Changing Landscape of HE in Romania

Budapest, 10 May 2013

Outline

I. Where are we now?

II. History matters III. Promoting a new HE landscape IV. Institutional differentiation V. The way ahead?

I. Where are we now? 1. The context

• • Emerging consequences of the economic crisis (2010-2012): multiplication of risks, high degrees of uncertainty, individualization of life worlds, increased needs for structural reforms and new public policies Education is located in the range of second important issues, thus facing the cuts in public funding

2. Questions at the time of crisis

• • • How much is the crisis a time for new opportunities or a time of badly affecting education?

Education, including HE, is a problem or a part of the solutions to the current issues of the crisis?

Education, having a different time horizon, is the first to be sacrificed financially, while also facing a sharp demographic decline and a decreasing prestige and relevance for individual careers

3. A state of a HE system that demanded change

• • • An apparently unitary system: all HEIs are universities carrying out teaching and research Existing diversification axis: (1) public/private axis; (2) disciplinary axis (e.g. comprehensive,specialized); (3) degree awarding powers: LMD; LM; L.

The dominant forces at work generated an institutionally unsustainable isomorphic system

4. On the way of changing the HE landscape

• • The implementation of the 2011 Education Law: new institutional charts; a new pattern of institutional governance and management; re-configuration of internal structures; new approaches to QA; a new system of HE public funding ; new rules of public accountability.

Right now: a new government and new approaches and ideas – some in motion, others in the waiting

II. History matters:

• 1990-1995 : Post-communist reparatory changes •    1995-1999: Emerging a new HE system Changing the legislation: a new law on education and on accreditation Institutional diversification on public/private axis and on study programme axis Passing from elite to mass HE • 1999-2010: Implementing Bologna principles and objectives •    

2010 - Re-configuring the system and institutions:

2010: Evaluating the state of HE and identifying new options for HE development 2010: Concluding a “National Pact on Education and Research” of all parties represented in Parliament and of various stakeholders 2011: Adopting a new law on education 2013: Changing some 2011 legal provisions

Facts and Figures (1)

E volution of the H E Is for the period 1991-2010

135 125 115 105 95 85 75 65 55 45 121 126 126 125 122 117 102 106 111 107 104 106 106 95 public univers ities private univers ities 62 63 63 57 57 67 69 70 67 Total HE Is 56 108 56 59 36 44 49 54 52 ac ademic year

Comparing sudent flows: 2000 2012

Facts and Figures (2) E volution of the total number of s tudents in the period 1990 2010

1.200.000

1.000.000

800.000

600.000

400.000

Students in public universities Students in private universities Total number of students 200.000

0 19 90 /9 1 19 91 /9 2 19 92 /9 3 19 93 /9 4 19 94 /9 5 19 95 /9 6 19 96 /9 7 19 97 /9 8 19 98 /9 9 19 99 /0 0 20 00 /0 1 20 01 /0 2 20 02 /0 3 20 03 /0 4 20 04 /0 5 20 05 /0 6 20 06 /0 7 20 07 /0 8 20 08 /0 9 20 09 /1 0 academic year Ph.D or doctoral students not paying scholar fees Ph.D or doctoral students paying scholar fees Ph.D. or doctoral students 0 0 19 /9 90 /9 1 91 19 91 /9 2 2 92 19 92 /9 3 3 93 19 93 /9 4 4 94 19 94 /9 5 5 95 19 95 /9 6 6 96 19 96 /9 7 7 97 19 /9 97 /9 8 19 98 /9 9 9 19 99 /0 0 0 00 20 00 /0 1 1 01 20 01 /0 2 2 02 20 02 /0 3 3 03 20 03 /0 4 4 04 20 04 /0 5 5 05 20 05 /0 6 6 20 06 /0 7 7 20 07 /0 8 8 20 08 /0 9 9 09 20 09 /1 0 0

E volution of total number of s tudents , by s tudy c yc les , in the period 1990-2010

Bachelor students 1.200

1.000

Master or second degree students Ph.D. or doctoral students T otal number of students 800 600 400 200 0 19 90 /9 1 19 91 /9 2 19 92 /9 3 19 93 /9 4 19 94 /9 5 19 95 /9 6 19 96 /9 7 19 97 /9 8 19 98 /9 9 19 99 /0 0 20 00 /0 1 20 01 /0 2 20 02 /0 3 20 03 /0 4 20 04 /0 5 20 05 /0 6 20 06 /0 7 20 07 /0 8 20 08 /0 9 20 09 /1 0 academic years

Facts and Figures (3)

Evolution of the total number of teaching staff (full-time employed by the univerities) for the period 2002-2010 35.000

30.000

25.000

20.000

15.000

10.000

5.000

0 28.589

24.069

4.520

29.532

24.968

4.564

30.100

25.300

4.800

30.857

25.272

5.585

31.543

24.927

6.616

30.583

24.543

6.040

31.964

24.788

7.176

31.973

25.189

6.784

31.103

25.371

5.732

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 Total Public universities Private universities academic year

