Stud0608[1]
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Stud0608[1]

on

  • 411 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
411
Views on SlideShare
403
Embed Views
8

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 8

http://www.uv.uio.no 8

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

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

    Stud0608[1] Stud0608[1] Presentation Transcript

    • Norwegian Higher Education Reforms Since 1990 Sverre Rustad Deputy Director General
      • Overview of Norwegian Higher Education
      • 1990s reforms
      • The Quality Reform (2003)
      • The Stjernø Committee (2008)
      Headlines
    • Norwegian higher education – an overview
      • 38 state-owned HEIs
        • 7 universities
        • 5 specialized university institutions (architecture, business administration, music, sports, veterinary medicine)
        • 24 university colleges
        • 2 academies of the arts
      • Military and police academies
      • Private HEIs
        • not for profit
        • approximately 10 % of students
        • 6 fully accredited institutions
        • a further 25 with accredited programmes
    • Norwegian Higher Education (II)
      • Decentralized institutional structure
        • successful in terms of access
        • poses challenges in terms of quality
      • High share of public funding
      • No tuition fees in state-owned HEIs
      • Around 50 % of the relevant age cohorts now attend HE
        • 1 in 5 students older than 30
        • only 1 in 5 students younger than 22
    • 1990s reforms
      • Pre-1990:
        • large number of very small higher education institutions
        • massification had not started in earnest
        • only the universities and specialized university institutions were covered by institutional legislation
      • 1991: White paper on Higher Education set direction for major reforms
        • based on recommendations of 1988 government commission (the Hernes Committee)
    • 1990s reforms (II)
      • 1994: 98 regional colleges merged into 26 state (university) colleges
      • 1995: Act relating to Universities and Colleges
        • covered all state-owned HEIs
        • institutions named in act under respective categories
        • enshrined principle of division of labour
      • Steering: HEIs micro-managed by Ministry to large extent
    • The Quality Reform (2003)
      • Based on the proposals of the Mjøs Committee (2000)
      • Instruments:
        • March 2001: Main white paper (St.meld. nr. 27)
        • June 2001: Decisions by the Storting (parliament) on principles of the reform
        • Spring 2002: 5 supplementary White Papers and 2 Legal Bills, new decisions by the Storting
        • 1. July 2002: Legislation comes into force
        • 1. January 2003: establishment of the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT)
      • Reform implemented at all HEIs from autumn 2003 (some from autumn 2002)
    • The Quality Reform (II)
      • Main elements:
        • Delegation of powers to HEIs in academic, organisational, and financial matters
          • including freedom to establish and withdraw study programmes
        • Changes in governance and management structures
        • New financing system based partly on output
        • Changes in student support system
        • New degree structure
        • New teaching and assessment methods focusing on student learning
        • Increased emphasis on internationalization; introduction of ECTS, Diploma Supplement etc.
    • The Quality Reform (III)
      • “ Bologna Process in Norway”, but also strongly influenced by i.a. OECD review
      • Supported by substantial increase in funding (NOK 1,2 billion)
        • in addition approximately 800 million as a result of increased output
      • Institutions can move to “higher” category through accreditation process
    • The quality reform – preliminary conclusions
      • Students produce more credits, but do not spend more time on studies
      • National quality assurance system established and well received
      • Internationalization takes time
      • Increased autonomy does not lead to more diversity
        • institutions compete for students i.a. by establishing competing programmes
        • universities set the norm for institutional and academic status
      • 3 new universities and 2 new specialized university institutions since 2005
    • The Stjernø Committee: Challenges in 2008
      • Attempts at centrally regulated division of labour have not worked
      • Deregulation within present framework of governance seems to reduce rather than stimulate diversity
      • Fragmented institutional structure
        • many small campuses
        • fragmentation of research training a special problem
      • No top institutions in international rankings
      • Serious concerns about quality of key educational programmes
    • Challenges in 2008 (II)
      • Increased competition for students, staff and research funds, also internationally
        • quality is at the centre of success
        • competitiveness in research requires concentration
      • Higher education and research seen as key to competitiveness and social, economic and cultural development
        • further increasing the pressure for quality
    • Challenges in 2008 (III)
      • Demographic changes
        • reduced youth cohorts in most parts of the country from 2015
        • accentuated by social preferences
        • some institutions already face major recruitment problems
      • As more and more HEIs become universities, remaining university colleges, especially small regional ones, will struggle
    • Challenges to diversity
      • All HEIs governed by same legislation
      • All HEIs required by law to carry out research and development work – no formal division of responsibilities between types of institutions
      • One common set of indicators for output-based financing
      • Structure of academic positions and salaries regulated nationally – same for all institutions
        • academic drift at personal level
    • Challenges to diversity (II)
      • Possible for HEIs to be accredited in higher category – main criteria related to number of master and doctoral programmes
        • academic drift at institutional level
      • Strong regional element in all policy areas
        • activity/employment considerations
        • competition for resources
        • regions want universities
    • The Stjernø Committee – Key considerations
      • How to balance national policies and institutional autonomy?
        • Institutional strategies determined by possibilities, internal and external pressures
        • not always in line with national goals and priorities
        • incentives vs. more direct steering
      • How to combine accessibility of educational provision with concentration of research?
      • How to maintain quality in a decentralized system?
      • How to maintain diversity?
    • The Stjernø Committee – Proposals
      • process of mergers of HEIs, based on proposals from institutions
        • resulting institutions will be universities
      • stronger element of national steering/policy supported by strategic funding
      • development of distinctive institutional profiles through long-term agreements, supervised by international advisory group
      • concentration of research training
      • changes in institutional management
      • measures for strengthening key vocational programmes
    • The Stjernø Committee - Reception
      • Analysis widely shared
      • Proposals for mergers greeted with universal scepticism
        • but few have been able to present alternative solutions
      • Other proposals meet with varying degrees of support
      • Political follow-up pending