications. At present, there are 78 such qualifications.

The Non-University Sector in the Spanish System of Higher Education

229

ADMINISTRATION COMPUTING ELECTRICITY AND ELECTRONICS HEALTH SOCIO-CULTURAL COMMUNITY SERVICES TRADE AND MARKETING HOTEL MANAGEMENT AND TOURISM BUILDING AND CIVIL ENGINEERING MECHANICAL MANUFACTURING PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND SPORTS COMMUNICATION, IMAGE AND SOUND CHEMISTRY MAINTENANCE OF MOTOR VEHICLES MAINTENANCE AND PRODUCTIVE SERVICES Other groupings 0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

%

Fig. 4 Distribution of students registered in the upper level of vocational training according to professional grouping3 for the 2001–02 academic year (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, “Estadísticas de la Enseñanza no Universitaria”)

6

Final Remarks

Probably things will change soon because of the Bologna requirements. Therefore, non-university higher education either inside the university or outside the university will be affected and, in particular, the first one (non-university higher education either inside the university) will in practice be included in a single class of university education. With the Bologna process, Spain will change the current three-cycle structure at University (Diplomado/Licenciado/Doctor) that has existed since the Law of University Reform (Ley de Reforma Universitaria) of 1983, which does not fit the three-cycle structure emanating from the European Higher Education Area. In order to adapt to the European Higher Education Area, the new three-cycle schedule is structured according to a first cycle lasting 240 ECTS credits (currently four years) and leading to the degree of graduado. The second cycle (between 60 and 120 ECTS credits) is devoted to advanced training for an academic or professional specialisation in research activities and techniques. On successful completion of the programme, students will obtain a Master’s degree. The completion of the third cycle of university studies will lead to a doctoral degree, the highest of all academic degrees, conferring the right to pursue a teaching or research career. Consequently, after the implementation of Bologna, the claim of academic staff of the university short cycles of undergraduate studies (Diplomados) have been accepted by the

230

J.M. Bricall, M. Parellada

education authorities so that all the undergraduate studies will converge in the same ECTS credits requirements. That is to say the students obtaining an university diploma of first cycle (graduado) will all belong to the type A category, and will be able to continue studying the second and third cycle (master and doctor), different from current diplomados. In parallel, the new Educational Law (Ley Organica de Educación, 2006) will reinforce non-university higher education qualifications in vocational training (formación profesional especifica de grado superior). As has been mentioned in the Spain National Report 2004–05 referring to the European Higher Education Area, “the main obstacle (to be identified by Spain in removing legal obstacles to the establishment and recognition of joint degrees and/ or joint study programmes) up to now is the existence of rigid rules regarding official degree programmes. The compulsory core curriculum, fixed by the national Government, included very detailed content guidelines, leaving little space for institutions and making it very difficult to articulate these requirements with other countries’ programmes. In addition, short degree programmes were generally longer than in other countries. The recently-approved Royal Decree establishes three Bologna cycles more comparable in duration to those existing in other European countries and will lead to a reduction of the content of the core curriculum, based, on the other hand, on the definition of learning outcomes and competences” (National Reports 2004–05, 2005).

References Bricall, J. M. (director). Universidad 2000. Conferencia de Rectores de las Universidades Españolas. Madrid, 2000, 14–25. Cohendet, P., M. J. Ledoux, and E. Zuscovitch. “The Evolution of New Materials: A New Dynamic for Growth”. In Technology and Productivity. Paris: OECD, 1991, pp. 373–388. National Reports 2004–05. Towards the European Higher Education Area. Bologna Process (2005); http://bologna-bergen2005.no/Docs/Spain/ National_Reports-Spain, 2005. OECD. Education at a Glance 2004. Glossary. Paris: OECD, 2004. Universitat de Barcelona. Anuari 1934–1935. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat de Barcelona, 1934, pp. VII–XIX.

Higher Education Outside the Universities: The UK Case John Brennan and Ruth Williams

1

Introduction

Most British universities have had a prior life – often a long one – as another kind of higher education institution before attaining the formal status of a university. Of the more than 120 universities that currently exist, fewer than 20 were originally created as universities. All the others had been variously university colleges, technical institutes, polytechnics, colleges of art or of education or of commerce or such like. Some had been created with the intention to become universities once an initial apprenticeship had been served. But others had been created to serve quite different educational purposes. Over time, these purposes changed but so too did the concept of a university. At a time when the rest of Europe was creating new types of non-university institutions and organising them into binary systems of higher education, the UK was dismantling one of the first such systems. By changing the designations of over 30 polytechnics into universities at the end of 1992, the then-Conservative government ended the 20-year-old experiment of the ‘binary system’ of UK higher education. Yet the ‘unitary’ system thereby created still contained many non-university higher education institutions. However, most are quite small or combine higher education with work at other levels of post-school education. This mixture of large universities and smaller colleges of diverse types – with promotion opportunities to university status for the few – represents in some ways a return to ‘normality’ after the binary experiment of creating a competitor sector to the universities – a sector that was actually the larger in terms of student numbers at the time of its dismantling. The main focus of this paper is the current non-university higher education institutions in the UK. They are a diverse bunch. A few are ‘universities in waiting’. But most will not expect such promotion, even if the criteria for university status continue to change. But before describing these institutions, it is necessary to set the context provided by history, both recent and ancient. The recent history concerns the ‘binary system’ of the 1970s and 1980s and in particular the characteristics of the polytechnics that provided the core of the non-university arm of that system. The ‘ancient’ concerns the traditions of state-university relationships in the United Kingdom and the unusually large degrees of autonomy enjoyed by the latter. It is with this ‘ancient history’ that we start. James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

231

232

2

J. Brennan, R. Williams

Traditions of State-University Relations in the United Kingdom

It is the custom in most countries for universities to emphasise their autonomy as institutions. In the UK case, this autonomy has been more real than in many places. Universities are not ‘public’ institutions in the sense of ‘belonging’ to the state and controlled by the state’s edicts and regulations. The regular OECD publication, ‘Education at a Glance’, refers to UK universities as ‘state funded private institutions’ and for some of them even the state funding element has become in recent years only a small part of the total institutional budget. Forms of state control which were commonplace in much of Europe during the last century were virtually unknown in the UK – the universities owned their own buildings, hired their own staff, determined their own curricula, selected their own students, and so on. However, during the century universities became increasingly dependent upon state funding and this dependence, in the eyes of some, compromised their autonomy (see, for example, Shattock 1994). One of the consequences of this at least relatively high level of autonomy was that the state had traditionally possessed few mechanisms to ensure that the universities did its bidding. As higher education expanded and became more economically and socially important in the second half of the century, this absence of effective steering mechanisms became more and more of a problem for governments. The mix of local and national control mechanisms that existed for the rest of education did not extend to the universities. It was thus that a major round of higher education expansion in the 1970s was undertaken mainly within the ‘public’ education sector, i.e. the sector comprising the school system and vocational colleges. This was coupled with the announcement that no new universities would be created in the foreseeable future. A separate socially-responsive type of higher education was to be established in the public sector, not as a preliminary to promotion to university status, but as a separate and important sector of higher education in its own right. This was to be the period of the ‘binary system’ in British higher education (see, for example, Crosland 1965, 1967; Robinson 1968).

3

‘Advanced’ Further Education and the Growth of the Polytechnics

Post-school public education in the UK was and is known as ‘further’ education. It is a very wide term and includes both academic courses of the kind to be found in secondary schools as well as professional courses of different kinds and levels. Today, further education includes some higher education – around 10% of the total higher education in terms of undergraduate student numbers in England (with a much higher proportion in Scotland). Further education has had a long tradition of providing higher education. Until the 1980s, such higher education was technically known as

Higher Education Outside the Universities: The UK Case

233

‘advanced further education’. At the time of the creation of the polytechnics at the end of the 1960s, advanced further education included both higher diploma courses in vocational subjects – especially in engineering and business subjects – and academic degree courses of the University of London. The latter are important to note. Although in a relatively limited number of subjects – the fast-growing social sciences were especially well-catered for – the London degrees provided the foundation for the rapid development of degree courses in the polytechnics. The degrees shared the curriculum and assessments of the ‘internal’ London degrees. They were taught locally in further education colleges but assessed nationally by the University. They were academic degrees in every sense of the term. The association with the University supplied both experience and legitimacy to degrees in the colleges. Subsequent criticisms of the polytechnics for ‘academic drift’ neglect this strong academic foundation in the work of the University of London (Pratt 1997). At the end of the 1960s, 30 polytechnics were created in England and Wales out of a series of mergers of colleges already involved in advanced further education. Formerly colleges of art, of technology and of commerce, these new large institutions were virtually all associated with the University of London external degree arrangements and were offering degree courses in academic subjects in the arts and social sciences and well as in business and technology subjects. Thus, although the polytechnics were generally regarded as a ‘vocational’ sector of higher education, this was certainly never exclusively the case, either at their inception or during their development. There was plenty of ‘vocational’ higher education in the universities and plenty of ‘academic’ higher education in the polytechnics (Robinson 1968). There also continued to exist a substantial amount of higher education outside both universities and polytechnics. This was within further and higher education colleges. The latter (many of which were specialist teacher education colleges) came to be part of a ‘polytechnics and colleges sector’ and several of these institutions were incorporated into neighbouring polytechnics. In a sense, the polytechnics were never intended to be ‘different’ from the universities. Indeed, the charter of the Council for National Academic Awards – the national degree-awarding body for the polytechnics and other non-university institutions – required it to ensure that the standards of degrees awarded in the polytechnics were of the same standard as those awarded by universities. Universitybased academics played an important part in the peer-review quality assurance procedures employed by the Council and did much to ensure that university expectations and standards spread across into the new polytechnic sector. Another important factor was that admission requirements for the polytechnics were the same as for the universities. And they were academic requirements. Of course, many of the high status universities could demand much more than minimum entry standards but they did not demand different kinds of qualification. There did not exist in Britain a separate vocational sector of secondary education leading to a separate vocational higher education sector. Thus, both universities and polytechnics were fishing in the same admissions pool. If polytechnics could not be easily distinguished from universities in terms of the nature of their courses, what then was the basis of the distinction between the two

