Example: dental hygienist

GOVERNANCE AS A TOOL TO IMPROVE QUALITY

26/04/2007 16:57:03 GOVERNANCE and QUALITY guidelines in Higher EducationGovernance and QUALITY guidelines in Higher EducationVisit us on the to us:OECD/Directorate for EducationProgramme on Institutional Managementin Higher Education (IMHE)2 rue Andr -Pascal. 75775 Paris Cedex our publications throughthe OECD online bookshop(secure payment with credit card) REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES A REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES Fabrice H nard, Alexander MitterleThe need for good GOVERNANCE has dominated the debate on the effectiveness of higher education. The need has increased with growing institutional autonomy and the expansion of university missions. In several countries, this development has been accompanied by the emergence of guidelines for establishments, drawn up on the initiative of governments or university organisations. Since the start of the millennium, most countries have created national or regional QUALITY assurance systems and prepared codes or principles that encompass institutional report explores why GOVERNANCE and QUALITY have become a crucial issue for higher education and traces the historical evolution.

2 FOREWORD The review took place in the context of issues raised during the 2006 IMHE General Conference on Ethics and Values in Higher Education and also as a ...

Tags:

  Quality, Improves, Tool, A tool to improve quality

Information

Domain:

Source:

Link to this page:

Please notify us if you found a problem with this document:

Other abuse

Transcription of GOVERNANCE AS A TOOL TO IMPROVE QUALITY

1 26/04/2007 16:57:03 GOVERNANCE and QUALITY guidelines in Higher EducationGovernance and QUALITY guidelines in Higher EducationVisit us on the to us:OECD/Directorate for EducationProgramme on Institutional Managementin Higher Education (IMHE)2 rue Andr -Pascal. 75775 Paris Cedex our publications throughthe OECD online bookshop(secure payment with credit card) REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES A REVIEW OF GOVERNANCE ARRANGEMENTS AND QUALITY ASSURANCE GUIDELINES Fabrice H nard, Alexander MitterleThe need for good GOVERNANCE has dominated the debate on the effectiveness of higher education. The need has increased with growing institutional autonomy and the expansion of university missions. In several countries, this development has been accompanied by the emergence of guidelines for establishments, drawn up on the initiative of governments or university organisations. Since the start of the millennium, most countries have created national or regional QUALITY assurance systems and prepared codes or principles that encompass institutional report explores why GOVERNANCE and QUALITY have become a crucial issue for higher education and traces the historical evolution.

2 The report then reflects on the major theoretical approaches developed by researchers over the past 10 years, including the main university GOVERNANCE models. The report examines a selection of nation- or region-wide GOVERNANCE arrangements and QUALITY assurance guides, codes and set of principles designed by ministries, funding authorities, QUALITY assurance agencies, rectors conferences and associations of report examines 11 GOVERNANCE arrangements and 25 QUALITY guidelines issued by authorities (funding councils, ministries, associations) and QUALITY assurance agencies from OECD and non-OECD members (Europe, the United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, China-Hong Kong, South Africa, Russia, India and Israel), including international guides such as the European QUALITY standards and guidelines. Lastly, the report discusses the distinction between GOVERNANCE arrangements and QUALITY guidelines, as well as the possible need to define appropriate guidance for institutions.

3 A selection of GOVERNANCE arrangements and QUALITY guidelines are in GOVERNANCE AND QUALITY GUIDELINES IN HIGHER EDUCATION A review on GOVERNANCE arrangements and QUALITY assurance guidelines Fabrice H nard, Analyst at the Directorate of Education, OECD and Alexander Mitterle, Political Science Student at Leipzig University 2 FOREWORD The review took place in the context of issues raised during the 2006 IMHE General Conference on Ethics and Values in Higher Education and also as a response to the conclusions of the International Association of Universities and IMHE seminar on GOVERNANCE Principles and Guidelines for Tertiary Education in 2007. Recent debates have prompted IMHE to pursue its study of GOVERNANCE . Furthermore, the second meeting of the International Association of University Governing Bodies in 2008 underlined the need for institutions to continually IMPROVE their GOVERNANCE and to align their governing model to meet challenges in higher education.

4 Higher education GOVERNANCE is a key policy issue of the 21st century, (Kennedy, 2003). While autonomy opens up areas for improvement and competition, it is restricted by the influence (some argue, interference) of state-driven higher education policy and the constantly increasing intervention of external QUALITY assurance. Lately, the financial crisis has brought new GOVERNANCE challenges to the higher education With losses of billions of dollars to individual universities because of decreasing support from donors and possible future cuts in government spending to counter-balance the subsidies now spent, it becomes crucial for higher education institutions to become more effective. How should actors in higher education approach this problem? How do countries achieve good GOVERNANCE within their institutions and what key issues do they address? The study concentrates on the issues that the guidelines promote for good institutional GOVERNANCE and on the distinction between GOVERNANCE arrangements and QUALITY guidelines.

