/
SABER – Systems Approach for Better Education Results SABER – Systems Approach for Better Education Results

SABER – Systems Approach for Better Education Results - PowerPoint Presentation

test
test . @test
Follow
348 views
Uploaded On 2018-11-10

SABER – Systems Approach for Better Education Results - PPT Presentation

Tertiary Education Governance World Congress of Colleges and Polytechnics Halifax May 26 2012 Quentin Wodon World Bank 1 Structure of presentation SABER goals scope and methodology ID: 726139

institutions autonomy financial academic autonomy institutions academic financial education data level performance universities policies tertiary framework high policy accountability

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "SABER – Systems Approach for Better Ed..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

SABER – Systems Approach for Better Education ResultsTertiary Education Governance

World Congress of Colleges and Polytechnics Halifax, May 26, 2012 Quentin Wodon, World Bank

1Slide2

Structure of presentationSABER goals, scope, and methodologyContext for tertiary education governanceSystem-wide and institution-level indicators

Example of data collection for institutions: MENAAnalysis of MENA data on autonomyFinancial autonomyHR autonomyAcademic autonomyConclusion

2Slide3

What SABER isNew initiative to advance Learning for AllFirst detailed, disaggregated database of education policies/institutions in core areas

Open data  tool for empowering stakeholders Two key areas:Maps out policies/institutions Links to implementation

data

3Slide4

Goal: Make visible what’s underwater4

Inputs and (some) outcomes

Everything else:

Policies

Institutions

Implementation

Effects of interventionsSlide5

Domain development: Key stepsWhat Matters paper

Indicators and scoring rubricData-collection instrumentData collectionAnalysisData validationPublication of data & analyses5Slide6

What SABER provides(not just ratings)

Analytical framework for thinking about domainDescriptive data on policies/institutionsEvaluative judgments (ratings, not rankings)“Latent” (poor performance)“Emerging” (insufficient performance)

“Established” (adequate performance)

“Advanced” (outstanding performance)

 

6Slide7

7

SABER informs policy choices

&

diagnoses

gaps in implementation in each domain

Catalog & assess quality of policy framework

Policies

Implementation

+

Outcomes

Collect & analyze data on policy execution

Framework

Collection instrument

Rubric

Manual

Survey data

(e.g. PETS, QSDS, Absence, Household)

Proxy indicators

(e.g. economy-wide metrics, survey data from other countries)

SABER Toolkit

Country, regional, and policy domain reports with interpretation, including expert judgment

Tools to benchmark policies

Tools to assess implementation based on available data

Online knowledge baseSlide8

Tertiary education governance

Large variation in performance of higher education institutions – governance as a key determinantDifferences in objectives: research, teaching, contribution to local economy, etc.  Not one “best” modelBenchmarking as step towards monitoring performanceThree levels of analysis

Institutions level:

Identification of Strengths and weaknesses, base line for comparison overtime

Country level:

Identification of models, differences between institutions, correlation between models and performance

International level:

Comparisons between models, correlations between models and performance

8Slide9

9

System Level

Context, Mission and Goals

Management

Autonomy

Accountability

Participation

Government-driven

Government-defined missions and policies

Government-appointed president

Centrally managed budget

Central control for new programs and curriculum

Central HR management

Central audits

Central QA

National driven curriculum

Low accountability-no links between performance and rewards

Mainly on consultation basis

Autonomous-

Government-steered

Mission-oriented Institutions

Strategic plans prepared by Institutions

Governing boards led

Competitive funds allocation

Autonomy to introduce new programs and set curriculum

HR autonomy

External audits

Independent external QA

Performance-based salaries

High participation of stakeholders throughout the decision-making processSlide10

10

Context, Mission and Goals

Management Orientation

Autonomy

Accountability

Participation

Corporate

Mission-oriented Decentralized

Results-based

High autonomy in all three areas, academic, financial and HR

High accountability in financial and HR

Academic

Mission-oriented- Defined in consultation with academic staff

High academic autonomy

High internal academic accountability

High participation of academic staff

Representational

High external accountability

High participation of stakeholders

Trustee

Mission-oriented-Defined in consultation with trustee

Results-based

High internal accountabilitySlide11

System-wide Policy Goals

Goal #1: Vision The country or government has a vision and plan for the tertiary education sector, a willingness to translate its vision into a concrete action plan, and an ability to implement and monitor reformsGoal #2: Regulatory Framework The tertiary education system is governed by an appropriate regulatory framework including for private providersGoal #3: Leadership

The TEA has an appropriate policy on the role and functions of the boards of tertiary education institutions, as well as for the selection of the leadership of tertiary education institutions, and the respective responsibilities of the Board and leadership

Goal #4: Financial Autonomy and Equity

The regulatory framework provides enough financial autonomy to tertiary education institutions while still promoting equity 

11Slide12

System-wide Policy Goals

Goal #5: Staffing Autonomy The regulatory framework provides enough staffing autonomy to tertiary education institutions  Goal #6: Academic Autonomy The regulatory framework provides enough academic autonomy to tertiary education institutions Goal #7: Performance-based Funding The TEA negotiates performance targets and uses financing as incentives for institutions to achieve the targets.  

Goals #8: Quality assurance and transparency

The TEA has an independent quality assurance and accreditation agency for both public and private institutions. Institutions are held to specific standards of transparency around financial health, fraud, student engagement and employment of graduates.

