1 / 27

Where do we stand five years after a new governance model?

Where do we stand five years after a new governance model?. Júlio Pedrosa CICECO – University of Aveiro Conference , Portuguese Higher Education : a view from outside ( perceptions , observations and chalenges ), CNE, Lisboa 19-2-2013. Contexts and Framework.

melba
Download Presentation

Where do we stand five years after a new governance model?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Where do we stand five years after a new governance model? Júlio Pedrosa CICECO – Universityof Aveiro Conference, Portuguese HigherEducation: a viewfromoutside (perceptions, observations and chalenges), CNE, Lisboa 19-2-2013

  2. Contexts and Framework • University autonomy in Constitution (article 76, 1982 revision): Universities enjoy scientific, pedagogic, administrative and financial autonomy, in the terms of the law • Governance model changed in 2007- Law of Universities Autonomy: Law n.º 108/88, 24th October, 1988

  3. Contextsand Framework • CNE plenary session, 13th February 2007, Ministry of Higher Education Science and Technology, José Mariano Gago, announces: - Guidelines for the Higher Education Reforms in Portugal: orientation and regulation; institutional governance and legal statute; financement and eficiency; access and equity; quality in higher education science and technology; opening of institutions to society and economy

  4. Contextsand Framework • This meeting with the Ministry stimulated CNE to organize a series of seminars (22 February, 6 March, 28 March, 17 April, 2007): Higher Education Policies – Four themes in debate (2008). CNE, Lisboa. • Proposal for a new Law submited to CNE - Parecer n.º 6/2007 • New Law: Law nº 62/2007, 10th September 2007, Regime Jurídico das Instituições de Ensino Superior (RJIES)

  5. Contextsand Framework Government preparatory initiatives • Quality Assurance of Higher Education in Portugal(ENQA, November 2006) • Reviews of National Policies for Education – Tertiary Education in Portugal(OECD, December 2006) • Institutional Evaluation Program - European University Association (EUA) (2006 …)

  6. Contextsand Framework OtherstudiesdealingwithHE governance in Portugal • Veiga Simão J., Machado dos Santos, S. e Almeida Costa (2002). Ensino Superior: Uma visão para a próxima década. Gradiva, Lisboa • Veiga Simão, J. (2003). Modernização do Ensino Superior – da Ruptura à Excelência. Fundação das Universidades Portuguesas, Coimbra (três estudos a solicitação do CRUP) • Veiga Simão J., Machado dos Santos, S. e Almeida Costa (2005), Ambição para a Excelência – A oportunidade de Bolonha. Gradiva, Lisboa (Estudo com apoio dos Ministros Pedro Lynce de Faria e Maria da Graça Carvalho)

  7. Contextsand Framework • Veiga Simão, J. , Reinhardt, E. , Melo Ribeiro, C., Durst, F., Bernecker, W., Prokosch, H. U. Lerch, R., Alrcão. D., Félix Ribeiro, J. M., Machado dos Santos, S., Almeida Costa, A. and Jorge Carvalhal, J. (2005). Ensino Superior – Opções Estratégicas, Reorganização do Ensino Superior, Modelo da Universidade de Viseu. Pedro Coelho Edições, Lisboa

  8. Contextsand Framework Gulbenkian Foundation Project • Themissionoftheuniversity(Maurice Kogan, UK, April 5, 2003) • Governance in US highereducation (Judith Eaton, USA,May 9, 2003) • Institutionalautonomyoftheuniversity(JosepBricall, Spain,June 27, 2003 • Pedrosa, J. e Queiró J. F. (2005), Governar a Universidade portuguesa: missão, organização, funcionamento e autonomia, Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, Lisboa.

  9. Contextsand Framework • CNE, National Debate onEducation(2005-2007), jointiniciativeofParlament and Government, organizedby CNE, celebrating 20 yearsofLBSE – Lei de Bases do Sistema Educativo Azevedo, Joaquim; Dias Figueiredo, José; Paiva Campos, Bártolo; Dinis, Conceição; Dias, Davide; Xavier Viegas, Domingos; Costa Santos, Ivo; Carvalhal, Jorge; Brederode Santos, Maria Emília; Odete Valente, Maria; Santos, Paula e Vargas, Rosália (2007). Relatório Final do Debate Nacional sobre a Educação. CNE, Lisboa Thematic area 5 – Science, research and education development, p. 125-144 (see recomendations)

  10. New governancemodel Governance model in Law n.º 108/88, 24th October, 1988 (Law of Universities Autonomy). Governing bodies: University Assembly (academic staff, non academic staff and students representatives as defined in the statutes) Rector (elected by University Assembly) Senate (academic staff, non academic staff and students representatives, external, as defined in statutes) Administrative council (rector, one vice-rector, administrator, one student representative, , aditional members acording to statutes)

  11. New governancemodel • Law nº 62/2007, 10th September 2007 – RJIES. Governing bodies (art. 78º): • General Council(electsitsChair, the Rector/President) • Rector in Uni. and U. I., Presidentin P.I. • Management Council