Evolution of the students to teaching staff ratio, for the period 2002 2010

30 20 10 0 70 60 50 40

32 22 20 30 22 20 30 24 23 25 26 44 30 27 53 32 26 61 33 25 56 30 25

2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 academic year Total Public universities Private universities

Configurations (1)

• • • A high number of institutions for a rather small number of students and for the demographic size of the country A high number of HEIs in social sciences and humanities and a small number of HEIs in technical and professional areas A high market demand for technical and professional qualifications and a high supply of HE qualifications in areas with low market demand

Configurations (2)

• • • • A decreasing demand for higher education degrees associated with a sharp demographic decline A small number of teaching and research staff and a high student/staff ratio A continuous shrinking of public funds made available for public HE and research A rather low research output internationally relevant and competitive

Configurations(3)

• • A high institutional isomorphism in terms of assumed missions and with reference to structures, governance and organization of curricula; thus a reduced institutional differentiation in the system and a growing gap between the stated mission and its realization Encountering difficulties in concentrating resources and demonstrating local, regional or national relevance of HEIs

Configurations (4): latest trends

• • • A decreasing number of students due also to demographic decline A growing number of students in technical and medical studies and a smaller one in economics, law and social sciences A decline of older academic staff and an increased of younger staff (59% of the total are in the range of up to 35 years of age)

III. Promoting a new HE landscape. 1. Criteria:

Structural and functional re-configuration, at

system and institutional levels, in terms of :  Quality - focused on outcomes  Relevance - for the market demands and students personal development  Competitiveness - both nationally and internationally

2. Systemic Actions:

• • • Increase university autonomy as this is related to clear ways of accountability

Generating a higher institutional

differentiation through university classification and programme ranking Introducing a new funding formula: public funding dependent on teaching and research outputs and on real costs

2. Institutional Actions

• • • HEIs governing structures: HEIs to opt out for either a more collegiate or a more managerial type of governing structures

Re-structuring institutional missions and

internal organization: HEIs to set up their own internal structures in line with the prospects of a new mission and its successful realization Diversifying financial sources: allowing universities to set up commercial companies and foundations

3. Institutional and systemic actions

• • • New approach to quality assurance: more emphasis on learning and research outcomes

Innovating curricula and teaching quality:

provide public financial incentives for innovations and for staff recruitment and promotion Providing new incentives for increasing research outputs and for the re-organization

of doctoral and master programmes

(Cont.) Institutional and systemic

actions

• • Develop qualifications tracer studies: this is to increase HEIs outputs relevance for market demands and student personal development Intermediary collegiate bodies - UEFISCDI: set up and/or strengthen buffer collegiate bodies, under the umbrella of an executive agency – UEFISCDI - meant to provide national and international information on HE and increase inter-institutional communication

IV. Institutional differentiation

• • •

This is a key institutional and systemic collaborative action

Means of differentiation: (1) classification (not ranking) of universities in 3 classes: research intensive (LMD), research and teaching (LM)and teaching focused universities (L); (2) programme ranking at national and institutional levels Relating classification with : (1) degrees awarding powers; (2) financial incentives

Classification procedure



Internal evaluation: 2011

 Data collection  Data processing  First classification 

External evaluation - 2011-2013 – by an international agency (IEP/EUA)

Data collection

• • • • (1) invite –via EUA - a group of experts to advise on data collection and approaches to classification; (2) define a set of indicators for structuring the information on institutional outputs related to teaching, research, relations with environment, institutional capacity; (3) invite universities to report their outputs; 4) make the information available on an open public web-site.

From data collection to data processing

• • • • An acceptable range of indicators that are indicative of institutional outputs Weightings for each indicator to permit an overall assessment of institutional outputs Data to populate each indicator that is sufficiently comparable across institutions to permit “fair” national comparisons Work out formulas and weightings for identifying university classes

Finalizing the 1

st

stage of university classification

• Benefiting from the assistance of EUA in establishing university classes • Reporting on the provisional results: I. 48 teaching focused universities II. 22 teaching and research universities III. 8 teaching and artistic creation universities IV. 12 research focused universities (out of which: 3 comprehensive; 4 technical; 3 medical; 1 agricultural; 1 social sciences)

External evaluation - 2011-2013

 EUA –IEP acting as the agency responsible for the external evaluation of universities by classes  Planning and implementing the institutional evaluations  Having institutional and cluster reports  Finalizing with a policy relevant system report on the institutional differentiation within the Romanian HE system

V. The ways ahead ?

 Waiting for the impact of the IEP/EUA cluster and policy reports on HE development  Envisaging new policies : Further reviewing the 2011 Law? Changes in the HEIs positioning ? Changes in the public funding of HE? Etc.

 Reflecting on the dialectics of stability and change in HE at the age of crisis and unpredictability