234

J. Brennan, R. Williams

higher education sectors? As has already been indicated, an important element was control. Universities devised their own curricula and awarded their own degrees. The polytechnics also devised their own curricula but had to seek its ‘validation’ by the Council for National Academic Awards and it was the Council, not the institutions, that awarded the students their degrees. Universities employed their own staff but polytechnic staff were public employees of local government – the ‘local education authorities’ responsible for the other levels of public education. National ‘regional advisory councils’ and a national education inspectorate also held sway over the polytechnics but would not be allowed through the doors of any ‘autonomous’ university. These controls were used to ensure that the polytechnics developed rapidly in providing new degree courses to meet the increasing demand for higher education, both from school-leavers and from older students who had ‘missed out’ on higher education previously. The polytechnics were not funded to undertake research – although many individual staff did so – and a major characteristic of polytechnic higher education was that unit costs were much lower than those found in the universities. Thus, in a real sense polytechnic education was ‘higher education on the cheap’ and therefore a popular vehicle for government to expand higher education rapidly. It is worth emphasising how basically similar polytechnic higher education was to that found in UK universities. All subject fields – with the one exception of medicine – and all academic levels – up to and including the doctorate – found in universities could be found in polytechnics. Certainly, there was a different mix of courses and levels to be found within institutions of the two sectors, and there were new types of academic programmes as well as teaching at levels lower than the bachelor’s degree in the polytechnics which had no counterparts in the universities. But compared with the new types of non-university higher education institutions emerging in continental Europe during the 1970s and 1980s, the polytechnics were more like universities than they were like, for example, German fachochschulen or Dutch HBO institutions. The binary system represented the only British attempt at a systematic development of a distinctive higher education sector outside the universities. Before turning to the present situation, it is necessary to record some of the other features of non-university higher education in the 1970s and 1980s. Although focused in 30 large polytechnic institutions, non-university higher education also existed in a wide variety of other colleges and institutes. Initially, teacher education existed mainly outside of the polytechnics within separate colleges of education under the academic authority of local universities. But when – in response to a government report – the colleges diversified their curricula beyond an exclusive concern with teacher education, many transferred their links to polytechnics and there followed a series of institutional mergers as many colleges of education were ‘taken over’ by their neighbouring polytechnic. Other colleges likewise gave up their separate existence to merge with the fast-growing polytechnics, although others remained separate. The polytechnics gradually managed to loosen the regulatory frameworks that controlled them. They achieved independence from local government in 1987. The Council for National Academic Awards lessened its controls over the most

Higher Education Outside the Universities: The UK Case

235

experienced institutions. They continued to expand. They achieved a reputation for innovation, for good teaching, for widening participation, for social responsiveness and community involvement. And, compared with the universities, they remained relatively cheap. No wonder they were popular with the governments of the time. And their reward came suddenly and with an element of surprise. Overnight, as it were, they were all turned into universities. There remained, however, a significant – but ill-assorted – body of higher education outside of the newly expanded and unified university system.

4

The Current Situation

The major reforms introduced in 1992 formally replaced a ‘binary’ with a ‘unitary’ system of higher education. But such terminology is somewhat misleading. For while the administrative machineries of two separate sectors were replaced by unified machineries (for example, separate funding councils for the universities and for the polytechnics and colleges were replaced by ‘higher education’ funding councils – one each for England, Scotland and Wales) and the previously named polytechnics all became universities, there remained a significant amount of higher education outside of the newly enlarged university sector. Higher education outside the universities is today provided by three main types of institution: publicly-funded higher education colleges (HECs), publicly-funded further education colleges (FECs) providing some higher education level courses (but offering primarily courses at lower academic levels), and other education establishments (including private providers) offering courses leading to a higher education qualification. The rest of this section will describe each of these groups in detail.

4.1

Higher Education Colleges (HECs)

At the beginning of 2005, there were 53 higher education colleges (HECs), although this number is currently changing as some HECs are awarded university status and titles (Table 1). HECs share many of the features of universities and, like universities, they vary in terms of their size, mission, subject spread and history. Since the Higher Education Reform Act of 1988, all are now self-governing and independent although funded substantially through public funds. (Previously, like the polytechnics, they had been part of the locally-organised education system embracing schools and other colleges.) HECs receive most of their public funding for teaching and research from the following national bodies:

236

J. Brennan, R. Williams Table 1 Higher education colleges and universities in the constituent parts of the United Kingdom (February, 2005) (Higher Education in the United Kingdom, HEFCE, 2005) HECs Universities England Northern Ireland Scotland Wales Total

41 2 6 4 53

911 2 14 9 116

Table 2 Specialist subjects found in SCOP higher education colleges (SCOP website (www.scop. ac.uk – retrieved January 2006) ) Subject area Percentage of all UK higher education students educated Agricultural studies Creative arts and design Education Mass communication and documentation

● ● ● ● ●

26 23 22 14

Higher Education Funding Council for England Department for Employment and Learning Northern Ireland Higher Education Funding Council for Wales Scottish Higher Education Funding Council Teacher Training Agency

In terms of these 53 HECs, 34 are currently members of the Standing Conference of Principals (SCOP), which is the representative body for HECs in England and Northern Ireland. According to SCOP, in 2003/04, HECs educated about 8% of all higher education students in the UK (197,160 out of a total HE sector of 2,247,440). Of these 197,160 students, around two-thirds were studying full-time (125,990) and 81% were undergraduates (159,550), with the remainder being postgraduates. In addition, there were 33,865 ‘further education’ students studying at HECs (information on the further education sector is provided below). The average size of a HEC is 4,443 students, but the spread is wide-ranging from small specialist institutions (which focus on disciplines such as art and design, dance and drama, agriculture or nursing) to large multi-discipline institutions (HEFCE 2005). Of the 8% of all UK higher education students that SCOP HECs educate, Table 2 shows that HECs are significant providers in certain subject areas. The larger multi-discipline colleges tend to recruit most of their students locally, often from socially-disadvantaged groups. Their students are generally less highly qualified than their peers entering universities (although there are large variations 1

Includes the 19 schools and institutes of the University of London.

Higher Education Outside the Universities: The UK Case

237

between universities and between different subjects). Some of the smaller specialist colleges, however, recruit nationally and may have quite high entry standards. As we have already noted, compared with universities, higher education colleges are substantially smaller on average. However, the larger ones can realistically aspire to the achievement of university status and title. A necessary stage in the achievement of such status would be the acquisition of degree-awarding powers. All UK universities have the right to award their own degrees (i.e. taught and research degrees) by authority of a Royal Charter or Act of Parliament. However, this is not the case with other higher education providers, including HECs. Those higher education providers that do not have degree awarding powers must seek accreditation or validation from a university or a national accrediting body (see below). HECs can apply for degree awarding powers and a number have successfully done so. An institution wishing to apply for such powers must make an application to the Privy Council (a state body independent of the government of the day). Applications are then sent to the UK’s Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) for advice. The QAA’s advice is based upon criteria relating to factors such as organisational governance and management, quality assurance and academic standards, arrangements for supporting student learning, staffing and the organisation’s administrative infrastructure (QAA website). Degree awarding powers are granted indefinitely to publicly-funded higher education institutions. The criteria for award of a university title differ slightly between the different parts of the UK. In England and Wales, if a HEC has possessed degree-awarding powers for taught courses and has more than 4,000 students, it can apply to the Privy Council to use the title of ‘university’ (a requirement that an institution must have research degree awarding powers has recently been abolished). Smaller colleges with degree-awarding powers can apply to use the title of ‘university college’. In Scotland and Northern Ireland, a HEC must have both taught and research-degree awarding powers before it can apply for university title. Thus, for a minority of HECs, their current status is a transitory one on the way to full university status. Since the requirement to possess research-degree awarding powers was abolished, around a couple of HECs per year have been upgraded to university status. The absence of research degree awarding powers does of course invite the informal appellation of ‘teaching university’ for such institutions. As mentioned above, those HECs that do not have degree-awarding powers must have their higher education provision ‘accredited’ or ‘validated’ by a university or other organisation – such as a HEC – that has degree-awarding powers. These ‘partnerships’ result in what is known as ‘collaborative arrangements’. These arrangements will also apply to partnerships between universities/HECs and FECs, other education establishments and private higher education and training providers, both in the UK and internationally. The important point to note from this is that higher education provided by non-university institutions will in many cases lead to an academic award of a university. Arrangements for accreditation or validation will vary depending on the nature and context of the particular partnership, but the main partners will be the awarding

