Strategic Development of Higher Education and Science in Georgia Policy Analysis of Higher Education according to Five Strategic Directions University Autonomy and Academic Freedom Expert – Tamar Zaalishvili

Tbilisi 2013

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 3 I. Hypothetical model ..................................................................................................................................... 3 II. Analysis of Current Situation...................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Organizational autonomy of universities ............................................................................................... 6 2.2 Financial autonomy of univers ities ...................................................................................................... 10 2.3 Staffing autonomy of universities ........................................................................................................ 14 2.4 Academic autonomy of univers ities ..................................................................................................... 18 2.5 Autonomy and accountability of universities ....................................................................................... 22 2.6 Constitutional and special legislative guarantees for academic freedom ................................................ 23 2.7 University self-governments as one of the major factors for realization of academic freedoom ............. 24 2.8 Tenure (constant position) .................................................................................................................. 25 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................... 26 III. Long-term strategic recommendations for implementation of the hypothetical model ............................. 28 3.1 For high organizational autonomy of univers ities: ............................................................................... 29 3.1.2 For high financial autonomy of univers ities: ..................................................................................... 29 3.1.3 For high staffing autonomy of univers ities ........................................................................................ 30 3.1.4 For high academic autonomy of univers ities ..................................................................................... 32 3.1.5 University autonomy and accountability .......................................................................................... 33 3.1.6 Constitutional and special legislative guarantees for academic freedom ............................................. 33 3.1.7 University self-governments as one of the major factors for realization of academic freedom ............ 34 3.1.8 Tenure ............................................................................................................................................. 34 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................. 34

2

Introduction According to the constitution of Georgia “the State guarantees the harmonization of the educational system of the country with the international one”. First of all, this encompasses the involvement in the process of integration with the European educational space (Georgia joined it in 2005) that was initiated in 1999 after ratifying the Bologna declaration. The main principles for effective performance of this process are academic freedom, autonomy of universities and accountability. In accordance with the Bologna declaration “European higher education institutions faced the challenge and agreed to play the main role in creating the European space and revive the fundamental principles of 1988 Bologna Magna Charta Universitatum. This is of vital importance as the independence and autonomy of universities guarantees the high quality of education and constant compliance of research with changeable needs, society demands and development of scientific knowledge.” The state should provide the framework in which the universities will be able to fulfil their mission in the best possible way. “Autonomy does not mean the absence of regulations.” 1 Besides, university autonomy is not a goal in itself, but a vital precondition for success of univers ities and higher education system as a whole. The increase in the quality of university academic activities, as well as the ability to generate additional income (that on its own can significantly contribute to the further growth of institutional autonomy) directly depend on the level of institutional autonomy. A number of expert studies reveal a common trend in the growth of university autonomy. However, many systems grant their institutions too little autonomy, and therefore they perform in a limited framework. This is stipulated by historical, political, socio-economic and cultural context of different states.

I. Hypothetical model According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, autonomy is a freedom of a higher education institution and its basic unit to plan and implement independently their 1. academic, 2. financial-economic and 3. administrative activities. The 2007 Lisbon Declaration of the Association of Europe’s Universities 2 defines four main dimensions of autonomy: 1. organizational autonomy; 2. financial autonomy; 3. staffing autonomy; 4. academic autonomy. Therefore, it is recommended to conduct a comparative analysis of autonomy of Georgian universities from this approach, and define strategic (long-term and medium/short-term) goals and objective. Together with the tenure system and other components, this approach gives an opportunity for in-depth discussion of the 1

University Autonomy in Europe II, The Scorecard, By Thomas Estermann, Terhi Nokkala & Monika Steinel, European

University Association, 2011, p.6. 2

The Lisbon Declaration. Europe’s Universities beyond 2010: Diversity with a Common Purpose. 2007.

3

characteristics of academic freedom. 3 Furthermore, according the abovementioned declaration “autonomy should be founded on adequate public funding and should also facilitate the strategic management of public and private income and endowments. Governments are urged to benchmark progress against target levels set in relation to both autonomy and funding of universities.” Besides, autonomy also encompasses the control/assessment of main actives and personnel, as well as the accountability towards university (staff and students) and society as a whole. Based on the aforementioned the hypothetical model for Georgian university system will be creating the highest possible guarantees 4 for realization of academic freedom (of legislative regulation, elections of a rector, autonomy, tenure), and giving universities the highest organizational, financial, staffing and academic autonomy.4 Hypothetical model encompasses 5: 1. Development and improvement of university charter by the university itself (by the highest collegial body). Herewith, the law demands from universities to manage all the affairs not regulated by t he law, however essential for their effective performance, academic freedom and realization of the constitutional right to education; all the mentioned principles should be defined at length and in details by university charters, including: university mission, goals and objectives, spheres of university performance (education, research, development, etc); conditions and procedures of learning, procedures of curricula development; members of universities, their rights and obligations; university governing bodies, rules and structures of their formation and operational basis; university structure, the procedures of its formation and amendment; university reporting and audit; rules of adopting university self-government charter. Based on abovementioned, the present study does not discuss the affairs regulated by university charter at the moment that indirectly serves as a limiting mechanism of university autonomy.

3

While discussing and analyzing the principles of academic freedom in higher education institutions the UNESCO Recommendations concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, UNESCO, 1997, are mainly used. 4 For developing the maximum guarantees of academic freedom, we used the assessment criteria/indicators given in the document: Academic Freedom in Europe: A Preliminary Comparative Analysis, International Association of Universities, Higher Education Policy, 2007, 20, 289–313. 4 For developing the maximum guarantees for university autonomy, we used the assessment criteria/indicators given in the document:“Lisbon Declaration – Europe’s Universities beyond 2010: Diversity with a Common Purpose“, European University Association, 2007; as well as in the study - University Autonomy in Europe II, The Scorecard, By Thomas Estermann, Terhi Nokkala and Monika Steinel, European University Association, 2011. 5 Hypothetical model is based on the characteristics of higher education systems with high level of autonomy (see annex 1) and is designed for the universities established by the state (legal entities of public law and non-commercial legal entities), as well as for the universities established as legal entities of private law (according to the Law of Georgia on Enterpreneurs and the Civil Code of Georgia).