5 Structure of the review Chapter 1 Chapter 1 reviews higher education GOVERNANCE literature, targeting key concepts and approaches, as well as the development of GOVERNANCE since the Second World War. As the literature concentrates on the Anglo-Saxon and European regions, the descriptions focus on the development of higher education in the Western world where OECD member countries are mainly located. However, the review also looks at future accession candidates, Enhanced Engagement countries with the OECD and post-Communist European States, where recent developments demonstrate similar trends. This first chapter describes why GOVERNANCE and QUALITY have become important, the evolution of GOVERNANCE , the theoretical frameworks of GOVERNANCE within higher education systems, typologies of institutional GOVERNANCE and key actors involved. 1 See the Conference on Higher Education at a Time of Crisis: Challenges and Opportunities co-organised with the Copenhagen Business School, Denmark, in co-operation with OECD/IMHE, click here.

6 3 Chapter 2 Chapter 2 explores the reasons why GOVERNANCE arrangements have emerged and underscores 3 main types. Chapter 3 Chapter 3 provides an analysis of a selection of GOVERNANCE arrangements. With the help of higher education experts, the authors drew up a list of eleven GOVERNANCE arrangements in the following countries: Australia, United States, Denmark, Israel, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Ireland, United Kingdom, Quebec (Canada). We opted for the term arrangements which may encompass guidelines, codes, principles or set of precepts defined independently or collaboratively by governments (usually by Ministries of Higher Education), QUALITY assurance agencies, rectors conferences, funding authorities, councils for higher education or associations of institutions. The review identifies key issues for defining effective GOVERNANCE in different higher education systems with regard to structures, processes and stakeholders.

7 It does not examine the influence of these arrangements (although it does reflect on the findings of studies carried out in the United Kingdom and Australia concerning this aspect). In the text, the GOVERNANCE arrangements are named by their acronym ( AGB guidelines, published by the US Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges) or associated with the country in which they have been issued ( Israeli guidelines). An abridged presentation of each of them is featured in the annexed bibliography. 4 Table 1. List of GOVERNANCE arrangements reviewed GOVERNANCE arrangements (abbreviations) Responsible institution Position of publishing body in national higher education GOVERNANCE Year [first edition] Enforcement Irish Guidelines HEA IUA Semi-state body Stakeholder (universities) 2007 [2007] low (non-alignment has to be explained) Quebecois Guidelines IGOPP Expert (think tank) 2007 [2007] none Danish Guidelines University Boards in Denmark Committee Expert (Committee for the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation) 2003 [2003] none Dutch Guidelines HBO-raad Stakeholder (Hogeschoolen) 2006 [2006] low Australian Guidelines DEST State 2007/8 [2000] high (connected to funding) UK Guidelines CUC Stakeholder (governing boards) 2004 [1995] low (non-alignment has to be explained) AGB Guidelines AGB Trustee Guide AGB Stakeholder (governing boards) 2001 [2001] none AAUP Guidelines AAUP Stakeholder (academics)

8 1990 [1966] none Israeli Guidelines CHE Semi-state body 2004 [2004] high (law-like character) Scottish Guidelines SHEFC Semi-state body 1999 [1999] low Glion Declaration Glion Stakeholder/Reputation of individuals (international declaration) 1999 [1999] none Magna Charta Universitatum Rectors of European Universities Stakeholders (declaration by European institutions) 1988 [1988] none Chapter 4 Chapter 4 looks at how well QUALITY assurance processes (such as QUALITY assessment, institutional and system accreditation, QUALITY audit) address GOVERNANCE issues through the guides prepared by QUALITY assurance agencies (usually in collaboration with the institutions and the state). The analysis concentrates on the QUALITY guidelines issued by six United States regional accreditation agencies, on Indian (accreditation), Japanese (accreditation), South African (accreditation), Hong Kong, China QUALITY guidelines (accreditation), United Kingdom (audit) and French QUALITY guidelines (institutional evaluation).

9 Audit guidelines from Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Russian Federation and Ireland were analysed as well as accreditation guidelines from Germany, Norway and Switzerland. Apart from key issues ( those found in mission statements), the guidelines did not address GOVERNANCE structures or procedures on a supra-programme level or were not specific in their recommendations. Audit reports and guidelines from the Netherlands, Flemish Belgium and Estonia were available only in their 5 native language and were excluded due to translation problems. Turkey, the Slovak Republic, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Brazil and Luxembourg only had guidelines concerning programme accreditation available. In Portugal, New Zealand and Germany, a transition process is in progress and agencies will no doubt provide guidelines soon. The analysis for Germany was possible to a certain extent since regulation at the supra-agency level was already available and one accreditation agency, Zentrale Evaluations- und Akkreditierungsagentur Hannover (ZEvA) had already published guidelines.

10 New Zealand s QUALITY Agency has so far only published discussion papers (which nevertheless enriched the reflection process and provided insightful inputs). The authors could not find explanatory guidelines in Korea, Mexico, Italy, Greece, China (apart from Hong Kong) and Indonesia. However, this does not necessarily mean that they do not exist. The analysis also addresses international codes like the Standards and Guidelines for QUALITY Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ENQA2 guidelines) and the INQAAHE3 Guidelines of Good Practice. In the text, the QUALITY guidelines are named by the acronym of the body which issued them ( WASC guidelines, published by the US accrediting organisation Western Association of Schools and Colleges). An abridged presentation of each QUALITY guideline is featured in the annexed bibliography. Chapter 5 Chapter 5 shows the structural difference between the treatment of GOVERNANCE within GOVERNANCE arrangements and QUALITY guidelines.


Related search queries