238

J. Brennan, R. Williams

institution (i.e. with degree-awarding powers, normally a university) and the providing institution or organisation (i.e. providing the higher education programme, but without degree awarding powers). In all cases, accreditation or validation (terminology tends to vary between universities) is the result of an evaluation process conducted by peer review. The awarding institution is responsible for the quality and standards of all the awards that are granted in that institution’s name. Collaborative arrangements are subject to institutional audit by the QAA,2 which will explore the effectiveness of quality management at institutional level and at programme level. If the partnership is on a large scale or complex, or is international, the Agency will undertake a separate review to the institutional audit. In particular, the QAA will examine: (i) The effectiveness of an awarding institution’s internal quality assurance structures and mechanisms for its collaborative arrangements in the context of the Code of Practice (see below) (ii) The accuracy, completeness and reliability of the information that an awarding institution publishes about the quality of the programmes leading to its awards and the standards of its awards (iii) Examples of the awarding institution’s quality assurance and academic standards processes for its collaborative arrangements The QAA’s Code of Practice for the assurance of academic quality and standards in higher education includes a set of key issues (called ‘precepts’) with accompanying guidance that specifically cover collaborative arrangements, as follows: ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Responsibility for, and equivalence of, academic standards Policies, procedures and information Selecting a partner organisation or agent Written agreements with a partner organisation or agent Assuring academic standards and the quality of programmes and awards Assessment requirements External examining Certificates and transcripts Information for students Publicity and marketing

Arrangements for accreditation and validation will vary within the above framework and between institutions. Some HECs and other organisations without degree awarding powers have partnerships with several universities, and these different partnerships will relate to different types of programmes. The above arrangements for quality assurance outside the universities are important because they effectively reference quality and standards in non-university 2 The QAA is responsible for reviewing standards and quality in UK higher education. It does this through institutional audit (which varies somewhat between the different parts of the UK), which aims to ‘ensure that institutions are providing higher education, awards and qualifications of an acceptable quality and an appropriate academic standard’. Retrieved January 2006 from www.qaa.ac.uk.

Higher Education Outside the Universities: The UK Case

239

institutions against quality and standards in universities. From one perspective, this can make it more difficult for the non-university institutions to develop distinctive and innovative provision relevant to the needs of their learners. But from another perspective, this ensures that learners are not short-changed by an inferior educational product and that they achieve academic awards that will be fully recognised both within the academic community and by the labour market. How far this is achieved in practice is, of course, another matter. UK higher education is sharply hierarchical, with most higher education colleges positioned below a university sector which is itself increasingly stratified. Common quality assurance arrangements may provide some guarantee of minimum quality and standards but they can do little to counteract the reputational difference between institutions.

4.2

Further Education Colleges (FECs)

Compulsory education in the UK ends at the age of 16. After this age, people can continue their studies in secondary schools up to university/HEC entrance or move into a further education college where they can choose either to continue preuniversity academic studies or select more vocational programmes. They can also, of course, opt to leave education entirely and enter the labour market. Part-time study is a further option after the ending of compulsory education. Further education colleges (FECs) are funded by the Learning and Skills Council in England, the Department of Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland, the Scottish Further Education Funding Council and the Further Education Funding Council for Wales. FECs can be categorised as either specialist or generalist. Specialist FECs (or sixth form colleges) focus on the education of 16–19 year-olds and are concerned especially with those qualifications that help young people gain entry to higher education. Generalist FECs, as well as the 16–19 year old age group, will provide opportunities for adult learners and work-based learners, and some will also provide ‘access’ courses to higher education in other institutions and their own higher education courses. The UK has over 500 FECs, of which a number provide some higher education courses. FECs are seen as playing an important part in delivering future growth in higher education (Parry et al. 2004) and, in particular, in widening participation in it. Parry et al. distinguish between two types of higher education which are provided in FECs3:

3 This distinction mainly refers to arrangements in England. The Scottish system of higher education in further education colleges is discussed separately. Parry also refers to a third category: that which is categorised as ‘non-prescribed’ higher education (i.e. the absence of a formal course of study) comprising National Vocational Qualifications at Levels 4 and 5, and a wide range of other professional, technical and vocational qualifications (63,000 students in 2000/01), which is not covered in this chapter.

240 ●

●

J. Brennan, R. Williams

That which is funded directly by the national higher education funding council and assessed directly by QAA and offered by FECs in their own right (87,000 students in 2000/01). For example, in 2004/05 the Higher Education Funding Council for England directly funded courses in over 150 FECs. That which is funded indirectly through ‘franchise’ agreements between universities and FECs, i.e. courses are taught by the FEC, while responsibility for the students, the quality of the student learning experience and standards of the award lies with the awarding institution that receives the funding (37,000 students in 2000/01).

Currently, in England, around 10% of higher education students study in FECs, whereas in Scotland the proportion is much higher (Table 3). FECs offer a range of what is often referred to as ‘sub-degree’ or ‘other’ undergraduate qualifications (i.e. below the level of the first degree), such as Higher National Certificates and Diplomas (HNC/Ds), Certificates in Higher Education, Diplomas in Higher Education (generally these are two-year qualifications if studied full-time) as well as first degree and postgraduate degree qualifications. Most higher education in FECs, however, tends to be below the level of the first degree and is often undertaken by part-time students. There is also the new Foundation Degree, which is discussed below. In 2000/01 in England, the following students were being taught in FECs. Parry et al. point to four distinguishing features of higher education provision in FECs as identified in a 1995 HEFCE study: ●

●

● ●

The types of courses offered are closely connected to the world of work and cover such areas as business and management, engineering and technology. FECs serve ‘geographically dispersed and educationally marginalized populations’ (HEFCE 1995), play an important role in widening access to higher education, and tend to attract non-traditional students including part-time and mature students. FECs are well placed to ease the transition from further to higher education. FECs are well placed to provide specialist higher education provision related to local and employer needs. Table 3 Higher education students in further education colleges in England (Taken from Parry et al. (Table 1) ) Level of qualification offered Number of students taught (1,000s) Postgraduate First degree Other undergraduate, comprising: HND HNC DipHE CertHE Other undergraduate diplomas/certificates Professional qualifications at undergraduate level Other qualifications at undergraduate level

8.0 24.9 91.2 39.6 43.1 1.7 0.6 4.3 0.2 1.8

Higher Education Outside the Universities: The UK Case

241

Whereas both FECs and higher education institutions in England offer sub-degree level qualifications, in Scotland these qualifications tend to be the preserve of the FECs. Indeed, the Scottish further education sector is a distinct ‘system of advanced vocational learning in specialist institutions’ (Gallacher 2003: 1). There is also a separate system for the development, validation and accreditation of awards by the Scottish Qualifications Authority, a system that is not dependent (unlike in England) on collaborative arrangements and on a quality assurance system designed primarily for the universities and HECs. Thus, the FECs in Scotland have been able to develop their ‘own programmes of higher education which are distinct from and independent of the higher education institutions’ (ibid.: 5). The following table (Table 4) shows the number of higher education students studying in Scottish universities and HECs compared to those studying in FECs by mode of attendance for 2000/01. Around two thirds (64%) of higher education students in FECs in Scotland are studying for HNC/Ds with a strong vocational focus, whereas only 3% are studying first degree programmes, unlike in England where the figure is around 20%. As in England, however, most students study part-time and are generally older than those studying in the universities and HECs. Higher education in further education colleges is subject to slightly different national quality assurance arrangements from higher education in universities or HECs. In England, directly funded higher education provision in further education colleges is reviewed at the level of the academic subject by the QAA. Provision which is indirectly funded, i.e. through collaborative arrangements with universities/HECs, is audited at the level of the institution by QAA – as discussed above. In Wales, the institutional review process which is applied to all higher education also includes those higher education programmes provided by FECs. In Scotland, we have already noted above that the further education sector is quite distinct from the higher education sector; quality assurance of further education qualifications comes under the remit of the Scottish Qualifications Authority. The FECs are an important element in the government’s plans for widening participation in higher education (White Paper 2003). However, this is not a recent phenomenon. As discussed above, over the last couple of decades FECs have worked in partnership with other higher education institutions to develop collaborative arrangements aimed at encouraging participation in higher education among social groups that have traditionally been under-represented there. Connected to this, there are two initiatives that we would wish to draw attention to, one well-established – Access courses – and the other a more recent development – Foundation Degrees. Table 4 Higher education students in Scotland – comparison of higher and further education institutions (Taken from Gallacher 2003 (Table 2)) Universities/HECs FECs Total Full-time Part-time Total

116,253 (79%) 26,378 (39%) 142,631 (66%)

31,293 (21%) 41,168 (61%) 72,461 (34%)