  12. New governancemodel • The Rector/president is the highest governing body (o órgão superior de governoe de representaçãoexterna da respectivainstituição), RJIES art. 85º • The General Councilis responsible for: • Electing its Chair and the Rector; • Appreciating the rector/president and the management council’s acts • Proposing the initiatives considered necessary to the proper running of the institution • Appreciating rector/president proposals concerning: strategic and action plans, general guidelines on scientific, pedagogic, financial and patrimonial maters …

  13. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? • TheMainGoaloftheprojectdeveloped for CNE, attheuniversityof Aveiro (January 2011– Summer 2012): to studytheexperienceofimplementingthenewgovernancemodelof HE institutions (RJIES, 2007) in Portugal and to analysetheexperiences in other countries whichhaveadopted similar modelsof HE governance (Austria, Denmark, England, FinlandandNetherlands) • The team: Júlio Pedrosa (U. Aveiro), coordinator Hália Costa Santos (I. P. Tomar), Margarida Mano (U. Coimbra) and Teresa Gaspar (CNE)

  14. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? • Methods • Analysis of institutional information from web sites and public documentation • Interviews to 26 (total 30) Presidents of HEI Councils • Transcription and analysis of the registerd interviews (ATLAS.ti 6.2 used in content analysis) • Workshop with qualified experts to present the first version of the Report

  15. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? • Focusoftheanalysis • GC Presidency: competencies, profiles, expectations, maindificulties • General Concil: competencies and natureoftheentity ; dimension and composition; funcioningmodel, relationshipsbetween Rector and GC • Criticalinstitutionalissues/questions: legislation; institutionalestrategy; relacionshipbetweenthe GC andotheruniversity bodies; dificultiesandsugestions for improvement

  16. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? CG – Membership, Competences, Mode of Operation • 15 to 35 members, according to the institution dimension, the number of schools and of research units (art. 81º, RJIES) • Concerns: co-opting methods, number of students, number of externals • Observed dimensions • 1 GC with minimum, 15 • 1 maximum, 35 • 15 GC with dimensions 19 -25

  17. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? CG – Membership, Competences, Mode of Operation • Mode of election of internal members and of co-option of externals • The number of externals and their involvement, • The internal membership (participation of candidates to rector/president, of schools deans, … )

  18. Where do we stand five years after a new governance model? CG – Membership, Competences, Mode of Operation • Competences more frequently mentioned: • Rector/President and Chair elections • Budget approval • Strategic plan approval (a variety of practices).

  19. Where do we stand five years after a new governance model? • Questions and constrains • Need for developing and consolidating shared and transparent interpretations of the GC mission and competences • Need for internal clarification and development of the relationships between the CG and the other governing bodies. • Difficulties concerning the capacity for governing the institution as a whole entity (schools autonomy creates difficulties)

  20. Where do we stand five years after a new governance model? Questions and constrains • Budget approval is the most frequently refered competence of GC, as an example of the non existence of proper running conditions (simple formality?) • Absence of articulation with management council • Resistance to structural changes and risk taking • Financial constrains and university governance autonomy

  21. Where do we stand five years after a new governance model? Questions and constrains • The network of institutions and the system missions (what network of institutions, what for!) • The need for strategic rethinking of institutions missions and the respective education and training offers • Need for clarification, development and consolidation of the foundational status

  22. Questions and constrains • Cooperation with society and fund raising • Level of internationalization and capacity of atracting international students • Internal structures and organization for good governance of such complex entities

  23. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? • Important findings: • Chairs of GC value the governance model very much • The model has been adopted and implemented without resistances • The issues, constrains and concerns identified can be answered

  24. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? • Most questions raised should find answers internally by adjusting statutes, regulations and improving practices • However, some constrains mentioned deserve attention and intervention at Government or Parliament level: autonomy; transparent and stable financement model; human resources and financial management; the interference of Central Administration; the HE system or network missions and governance 

  25. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? Agradecimentos • Conselho Nacional de Educação e sua Presidente, Prof. Ana Maria Bettencourt • Presidentes dos Conselhos Gerais • Hália Costa Santos (I. P. Tomar), Margarida Mano (U. Coimbra) and Teresa Gaspar (CNE) • Rodrigo Lourenço e Liliana Santos • Prof. Pedro Teixeira, Prof. Teresa Geraldo, Dr. Manuel Carmelo Rosa e Prof. Luísa Cerdeira • Universidade de Aveiro

  26. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? • Diferences between the Portuguese model and the case studied: • Council/Board dimension and number of external members • Level of understanding of competences of the different governing bodies • Relationships with governments (autonomy, financing models; plurianual contracts ...) • Governing bodies: • Board, University Council, Supervisory Board, Council, Board of Governors; • Rector, Vice-Chancelor, Principal … or Rectorate. • Senate, Academic Council

  27. Where do we stand fiveyearsafter a newgovernancemodel? • Council/Board composition • Austria: 7 or 9 members, all are external • Denmarc: 11 members (majority of externals) • Finland: 7, 9-14 members (external >40%) • Netherlands: Supervisory Board (5 external members designated by the Ministry) • England 1-25 (60), external

More Related