Suchergebnisse

The World Bank's Country Partnership Strategy (CPS) for Guinea in FY 2014–171 confirmed the Government's priority to build 21st century skills for improved employability and to implement systemic reforms. Guinea is emerging from years of political and economic isolation and instability. The democratic election of President Alpha Condé has opened the door for the international donor community, including the World Bank, to come forward and support the new government. The World Bank will partner with the Government of Guinea to develop systems that will 'improve lagging human development indicators for absolute poverty reduction, through more efficient and transparent allocation of resources, and to build shared prosperity by aligning the business environment and education system with Guinea's economy' (World Bank, 2013, pp. 1). This is in line with the government's priorities, as per the Third National Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP3) approved in 2013. The PRSP3 aims to reduce poverty and to create and sustain a vibrant private economy by maximizing rents from Guinea'ssubstantial mining sector. The Bank supports the Government's agenda on improving human capital by: (a) promoting both the quantity and quality of education, and (b) upgrading skills for the needs of emerging and export-oriented sectors such as agriculture, tourism, mining, and telecommunications and Information and Communications Technology (ICT). In 2012, the Government requested special support from the Bank in the form of technical assistance to conduct an analysis of the higher education system. This analysis will be used to prepare a comprehensive higher education strategy to meet the needs of both the economy and the labor market. Since the early 2000s, the Bank had limited involvement in this critical sub-sector. Per the Government's request, the Bank mobilized resources to engage in policy and analytical work in the areas of governance, financing, and diagnostic of skills demand and supply from a new employer survey prepared specifically under this technical assistance project.

Due to the New Public Management based higher education reforms in the past decades academics have lost their status as key actors in collegial university governance to a high extent. In response to these changes, academics in Europe started creating and collectively participating in cross-disciplinary action platforms against the reform initiatives in order to reclaim their position as influential actors within the higher education governance systems. This paper focuses on these new forms of collective responses in the UK, Netherlands, and Belgium-Flanders since these organizations emerge as new political actors in the system of higher education governance in all three countries, whereas the extent of disciplinary variety in joining such movements varies across policy contexts.

El gobierno de las universidades americanas está profundamente enraizado en los ideales de la democracia americana y en el concepto de citizen board of trustees(personas ajenas a la institución que llevan a cabo una supervisión de la Universidad o el College sin llegar a llevar el trabajo cotidiano). Estos ciudadanos no son empleados de la institución o de alguno de los gobiernos de los cincuenta Estados del país. Su tarea consiste en representar a la vez a la institución y al conjunto de los intereses de los ciudadanos.Un governing board posee diferentes e importantes responsabilidades, como la supervisión de las finanzas de la institución financieras, los programas académicos y los estándares, y el conjunto de las directrices estratégicas. Una de las más importantes responsabilidades que asumen los governing board es la protección y preservación de la independencia y la autonomía de la institución. Para que el governing board lleve a cabo con éxito sus tareas hace falta una estrecha relación de trabajo con la administración de la institución de educación superior y, en particular, con el presidente/rector. El presidente/rector es contratado y evaluado por el órgano de gobierno y es el principal gestor y portavoz. Cuenta con un gabinete de vicepresidentes/vicerrectores, y preside la administración académica y tiene la facultad de dirigir los objetivos estratégicos establecidos y aprobados por el governing board. Aunque la máxima responsabilidad resida en el governing board, algunas decisiones se podrían delegar al presidente/rector, y a la autoridad académica como las decisiones curriculares.El sistema de estructuras de multicampus, donde un Consejo gobierna múltiples instituciones, son frecuentes en los Estados Unidos de América. Algunos sistemas gobiernan todos los colegios y las universidades públicas del Estado, otros lo hacen con instituciones que tengan misiones similares, y otros siguen un criterio regional.Mientras los citizen trusteeship generalmente reflejan un enfoque descentralizado en la toma de decisiones, formando parte de la cultura política americana, hay asuntos como las cualificaciones para la selección de los miembros del consejo, una correcta orientación y educación, y competencia que les demanda tiempo y atención. Los retos actuales a los que se enfrenta la educación superior en América son tales como una mejor preparación de los profesores, así como el aumento de la producción de grados deCollege degree, y la reducción de las diferencias que existen en los resultados académicos obtenidos por las minorías demográficas, e incluso cuestionarse si las estructuras de gobierno, apoyadas por citizen boards, resulta adecuada. Hablar de reformas para reforzar el gobierno y sus habilidades para dirigir las respuestas estratégicas hacia esos retos es cada vez más frecuente. Siendo también objeto de crítica la selección, la formación, el compromiso con el interés público general o con la institución educativa, a pesar de las dudas que se refieren a su eficacia para el siglo XXI, los citizen governing boards permanecen como uno de los mejores rasgos de la educación universitaria americana. AbstractAmerican higher education governance is deeply rooted in the ideals of American democracy and in the concept of a citizen board of trustees – persons outside the institution who oversee the university or college but do not run it on a day-to-day basis. These citizens are not employees of the institution or of any of the individual 50 state governments. Their duty it is to represent both the institution and the broad public interest of citizens.A governing board has several important responsibilities, including oversight of the institution's finances, academic programs and standards, and broad strategic direction. One of the most critical governing board responsibilities is protecting and preserving the independence and autonomy of the institution. For the board to successfully carry out its responsibilities requires an effective working relationship with the college or university administration, in particular, the president. The college president is hired and evaluated by the governing board and is the lead manager and lead spokesperson. With a cabinet of vice presidents, he or she leads the academic administration and the faculty toward the strategic goals established approved by the governing board. Although ultimate responsibility rests with the governing board, many decisions should be delegated to the president, and also to the faculty for academic and curriculum decisions.Multicampus system structures, where one board governs multiple institutions, are prevalent in the United States. Some systems govern all public colleges and universities in the state, some govern institutions of similar mission, and some are regionally based. Systems are led by a system executive with constituent campuses by campus presidents. Statewide coordinating boards and agencies exist in most states, and in just under half they play a significant role in state policy development and regulation.While citizen trusteeship generally reflects the decentralized approach to decision making that is part of American political culture, there are concerns about qualifications for board members selection, adequate orientation and education, and competing demands on their time and attention. Modern challenges facing U.S. higher education, such as preparing more and better teachers, increasing college degree production, and narrowing the education achievement gaps of minority populations, also lead many to question whether governance structures undergirded by citizen boards are adequate. Talk of reforms to strengthen governance and its ability to lead strategic responses to these challenges are increasing in frequency. Although subject to criticism about their selection, training, and commitment to either the broad public interest or the institution, and despite concerns about their effectiveness for the 21st Century, citizen governing boards remain one of American higher education's best features.