147,546 67,546 215,092

242

J. Brennan, R. Williams

Access courses provide a preparation for higher education; most are offered by FECs. They are mainly aimed at mature students and those groups that are underrepresented in higher education and who do not possess the traditional entry qualifications to higher education. Courses are developed locally and in partnership with universities/HECs. Access courses in England, Northern Ireland and Wales are recognised by the QAA, which regulates the national recognition scheme. QAA is also responsible for their quality and standards. In 2002/03 there were over 1,500 Access courses with over 40,000 students registered (QAA website). The Foundation Degree (FD), launched in 2000, is a new initiative which aims to provide ‘a high quality, intermediate, vocational higher education qualification … (produced) through partnership, developing effective work-based learning and integration with the existing qualifications system’ (Foundation Degree Task Force 2004: 3). It is intended that the new degree (of two-years’ length or its part-time equivalent) be delivered through partnerships between FECs and universities/HECs, with the involvement of employers. The aim of the new qualification is not just to widen participation to achieve greater equity and social justice but to increase participation for reasons of national and regional economic competitiveness. It was also intended that the FD would break the dominant model of the three-year first degree, the 18 year-old school leaver, and full-time study mode. The FD is distinctive: ‘it gives credit for learning through engagement with employers and in employment practice, in addition to learning through more conventional academic study’ (ibid.: 9). Thus, the new qualification is intended to have high levels of ‘employer involvement in the design, delivery and even assessment of programmes of study than is generally the case in HE courses’ (ibid.: 9). In 2003/04, over 24,000 students were enrolled on around 800 FD programmes. Twelve thousand students were enrolled part-time. Foundation Degree students tend to be older than first degree and other sub-degree students, and are less likely to have the traditional entry qualifications for higher education. Currently, FDs can only be awarded by universities/HECs with degree-awarding powers. It is intended that the FD should be an intermediate qualification but integrated into the first degree system through progression arrangements between different institutions. In 2003/04 there were 70 universities/HECs and 46 FECs that were funded to provide the FD qualification.

4.3

Other Educational Establishments

In addition to the higher and further education colleges discussed above, there are a number of other types of organisations that provide higher education courses. And being without degree awarding powers, these organisations are also subjected to accreditation or validation by a university (or HEC). These organisations are very mixed; the list below provides a flavour of the types of organisations that exist:

Higher Education Outside the Universities: The UK Case ●

● ●

●

●

243

School centred initial teacher training (SCITT) consortia. These are schools that have joined together to design and conduct government training programmes. Theological colleges providing religious education and training. International organisations that operate in the UK and elsewhere, and wish to have their higher education programmes accredited or validated by a UK university. Professional organisations covering areas such as accountancy, architecture, engineering, psychology and other health-related disciplines. Private sector providers of work-based learning, much of which leads to lower level awards.

As the list implies, these organisations tend to provide specialist higher education programmes. The UK has only one university that is private, i.e. fully independent of direct government support – the University of Buckingham. The University was granted a Royal Charter with full degree awarding powers in 1983. Unlike publicly funded universities and colleges, the university is not subjected to external review by the QAA. However, to confirm that its quality and standards were comparable to other higher education institutions, the university invited QAA to carry out an audit in 2003, which placed ‘broad confidence’ in the university’s management of the quality of its programmes and the academic standards of its awards.

5

Futures

The current higher education system in the UK is perhaps best described as a unitary sector comprising higher education institutions of many different types and with quite fuzzy boundaries with other forms of tertiary education. Some would argue for a further breaking down of boundaries as has happened to some extent in Scotland and Wales. Current British government policy is to continue to expand higher education. And much of the expansion is planned to take place outside of the universities. Foundation Degrees are currently the most important part of what is frequently being described in policy documents as ‘vocational’ higher education, a rather restricted use of a much larger concept. And this form of vocational higher education is largely to be found in the further education colleges and indeed to grow out of their traditions and their links with employers. There is, though, no suggestion of creating a separate sector of vocational higher education. The emphasis is upon links between educational institutions of different types, often on a regional basis. For the higher education colleges, there remains the possibility of ‘promotion’ to university status for the larger ones. Many of the others will continue to occupy a niche in specialist professional courses. Through their quality assurance role, universities will continue to exercise considerable influence over the development of non-university higher education, whether in further or higher education colleges.

244

J. Brennan, R. Williams

All of this is expected to operate through market pressures and the role of state regulation is still relatively minimal by international comparisons. It is exercised primarily through the various funding councils, the roles of which are themselves subject to continuing debate as more and more is expected to be driven by market forces. Many would argue, however, that UK higher education – inside and outside the universities – continues to be ‘supply-side’ driven, whatever the rhetoric to the contrary. And universities remain pre-eminent in that supply-side. The challenge of the polytechnics was seen off and replaced by an increasingly differentiated and hierarchical system of institutions. Within this system, higher education outside of the universities occupies an important and growing, but ultimately relatively modest, place. Most of Britain’s universities started life as more modest institutions at various points over the last 200 years. It is doubtful whether ‘promotions’ to university status are likely for many of today’s colleges although, as the concept of a university continues to change and as even the smallest of towns and communities expects to have a local university, it would be unwise to entirely rule out some further institutional mobility up the educational status ladder.

References Cm 5735 (White Paper). The Future of Higher Education. Norwich, England: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 2003. Crosland C. “Speeches at Woolwich Polytechnic (1965) and Lancaster University (1967)”. Quoted in Pratt, J., and T. Burgess. Polytechnics: A Report. London: Pitman, 1974, pp. 203–213. Foundation Degree Task Force. Foundation Degree Task Force Report to Ministers. Nottingham, England: Department for Education and Skills, 2004. Gallacher J. Higher Education in Further Education Colleges. The Scottish Experience. London: Council for Industry and Higher Education, 2003. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Higher Education in Further Education Colleges: Funding the Relationship. Bristol, England: HEFCE, 1995. Higher Education Funding Council for England. Higher Education in the United Kingdom. Bristol, England: HEFCE, 2005. Parry G., P. Davies, and J. Williams. Difference, Diversity and Distinctiveness. Higher Education in the Learning and Skills Sector. London: Learning and Skills Development Agency, 2004. Pratt J. The Polytechnic Experiment 1965–1992. Buckingham, England: SRHE and Open University Press, 1997. QAA website: www.qaa.ac.uk. Robinson E. The New Polytechnics. Harmondsworth, London: Penguin, 1968. Shattock M. The UGC and the Management of British Universities. Buckingham, England: SRHE and Open University Press, 1994. Standing Conference of Principals, London (January, 2006); http://www.scop.ac.uk., 2006.

Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity? Maria de Lourdes Machado, José Brites Ferreira, Rui Santiago, and James S. Taylor

1

Introduction

Today in Europe, the binary system is predominant. However, in the more complex overall scheme of things in European higher education, questions can be raised. What are the missions of university and non-university institutions? Does the present structure of the binary system of higher education, with universities and non-university institutions, offer an adequate answer to the mission and needs of higher education? The Bologna Process is a central theme within the agenda of European higher education, putting in motion a series of reforms needed to make European higher education more compatible, comparable, competitive and attractive for European citizens and scholars, as well as those from other continents. One of its objectives is to establish within Europe a harmonised structure of programmes and degrees. In this sense, the Bologna Process appears to have the potential to contribute to important transformations in higher education, both in the university and nonuniversity sectors. In addition, the Bologna Process appears to be used by governments to implement and legitimate national policies. This then impacts the relationship between universities and polytechnics. It would be incorrect to say that the changes and challenges facing European higher education are related solely to the Bologna Process. But without any doubt, the Bologna Process is influencing and determining the political agenda in European higher education. In this context, and within the framework of the Bologna Process, the question is: What diversity looms in the future? The diversity of higher education was assumed in the past to be of growing importance in the management of systems and institutions, and was considered as a positive dynamic (Amaral et al. 2006; Teichler 2002). Authors such as Stadtman (1980) presented diversity as a way to improve students’ choice, to democratise access, to better attend to students’ individual needs, and to allow institutions to better define their mission and strategies. In this context it could be expected that diversity helps to meet societal needs, and to create conditions for improved institutional autonomy. Under the existing circumstances, it is difficult to get answers about the future of higher education, and particularly about the non-university sub-system. There

James S. Taylor et al. (eds.) Non-University Higher Education in Europe, © Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2008

245

246

M. de Lourdes Machado et al.

are many questions that we could ask in the context of the Bologna Process. Given this situation, we can ask where the non-university sector is headed. Considering the reframing that is happening in the European Area, are we moving toward convergence or diversity? In addition to the Bologna Process several other issues arise in the non-university sector. Recall, for instance, the questions raised by Skilbeck (2002: 143) that are real and remain on our agendas today: The existence of different, often overlapping sectors, of study programmes and routes poses many questions for policy makers and institutions: ●

●

●

●

●

● ●

●

●

●

Are the roles assigned to universities and non-university institutions as clear-cut and stable as policy directions, resourcing and the different internal structures seem to suggest? Are the institutions able to define and maintain clear distinctions about their missions and the educational and research facilities and services they offer, given the overlapping and drifting that occurs? Is research selectively preferable to a policy that seeks to strengthen the capability of all institutions? Should the boundaries become more permeable, in respect of entry requirements, courses, qualifications, and areas of concentration? How do governments and regulatory authorities propose to maintain or change the boundaries as tertiary education becomes ever more widely available and flexible in delivery? Can a policy of “equal but different” be sustained over time? What are the reasonable requirements of students and the community at large for information and advice about the kinds of provisional access to the degrees on offer, and the standards and standing of the programmes? How can better articulation be achieved such that students enrolling in one kind of programme or institution do not find themselves at a dead end on completion? Is there a need to provide common or core curricular elements and to ensure that all key competences and learning strategies feature in all study programmes, at least for initial degrees and other qualifications? Are synergies and other complementarities being pursued both horizontally within tertiary education and between the secondary and tertiary levels?