4

2. Absence of/minimal state intervention and university independence: a) In defining procedures and criteria of selecting a rector, rector’s terms of office, and dismissal; in determining academic and legal units within the universities, as well as creating governing bodies and involving external members in them (organizational autonomy); Taking into consideration the characteristics of higher education systems with high level of organizational autonomy, the minimal requirements can be established in terms of criteria for the selection of a rector, terms of office and main framework of decision-making bodies. b) In determining types, cycle duration, usage and sustaining the growth of public funding; in defining the procedures of raising loan, land and building management, and tuition fees (financial autonomy); Taking into consideration the characteristics of higher education systems with high level of financial autonomy, the minimal requirements can be established in terms of funding cycles, alienation of buildings (need of consent from external governing body) and determining tuition fee. c) In selection process of academic and administrative personnel, defining their salary range, procedures of their disposal and promotion/career development (staffing autonomy); d) In defining the overall quantity of students, the mechanisms of admission, procedures of introducing and terminating programs, language of instruction, mechanisms of quality assurance, and defining the content of the educational programs and providers (academic autonomy); Taking into consideration the characteristics of higher education systems with high level of academic autonomy, the minimal requirements can be established in terms of defining the overall quantity of students (with the consent of external governing body) and introducing/terminating programs.

3. Existence of effective accountability system for universities and its compliance with UNESCO recommendations of 1997. 6 4. Existence of constitutional and special legislative guarantees for academic freedom. 5. Effective university self-government that on its end envisages the availability of appropriate legal and institutional mechanisms for collegial decision-making, as well as involvement of academic and scientific personnel and students in the university governing body(s).

6

Recommendations concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, UNESCO. 1997.

5

6. Regulation of the tenure system (professor occupying a constant academic position) by the law. Development and application of the tenure system regulatory documents (recommendations) on voluntary basis by universities (independently or jointly) in accordance with the law. 7. Implementation of an effective strategic management by universities and the function of the university in accordance with the long term strategic goals of higher education and scientific systems of the country (compatible with the long-term development goals and objectives of the country). 8. Creation of steady organizational-legal guarantees for state universities and their establishment only as legal entities of public law. Furthermore, the possibility to establish as a legal entity of private law in order to receive a university status in accordance with the Law of Georgia on Entrepreneurs and the Civil Code of Georgia.

II. Analysis of Current Situation 2.1 Organizational autonomy of universities 2.1.1. Procedure of selecting a rector According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, in case of legal entity of public law (further “LEPL”) the Chair of Academic Council - the Rector is elected by the majority vote of Academic Council members, through secret ballot in fair and equal elections. The law also regulates the procedure of elections, in particular: in case of the elections of the head of the legal entity of public law – higher education institution, the Academic Council of a higher education institution shall publicize the announcement regarding the registration for the candidates of Rector no later than one month prior to the launch of registration and three months prior to holding the elections based on the rules prescribed by the legislation and institution’s charter, observing transparency and the principles of equal and fair competition. While selecting candidacies for the Rector’s office prior to the elections, the Academic Council evaluates action plans submitted by each candidate. In case of non-profit (non-commercial) legal entities (further “N(N)LE) the law envisages only one restriction in respect to the head of the higher education institution – the rector should be elected. The law regulates the procedure of electing the Acting Rector (the respective a mendment was made on 6 September, 2013), in particular: in case of early dismissal of rector, the acting rector is elected by the Electoral Board which includes all academic and scientific personnel of the institution having academic degree of doctor. Regarding the legal entities of private law, no restrictions are imposed by the law. Based on aforementioned, the regulations imposed by the law regarding the election procedures of head of university (rector) significantly differ for LEPLs, N(N)LEs and private universities. They are particularly 6

restrictive for LEPL. Herewith, it should be noted that neither for any mentioned legal entities the process of electing a rector does not require any approval of an exernal governing body that indicates on the high legal guarantees for university autonomy and academic freedom. However, in reality, high autonomy of university in the process of rector’s elections cannot guarantee the real self-government of the university, and the rector election process, in fact, is a rector appointment process. This is supported by the small number of the members of the Academic Council determined by the university charter, and a legal provision that only full or associate professors can be elected as members of the Academic Council. This requirement excludes the possibility for a wider university society to directly participate in the election process of a rector.

2.1.2 Criteria for selecting a rector According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education the head of a higher education institution established by the state is the highest academic authority – in case of LEPL he/she also serves as a chair of the Academic Council, while in case of N(N)LE he/she serves as a chair of one of the collegial bodies. The candidate for a rector of the state higher education institution (except the state higher education institution in the spheres of military, maritime, art and sport) can be any person holding an academic degree of doctor or equal, and satisfying the requirements set by the charter of the higher education institution. The law does not regulate the rector selection criteria in case of legal entities of private law. Based on the abovementioned, the law establishes certain qualification requirements for a head (rector) of the state university. However, since the head (rector) of higher education institution established by the state is the highest academic authority, it is wise to set certain qualification requirements by the law, and this fact should not be regarded as the limitation of autonomy. Besides, this regulation is compatible with the relevant characteristics for systems of higher education institutions with high level of autonomy. Regulating the qualification requirements of a rector by the law, that was implemented in 2011, was ungrounded and based on narrow interests; particularly, when the section which granted the right to a full professor of the same or any other accredited university to be elected as a rector, was removed from the law. 2.1.3 Rector’s term of office and dismissal procedure According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, it is inadmissible to elect the same person to the office of Rector for more than two consecutive terms that should not exceed two terms of main educational level. The head of LEPL higher education institution is elected by the Academic Council according to Georgian legislature for the term defined by the charter of the institution, provided this term does not exceed the term of service of the Academic Council. The law regulates the dismissal procedure of LEPL university rector; in particular, Academic Council is eligible to discuss the early dismissal of the rector based on demand of 1/3 of the Academic Council members provided 7

the rector violated the law of Georgia, improperly performed duties or/and conducted activities inappropriate for rector. The decision on early dismissal of rector is made by the majority vote of the members of the Academic Council, through secret balloting. The rector does not participate in the ballot envisaged by this point. Based on the aforementioned, the restrictions vary for state and private universities. The law defines the maximal term of rector’s office for state universities, while this regulation does not concern private universities . Also, law regulates the early dismissal procedure for only state university rectors. Taking into account the characteristics of the countries with high level of autonomy, determining the terms of rector’s office should not be discussed as a substantial limitation of autonomy. Despite the fact, that law regulates the procedure of early dismissal of rector of LEPL universities, the university holds an actual power of dismissal, and therefore, the regulation cannot be regarded as a substential limitation of a utonomy. Concluding from the aforementioned, universities have high level of autonomy in terms of defining the term of rector’s office and dismissal. 2.1.4 Creation of internal academic structures of universities According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, the higher education institution consists of basic academic and supportive structural units. The structure of higher education institution is defined by the institution charter that should foresee the existence of main educational unit. Besides, the law defines that the basic structural unit of LEPL university should comprise educational, research (chair, scientific -research institute, lab, clinic, program direction, etc.) and supportive (library, etc) structural units. The law defines the concepts of basic academic and independent scientific -research units: basic academic unit is a main educational-scientific and administrative unit of higher educational institution that provides student training in one or more specialties and gives an appropriate qualification; independent scientificresearch unit is a structural unit of LEPL university that implements research activities and participates in learning process. The frames of autonomy, government and activities of independent scientific-research units are defined by the university charter. Based on the aforementioned, the law defines only basic framework of academic structures that cannot be regarded as a substantial limitation of authority. Concluding from this, universities have a high level of autonomy when creating academic structures. However, because of poor planning and lack of accountability their independence serves as an instrument for political and private interests. 2.1.5 Forming legal entities According to the Law of Georgia on Legal Entities of Public Law, the LEPL can implement a state control on another LEPL, as well as establish a new LEPL in accordance to the Georgian law. According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, higher education institution including LEPL is not eligible to conduct general educational activities without forming another independent legal entity; N(N)LE 8

