Centralisation versus decentralisation and student participation


Published on

Published in: Business, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • {}
  • Centralisation versus decentralisation and student participation

    1. 1. Centralisation versus decentralisation and student participation Antoon Boon Rector’s Office + Educational Policy Unit Rector’s Office 29/11/2005
    2. 2. Institutional background • K.U. Leuven: process towards decentralisation since 2001 : - central level : responsible for general policies; - new decision making and coordination level : groups of faculties; - executive level : faculties/departments Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 2
    3. 3. Legal background • Decree (= Law) of 19 March 2004 concerning students’ rights, participation in higher education and… • Each institution has to choose between one of the following models : - co-decision; - concertation. Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 3
    4. 4. Legal background • Co-decision model : (representatively elected) students have the right to be a member in each body taking decisions concerning : 1° strategic policy of the institution : a) enlargement, scaling down or closing of institution or important part thereof; b) closing of cooperationships with other institutions; devolution of competencies to other institutions or organisation of decentralised structures. c) the programming of educational programmes ; 2° the general educational policy, in particular educational innovation and improvement; 3° research policy ; 4° internationalisation policy ; 5° policy concerning allocation of budgets. Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 4
    5. 5. Legal background • Co-decision model : (representatively elected) students have the right to be a member in each body taking decisions concerning in particular : 1° regulations concerning students’ rights and the educational and examination regulations; 2° the levels of student fees and the spending proposals; 3° initiatives of student counseling; 4° regulations of international student mobility; 5° organisation of academic year, including holidays. Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 5
    6. 6. Legal background • Concertation model : a) university/institution has the obligation to consult with representatives of the student body concerning the same topics as determined for codecision at least once a year; b) for the more specific topics (second list above) formal concertation has to be done between university management and student body; c) for the more general topics student body has the right to formulate advise; university management has to reply formally and motivate if it doesn’t take advise into account Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 6
    7. 7. Organisational chart central level Founding authority Board of Management University Hospitals Executive Bureau Rector General Manager Vice-rector Kortrijk Vice-rectors Groups Vice-presidents Academic Council Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 7
    8. 8. Organisational chart central level Board of Management = Executive Bureau + Persons not belonging to the university (2005 onwards : + representatives of students) Academic Council = Executive Bureau + Deans + Representatives of professors, assistents, students and administrative personnel Executive Bureau : rector, general manager, vice-rectors (4) and vice-presidents (at most 3) (2005 onwards : + representative of students) Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 8
    9. 9. Organisational chart relation central-decentral before 2005 Board of Management - Academic Council - Executive Bureau Faculties - Council (i.e. general parliament with all professors; representatives of assistents, students) - Bureau (dean, small selection of professors, possibility to invite assistents or students for matters concerning them) - Departments (with council and bureau) coordinating research matters; - Permanent educational committees (with programme director) Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 9
    10. 10. Organisational chart central-decentral since 2005 Board of Management - Academic Council - Executive Bureau Groups - Executive Committee (vice-rector, deans of faculties and small selection of professors (elected or because of their function); representatives of assistents and students - Council (dean; representatives of professors (heads of departments or elected), assistents and students) : controlling function - If need be : General assembly (dean, all professors, representatives of assistents and students) : controlling Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 10
    11. 11. Organisational chart central-decentral since 2005 Group executive committee - Council - General assembly Faculties (responsible for education; research in humanities) and departments (responsible for research in exact and biomedical sciences) - Executive bureau - Eventually council (with reduced power : controlling agency) - Permanent educational committees (with programme director) Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 11
    12. 12. Working principles : e.g. education • Academic Council : - central policies (e.g. : bachelor-master reform; quality assurance system; flexibilisation of curricula); - final approval of concrete programme proposals by faculties (until 2005); final approval of programme proposals by groups (from 2005 onwards); • Group executive committee : - proposals for educational programmes (over faculties and groups) (from 2005 onwards); - approval of concrete proposals by faculties (from 2005 onwards); • Faculties : - proposals for educational programmes - concrete implementation Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 12
    13. 13. Organisation : administrative support (e.g. education) Vice-president teaching Educational Policy Unit Teaching support office Rector’s Office Study Advice Centre AV-Net (Audiovisual Services/Distant Teaching) 29/11/2005 Institute for Teacher Training 13 Continuing Education Office
    14. 14. Organisation : advisory structures (e.g. education) Vice-president teaching Educational Council Advisory Council for ict and education Standing committee for reform of educational programmes Committee for marketing Committee for flexibilisation of study programmes Steering committee for bachelor-master reform Task force Quality Assurance Task force Tenure Task force Study guidance Committee for projects of Innovation in education Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 14
    15. 15. relation central and decentral new “external factor” • K.U. Leuven association General meeting 1/3 “hogescholen” 1/3 university 1/3 co-opted members Board of directors K.U. Leuven Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 Board of directors Hogeschool 1 15 Board of directors Hogeschool n
    16. 16. relation central and decentral influence association • Central level : - policy making (e.g. agreement on profiles of programmes serving for students willing to start academic masters after professional bachelor programmes); - approval in concrete situations : (e.g. approval of new educational programmes must be agreed on within association) Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 16
    17. 17. relation central and decentral influence association • decentral level : - policy making (e.g. development of new programmes : influence of partners); - approval in concrete situations : (e.g. negotations on content and size of step up programmes through working committees) Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 17
    18. 18. Organisational chart conclusions • One university • One central policy • Many realities Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 18
    19. 19. Organisational chart - student participation • University and students have chosen for codecision model (less bureaucratic) • Students are represented by elected representatives at each level of the university (board of management -> academic council -> group structures -> faculty level) • As co-managers students have agreed upon discretion concerning personal matters Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 19
    20. 20. Organisational chart - student participation • Two “exceptions” on co-decision practice : - in agreement students can decide not to participate on certain person-related decisions; - for each decision body, other members (students excluded) can decide to prepare meeting separately Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 20
    21. 21. Organisational chart conclusions student participation • Leuven was lagging behind in student participation : a) state organised universities : participation was already obligatory; b) “free” universities (although subsidised equally) : freedom of organisation guaranteed by constitution, but most had already implemented participation at most levels • From 2005 onwards students are full members at all important decision levels Rector’s Office 29/11/2005 21
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.