Each of these questions could easily be sub-divided into many others, the answers to which would inexorably lead to other questions and, one hopes, more answers. The mission of the polytechnic sub-sector is frequently defined as: teaching and vocational training; applied research; support to regional development, and relations with economic and social activities. Do these involvements appropriately fall under the umbrella of higher education? What constitutes the appropriate institutions for meeting this mission: polytechnics, universities, or both? Are the systems evolving toward convergence or diversity? Several authors concluded that the higher education systems show some tendency toward differentiation and diversity (Parsons and Platt 1973; Clark 1978, 1983, 1996). On the other hand, there are authors defending the view that the higher education systems tend toward a reduction of diversity (Riesman 1956; Birnbaum 1983; Rhoades 1990). De Weert (2006) suggests the differentiating distinctions between the university and non-university sectors may be becoming more blurred, and that the challenge to the binary divide may be enhanced by a converging dynamic brought about by the Bologna Process. We are thus confronted with several

Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity?

247

challenges in defining the distinct roles of these institutional types, and are therefore facing a new agenda for higher education.

2

Overview of Structural Models of Higher Education Systems and Non-University Institutional Types

In recent decades, the higher education systems of the world have been the subject to many changes. The context of these potential changes is very different from past decades. Grubb (2003: 5) emphasised: At the beginning of the 21st century the landscape of tertiary education is quite different that it was even 10 years ago. Many more countries have established tertiary colleges and institutes; many have targeted them to high rates of growth. The roles of tertiary colleges and institutes have continued to evolve, though the search for identity is still a crucial issue.

The importance and growth are also recognised by Schugurensky (2003: 307), During the post-World War II period, the most important single trend worldwide in higher education was undoubtedly the expansion of the system.

Until 1960, higher education was the exclusive space of the universities. But the growth in the number of students in many countries in parallel with new economic and social exigencies and growing specialisation (horizontal and vertical) in the social division of work changed this situation. As stated by Gürüz (2003: 11): Starting in the sixties, non-university institutions have been founded that offer vocational and technical programmes at bachelor’s and sub-bachelor’s-level and similar programmes have been established within some traditional universities to meet the increasing demand for higher education and to educate and train the intermediate-level manpower requirements of advancing economies where tertiary-level qualifications were being required in an increasing number of jobs.

In many European countries the university system expanded considerably. Nonuniversity higher education institutions were established, in addition to the upgrading of existing post-secondary schools to colleges of higher education. According to Teichler (2002: 177–178), Moreover it is widely assumed that higher education systems were under pressure of diversification in recent decades due to the growth of enrolment rates, because the students became more heterogeneous in terms of motivations, competences and career prospects, and because governments were not willing to pay for an expansion of the research-oriented sector of higher education in tune with the rising student demand for higher education (Trow 1974; Clark 1976; Teichler 1998; Jallade 1991; Meek et al. 1996).

Therefore, in Europe, as a result of the demand for places in higher education, some countries expanded their universities (Italy, Spain and Sweden), and others created alternative institutions. In Western Europe, the reorganisation of higher education in most countries included the creation of a second institutional type. Different from traditional universities, the non-university sector was more oriented toward

248

M. de Lourdes Machado et al.

vocational educational programmes, and the preparation for a profession or for the qualifications required for a specific occupation. In some other countries, these programmes and schools were integrated within the traditional universities. According to Grubb (2003: 2): (…) The decision to expand or create alternative institutions partly reflects a reaction against universities, which have been seen in many countries as too rigid, too academic in the pejorative occupational preparation, too elitist and inegalitarian, too unconcerned with the quality of teaching, too geographically remote for much of the population, and often too expensive.

Kyvik (2006) examined the non-university sector in Western Europe over a period of four decades. He identified the driving forces for change over time as a move from fragmented expansion to one of unified standardisation. This was followed by a vertical integration of the university and non-university sectors as a function of mission drift. The enormous growth of higher education in the second half of the last century had important consequences on the organisation of the national systems of higher education (Grubb 2003; Teichler, see chapter in this book). For instance, Eurich (1981) noted a very strong relationship between the level of economic development in a country and the type of higher education system it adopts. As might be expected, countries that tend to have more focused and centralised governmental controls also tend to adopt a more focused single system of higher education. Countries with decentralised controls and a federal government are more inclined to develop multiple higher education systems. Examples of the former include Italy, Spain and Sweden; while Canada, Australia, Mexico and the United States represent the latter (Clark 1983). Scott (1996) distinguished among university-dominated systems, dual systems, binary systems, unified systems and stratified systems. And Kyvik (2004) discussed the typology of tertiary higher education systems. According to the author, the most common system in Europe is the binary system.1 The stratified system as we know it in the American form cannot be identified within the European countries (see Table 1). 1

Scott (1996) and Kyvik (2004) provided the definitions for the different systems. Scott (1996: 43). University-dominated systems: where universities per se and other specialized colleges at the university level are involved. In these circumstances, offerings of a more vocational orientation such as engineering, nursing and teacher education were not included. With the notable exception of Italy, Europe tended toward this model through the first half of the 20th century. Dual systems: in which these other institutions are now acknowledge to be properly post-secondary and the need for co-ordination with the university sector is recognized, although the latter are still seen structurally superior. Binary systems: in which two parallel higher education systems, one consisting of the traditional universities and the other based on ‘alternative’ institutions, develop (there is a tendency for the relationship between these two systems to drift away from complementarity and towards competition). Furthermore Kyvik (2004: 394) distinguished dual and binary systems as follows:

Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity?

249

Table 1 A typology of higher education systems in Western Europe (Kyvik 2004) University-dominated systems Dual systems Binary systems Unified systems Italy

Austria

The Netherlands Germany Belgium Sweden Norway Ireland Greece Portugal Denmark Finland Switzerland

UK Spain

Table 2 Translation of non-university sector institution titles to English (Adapted from Amaral et al. 2006) Country Designation in the original language Designation in English Austria Finland Flanders/Belgium Germany Ireland Netherlands

Fachhochschulen Ammattikorkeakoulu (AMK) Hogeschool Fachhochschulen Institutes of Technology Hogescholen

Norway Portugal

Hogsckolen Instituto Politécnico

University of Applied Sciences Polytechnic College of Higher Education University of Applied Sciences Institutes of Technology University of Professional Education University College Polytechnic Institute

The binary system is common to most of the European countries that created different types of higher education institutions in contrast to the traditional universities. In this book the authors, when referring to non-university institutions, mean the ones included in Table 2. It should be noted that in four of the eight countries studied (Germany, Austria, Holland and Norway), the term university can be connected to a qualifier (i.e., technical university, university of applied sciences) and used internationally for marketing and recruitment purposes when referring to the non-university sector. The designation “non-university higher education” is not universal. Over time, several designations were adopted to distinguish higher education institutions other In the dual systems, universities and other post-secondary education institutions are regarded as entirely separate and treated differently (…). A distinction is made between the university and non-university sectors, where the former clearly dominate (…). The binary system can be said to be a more formalized version of a dual system. One important difference is that in the binary model the non-university sector is normally subject to a common system of regulations. Unified systems: are exemplified by universities offering both traditional academic programs of study and vocational programmes. Unified systems evolved from polytechnic institutes that were elevated to university status, such as in the United Kingdom; from the merger of universities and polytechnics as in Australia; or by infusing university curricula with vocational post-secondary offerings as in Spain.

250

M. de Lourdes Machado et al.

than universities: “short-cycle”, “vocational higher education”, “professional higher education”, “colleges” and “polytechnics” (Teichler 2002). According to the study by Amaral et al. (2006), the genesis and development of the non-university sector varied across countries. For example, in Flanders/Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway it evolved from non-higher education institutions already in existence that had been object of change and transformation since the 1960s. More recently, in the 1990s, mergers of most of those institutions were observed (Boezerooy 2003; Goedegebuure 1992; Verhoeven and Devos 2002; Verhoeven, see chapter in this book; Kyvik 2002, and see chapter in this book). In Germany, the fachhoschulen were established in the 1970s, in response to professional training needs and the development of applied research (Huisman 2003). In Austria, the fachhoschulen were created in the 1990s under a different regulatory framework than the universities. According to Beerkens (2003) and Hackl (see chapter in this book), the creation of those institutions represented, on the one hand, the end of the monopoly of the federal government in higher education and, on the other hand, an attempt to expand decentralisation. In Finland, the polytechnics were created in the 1990s by different entities such as municipalities, federations of municipalities, consortia and foundations (Välimaa and Neuvonen-Rauhala, see chapter in this book). In Ireland, the non-university sector resulted from a restructuring that occurred in the 1990s. It produced several institutional types, the most significant being the Institutes of Technology. In Portugal, the polytechnic institutes were created in the 1970s, but it was during the 1980s and 1990s that they truly developed (Ferreira, Machado and Santiago, see chapter in this book). The non-university sector is currently a reality in European higher education. The Netherlands, Flanders/Belgium, Finland, Ireland and Norway have numbers of students in the non-university sector that surpass the university sector, and in several other countries the numbers are also high (see Table 3).