higher education institution established by the state can form another N(N)LE – higher education institutio n development fund – and transfer its property and finance to the fund for government. Legal entity of private law is eligible to implement higher educational activities in accordance with the law without forming another independent legal entity. It is worth admitting that based on the charters approved by the Ministry, universities established as LEPLs (before their retransformation into N(N)LEs) had an authority to establish non-entrepreneuria l (noncommercial) legal entities in accordance with the Georgian legislature and with the consent of controlling authority.7 They also maintain this authority after transforming into N(N)Ls. 8 Based on the aforementioned, state LEPLs are imposed limitation, in particular, a consent from the controlling body, while N(N)LEs and private universities have no limitations about establishing new legal entities (entrepreneurial or non-entrepreneurial). Therefore, concerning the formation of legal entities the autonomy is limited only in case of LEPLs. 2.1.6 Governing bodies, involvement of external members in them According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, the management bodies of higher education institution and their competences are regulated by the institution charter. Management bodies (governing entities) of LEPL higher education institution are: academic council (supreme representative body), representative council, rector, head of administration and quality assurance office. The law does not foresee the involvement of external members in the academic council. Only the representative council of LEPL higher education institution can include (according to the procedures and proportions prescribed by the charter) members awarded the relevant qualification by the higher education institutio n, independent scientific-research units and society representatives. The state N(N)LE should have at least one collegial body that will comprise academic personnel of basic academic unit and students representatives. Therefore, the law does not envisage involvement of external members in it. Besides, the government of Georgia creates (approves of the charter and defines the number of members) a Council of Regents for supervision purposes. Based on the aforementioned, the authority to involve external members in the governing bodies is significantly restricted for universities. However, private universities have absolute freedom in this respect. Therefore, the autonomy of state universities in this regards is limited.

7

See Article 65, Paragraph 2 of the Decree No. 490 of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia dated 29 May 2008, on “Approval of the charter of Legal Entity of Public Law Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University” (invalid based on the Decree No. 04/N of the Minister of Education and Science dated 01 June 2012). 8 Article 61, Paragraph 2 of the Decree No. 208/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “Approval of the charter of Non-Enterpreneurial (Non-Commercial) Legal Entity Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University”, dated 28 December 2011

9

Besides, the law establishes different requirements on governing models for LEPLs and N(N)LEs; the government structure of LEPL is dual, while for N(N)LE unitary is also an option. Private universities have absolute freedom in this respect. However, in reality, the dual form of government is only formal and in number of cases, universities still operate under authoritative control.

2.2 Financial autonomy of universities 2.2.1 Type of public funding, cycle of public funding The Law of Georgia on Higher Education defines the means of funding for educational institutions: a) tuition fees covered by the state scholarships and state graduate scholarships (only for accredited higher education programs); b) grants, donations or revenues from bequests; c) state scientific -research grants given based on the competition; d) program finances from field ministries; e) revenues gained through any other types of activities in accordance with the Georgian legislation, including economic activities. The Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia approves the undergraduate or/and pre-diploma medical doctor/dentistry accredited educational programs of the state universities. The students of the abovementioned programs are fully or partially financed by the state. A student receives full or partial state grant from the Government of Georgia. The state finances the learning process for four years on undergraduate level, no more than 5 years on 300 ECTS pre -diploma dentistry program, and no more than 6 years on 360 ECTS pre-diploma medical doctor program. On graduate level (Master’s) the state scholarship is given according to the grant amount defined by the Government of Georgia. 9 The state graduate scholarship finances Master’s level for two years. According to the law, the graduate studies are financed by the special program of the state scientific -research grant in accordance to the priorities defined by the Ministry of Education and Science. It is noteworthy that despite the law requirements, there are no rules and procedures regarding financing the PhD studies approved by the Ministry of Education and Science so far. The scientific-research grants are given to the higher education institutions on the basis of a contest. The state scientific-research or scholarship cannot be used for other purposes. The Government act 10 has defined the minimal (6 months) and maximal (36 months) length of projects submitted for fundamental research grant. Besides, the amount of grants is also defined, as well as the maximal monthly salary range for the involved personnel (GEL 1,125). The government also defines the length of projects (12 or 14 months) for applied

9

See the Decree No. 154/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia about “The rules and procedures of

awarding state undergraduate and graduate scholarships and transfer of state undergraduate and graduate scholarships between the accredited higher educational programs of the higher education institutio ns,” dated 15 September 2011. 10

See the Resolution No. 84 of the Government of Georgia about “The state grants for fundamental research,” dated 16 February 2011; www.marsne.gov.ge. Last accessed on 1 August 2013.

10

research grants. 11 The maximal amounts of the grants applied for during the whole year, as well as the amounts per project are also defined. The funding from multiple sources is necessary; the nominal co -sharing is required. The co-sharing amount should not be less than 20% of the amount required from the sta te fund. The maximal monthly allowance (GEL 1,125) of academic and supportive personnel is also defined. Based on the aforementioned information, there is no direct state funding (block-grants based on formula) for mechanism for implementing educational or scientific events. The higher education institutions receive the state funding by means of so-called “voucher” system (students grants) and operate within the framework defined by the state. Despite the fact that the funding received under the abovementioned model creates some guaranteed income for some medium-term period, the financial autonomy of the universities is still very low as they lose the funding in case student’s status is suspended or terminated; the latter can be caused by the number of subjective and objective reasons. Under these circumstances, the universities have nothing else to do than “surrender”, i.e. sustain the grant at any expense. Therefore, this model of funding cannot guarantee their financial independence and effective performance that can be viewed as the significant limitation of the autonomy of the state universities. The fact that the state funding in terms of scholarships occupies a significant place in the university, overall budgets should also be considered. Herewith, the risks concerning the grant awarding mechanisms should also be considered in respect to examination model, as well as the priorities of the Ministry of Education and Science. In particular, the model of Unified Entry Examinations contradicts the principle of university autonomy; the accountability of the universities in respect to outcomes also diminis hes, and this system, just like all centralized systems, contains high probability of corruption. Besides, concrete number of spontaneously divided “places ” for the universities and specialties distinguished in advance also is of high risk in terms of formation of general rules of funding without thinking of possible outcomes. Under these circumstances, the university autonomy diminis hes further. The acting rule for funding scientific research (individual funding for university main units and for the universities themselves) significantly limits university autonomy and obstructs effective implementation of their strategic goals. It is particularly important, as the rule of selection of research projects does not guarantee the principle of free competition and objective evaluation. Besides, the research funding is managed by only one LEPL – Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation despite the fact that the law 12 provides the possibility of funding scientific research by other LEPL science foundations as well.

