Cristina Muntean (4. 6. 2007 - Czech Business Weekly)
In addition to the typical temperature surge heralding autumn, September will be a month of hot debate for Czech higher education. The Ministry of Education (MŠMT) is preparing a “white paper” on tertiary education.
The book, to be issued in September, is a complex document including major reform proposals that will be introduced for open discussions to concerned parties in higher education. The purpose of the negotiations is to modify the current Higher Education Act, the fundamental law on Czech tertiary education that has been in force since 1998.
Two topics to be included in the paper will be how to increase the proportion of private financing of tertiary education and suggestions on how to modify universities’ management system to bring schools into closer contact with the business environment.
Petr Matějů, director of the department of analysis and strategy for MŠMT and a vocal leader for the ministry’s proposed reforms, said that he expected the document to spur a “hot debate” because the positions of Czech universities on the potential reforms are very different. Matějů declined to reveal concrete details of reform proposals because of ongoing drafting procedures, but he said that by September the MŠMT plans to organize a meeting of all the major players, from rectors to representatives of the Council of Higher Education Institutions (RVŠ), higher vocational schools (VOŠ) and students to discuss the reform proposals.
“Any of these topics [such as private financing for tertiary education or changing the management structures of universities] will raise a hot debate, but this will be its point, to bring these important issues to the agenda and to try to solve them,” Matějů said. While the issue of increasing private financing in Czech universities by introducing student tuition fees remains a contentious—and often taboo—subject, an idea that will likely see some debate is the necessity to modify the management structures of universities and increase the powers of boards of trustees. For some universities, the debate has already started. As for tuition, even Minister of Education Dana Kuchtová (Greens, SZ) rejected the idea earlier this year on the grounds that it would increase social inequities among students.
Pro and con
While some universities welcome the idea of increasing their leaders’ powers to realize more efficient management, others point to the risk of rising costs and increased bureaucracy brought by the reforms.
“The current governance model has worked quite well in enabling public universities to decide autonomous strategies, undertake internal reforms and meet new and increasing expectations of the state and public regarding study opportunities and research activities,” said Jiří Nantl, executive assistant to the rector of the Masaryk University (MU) in Brno, South Moravia, the second largest Czech university.
Nantl said that his university shows that efficient performance of a public university is not contrary to a higher education governance model based on participation of the academic staff. “We don’t see any substantial reasons to change the division of powers inside university governance very profoundly,” he said, adding that any substantial redistribution of powers among the governing bodies could be a “significant challenge” for public universities that will bring costs and overload universities with procedural issues connected with the reforms. “Our university prefers moderate and continuous development and it would be happy to receive more autonomy from the state and increased financial certainty, such as being provided with multiple-year financial contracts for teaching funding,” Nantl said.
In the 2006-07 academic year, Masaryk University had 30,814 students, compared to 22,029 in 2005–06. In 2006, the university registered 56,961 applicants for studies in all fields. Only 18,051 applicants were ultimately admitted to the university.
On the other hand, the Czech Technical University in Prague (ČVUT) favors reforming the universities’ management system. “The lack of clearly defined roles of various— and perhaps too many—decision making bodies at universities are one of the [current managerial] problems,” said Jaroslav Kuba, ČVUT’s vice rector for educational activities and marketing. Kuba said that a “nonexistent ownership of the university makes it difficult to lead the school more effectively.”
ČVUT ordered a few analyses of its business practices done by external experts such as consultancy Deloitte Czech Republic, and their conclusions were that the role of the supervisory boards should be strengthened, as well as the powers of universities’ decision-making bodies, in order to give rectors more authority over individual faculties. “This can’t be done without changes in the Higher Education Act,” Kuba said.
Report cites need for change
One of the major arguments the MŠMT is using to promote its reforms is a report published in November 2006 and produced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on tertiary education in the Czech Republic.
The report addressed problems that the business community had already been pointing out for some time, such as the need to upgrade the universities’ study curricula in order to deliver more graduates with up-to-date theoretical knowledge and more practical experience, and the need for closer cooperation between companies and schools in research and development (R&D). The report emphasized the necessity of bringing more “outsiders”—people from the business sector or public administration—into the boards of trustees. “A broader range of stakeholders need to be included in [the] strategic (not scientific) system and institutional level governance,” the report stated.
Currently, Czech tertiary education is ruled by the Higher Education Act of 1998. The law states the roles for both the academic senate and the boards of trustees. On the one hand, the academic senate—an independent academic body made of representatives of professors and students—is in charge of decisions regarding structural developments such as mergers, approving internal regulations, annual budgets, annual reports or long-term plans for education and research. The most important role of the academic senate is to elect the rector. The senate then proposes the appointment to the president of the Czech Republic, who installs the nominee as rector.
On the other hand, the boards of trustees function in a consultative role. Trustees are appointed for six years and include representatives of the public sector, the municipality or state administration. The boards’ main task is to consent to real estate acquisition or any other tangible assets, or to establish a daughter institution for the university. The board has to give its position also on long-term intentions, budgets and provide an annual report on activities and economic management.
If the OECD suggestions are translated into reforms, the boards of trustees could see their structure diversify by bringing in more representatives of the business community and see their power increasing by having a say in the elections and supervision of rectors, and give more than guidance or advice on the school’s development strategy. As Matějů pointed out, increasing the powers of both the boards of trustees and the rectors and deans after being elected would be one of the first steps toward modernizing tertiary education in the Czech Republic. Rectors could have stronger sway regarding the implementing of university strategies by individual faculties, but they would also have to be responsible for the final outcome, the same as in a corporation, Matějů said. However, the main challenge is now the design of the white paper. How the reforms—suggested by the book—will be implemented, depends on the subsequent discussions.