Table 3 Percentages of first-year students in the university and non-university sectors (Kyvik 2004) Country University sector Non-university sector The Netherlands Belgium (Flanders) Finland Ireland Norway Denmark Portugal Sweden Germany Switzerland Austria Italy United Kingdom Spain

25 30 40 45 45 50 60 60 70 70 85 90 90 100

75 70 60 55 55 50 40 40 30 30 15 10 10 –

Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity?

251

There are three main reasons for the development of the non-university sector: ● ● ●

The potential contributions to regional development Better articulation between secondary and post-secondary education The desire for more vocationally- and professionally-oriented tertiary education in response to workplace needs

The duration of studies is shorter in the non-university sector of higher education. With respect to the degrees, and as a check against potential academic and professional drift, local regulations imposed some differentiating designations for each sector to clarify the vocational or professional nature of the diplomas granted. However, in several countries (e.g. The Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Finland and Portugal), the non-university institutions can offer the same type of training and degrees as the university sector (with the exception of the Ph.D. degrees and, in some countries, also the masters). In some instances, for example Portugal, as a result of the implementation of the Bologna Process non-university institutions are authorised to award professional masters degrees if they meet the necessary requirements in areas such as the qualifications of the academic staff. With the passage of higher education from elitism to the mass market, diversification assumed an important role and was considered a positive dynamic by several authors (Stadtman 1980; Birnbaum 1983; van Vught 1996). There are several arguments in favor of diversity. Taylor (2003: 268) refers to Stadtman (1980) stating diversity: ● ● ● ● ● ●

3

Increases the range of choices available to learners Makes higher education available to virtually everyone Matches education to the needs and abilities of individual students Enables institutions to select their own mission and confine their activities Responds to the pressures of a society (complex and diversified in itself) Becomes a precondition of college and university freedom and a utonomy

Trends Facing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Is Bologna Reframing the European Higher Education Systems?

The European higher education agenda is heavily influenced by the Bologna Process, which appears to have the potential to contribute to a stronger alliance, integration and articulation between the national higher education systems within Europe, as well as between the university and non-university sectors. As stated by Viara (2006: 12), “These dynamics, nowadays are enforced and made manifest by the Bologna Process.” Over time, legal frameworks were produced to regulate some aspects of the two sectors of higher education in various ways in each country. However, there were several common indicators of differentiation between the non-university sector and the universities:

252 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

M. de Lourdes Machado et al.

Legal framework Objectives of each sector Duration of study programmes/courses Careers of academic staff Access of students Autonomy of institutions Governance of the institutions Non-existence of research programmes Creation of training programmes that had been outside of higher education

The history of the development of the non-university sector shows a growing approximation with the university sector, specifically in the areas of the legal framework, the duration of study programmes/courses, the qualifications of academic staff and the development of applied research. Some of the reasons that justified the creation of the non-university sector – regional development, networking with economic and social activities, and experimental development and applied research – are today also present in the universities. This growing approximation between the two sectors has often been referred to as “academic drift”. On this issue Skolnik and Davis (2004: 18) stressed, A common theme in this history (history of higher education) is that of post-secondary institutions that started off as something quite distinct from universities evolving to universities.

The objectives of non-university institutions, even though different from the universities, did not impede their growing approximation to the universities, especially with regard to the organisation, length of degrees and the degrees awarded. In many cases, the nonuniversity sector is identified in international circles by names such as University of Applied Sciences or University College (see Table 2 presented earlier). Some differentiations, however, can be seen between universities and non-university institutions: ●

●

●

●

●

●

The duration of studies were shorter in the non-university sector and oriented to specific professions, frequently not resulting in the awarding of any degree. Research was not present in the non-university sector and the careers and qualifications required of academic staff were also different from the university sector. The “academic drift” of non-university institutions has been accompanied by a countering “vocational/professional drift” in the universities. Academic careers are different in the two sectors; however the degrees of academic staff are more similar than in the past. In some cases, the legal framework of higher education institutions has been subject to changes, thus bringing the two sectors closer together. And, no less relevant, today universities and non-universities compete for the same students.

Besides the big challenges such as globalization, the growing role of knowledge, and the dimension of information and communication, a number of trends come to mind with respect to higher education institutions. First, the broad concept of European integration, interdisciplinary curricular developments, business-institutional partnerships and trans-national degrees are just a few of the venues that confront the contemporary HEI today, irrespective of the kind of institution.

Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity?

253

Table 4 The perceived challenges institutions are facing in the future (Adapted from Amaral et al. 2006) AU FI FL(B) GE IR NL NO PT Bologna Process Consolidation Quality Students Recruitment Research and Development Markets Financing Training Adequacy External Relations and Development Academic (Mission) Drift Cooperation and Internationalization Role of Academic Staff Network Training Human Resources

X

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X X X

X X X

X

X

X X X

X

X X X X

X X

X

X X X X

X X X

X

X X

The study developed at CIPES (Amaral et al. 2006),2 attempted to discover the challenges for non-university institutions in the coming years, with a focus on their relationships to the universities. The challenges revealed from the interviews are several (see Table 4), but the one mentioned most frequently and with major relevance is the Bologna Process. In this context, some of those interviewed questioned the legitimacy of a binary system in higher education. Others did not question the binary system directly, though they did point to the belief that the development of the Bologna agenda would be the mechanism that would resolve the question. The possibility of the non-university sector developing bachelors and masters programs is a challenge and opportunity clearly defended by almost all institutions. Overall, those interviewed thought that the Bologna Process would be a very important ally for the non-university sector in this arena. However, upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the circumstances and opinions were notably different from one country to another. In Germany, the central position is to maintain the binary distinction and retain the fachhoschulen in their present form, resisting the temptation to transform them into universities. At the same time, those interviewed tended to be of the opinion that in time the binary system will cease to exist. Ultimately then, a few fachhoschulen could be transformed into universities; the majority could be transformed into training “networks”; while the smaller ones could be transformed into training academies that are outside of the higher education sector. Even within this current day perspective, Teichler (2004) stated that in Germany it would be considered provocative to speak about fachhoschulen as the non-university sector. He points to the organisational model and governance structure of the fachhoschulen as very similar to that found within the universities.

2

This study includes eight jurisdictions: Austria, Flanders (Belgium), Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Portugal.

254

M. de Lourdes Machado et al.

In Austria, the fachhoschulen are very recent, having been created in the 1990s, and currently undergoing a period of consolidation (Hackl, chapter in this book). The political option for a binary system has thus far been very clear. The recent history of these institutions has not shown any movement toward a blurring of the lines of distinction between them and the universities. Initially, the universities were convinced that the introduction of the fachhoschulen would not be met with success. However, according to recent changes in the law, the fachhoschulen can be partners with universities in associations. The consequences of the Bologna Process do not seem to lend clarity to the future of the fachhoschulen in Austria. Similar to Austria in some aspects is the case of Finland, also created in the 1990s within a context strongly influenced by the new public management movement. According to Välimaa and Neuvonen-Rauhala (2004: 17), the implementation and development of the non-university sector (the polytechnics) was accompanied by “vocational drift” in the universities and “academic drift” in the polytechnics. However, at the moment the number of vacancies exceeds the number of candidates. According to the authors, “The Bologna Process has the potential to change the relationship between polytechnic and university degrees (…) (and) (…) may transform the structure of Finnish higher education”. In Ireland, the expectations of those interviewed regarding the Bologna Process are very high, above all regarding the possibilities of new degrees. The political option for the binary system is clearly favourable. But, according to Clancy (2004: 20), “As in other EU countries, the implementation of the Bologna Process will inevitably bring some changes”. The author continues, “(…) its implementation has not been pursued with the same vigour as in some other countries”. The agenda of Irish higher education seems be determined not only by the Bologna Process, but also by the OECD and the agenda of Lisbon 2000. The interviewees from Flanders/Belgium view the Bologna Process with very high expectations as well. In fact, there is little relevant opposition against the Bologna Process. The colleges and universities have already adopted the bachelorsmasters system. Furthermore, all institutions within the non-university sector are members of associations with the universities without apparent threat to the binary system. In this sense, Verhoeven (2004: 38) asks: “(…) will the universities become more like the colleges or will the colleges become more like the universities? At present, no one can say with certainty.” In The Netherlands, the Bologna Process seems to reinforce the abolition of boundaries between the two systems of higher education and to increase mobility. As stated by Huisman (2004), the boundaries in higher education are moving and there are some indications of academic drift of the hogescholen: the institutions tend to use the title of “University of Professional Education”; they can offer masters programmes (particularly in cooperation with British universities); and “the emergence of lectorates at hogescholen.3 3 According to Huisman (2004: 17) “Whereas the aim was to appoint persons that in a general sense would contribute to knowledge transfer and circulation, many hogescholen took a much more specific approach and recruited staff appointed at universities. (…) the interpretation of many hogescholen of the lectorate is another indication of academic drift.”

Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity?