2.2.2 Sustainability of the surplus of the public funding

11

See the Resolution No. 85 of the Government of Georgia about “The state grants for applied research,” dated 16 February 2011; www.marsne.gov.ge. Last accessed on 1 August 2013. 12 See Paragraph 1 of the Article 15 of the Law of Georgia on Science, Technology and their Development. www.matsne.gov.ge. Last accessed on 1 January, 2013.

11

According to the Law of Georgia on Legal Entity of Public Law, the assets and inc ome received by the LEPL from sources defined by the law should be fully retained by universities for achieving their goals and objectives of the LEPL according to the Georgian legislation and the charter (statute) of the LEPL. Based on aforementioned, LEPL universities fully utilize the income defined by the law. N(N)LEs and private universities have absolute autonomy in this respect. 2.2.3 Taking Loan The procedure of borrowing money by LEPL higher education institution is regulated by the Law of Georgia on Legal Entity of Public Law. According to the law the legal entity of public law based on the state (autonomous republic) property can borrow money with the consent of the controlling state authority and the Ministry of Finance. Based on the aforementioned, in the case of LEPL the legislation sets certain restrictions; in particular, the consent from the abovementioned authorities. At the same time the legislation does not provide any regulations, including restrictive ones, for N(N)LEs and private universities. However, there are no regulatory norms in the statutory documents 13 of N(N)LE universities. It should be pointed out that there are very few cases of universities taking loans. 2.2.4 Owing and managing real estate When establishing higher education institution, the state gives relevant property to it according to the Georgian legislation. The list of the property is enclosed to the act of establishing the institution. The list contains the property itself, as well its assessment by an independent audit or balance sheet. According to the law, any type of operation regarding the property of LEPL higher education institutio ns including buying, selling, renting, etc, in case it goes beyond the scope of educational or scientific -research activities, can be provisioned only by the decision of the representative council of the higher education institution with the consent of the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia and the Ministry of Economy and Sustainable Development of Georgia in accordance with the Georgian legislation. For managing the property of N(N)LE higher education institution established by the state, a development foundation of higher education institution can be created; part of property and funding can be transferred to this foundation. Besides, selling or utilization of this property or its part should be managed with the consent of the Council of Regents. Based on the aforementioned, in the case of LEPLs and N(N)LEs the law imposes certain restrictions – the property can be sold with the consent of the external governing/supervisory authority that cannot be regarded

13

Within the scope of the current research the statutory documents of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Ilia

State University and Georgian Technical University were used. www.matsne.gov.ge. Last accessed on 1 January, 2013.

12

as a significant limitation of the autonomy, taking into account the European practice and experience. Private universities do not suffer from this type of restriction.

2.2.5 Student tuition fees According to the Paragraph 1 of the Article 81 of the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, state universities define the amount of tuition fees in accordance with the Georgian legislation. Besides, the amo unt of annual tuition grant that completely covers learning process on the undergraduate level, pre-diploma medical doctor/dentistry accredited educational programs and teacher preparation programs, is defined by the state. The Georgian government can also define the partial amounts of the scholarships that only partially cover the tuition fees of the abovementioned programs. The state scholarship also finances graduate (MA level) studies on accredited programs. The studies on the accredited graduate programs united within the network of Graduate Record Examinations are covered only within the range of the amount defined by the state grant; in this case the tuition amount is defined by the higher education institution. Georgian citizens or residents enrolled in the higher education institution in accordance with the Georgian legislation have right to apply for the state scholarship or state graduate scholarship. Foreign citizens can receive state scholarship and state graduate scholarship only in accordance with the rules defined by the Georgian legislation. Therefore, the state universities practically do not have any authority to define tuition fees in case of undergraduate studies, pre-diploma medical doctor/dentistry accredited educational programs and teacher preparation programs; they have to consider the state-regulated norms (that does not comprise any reasonable concrete mechanisms/methodology for state grant calculation) and amounts in this respect for each academic year. The tuition fees on doctorate level (as well on master’s level) are defined by the universities on basis of the state scholarship maximal amount. All these issues significantly reduced the university autonomy in t erms of determining tuition fees. Universities retain right to define tuition fee amount only for foreign citizens or people without citizenship. Besides certain master’s/PhD programs can set specific, different tuition fee, but not less than that of bachelor’s programs. As for private universities, they have absolute independence in determining tuition fees on all educational programs; the difference between the tuition fee and the state grant is covered by students. The state scholarships are also part of their income. Besides the limitation of university autonomy, the voucher system of state and private university funding under the circumstances when state universities cannot define the tuition fees, also reduces the competition and therefore, interferes with the effective performance of universities. 13

The acting model of determining tuition fees and state funding creates significant problem because of the termination of the student status (due to not affording fee) and instable financial conditions of universities that results in the deterioration of the teaching quality. This also obstructs the result-oriented strategic management of universities.

2.3 Staffing autonomy of universities 2.3.1 Recruitment of Academic and Administrative Staff According to the law, the recruitment of academic personnel can only be conducted through an open competition reflecting the principles of transparency, equality and fairness. The date and terms of the competitions are announced in accordance to the Georgian legislation and the charter of the higher education institution no less than one month prior to the application process. The rules of the contest are also defined by the charter of the institution. In case of Legal Entity of Public Law – higher education institution, this rule is defined by the Academic Council and approved by the Representative Council. The law also determines the terms of recruitments; in particular: •

An applicant with doctoral degree having no less than six years of scientific -pedagogical experience can be elected on the position of a professor. The charter of the higher education institution can set any additional requirements.

•

An applicant with doctoral degree having no less than three years of scientific -pedagogical experience can be elected on the position of an associate professor.

•

An applicant with doctoral degree or any other academic equal to PhD can be elected on the position of an assistant professor for three or four years.

•

A PhD candidate can be elected on the position of an assistant for three or four years in accordance to the charter of the higher education institution.

Besides, the Charter of higher education institution can determine a possibility of recruitment of relevant qualified personnel on the academic position. In this case, the qualifications of a candidate can be confirmed by the professional background, special training and/or publications. A candidate with relevant qualification must have all necessary competences for reaching the outcomes envisaged by the academic program. At the same time, higher education institution can hire any specialist having relevant qualifications without appointing them on academic position with the purpose to involve them in academic and/or research processes, or for leading these processes. The law defines the list of administrative positions, in particular: the head of the institution, head of administration, and head of basic academic unit, their deputies, and other positions envisaged by the charter. In case of LEPL, heads of quality assurance offices of higher education institution and basic academic unit.

