Chiang mai  pres ingrid moses
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Chiang mai pres ingrid moses

on

  • 483 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
483
Slideshare-icon Views on SlideShare
483
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Chiang mai  pres ingrid moses Chiang mai pres ingrid moses Presentation Transcript

    • IAU/IAUP Presidents’ Symposium on Institutional Autonomy Revisited:National Dimensions, Cross regional/national Experiences ‘Autonomy justified - efficiency and effectiveness; and Autonomy accounted for – responsibility’ Professor Ingrid Moses Chancellor, University of Canberra (2006- ) Vice-Chancellor and President, University of New England (1997-2006) Australia CRICOS #00212K
    • Areas where government may be legally allowed to interfere and actually interferes:• staff – appointments, promotions and status of academic and senior general staff;• students – admissions, progress and discipline;• curriculum and teaching – methods, examinations, content, text books;• academic standards – degree standards, quality audits, accreditation;• research and publication – postgraduate teaching, priorities, freedom to publish;• governance – councils, academic boards, students associations; and• administration and finance – funding of institutions; operating grants, capital and equipment grants, one-off tasks, non-government funding, accountability arrangements. (Anderson, D and Johnson, R, 1988, p.1) CRICOS #00212K
    • The following figures are taken from theDepartment of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs “University Autonomy in Twenty Countries” by Don Anderson and Richard Johnson Centre for Continuing Education, ANU April 1998 CRICOS #00212K
    • QuickTime™ and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture.Averages of Experts’ Ratings of Government Authority to Intervene CRICOS #00212K
    • Singapore Indonesia Sri Lanka Malaysia QuickTime™ and a Russia TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture. Sweden Thailand Japan USA CanadaAverages of Experts’ Ratings of Government Actually Exerting Influence CRICOS #00212K
    • The main purposes of Australian higher education are to:• inspire and enable individuals to develop their capabilities to the highest potential;• enable individuals to learn throughout their lives (for personal growth and fulfilment, for effective participation in the workforce and for constructive contributions to society);• advance knowledge and understanding• aid the applications of knowledge and understanding to the benefit of the economy and society;• enable individuals to adapt and learn, consistent with the needs of an adaptable knowledge-based economy and local, regional and national level; and• contribute to a democratic, civilised society and promote the tolerance and debate that underpins it. (Nelson, B, April 2002 pp 1-2) CRICOS #00212K
    • Australia had, and it was said it needed, a system of institutions withthe following characteristics: • value adding • learner-centred • high quality • equitable • responsive • diverse • innovative • flexible • cost-effective • publicly accountable, and • socially responsible. (Nelson, B., April 2002, pp 2-3) CRICOS #00212K
    • The Institution Assessment Framework has four principal elements: 1. Organisational sustainability • strategic focus • risk management • financial viability 2. Achievements in higher education provision • teaching/learning • research and research training • equity and indigenous access CRICOS #00212K
    • 3. Quality outcomes• systems and processes• teaching/learning• research• AUQA audit4. Compliance• financial acquittal• national governance protocols• workplace reform• programme guidelines and legislation CRICOS #00212K
    • Areas where government may be legally allowed to interfere and actually interferes:• staff – appointments, promotions and status of academic and senior general staff;• students – admissions, progress and discipline;• curriculum and teaching – methods, examinations, content, text books;• academic standards – degree standards, quality audits, accreditation;• research and publication – postgraduate teaching, priorities, freedom to publish;• governance – councils, academic boards, students associations; and• administration and finance – funding of institutions; operating grants, capital and equipment grants, one-off tasks, non-government funding, accountability arrangements. (Anderson, D and Johnson, R, 1988, p.1) CRICOS #00212K
    • Australia had, and it was said it needed, a system of institutions withthe following characteristics: • value adding • learner-centred • high quality • equitable • responsive • diverse • innovative • flexible • cost-effective • publicly accountable, and • socially responsible. (Nelson, B., April 2002, pp 2-3) CRICOS #00212K