255

In Norway, the recent dynamic of higher education has created a growing relationship between the two sectors of higher education. According to Kyvik (chapter in this book), three factors have emerged within the non-university higher education sector: academic drift, standardisation and regionalisation. The author underlines that these tendencies will likely continue in coming years and that there is an ongoing public debate about the continuation of the binary system. There are also signs of vocational drift in many universities. The Bologna Process and the adoption of common bachelors and masters’ degrees in the two sectors of higher education are indicators of their apparent convergent moves. In Portugal, several non-university institutions designed strategies to enable them to become universities. External stakeholders and local authorities frequently supported these moves. Amendments of the Educational Act expanded the amendment of 1997, which granted to polytechnic institutes the power to offer and award licenciatura degrees, similar to university degrees. The new amendment of 2005 also grants the polytechnic institutes the authority to offer a professional master degree. However, Decree-Law 74/2006, which regulates the implementation of the Bologna Process, made clearer the distinction between universities and polytechnics. The recent OECD report on the Portuguese higher education system also emphasises the need to keep the two sub-systems apart. Today, the polytechnics are still struggling with their distinctiveness. Essentially the mission of the non-university institutions focuses on teaching, vocational training; applied research and experimental development; support for regional development and relations with economic and social activities. Does this role need to be expanded across all of higher education? What constitutes an adequate institution to meet this mission? Polytechnics? Universities? Both? The social milieu as we know it is undergoing transformational changes throughout the world. In most respects, one can easily attribute a fundamental role in this process to the arena of higher education. Whether the higher education enterprise steps up and recognises its role and obligation remains to be seen, but called upon it has been, indeed. As Scott (1996) suggested, higher education may play a more vital role, with increased flexibility and adaptability, rather than prescribed plans and lock-step mechanisms designed to perpetuate the status quo. European higher education must accept and embrace change if it hopes to compete and prosper in the evergrowing international arena. The binary system will be one of the important issues that must be addressed in the near future as well as other issues. The Future Project from the USA (2000: 8) in a Position Paper, discussing weaknesses of higher education point to: ●

●

●

The lack of skills necessary for the new economy manifested in repeatedly critical employer surveys Introductory math and science courses where a large majority of students bail out after one course. Surveys have shown that graduates have strikingly limited knowledge and skills in math and science, including a lack of problem-solving skills that employers favour over the recall of mathematical procedures High dropout rates at all but the most selective institutions

256 ● ●

●

M. de Lourdes Machado et al.

Deficient teacher education and the professional developments of extant teachers Insufficient contact with faculty. Surveys of students taking on-line courses indicate that most feel that they have more faculty contact by computer than they have in the face-to-face relationship of the traditional course Costs which are high because so much other activity is loaded onto the actual cost of teaching

With all of these challenges and charges, higher education has a gargantuan task in explaining its proper accountability and legitimacy with respect to many issues. The system is too often asked to provide evidence of its effectiveness by examining only those factors that can be easily quantified. The time may be coming when the powers that be and the general public will demand answers to more meaningful and qualitative questions about teaching preparation and expertise of professors, students’ learning outcomes during their studies and the cognitive skills of higher education’s graduates. Unfortunately, the benefits of a higher education are hard to measure. If the government invests in a highway, it will be filled with traffic the day it opens. If a higher education institution educates a mind, it may be decades before truly meaningful results are seen, and by then the connection between cause and effect are forever lost and forgotten.

4

What Lies Ahead: Convergence or Diversity?

As noted above, today in Europe the binary system is predominant. The origin and evolution of the non-university sector were different from one country to another. In the cases presented in this book, the option for the binary system has been maintained, except in the case of the UK, where, in the 1990s, the polytechnics were upgraded to universities. The case of Spain is different. In fact, in Spain, the institutions of higher education consist only of universities. In countries such as Flanders, Germany, Ireland, Norway, The Netherlands and Portugal the binary system existed for decades. While the end of the binary system in the UK could have signalled other countries to follow the same path, in fact countries such as Austria and Finland opted for the binary system. In 2005 and 2006, Portugal introduced legislation in support of the binary system. However in Norway there is a possible trend towards unification. There are several countries where the binary system has been very successful, such as Germany, Ireland, Norway and The Netherlands, where students enrolments have exceeded those of the universities. Phenomena such as globalization and internationalization have been facilitating more interchanges between higher education institutions. With the Bologna Process, there is a growing harmonization between national systems of higher education, specially regarding with their degrees and diplomas. It is soon to know the consequences, if any, of the Bologna on the binary system. This process is being implemented in each country at a different pace. The countries that have experience with the binary system seem to continue with it. Recently, political decisions in countries such as Austria, Finland, Ireland and

Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity?

257

Portugal suggest that the binary option is been reinforced. In the case of Portugal, the implementation of the Bologna Process is being used to reinforce the differences between the university and non-university sectors. This is most notable in the bachelors and masters degrees, with the professional emphasis in the polytechnics and the academic thrust in the universities. This difference between professional and academic emphasis may not always be easy to defend or implement. First, there are institutions that offer the same professional and academic programs regardless of they are universities or polytechnics. Second, the market is influencing higher education institutions toward professional drift, with enrolments being a problem for the university and non-university sector. The dynamics of higher education have been defined by national policies. The Bologna Process is creating new dynamics within the European framework that will facilitate the development of study programmes in transnational institutional networks. Programs such these are a reality and could grow within and between sectors of higher education, depending on of legal framework of each country. The implementation of the Bologna Process suggests a growing convergence that can reduce the diversity both within and between national higher education systems. Bologna may also reinforce the position that the binary system in Europe reflects appropriate mission differentiation between the university and non-university systems. In this context, the question is whether or not the Bologna Process will be the catalyst to promote debates on academic drift versus mission focus, standardisation versus differentiation, and regulation versus autonomy. All of this begs the question of what the future holds: convergence or diversity? As stated by Scott (1996: 49): There is no Europe-wide model for the organization of higher education systems. Particularities will inevitably persist. But are European systems on a convergent course? Certainly the inter-action between European universities and other higher education institutions has sharply increased during the past two decades and at the level of policy and management, not only of scientific and scholarly exchange.

Today, even though the official position within the binary European systems is diversity, developments in a number of systems have been to blur the distinction between universities and polytechnics. In fact, the authors, by observation of the different national systems, can say that trends are clearly moving toward an aesthetic convergence, however keeping the diversity. Under current circumstances, it is difficult to get answers about the future of higher education and particularly about the non-university sector. Some years ago, Burgen (1996) has questioned what aspects of higher education’s overall mission should be provided by what types of institution. Some would argue that higher education is merely a linear extrapolation of secondary schooling and should reflect an undifferentiated pattern across all institutions. Others would counter that diversification is essential, where some existing universities would remain as time-honoured centres of learning and research, while new institutions with less elevated status would emerge with little research involvement. Further, vocationally-oriented institutions would be included to address the needs of the employment sector. This leaves us with the ultimate question of which institutional sector is better equipped to provide the ingredients for meeting the mission of higher education.

258

M. de Lourdes Machado et al.

Perhaps it is a combination of both sectors. If the binary system is an appropriate player, then how the university and non-university sectors should be differentiated? If we adopt the concept of the university used by the European Agenda of Higher Education, and more recently by the National Council of Education of Portugal (CNE 2004), it is difficult to deny that polytechnics are not the same as universities. We are thus confronted with several challenges in defining the distinct roles of these institutional types, and are therefore facing a new agenda for higher education reform. The Bologna Process seems to challenge the diversity based on the national systems that was defended in the 20th century. The higher education systems were independently designed by each country. Now, with the Bologna Process, there is a convergence of the structure of degrees and one can question what will ultimately represent the non-university institutions. It also seems clear that the ambiguity of this process can be used to justify or legitimise different agendas and reforms, both national and supranational. The question, as stated earlier, is if this will be the catalyst to promote debates regarding academic drift or mission focus, standardization or differentiation, and regulation or autonomy. What will evolve from the process is clearly not known at this point. According to Teichler (2002: 177), It remains to be seen what impact these changes have on the stratification of the higher education systems and with respect to the encouragement or discouragement of individual institutions to develop specific profiles and thus to contribute to horizontal diversity.

The future of higher education needs to be achieved, with quality and dignity by all actors regarding the structure of the system, degrees and diplomas, governance of institutions, autonomy and regulation, staff careers, funding mechanisms, research, and social equity and mobility. To do less is to abandon the fundamental charge to higher education, to contribute efficiently and meaningfully to the advancement of social well-being and prosperity. We cannot allow the system to do less.

References Amaral, A., J. B. Ferreira, M. L. Machado, and R. Santiago. Modelos de Governação e Gestão dos Institutos Politécnicos Portugueses no Contexto Europeu. POLITÉCNICA-Associação dos Institutos Politécnicos do Centro, 2006. Beerkens, E. Higher Education in Austria: Country Report. Encshede, The Netherlands: CHEPS – Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, 2003. Birnbaum, R. Maintaining Diversity in Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1983. Boezerooy, R. Higher Education in Netherlands: Country Report. Enschede, The Netherlands: CHEPS - Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, 2003. Burgen, A. Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1996. Clancy, P. “The Non-university Sector in Irish Higher Education”. Paper presented at the Conference Análise Comparativa do Ensino Politécnico nas Instituições Europeias de Ensino Superior. Leiria: 22–23 October, 2004. Clark, B. R. “United States”. In Van de Graaff, J. H., B. R. Clark, D. Furth, D. Goldschmidt, and D. Wheeler (eds). Academic Power: Patterns of Authority in Seven National Systems. New York: Praeger, 1978.