14

The law defines the procedure of electing/appointing the head of administration: in case of LEPL the Academic Council nominates a candidate for the head of administration selected by the majority of its votes to be approved by the Representative Council. In case of N(N)LE, the Board of Regents defines the procedures for selecting the head of administration. The law defines the procedures for selecting the head of basic academic unit: the board of the basic academic unit elects the dean of basic academic unit for the time period set by the institution charter, but no more than four years. The charter of higher education institution can also define the minimal qualific ation requirements for the position of dean. The procedure for electing/appointing deputy dean of basic academic unit is not defined by the law. The head of quality assurance unit of LEPL higher education institution is appointed by the Representative Council, while the candidate is nominated by the Academic Council. Herewith, the procedure for electing/appointing the head of quality assurance office of the basic academic unit is not defined by the law. Based on the aforementioned, the law defines the qualification requirements for academic personnel, as well as procedures selecting academic and administrative personnel. Taking into account the cha racteristics of European systems, these options should not be discussed as an autonomy limitation. It is essential, that the personnel is selected by the universities, no consent from external authority is required. The only exception is the case of N(N)LE, when the Board of Regent appoints the head of administration. Therefore, if not this exception, the universities (state and private ones) have a high level of autonomy in terms of selecting academic and administrative staff granted by the law. However, number of facts proves that universities use this high level of autonomy against their own interests and for satisfying subjective interests. As a result of non-transparent and subjective competitions, lots of qualified staff has been left outside univers ity not getting any chance to occupy appropriate positions. The universities were not ready to develop relevant rules and procedures for recruitment on academic positions. Neither the authorization-accreditation regulations create any relevant mechanisms. In particular, the authorization regulation requires only general provision: “the qualification of academic or invited staff, researchers and teachers should be in accordance to the requirements of the position they have.” According to the accreditation regulation, “in case of the academic staff, the competencies are determined by scientific activities completed during past 10 years (in arts – creative work), while in case of invited staff or teachers – practical experience may be used (it should be admitted that the number of contract-based staff exceeds that of full-time employees including the frameworks of academic and research programmes 14). However, it is not clear how the scientific papers completed by quantitative or qualitative indicators or practical experience are evaluated. All of the aforementioned serve as one of the most important factors for determining low level of education and limited academic freedom.

14

For example, in case of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. See the TSU budget data of 2013 at

http://www.tsu.edu.ge/data/file_db/iuridiuli_cnobari/2013_biujeti-damtkicebuli.pdf, last accessed on 25 September 2013

15

2.3.2 Salaries of academic and administrative staff According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, Representative Council approves of the recruitment rules of academic staff, as well as the amount of salaries and procedures, nominated by Academic Council. The Representative Council approves of the regulations of recruitment of supporting staff, amount of salaries and other procedures, nominated by the Head of Administration. The Law of Georgia on Higher Education also defines the salary bands (coefficients) for administrative positions in accordance with the remuneration of academic positions defined by the law. According to the Public Law of Georgia, LEPL higher education institutions can set the salary bands and working schedule with the consent of external authority. In case of N(N)LE and private universities, the law does not confine any regulations in respect to remuneration policy. Based from the abovementioned, the law imposes restriction on LEPL universities, as they have to conform the remuneration policy to the external authority. However, in fact, this process carries only formal character and does not rely on the evaluation of university policy effectiveness, In case of N(N)Les, there are no such restrictions (approval of university budget (presented by the Head of Administration) by the Board of Regents cannot be regarded as a direct limitation). Besides just like LEPLs, they are imposed restrictions on in respect to setting salary ranges for administrative staff. Private universities have unlimited authority while defining salary bands for their personnel.

2.3.3 Dismissal of academic and administrative staff Labour relationships of academic staff are defined by the law in the following way: Labour contract of academic staff is signed in accordance to the Labour Law of Georgia. No individual of the age of 65 can be selected for any academic position in the state universities, while an individual holding an academic position and reaching the age of 65 can be dismissed from the position after the completion of his/her contract. Any exceptions are managed by the charter of the institution. No individual of the age of 65 can be selected for any administrative position in the state universities unless it is defined by the charter of the institution. According to the law, grounds for dismissal of administrative staff in the state universities may be as follows: a) Personal will; b) a guilty verdict returned by the court; c) death; d) recognition of being disabled by the court; e) reaching the age of 65, except otherwise regulated by the charter of the institution; f) dismissal 16

from the academic position, in case it is necessary for appointment on the administrative position; g) any other cases defined by the charter of the higher education institution. Based on the aforementioned, in case of LEPLs and N(N)Les the state imposes only one restriction – age (though exceptions may be set by the institution’s charter). The law does not set the timeframes for contracts (except that of assistant professors and assistants); the universities are accountable for guaranteeing the academic activities. In case of the administrative positions, the law imposes additional, though not essential restrictions (besides the age restriction). As for private universities, the law does not set any restric tions in terms of staff dismissal. Therefore, universities have a high level of autonomy in terms of dismissal academic and administrative staff. However, terms of offices of academic and administrative staff is neither set by the charters of the universities, thus being a serious factor for restricting academic freedom.

2.3.4 Staff Promotions According to the law, an individual holding doctoral degree or its equivalent and having scientific pedagogical experience of no less than 6 years can be elected as a professor. Additional criteria are set by the charters of the universities. In case of LEPLs, the abovementioned criteria are defined by the Academic Councils and approved by the Representative Councils. An individual holding doctoral degree or its equivalent and having scientific pedagogical experience of no less than 3 years can be elected as an associate professor; and, an individual holding doctoral degree or its equivalent can be elected as an assistant professor. A PhD student can be elected as an assistant in accordance with the regulations set by the charter of the higher education institution. Higher education institutions have an authority to award an Honorary Doctorate or Emeritus to a scientists or a public figure for special merits. The procedures of awarding Honorary Doctorate or Emeritus are defined by the charter of higher education institution. The charter can also define a possibility of remuneration for Emeritus. An Emeritus cannot at the same time hold an academic position in the same university. Based on the aforementioned, universities do have a high level of autonomy in terms of promotion and no limitations in this regards are imposed by the law. However, neither do the university charters regulate these affairs. Besides, it is also noteworthy that the Georgian legislation does not explain the term scientificpedagogical experience (e.g. whether or not the activities conducted within a research institutio n, where an individual worked and supervised Bachelor’s/Master’s/PhD thesis, can be regarded as such an experience).