12Slide13

A Note on QA and quasi-corruption13

Question

Response

Share of household with positive value for annual

official

school cost

95.7%

Share of household with positive value for annual unofficial school cost

44.1%

Annual official school cost

1.2M

Annual unofficial school cost

0.4M

Did you or anyone in your family

make unofficial

payments to get

admission?

Yes

27.2%

No

72.8%

It is common for parents to make some “unofficial payments” to gain

admission?

Never

1.1%

Seldom

2.2%

Sometimes

43.0%

Frequently

47.3%

Always

6.5%

When unofficial payments are required,

how is it done?

A school official indicates or asks for a payment

30.3%

The parent or family member offer a payment on his/her own accord

37.1%

It is known before hand how to pay and how much to pay, so it is not discussed

32.6%Slide14

Institution-level: MENA University Governance Screening CardTool to assess to what extent Universities are following good Governance practices aligned with their Institutional Goals, but also to allow Universities monitor their progress and compare themselves with other institutions

Inspiration:Guidelines and Good Practice Codes that have been revised by OECDAutonomy Score Card- European University AssociationCUC in the UKBenchmarking guidelines- Australian UniversitiesWest Coast Guidelines, USA

14Slide15

Institution-level screening card

DIMENSION 1: CONTEXT, MISSION and GOALS Are the missions of the University formally stated?

DIMENSION

2

:

MANAGEMENT

Are the management mechanisms results-based or traditional?

DIMENSION 3:

AUTONOMY

What is the degree of academic, HR Management, and financial autonomy?

DIMENSION

4

:

ACCOUNTABILITY

AND PARTICIPATION

How much is the university held responsible

vis

à

vis

its stakeholders?

Do the stakeholders have a voice in decision making?15Slide16

Example of Autonomy - Financial

Financial autonomy - ability of universities to: set tuition feesaccumulate reserveskeep surplus on state funding

borrow money

invest money in financial or physical assets

own and sell the land and buildings they occupy

deliver contractual services;

attract funds on a competitive basis.

16Slide17

Example of Autonomy - Academic

Academic autonomyResponsibility for curriculum designExtent to which universities are autonomous to introduce or cancel degree programs and to determine academic structure

Overall number of students

Admissions criteria

Admissions per discipline;

Evaluation of programs;

Evaluation of learning outcomes

Teaching methodologies.

17Slide18

Example of Autonomy – HR

Human Resources autonomyRecruitment procedures for appointment of academic and other staff – hiring and firingStatus of employees (whether they are considered civil servants or not)Procedure for determining salary levels, salary incentives, and workloads

Human resources policies

Career development policies

Performance management.

18Slide19

MENA Case study: Sample size

Egypt: 12 universities 6 Public 6 PrivateMorocco: 9 universities 8 Public 1 PrivatePalestine: 9 universities

2 Public 7 Private

Tunisia

:

10

universities 7 Public 3

Private

Statistical

Analysis

MCA

for

construction

of

indices

of

autonomy

Comparisons

between

countries

/types of universities

Assessment of correlation structure &

causality19Slide20

MENA Case study: MCA results

20Categories

%

Coord.

Financial Autonomy

Has autonomy to define

revenue

structure of the University (No)

0.08

1.994

Has autonomy to set the level of fees (No)

0.074

1.724

Has autonomy to set the level of fees (Yes)

0.074

-1.724

Has the autonomy to run a deficit (No)

0.07

1.678

Has the autonomy to run a deficit (Yes)

0.07

-1.678

Has autonomy to set

bonuses

to be paid to private owners

(Yes

)

0.063

-1.969

Allowed to own Financial Assets (No)

0.056

1.928

Allowed to own Land (No)

0.055

2.497

Has autonomy to define

revenue

structure of the University (Yes)

0.053

-1.329Slide21

Normalized Indices of autonomy

21

Indices of autonomy

Country

Egypt

Morocco

Palestine

Tunisia

Academic Autonomy

0.62

0.57

0.74

0.29

Human Resources Autonomy

0.76

0.27

0.75

0.36

Financial Autonomy

0.69

0.57

0.81

0.55

All Dimensions of Autonomy

0.80

0.49

0.86

0.42

Indices of autonomy

Status

All

Public

Private

Academic Autonomy

0.48

0.65

0.55

Human Resources Autonomy

0.30

0.88

0.55

Financial Autonomy

0.52

0.84

0.65

All Dimensions of Autonomy

0.46

0.90

0.65Slide22

Correlations between indices

22Slide23

Importance of various forms of autonomy

23

VARIABLES

Autonomy

index

Subj. Autonomy

Autonomy

Academic autonomy index

1.72***

1.17***

Staffing autonomy index

2.69***

1.27***

Financial Autonomy index

1.86***

0.86***

Size of the university

Log of the number of students

-0.05

0.04

Countries (ref= Egypt)

Morocco

-0.19

0.34*

Palestine

-0.24

0.19

Tunisia

-0.19

0.29*

Type of program (

ref=PhD

)

Undergraduate

-0.21

-0.22

Under & Graduate

0.01

0.09

Status

(ref=Public

)

Private

-0.02

0.13

Constant

-2.13***

1.40***

Observations

40

40Slide24

ConclusionSABER: New effort and framework

to document and assess policy frameworksSystem-wide data and institutio-level

data

Institution-level

data

helpful

for

implementation

,

but

also

calibration

(

weights

)

for

system-wide

indicators

Institution-level tool available for

deployment in case of interest among

participants at World CongressThank

you!24