Reframing the Non-University Sector in Europe: Convergence or Diversity?

259

Clark, B. R. The Higher Education System: A Cross-National Perspective. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1983. Clark, B. R. “Diversification of Higher Education.” In Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne (eds). The Mockers and the Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996, 16–25. Conselho Nacional da Educação. “Parecer no 6/2004 – Implementação do Processo de Bolonha”. Diário da República, n. 200 (II série), 25 Agosto, 2004. De Weert, E. “Professional Competencies and Research in the Non-University Sector: Systems Convergence After Bologna?” CHER 19th Annual Conference, Kassel, Germany, 2006. Eurich, N. P. Systems of Higher Education in Twelve Countries: A Comparative View. New York: Praeger, 1981. Goedegebuure, L. C. J. Mergers in Higher Education: A Comparative Perspective. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Uitgeverij LEMMA BV, 1992. Grubb, W. N. The Roles of Tertiary Colleges and Institutes: Trade-offs in Restructuring Postsecondary Education. Unpublished Manuscript prepared on a sabbatical period at the Education and Training Policy division, Directorate for Education, OECD, 2003. Gürüz, K. “Higher Education in the Global Knowledge”. Communication presented at the CMU Assembly. Bari, Italy, 2003. Huisman, J. Higher Education in Austria: Country Report. Enschede, The Netherlands: CHEPS Centre for Higher Education Policy Studies, 2003. Huisman, J. “The Role of Polytechnics in Higher Education – The Dutch Case”. Paper presented at the Conference Análise Comparativa do Ensino Politécnico nas Instituições Europeias de Ensino Superior, Leiria, 22–23 October, 2004. Kyvik, S. “The Merger of Non-university Colleges in Norway”. Higher Education 44 (2002): 57–72. Kyvik, S. “Structural Changes in Higher Education Systems in Western Europe”. Higher Education in Europe XXIX(3) (2004): 393–409. Kyvik, S. “Change Processes in Non-University Higher Education in Western Europe”. CHER 19th Annual Conference, Kassel, Germany, 2006. Parsons, T., and G. M. Platt. The American University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. Rhoades, G. “Political Competition and Differentiation in Higher Education”. In Alexander, J. C., and P. Colony (eds). Differentiation Theory and Social Change. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. Riesman, D. Constraint and Variety in American Education. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1956. Schugurensky, D. “Higher Education Restructuring in the Era of Globalization: Toward a Heteronomous Model?” In Arnove, R. F, and C. A. Torres (eds). Comparative Education. The Dialectic of the Global and the Local. 2nd Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003, pp. 292–312. Scott, P. “Unified and Binary Systems of Higher Education in Europe”. In Burgen, A. (ed). Goals and Purposes of Higher Education in the 21st Century. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1996, pp. 37–54. Skilbeck, M. The University Challenged. A Review of International Trends and Issues with Particular Reference to Ireland. Dublin: HEA/CHIU, 2002. Skolnik, M., and W. G. Davis. “Does Structure Matter: (Where) Do Questions about Structure Fit on the Higher Education Policy Agenda?” Paper presented at Canada Conference, John Deutsch Institute, Queen’s University, 2004. Stadtman, V. A. Academic Adaptations: Higher Education Prepares for the 1980s and the 1990s. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1980. Taylor, J. “Institutional Diversity in UK Higher Education: Policy and Outcomes Since the End of the Binary Divide”. Higher Education Quarterly 57(3) (2003): 266–293. Teichler, U. “Diversification of Higher Education and the Profile of the Individual Institution”. Higher Education Management and Policy 14(3) (2002): 177. Teichler, U. “The Non-university Sector in Germany”. Invited presentation at the Conference Análise Comparativa do Ensino Politécnico nas Instituições Europeias de Ensino Superior, Leiria, 22–23 October, 2004.

260

M. de Lourdes Machado et al.

The Future Project. “Policies for Higher Education in the Competitive World”. Position paper, June, www.futureproject.org, 2000. Välimaa, J., and M.-L. Neuvonen-Rauhala. “Polytechnics in Finnish Higher Education”. Paper presented at the Conference Análise Comparativa do Ensino Politécnico nas Instituições Europeias de Ensino Superior, Leiria, 22–23 October, 2004. van Vught, F. A. “Isomorphism in Higher education? Towards a Theory of Differentiation and Diversity in Higher Education Systems”. In Meek, V. L., L. Goedegebuure, O. Kivinen, and R. Rinne (eds). The Mockers and Mocked: Comparative Perspectives on Differentiation, Convergence and Diversity in Higher Education. Oxford: Pergamon, 1996, pp. 42–58. Verhoeven, J. “Questioning the Binary Divide: Non-university Higher Education in Flanders (Belgium)”. Paper presented at the Conference Análise Comparativa do Ensino Politécnico nas Instituições Europeias de Ensino Superior, Leiria, 22–23 October, 2004. Verhoeven, J., and G. Devos. “Interdepartmental Functional Integration and Decentralisation of Decision Making in the Merged Colleges of Higher Education in Flanders, Belgium”. In Amaral, A., G. A. Jones, and B. Karseth (eds). Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 2002, pp. 141–162. Viara, M. “Toward Unified and Stratified Systems of Higher Education? System Convergence and Organizational Stratified Differentiation in Europe”, CHER 19th Annual Conference, Kassel, Germany, 2006.

Higher Education Dynamics 1. 2.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

10.

11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

16. 17. 18.

J. Enders and O. Fulton (eds.): Higher Education in a Globalising World. 2002 ISBN Hb 1-4020-0863-5; Pb 1-4020-0864-3 A. Amaral, G.A. Jones and B. Karseth (eds.): Governing Higher Education: National Perspectives on Institutional Governance. 2002 ISBN 1-4020-1078-8 A. Amaral, V.L. Meek and I.M. Larsen (eds.): The Higher Education Managerial Revolution? 2003 ISBN Hb 1-4020-1575-5; Pb 1-4020-1586-0 C.W. Barrow, S. Didou-Aupetit and J. Mallea: Globalisation, Trade Liberalisation, and Higher Education in North America. 2003 ISBN 1-4020-1791-X S. Schwarz and D.F.Westerheijden (eds.): Accreditation and Evaluation in the European Higher Education Area. 2004 ISBN 1-4020-2796-6 P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill and A. Amaral (eds.): Markets in Higher Education: Rhetoric or Reality? 2004 ISBN 1-4020-2815-6 A.Welch (ed.): The Professoriate. Profile of a Profession. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3382-6 Å. Gornitzka, M. Kogan and A. Amaral (eds.): Reform and Change in Higher Education. Implementation Policy Analysis. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3402-4 I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel (eds.): Governing Knowledge. A Study of Continuity and Change in Higher Education – A Festschrift in Honour of Maurice Kogan. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-3489-X N. Cloete, P. Maassen, R. Fehnel, T. Moja, T. Gibbon and H. Perold (eds.): Transformation in Higher Education. Global Pressures and Local Realities. 2005 ISBN 1-4020-4005-9 M. Kogan, M. Henkel and S. Hanney: Government and Research. Thirty Years of Evolution. 2006 ISBN 1-4020-4444-5 V. Tomusk (ed.): Creating the European Area of Higher Education. Voices from the Periphery. 2006 ISBN 1-4020-4613-8 M. Kogan, M. Bauer, I. Bleiklie and M. Henkel (eds.): Transforming Higher Education. A Comparative Study. 2006 ISBN 1-4020-4656-1 P.N. Teixeira, D.B. Johnstone, M.J. Rosa and J.J. Vossensteijn (eds.): Cost-sharing and Accessibility in Higher Education: A Fairer Deal? 2006 ISBN 1-4020-4659-6 H. Schomburg and U. Teichler: Higher Education and Graduate Employment in Europe. Results from Graduates Surveys from Twelve Countries. 2006 ISBN 1-4020-5153-0 S. Parry : Disciplines and Doctorates. 2007 ISBN 1-4020-5311-8 U. Teichler: Careers of University Graduates. Views and Experiences in Comparative Perspectives. 2007 ISBN 1-4020-5926-4 M. Herbst: Financing Public Universities. The Case of Performance Funding. 2007 ISBN 1-4020-5559-5 springer.com

Higher Education Dynamics 19. 20.

21.

22.

23.

P. Maassen, J.P. Olsen (eds.): University Dynamics and European Integration. 2007 ISBN 978-1-4020-5970-4 D.F. Westerheijden, B. Stensaker and M.J. Rosa (eds.): Quality Assurance in Higher Education. Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation. 2007 ISBN 978-1-4020-6011-3 J. Allen, Y. Inenaga, R.v.d. Velden, and K. Yoshimoto (eds.): Competencies, Higher Education and Career in Japan and the Netherlands. 2007 ISBN: 978-1-4020-6043-4 Å. Gornitzka and L. Langfeldt (eds.): Borderless Knowledge. Understanding the “New” Internationalisation of Research and Higher Education in Norway. 2008 ISBN: 978-1-4020-8282-5 J.S. Taylor, J. Brites Ferreira, M. de Lourdes Machado and R. Santiago (eds.): Non-University Higher Education in Europe. 2008 ISBN: 978-1-4020-8334-1

springer.com