17

2.4 Academic autonomy of universities 2.4.1 Student numbers According to the Law of Georgia on Educational Quality Enhancement, the authoriz ation council defines the top ceiling of the number of students to be admitted during the authorization term (5 years) when granting the authorization status to a higher education institution. The National Centre for Educational Quality Enhancement overs ees the number of students annually admitted to the academic program(s) of the higher education institutions in accordance to the rules defined by the Ministry of Education and Sciences of Georgia. The centre also oversees the numbers of students admitted based only on the results of the national general abilities tests in the Azerbaijani, Armenian, Abkhazian and Ossetian languages. Based on the abovementioned, the universities are not independent to define the students numbers, they are being imposed limitation in accordance to the authorization requirements. However, such kind of limitatio ns are also frequent in the foreign universities with level of autonomy (e.g. in Finland, the students numbers are defined with the consent of external authorities; in Estonia, an external authority sets the number of students funded by the state, while the rest of the numbers are defined by the universities). 2.4.2 Student admission mechanisms According to the Law of Georgia on Educational Quality Enhancement, as a result of authorization, a higher education institution is granted a right to admit students according to the rules defined by the Georgian legislation. All higher education institutions are bound by the results of the Unified National Examinations and the Graduate Record Examinations conducted by the National Examinations Centre. Based on these results state scholarships are issued for Georgian citizens or residents. Higher education institution willing to admit students on undergraduate level or pre-diploma medical doctor/dentistry accredited educational program, announces a coefficient to be awarded to the results of applicants in each national exam. Based on the Unified National Examinations, applicants are admitted to the desired academic programmes. Universities have an authority to grant the coefficient – the Academic Council approves of the coefficient by the beginning of the academic year, as well as the numbers of students to be admitted nominated by the faculty councils. Applicants to the graduate (Master’s) programs are admitted based on the results of the Graduate Record Examinations and the entry examination(s) defined by the higher education institution. A minimal level of competences for Master’s exams is set – minimal number of grades is defined for certain parts of graduate tests in accordance to the Georgian legislation. Applicants should receive the minimal grades for successful completion of tests and acquiring permission to pass entry examinations in the higher education institutions. 18

Prioritized accredited directions of higher education institutions enrolled in the network of Graduate Record Examinations are financed by annual state grant in accordance to the Georgia legislation; the funding is distributed among the applicants as state scholarships based on the absolute ranking system of the results of Graduate Record Examinations for each prioritized direction. Admission procedures to graduate level (Master’s, PhD) are regulated by the charter of basic academic unit of higher education institution in accordance with the requirements of the law. Based on the abovementioned, the existing model of student enrolment in state and private universities (except academic programmes of arts and sports) restricts the power of universities to define the criteria for student admission as well as their evaluation. They neither have a power to conduct an internal evaluation o f applicants (conducting examinations). Under such circumstances universities are not accountable on admission processes and therefore, cannot guarantee the learning outcomes. The existing model does not provide a variety of methods and criteria for evaluating the applicants (taking into account the specifics of certain programmes). Basically, it restricts the university autonomy and creates many risks, e.g. risk of losing a possibility to reveal special talents due to the formalized admission procedures; admission of students with low grades on the specialties requiring special talents (mathematics, philology); limitation of university accountability on its activities; possibility of corruption. Much less restrictions are imposed in case of Master’s level, although even in this case, universities lack possibility to independently decide on admission processes. Universities independently decide on admission to the PhD level. Therefore, they enjoy a high level of autonomy only in this case. However, due to absence of state funding on PhD level, the number of applicants (except some cases when universities provided funding from their own budgets) with appropriate capacity and motivation but less financial capacity was quite low. 2.4.3 Introduction and termination of degree programmes The Law of Georgia on Educational Quality Enhancement determines that higher educational institutions can implement only those academic programmes enlisted in the authorization application and programmes reflected in the self-evaluation report during the authorization term. While determining the compliance of regulated academic programmes with the accreditation standards, special requirements of the field characteristics are taken into consideration. The accreditation procedures for regulated academic programmes are developed by the National Centre for Educational Quality Enhancement with the participation of the professional associations provisioned by the Georgian legislation; the procedures are presented to the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia for final approval.

19

Doctoral academic programmes can be presented either as a unity of individual academic programmes or on field/specialisation basis. In this case, the unity of individual academic programmes is regard ed as one academic programme. According to the authorization regulations, the standards of higher education institution are met if the institution has developed mechanisms for guaranteeing the further educational steps for students in case of modification or abolishment of the academic programme. The state scholarship as well as state graduate scholarship is awarded to the applicant of those programme that have already acquired the accreditation. Based on the abovementioned, despite the voluntary character of accreditation process, universities have keen interests in having as many accredited programmes as possible. Therefore, the level of their autonomy is not high. However, relevant restrictions can be regarded as adequate based on the development le vel and capacity of higher education system. General and quite obscure contents of the accreditation standards and regulations are much bigger problem in terms of limiting university autonomy. As a result, objective and fair assessment of academic programmes, whether or not they satisfy the requirements, is not quite possible. Universities can independently decide on termination of degree programmes if they do not satisfy certain requirements. Consequently, they have high level of autonomy while terminating programmes. 2.4.4 Language of instruction The language of instruction in higher education institutions is Georgian, in Abkhazia – Abkhazian as well (teaching on other languages is also possible in case of individual teaching courses, or if foreseen b y the international agreement, or allowed by the Ministry of Education and Science). The Georgian government decides on the amount and condition of funding of foreign citizens based on international agreement of Georgia or by the principle of reciprocity, or special state programme. According to the law, the Ministry of Education and Science approves of activities supporting the foreign citizens to get higher education in Georgia. Based on the abovementioned, universities are being imposed restrictions in terms of language of instruction. They can define the language of instruction in case of individual teaching courses, or if foreseen by the international agreement or allowed by the Ministry of Education and Science. It should be mentioned that such restrictions are also met in the countries with high level of academic autonomy (e.g. Finland). 2.4.5 Quality assurance mechanisms and providers In order to enhance the educational quality, the legal entity of public law – National Centre for Educational Quality Enhancement was created at the Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia. The centre is responsible for authorization and accreditation processes.

20

The first step of authorization and accreditation process is a self-evaluation of a status-seeker by filling a special self-evaluation form provided in advance by the centre. Authorization and Accreditation Councils are formed in order to decide on the accreditation/authorization issues. The members of the abovementioned centers are nominated by the Ministry of Education and Sciences and approved by the Prime Minister of Georgia. The National Center for Educational Quality Enhancement controls the process of authorization and accreditation. In case of the violation of the rules, it is authorized to apply to the Accreditation Council to terminate accreditation. Higher educational institutions, including LEPLs can establish a legal entity of private law on joint efforts for quality assurance purposes. The assessment of this entity can be reviewed by the center during the accreditation processes. Based on the abovementioned, in fact, universities have limited authority to select independently the quality assurance mechanisms. In particular, the legislation does not provide a possibility to choose a quality assurance agency independently by the universities that significantly reduces their autonomy.

