Higher education reform –the first year

Indrek ReimandDeputy secretary generalMinistry of Education and Research

25.08.2014.

„Free higher education“ ( govermental programme 2011-15)● A political reform with goals:

– To improve access to HE ● and to establish equal treating for students

– To guarantee better quality of HE– To increase effectiveness of HE system

● Prepared 2011, started from 2013/14 admission, transition preiod 3 years

● With remarkable commitment to finance the reform

The system before…● State financed only commissioned study-places, in

selected (priority) disciplines, other fields were regarded self-financing (student pays).– 50% students were in state-commissioned places, others

payed themselves● Unjust for students. Some able students could not afford.

Students have to work to cover costs.

– De facto different quality standards applied to state-commissioned and fee-based students

● The quality of diploma differs

– More than 500 target indicators were agreed with universities, with different success

● Studies last long. Too few absolvents. Too many small (undercritical) curricula. Enforcing agreement would have been punish priority fields. In fact, state was not able to control the outcome.

Badly adjusting to demographic c

hange!

Demographic view

Population in the age group 19-23

Admission to the HE I level

● Demographics would have (unless heavily regulating state-commissioned places):– Killed „self-financing“

disciplines– Increased quality

difference of state-commisioned and fee-based

– Created more too-small-size under-critical curricula

Improving access to HE● HE is free (all fields). Able student has

possibility to get HE regardless of study field and his/her wealth– Provided that conditions are met (eg student

fulfilling curricula requirements – stimulating timely studies)

● Stipend system redesigned and increased– Needs-based supports introduced– Specialisation stipends designed

● State compensates the loss of private money

● But not any more outlining priority fields– Priorities to be supported otherway, eg by

stipends

Increasing effectiveness of HE system● State supports universities´ activities in total

– State is not any more commissioning single study places (graduates)

● Strong motivation to quality and effectiveness criteria (in contrast stressing quantities)– Quality criteria to be switched on by the end of

the reform

● Some specific objectives in the agreements– Responsibility areas of universities– Decreasing number of curricula

Guaranteeing quality of HE● Strictly equal quality requirements for

admission in different forms of study– If the student is qualifying, he/she has

right to the free HE● Strong motivation to quality and

effectiveness criteria (in contrast stressing quantities)

Transition from old system● State compensates universities´ private

income ● Transition period 3 years

– At start, basing on status quo (of students number)

– Later financing according to fulfilment of agreed objectives

● Political agreement: if the number of students is decreasing due to demography or stronger quality requirements, the financing of HE will not be decreased

● During transition period:– Definition of specific quality and effectiveness

creteria – Refinement of distribution of responsibility fields

Some fears● The reform is too demanding for

students● Badly hitting proportion of earlier

state-commissioned and benefitting fee-based curricula

● Demotivating older students while decreasing flexible (fee-based) study forms.

● Closing curriculas in Estonian to make room English

Some evidence: the first year● Quite few information to make conclusions:

less than a year from start of reform!

● According to Statistical Office Free HE decreased Estonian inflation in III q 2013

● Free HE is clearly increasing the Access to the HE

● No drastic changes in proportions of disciplines

● Needs-based student supports had launching problems

Admissed students are better

Average state exam score of admissed students

2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/1460.0

62.0

64.0

66.0

68.0

70.0

72.0

74.0

76.0

78.0

80.0

76.8

77.8

76.3

73.574.3

73.7

72.3

73.472.6

74.7

68.9

70.1 70.0

72.1

65.5

67.1

65.9

62.7

64.263.8

keskmine kolme parema riigieksamitulemuse keskmistest (avalik-õiguslikud ülikoolid) RE

keskmine kolme parema riigieksamitulemuse keskmistest (kõik õppeasutused) RE

keskmine kolme parema riigieksamitulemuse keskmistest (avalik-õiguslikud ülikoolid) RE+REV

keskmine kolme parema riigieksamitulemuse keskmistest (kõik õppeasutused) RE+REV

keskmine kolme parema riigieksamitulemuse keskmistest (avalik-õiguslikud ülikoolid) REV

keskmine kolme parema riigieksamitulemuse keskmistest (kõik õppeasutused) REV

Some features● Agreements between universities for

refining responsibility areas are stalling● Number of curricula is not decreasing fast● Universities are quite soft requiring timely

studies (charging students) – but it may be a switching-on case

Some conclusions● Too early to make conclusions!

– But monitoring is in place, next data available soon

– (minor) adjustments are made and will be made

● Most objectives are going to be met– New system is adopting with demographic

change!● The work is going on:

– Quality and effectivenesse indicators need changing law

– Responsibility areas of universities

Thanks! indrek.reimand@hm.ee