State policy leaders now faceor soon will encountercritical decisions about their colleges and universities for two reasons: First, the success of American colleges and universities over the last half-century has given rise to high societal expectations. Second, unprecedented challenges to higher education are emerging from substantial demographic, technological, economic, and organizational transformations in our society. In this context, the paper aims to trace and summarize the complexity of general patterns in higher education governance, to describe the structural relationships that deeply affect institutional efficacy, and therefore must inform higher educational policy decisions. The authors claim that state policy strikes a balancesometimes explicitly, sometimes by defaultbetween the influence of the market (defined broadly as forces external to state government and higher education) and the influence of systems or institutions of higher education. An effective balance within and across three policy levelsthe macro state policy environment, system design, and practical work processes promotes the general welfare. The goal of state policy, then, is to exercise state authority to achieve public priorities by balancing, within and across complex policy levels, the influence of academic institutions and the influence of the market, broadly defined. ; The National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- Editors and Contributors -- 1 The Political Economy of Higher Education Governance in Asia: Challenges, Trends and Trajectories -- Introduction -- The False Logic of Economism: Economic Growth and Higher Education -- Ashley, Polanyi and the Dangers of Linear Forecasting -- The Political Economy of Higher Education Governance: Southeast Asia -- Indonesia: Systemic Failures and Enduring Obstacles -- Indonesia's Governance Legacies -- Challenges and Trends in Higher Education in Southeast Asia -- HE Governance and Academic Labour in Southeast Asia -- The Political Economy of Higher Education Governance: Northeast Asia -- Research Universities in Northeast Asia: Legacies, Hierarchies and Future Trajectories -- China: The Next Higher Education Superpower? -- Higher Education Policy in China: The Pursuit of World-Class Standing -- Bifurcation and Tensions in China's Higher Education Sector -- Conclusion -- References -- 2 Changing Patterns in the Governance of Higher Education in Asia -- Introduction -- On Change -- Patterns of Governance Change: The Repurposing of the HEI -- Relocating Higher Education Within External Knowledge Economies -- Quality Assurance/Evaluation -- Rankings -- Income Generation -- Marketization of Higher Education -- Franchising of Higher Education Management -- Knowledge Production Management -- Access -- Repositioning Higher Education Institutions Within Broader Formal Governmental Authority -- Redefining Governance Roles Within HEIs -- Conclusion: Dimensions of Change -- References -- 3 Engaging Forms of ASEAN Higher Education: Regionalism and Governance -- Introduction -- Higher Education and the ASEAN -- Task-Specific Actors and Intersecting Functions -- ASEAN+3 -- Seameo-Rihed -- ASEAN University Network -- Higher Education Task Specificity in the ASEAN.

Public higher education in South Africa is governed by the Higher Education Act (Act No. 101 of 1997). Governance of public higher education in South Africa is just one element of governance practised across the entire domain of government to ensure accountability to the citizens of the country. This paper refers to four different, but related, levels of governance that span the landscape of public higher education: firstly, within the global context, secondly, in the context of the country with all of its government ministries; thirdly, the system of education in the context of legislative governance within the public higher education sector in South Africa; and finally, the institutional governance arrangements required in terms of legislation or regulation, which will be reviewed with particular attention being given to IT governance. Further, the notion of managerialism will be discussed to provide some structure to the context in which governance is practised. IT governance, as a subset of institutional governance, within and across the public higher education system is subsequently addressed. Finally, the current absence of IT governance oversight or reporting to the public higher education authority and mechanisms to improve governance in the sector are discussed, which provide an indication of the value that can be created by the implementation of a best practice IT governance framework at institutional level. Accordingly, an IT governance framework can be used to measure the maturity of a wide range of IT processes that The layered approach to governance investigated in this paper provides insight into the factors that influence the ability to govern subsystems, particularly the IT subsystem, in the public higher education sector in South Africa.

China has experienced significant social, economic and political transformations since its economic reform started in the late 1970s. Considerable changes in its policy-making and implementation approaches have also emerged. Confronted with the intensified tension between the call for efficiency and strong pressure to improve social welfare, the Chinese government had no choice but to become instrumentally pragmatic in adopting different governance strategies to address the increasingly complex social, economic and political developments. Thus, neoliberal tenets were introduced. This article sets out to examine, against the wider policy context, how neoliberal tenets, particularly its emphasis on market principles, have been injected in higher education governance. This article aims to explore how the multi-faceted dynamics shaped the development of transnational higher education and influenced the governance of Sino-foreign cooperation universities.