Governance Reforms of Higher Education in China

Mei Li

Institute of Higher Education East China Normal University @ 10 th International Workshop on Higher Education Reform 2-4 Oct 2013 University of Ljubljana

Outline

 Higher Education Development and Changes  Governance and management reforms  Autonomy and Accountability  A Case Study: ECNU  Concluding remarks

Higher Educaton Development

Background

History: legacy of imperial examination system(605-1905), civil servant selection mechanism Modern University borrowed from western countries since the late of 19 th century Centralized governance, political power penetrates all sectors Public HEIs dominate the system

Development of education system

Differentiation

Diversifying the system according to: The nature of the students : regular and adult education; Ownership : private and public Status : key (elite) universities and others, 985 or 211 institutions and others Discipline : comprehensive, science & t, …

Project 211 & project 985

Project 211

 Time: Launched in 1995 10 B Yuan 2007-2011 ， 18.86 B Yuan(1996-2000), 18.86 B Yuan (2001-2006),  Goal: building up 100 high quality HEIs and key disciplines for the 21 century

Project 985

  Time: Launched in May 1998 Goal: Aimed at developing 10 to 12 world-class universities, plus a number of renowned high-level research institutions ;  Investment: 1.8 B Yuan PU, 1.2 Fudan, Shanghai Jiaotong

Disparity: eastern and western regions 9

211 and 985 Universities are mostly concentrated in the largest cities

Beijing: 21(8) Shanghai: 9(4) Wuhan: 7(2) Nanjing: 6(2) Xi An: 4(3)

Gross Enrolment Ratio and Enrolment, 1978-2008

25 20 15 10 5 0 1.4

15 17 12.5 13.3

9.8 10.5

7.2

8.3 9.1

5 6 3.4 3.5 3.9

2.16 2.13 2.28 2.04 2.93

3.05 3.18 3.35 3.61

4.32

5.86

7.58

9.54

11.74

19 14.16

21 15.62

22 17.39

23 18.85

23.3

20.21

1978 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Gross enrolment ratio(%) Enrolment (million students)

Enrollment of Higher Education Institutions(1949-2007) 20000000 18000000 16000000 14000000 12000000 10000000 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 1949 1965 1978 1980 1985 1998 1999 Year 2000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 23% Undergraduates in regular HEIS Undergraduates in Adult HEIS graduates

Enrolment by degree level 1999-2008

Total enrolment of students by degree level: 1999-2008 16000000 14000000 12000000 10000000 8000000 6000000 4000000 2000000 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Associate degree Undergraduate Master's student Doctoral student

Governance and Management

 Governance structure reforms at Macro Level  Decentralization of administrative structure  Structural reorganization of HEIs  Diversifying financial sources for mass higher education

Governance structure before reforms by the early 1990s

Governance structure After reforms in 1990s

Governance reforms

In the 1950s-1970s, the central (national) government assumed the responsibility for formulating higher education policies, allocating resources, exercising administrative controls, employing teaching and research staff, developing curriculum, choosing textbooks, recruiting students and assigning jobs to university graduates.

Governance and Financial Reform (1970-Present)

Governance Financial Reform 1970s-1990s The centrally planned system

In the 1990s,

institutions were managed on two levels---national and provincial---- the main responsibility being at the provincial level.

From centralization to decentralization.

1970s-1990s Funds Mainly/exclusively come from Central governments

Since 1997

, All higher education institutions have charged students tuition fees.

Tuition fees account for above 80% income in private HEIs, 20 40% in public HEIs.

Diversification of financial sources



Decentralization of higher education governance

Enhance the role of provincial government in supervising and supporting the higher education institutions, implementing the coordination of administration between central and provincial governments.

 Further clarify the relationship between governments and institutions, enlarging the autonomy of higher education institutions to guarantee their independence as the legal and economic entities.

Structural Reorganization

：

4 models

Joint Construction

（共建）： Provincial authorities are invited to participate in the sponsorship and management of centrally controlled institution. By 1999, 200 institutions were involved.

Jurisdiction Transference

provincial ownership. By 2002, 250

(

转制 central ministries to local administration.

) ： Transferring affiliation signified a complete change from central ownership to had been transferred from

Institutional Amalgamation

comprehensive universities. By 2002, institutions.

( 合并 ) ： Mergers among HEIs are intended to consolidate small institutions into 597 higher education institutions had been involved in mergers, resulting in 267 new

Institutional Cooperation

resources remaining unchanged.

( 合作 ) ： This model can denote various kinds of cooperation between institutions of different jurisdictions and types, on a voluntary basis, with their financial

Major Achievements

 A Large and Comprehensive system established, Largest system worldwide  Enter the stage of Mass higher education  Gradual Improvement on governance and regulations  emerging Market-oriented mechanism for management  Multiple-channel of financial sources: governments, clients, enterprises etc

Autonomy

（

Ordorika, 2003

） • • • Autonomy: self-governance, the power of a university to govern itself without outside control appointive autonomy includes the hiring, promotion, and dismissal of professors, deans, rectors, and administrative personnel; academic autonomy includes career choice policies, curriculum and course selection, establishment of degree requirements, and academic freedom; financial autonomy focuses on university budgets and financial accountability.

