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
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.
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