2.4.6 Content of academic programmes The legislation sets certain standards for accreditation of academic programmes: 1) The aim of the academic programme, learning outcomes and their compliance with the programme . The standard is met if: a) The programme objectives correspond with the institution’s mission, are well developed, oriented on market demands and achievable. b) The content of the programme component (teaching course, module, etc.) taking into account the teaching methods and number of credits guarantees the achievement of learning outcomes and objectives. c) The unity of the programme components guarantees the achievement of the programme objectives and learning outcomes in accordance with the relevant standards set by the qualification framework of higher education. 2) Accreditation characteristics of regulated and PhD academic programmes a) During the evaluation of regulated academic programmes the special requirements set by the field characteristics are taken into consideration.

21

b) PhD academic programme can be submitted for accreditation: a) as an individual academic programme, b) according to the field/specialisation, c) according to the direction, d) as an interdisciplinary academic programme, e) joint PhD programme. Based on the abovementioned, academic programmes of the university should comply with the accreditation standards set by the Ministry of Education and Science. According to one of the standards, the content of the programme component (teaching course, module, etc) should correspond with the component objectives and learning outcomes. The law does not define what is meant under the content of the programme compone nt. However, we can used a Handbook for Education Quality Assurance (2011) prepared by the National Centre for Educational Quality Enhancement displaying the questions for self-evaluation form. One of the questions is: “how would you describe the sequence and logic of the content of the curriculum in respect to the development of qualifications and competences.” Thus, the legislation envisages the external evaluation mechanisms of the programme content. Besides, either in this case, provisions relevant to t he standards are general and give grounds for various interpretation of the relevance of the academic programme to them. This contains risks, especially taking into account the fact that according to the regulation, 15 the selection criteria of the accreditation group is not defined and the group members are selected by the individual normative acts of the National Centre for Educational Quality Enhancement. As a result, accreditation mechanism does not serve the quality development of academic programmes, and thus, in fact, university autonomy to develop academic programmes is significantly limited.

2.5 Autonomy and accountability of universities According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, autonomy is “a freedom of higher educational institutio n and its basic academic units to define and implement academic, financial-economical and administrative activities independently.” In accordance with the law, higher education institution provides:

15

•

Publicity and accessibility of reports and legal acts of the management structures of higher education institution. Non-profit (non-commercial) legal entities established by the state enjoy the norms of freedom of information provisioned by the General Administrative Code of Georgia. The institution should have elaborated transparent procedures of decision-making.

•

Academic freedom of academic staff and students

•

Participation of academic staff and students in decision-making.

•

Equal treatment regardless of ethnic origin, gender, social status, political or religious views, etc.

•

Equal and fair elections in higher education institutions, publicity of competitions.

See Decree No 56/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “approving accreditation provisions and

costs of academic programmes at the higher education institutions,” dated 4 May 2011.

22

The law defines that charters of higher education institutions and regulations of basic aca demic units cannot set the restrictive norms of the abovementioned principles. Based on the abovementioned, the accountability provisions of universities set by the law do not provide any obligations to the universities to built up their accountability s ystem on research methodology; it neither provides the overall mechanisms for accountability systems for universities. At the same time, university charters do not contain any active regulations for development of the university accountability.

2.6 Constitutional and special legislative guarantees for academic freedom The constitutions directly pointing out the freedom of speech and academic freedom (including its elements : freedom of teaching and research and institutional autonomy) guarantee higher level of academic freedom than the constitutions that point out only freedom of speech while academic freedom is only implied in it. According to Article 19 of the Constitution of Georgia: 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech, thought, conscience, religion and belief. 2. The persecution of a person on the account of his/her speech, thought, religion or belief as well as the compulsion to express his/her opinion about them shall be impermissible. 3. The restriction of the freedoms enumerated in the present Article shall be impermissible unless their manifestation infringes upon the rights of others. According to Article 23 of the Constitution of Georgia: 1. The freedom of intellectual creation shall be guaranteed. The right to intellectual property shall be inviolable. 2. Interference in creative process, censorship in the field of creative activity shall be impermissible. 3. The seizure of creative work and prohibition of its dissemination s hall be impermissible unless it infringes upon the legal rights of others. According to the Law of Georgia on Higher Education, academic freedom is a right of academic staff and students to carry out teaching, learning and research independently. According to the law, higher education institution guarantees academic freedom of academic staff and students. Besides, in order to achieve the objectives provisioned by the law: -

The state guarantees accessibility and open nature of higher education; academic freedom of teaching, learning and research; autonomy of higher education institution.

-

The higher education institution guarantees Accessibility and openness of higher education; academic freedom in teaching, learning and research

Concerning the rights of academic staff, the law separately defines the provision according to which “higher education institution guarantees the freedom of academic staff in teaching and research, and creates appropriate 23

conditions for activities.” The law defines that the restriction of academic freedom is admissible only in the following cases: a) Freedom in research – in organizational issues and in defining priorities; b) Freedom in teaching – in organizational issues related to the study process, in approving the timetable of the lectures and programs for the study course; c) Freedom in learning – in organizing study process and providing the high quality education. No political or religious structural units can be created within the higher education institution. Based on the abovementioned, the existing edition of the Constitution is general and does not directly point out academic freedom and university autonomy. While the Law of Georgia on Higher Education regulates these affairs comprehensively.

2.7 University self-governments as one of the major factors for realization of academic freedoom The supreme representative body of the legal entity of public law higher education intuitions is Academic Council; its members are elected from the members of basic academic units of the institution and students selfgovernment through direct, free and equal election by secret ballot. Each basic academic unit has equal number of representatives in the Academic Council. The number of members is defined by the charter of the institution. The charter may also define the procedures for participation of the members of research units in the activities of the Academic Council. The member of the Academic Council can be full or associate professor. An individual can be elected as a member of the Academic Council twice in a consecutive order. The Academic Council membership can be renewed by one third, a halftime after the period of basic education level. The Representative Council (Senate) (a representative body of LEPL higher education institution) is elected based on the representation of each basic academic unit, separately by students and academic staff in proportion to their numbers in the basic academic units. The minimal quantity of the representative staff ca nnot be less than the doubled number of Academic Council members; this point is regulated by the institution’s charter. The Representative Council is elected by a higher education institution within the framework of universal, direct and equal elections, by secret ballot, according to the procedures prescribed by the charter of the institution. Students comprise 1/3 of the members of the Representative Council. LEPL higher education institution established by the state must have at least one collegial bod y compiled by the elected representatives of academic staff and students of the basic academic unit. 24