Accountability

Both decentralisation and marketisation have been accompanied by a push for enhanced performance that is monitored by Governments The national Government has established a legal infrastructure for regulating the operation of colleges and universities and developed an accreditation and quality control system for higher education institutions Tensions may often be generated when increased autonomy of universities is accompanied by introducing new, centralised accountability mechanisms

Year

Policy documents steering reforms

Policy Document and Law 1985

Decision on Reform of the Educational System

1993

Outline for Educational Reform and Development

in China 1998 Higher Education Law 2003

Law on Promoting Private Education

2010

National Mid and Long Term (2010-2020) Educational Reform and Development Plan

The 1998 Higher Education Law

• • • • • • • Legitimate University Autonomy in 7 areas: Admission Curricula, department Staffing Income-generation and financial distribution International exchange and cooperation Teaching, research, social services Restructure and reorganization the internal governance

What domains the central government still control

Appointment of presidents and party secretaries Political and ideological education of students Awards of doctoral degrees Evaluations of programs and HEIs Regulations on maximum tuition fees HEIs could charge Funding national HEIs, allocate funds differently Student loans and grants for all HEIs

A Case Study East China Normal University

A National Normal University

Established in Shanghai in 1951 Listed as a “211” institution in 1996 Joined the elite club of “985” project in 2006 Comprehensive U with humanities in the lead Joint-construction of Shanghai municipal government and central government since the late 1990s

Research Questions

What changes happened on university governance since the promulgation of Higher Education Law?

What effects of autonomy in academic, financial affairs, human resources, and governance and management at institutional level?

Research Methods

• • • • Mixed methods, Descriptive, case study Documents at national and institutional levels-text and discourse analysis Interviews-insights interpretation and analysis Questionnaire survey-percentages Observation: researchers as the insiders of the system and institution

Growth of total investment in ECNU

Total Amount: In Billion RMB Yuan 1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0.24211

2000 1.00508

1.13882

2005 2006 1.65571

1.520627

2007 2008

Diversifying Financial Sources

2008 2005 2000 0% 32.1

24 45.9

20% 13.4

18.6

40% 32.8

22.7

19.3

60% 16.2

16.4

18.3

80% 4.1

9.5

18.4

100% Central government funds Shanghai Municipal government funds Tuition fees and training programs income Research funds from governments and society Revenue generated Interest, donation, others

Perceptions of policy-makers at institutional level

• Competition to be included in elite club of project “985” “after ECNU entered the list of “985” universities in 2006, it is endowed with a good opportunity. One of the very important reasons is that our “mother”—the Ministry of Education, and our “stepmother”—Shanghai Municipal Government are very rich, which makes things much easier. We also get so strong support from the Municipal Government that during the five to six years ECNU has received unprecedented help from the Ministry of Education and Shanghai government, especially on the event of becoming a “985” university.

“

（ UPM3 ）

Perceptions of academics and support staff

Areas have changed after reform

% Academic programmes Staff management and evaluation Admission and student management Administrative procedures Financial management and corporatization Decision-making structures Any other 0 10 14.5

20 21.7

21.7

30 33.3

40 49.3

46.4

56.5

50 60

Effects of increased autonomy on academic areas

Agree + Aspects of autonomy (n=69) Agree

(%)

Strongly agree

(%)

strongly agree

(%) Increased autonomy enabled more freedom to develop innovative curriculum Increased autonomy enabled development of new employment oriented courses 66.7

71.0

24.6

8.7

91.3

79.7

Increased autonomy enhanced the freedom to decide about research priorities 63.8

14.5

78.3

Increased autonomy strengthened academic programmes of the university 56.5

Increased autonomy enabled introduction of cost recovery measures – levying of fees for the services offered by the university 48.5

17.4

5.9

73.9

54.4

Effects on autonomy and accountability Aspects of autonomy (n=69)

Increased autonomy improved access to and sharing of faculty resources Increased autonomy led to increased administrative workload of the academic staff Increased autonomy reduced administrative costs Increased autonomy led to increased academic workload Increased autonomy led to more monitoring and control of resources Increased autonomy led to strengthened accountability measures of the staff

Agree (%)

69.1

57.4

35.3

38.8

52.9

69.1

Strongly agree

（

%

） 7.4

Agree + Strongly agree(%)

76.5

7.4

1.5

6.1

8.8

8.8

64.8

36.8

44.9

61.7

77.9

Model A: Autonomy and Independence of University (Pan 2004) State’s control and intervention University’s self governance

Model B: Dependence and Self-mastery of the university (Pan 2004) State’s policy University Self mastery

Model C: Semi-independence of university

(Pan 2004) Areas under state’s control and intervention Areas under University freedom from external control

Changing relationship between government and University in China

Transform from Model B to Model C : from self-mastery to semi-independence From state control model to state supervision model Government changes from direct management to macro-governance The University enjoys more autonomy and responsibilities on internal management and academic affairs

Implication of decentralization and marketization

Through implementing a series of policies of decentralisation and marketisation, the Chinese Government initiated fundamental changes in the orientation, financing, management and curriculum of higher education The adoption of these policies reflects an attempt to make use of market forces and new initiatives from the non-state sectors to mobilise more educational resources.

Tensions and Problems

Growth in accountability to stakeholders external to universities at the expense of internal, professionally-based forms of accountability With managerial and market forms of accountability, arguably the government has gained power through repositioning itself as ‘market manager’, steering via different mechanisms than in the past, but steering very strongly, on the assumption that it will serve ‘the national interest’.

Conclusion

University autonomy is never an absolute concept Paradox of Centralized decentralization Increasing autonomy while universities also had to accept greater accountability The main mechanisms for control and accountability include institutionalizing evaluation system and categorizing HEIs, financial mechanisms Strong interdependence of the university and government