This document discusses the decentralization of decision making at KU Leuven university and the legal requirements for student participation. It describes how decision making authority has been decentralized from the central level to groups of faculties and individual faculties/departments since 2001. Belgian law requires universities to adopt either a co-decision or concertation model for student participation in governance. KU Leuven chose the co-decision model, where students have voting representation on all major decision-making bodies from the Board of Management down to the faculty level.

1. Centralisation versus
decentralisation and student
participation
Antoon Boon
Rector’s Office + Educational
Policy Unit
Rector’s Office
29/11/2005

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Organisational chart
conclusions
• One university
• One central policy
• Many realities
Rector’s Office
29/11/2005
18

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. 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. 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