The private universities have absolute autonomy in terms of realization of the self -government principle. The law provides a possibility for establishing student self-government bodies within a higher education institution; the representatives of each basic academic unit should be elected through a secret ballot, in universal, equal and direct elections. According to the law, the unity of students’ self -governments for each basic academic unit is self-government of the higher education institution that develops a self-government regulation. The law establishes that the administration of the higher educational institution has no right to interfere in the activities of students’ self-government. However, in almost 100% of cases over the years, the student’s self- governments have not been protected from interference, including the political influence. Based on the abovementioned, the law establishes only general framework for university self-governments. Besides, in order to create an effective system of self-government, the law delegates all the authority to the universities. However, in practice the government of the university by society is limited. First of all this is due to the limited motivation of academic staff to actively participate in university life and freely/openly express themselves under the authoritarian leadership (one of the factors of this is an absence of labour guarantees for academic and research staff). One of the essential problems is a small number of the members of academic councils. E.g. according to the charters of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University and Georgian Technical University, two repre sentatives of each faculty can be elected as members of the Academic Council, while in Ilia State University this number equals one. Under these circumstances the faculty participation about the important issues (including providing the guarantees for academic freedom) covered by the competence of the Academic Council is very low in frequent cases, therefore, the possibilities to realize the faculty interests by their own representatives are also limited. The Activities of student self-government practically never served the goals and objectives foreseen by the legislation for them.

2.8 Tenure (constant position) According to the law an individual can occupy an academic position only through open competition corresponding the principles of transparency, equality and fairness. The procedures of the competitions are defined by the charters of higher education institutions. In case of LEPLs these procedures are defined by the Academic Council and approved by the Representative Council. Labour contracts are signed with the academic personnel in accordance by the Georgian labour legislation. Based on the abovementioned, the legislation does not provide any mechanisms for constant position, neither for tenure nor any other analogous system (granting a status of public servant to the academic staff). Therefore, there are no guarantees for realization of academic freedo m.

25

Conclusion In terms of organizational autonomy universities have a high level of autonomy while electing a Rector (that is also regarded as one of the essential guarantees for academic freedom) in respect to selection criteria, terms of office and dismissal, as well as defining the authority of the academic units. Universities also can establish profit and non-profit legal entities without any restrictions; N(N)LE universities are exception in this respect. A weakness of the university organizational autonomy is a limited autonomy in involving external members in the governmental bodies (Academic Councils). In reality, high level of autonomy in electing rectors cannot provide an effective self -government of university, and actually, the procedure of electing a rector is a procedure of appointing a rector in most cases. The independence of universities serves as an instrument of political and private interests under weak strategic planning and insufficient accountability system. In reality, the dual gov ernment system is also formal and universities still perform in the authoritarian system. In case of financial autonomy universities (despite their organizational-legal form) have high level of authority only in terms of sustaining surplus from public funding and taking loans (except N(N)LE). The conditions of defining tuition fees by the state universities is significantly reduced, while the rights of private universities in this respect are unlimited. Current rules of defining tuition fees and state funding do not provide result-oriented performance of universities. Regulations regarding private property are also limiting (need to conform to the Ministry of Education and Science) for universities, although taking into account the European universities with high level of autonomy, the latter is not regarded as a limitation. The risks concerning receiving state grant are also to be paid attention to. The model of Unified Entry Examinations (universities cannot independently select applicants; the process is entirely out of universities ’ frames) contradicts the principle of autonomy of universities. Besides, the funding of concrete specialties by the state without general rules and foreseeing potential outcomes is also risky. “Voucher model” of funding the state and private universities, together with the restriction of university autonomy, hinders free competition in higher education. In case of staffing autonomy, universities have high level of autonomy as in selection, dismissal and promotion of academic and administrative staff, as well as in defining the salary bands (except the administrative positions in state universities defined by the legislation). However, often the universities use their power ineffectively and unfairly. The provisions of the selective competition, not being able to realize the guarantees foreseen by the law, support this process. In particular, the law requires that “Higher education institution should provide… equal treatment regardless one’s ethnic origin, gender, social status, political or religious views, etc; also, transparent and equal elections and publicity of competitions.” All this negatively affects the quality of educational programmes, and in the end, significantly reduces the guarantees for getting high quality knowledge.

26

In case of academic autonomy, universities (both, state and private) have a significantly limited authority in defining language of instruction, number of students, admission criteria for potential applicants (on undergraduate and pre-diploma medical doctor/dentistry accredited educational programs) and defining the evaluation procedures of these criteria. Besides, they do not have any authority to evaluate (exam results) the applicants. All the abovementioned contradicts the principle of autono my and creates many risks that should be taken care of due to the development of system oriented on the outcomes. The active mechanism of accreditation/authorization of universities is more a mechanism for implement ing state influence on the universities, than of ensuring quality assurance. Under these circumstances, the fact that the current legislation does not allow the universities to choose a quality assurance agency (on internatio nal scale) on their own should be paid attention to. Universities are not obliged by the law to create an accountability system (except authorization and accreditation self-evaluation annual reports) based on the research methodology. Therefore, they are not accountable against society (including university community). This situation in number of spheres is rather risky for the universities, although grants them high level of autonomy. The current edition of the Constitution is general and does not directly spell out about university autonomy and academic freedom, while the regulations provisioned by the law create guarantees for their realization. In order to create the guarantees for academic freedom, the law defines only an overall, general framework for university self-government; the universities have an authority to create effective system of their own selfgovernment. However, the analysis of the university charters shows that in number of cases these authorities is not regulated effectively. Besides, under the authoritarian form of government, the university society has a very limited authority to govern the university. The guarantees for realization of academic freedom are provided neither by tenure nor by any analogous system. The different approach of the law to universities with different organizational-legal status is an important, general problem; therefore, the level of their autonomy also varies. LEPLs are imposed far more restrictions, while private universities have the least restrictions of all. This creates barriers in terms of opportunities for universities to perform in free competition. At the same time, wider regulations provisioned for N(N)LEs can be also spread on LEPLs (like in Estonia) and therefore, establishing universities as N(N)LEs is not advisable. Defining/changing university’s legal status should not be determined interests of any political power. More general but most important problem of the higher education system is a lack of vision of long -term strategic development and relevant action plan(s), frequent and immediate changes of legal provisions, their ineffective regulations.

27

III. Long-term strategic recommendations for implementation of the hypothetical model A new law on higher education should be elaborated. The law will define the autonomy frameworks for universities, and provide high level of university autonomy provisioning minimal, but necessary limitations. Universities will elaborate and approve of their charters (the law does not assign charters to be approved by an external authority) in accordance with the law. University charters will be approved by the supreme collegial body of universities. The law will anticipate general provisions of these relations that universities should manage through their charters. According to the law, the state will be able to establish a university only as a legal entity of public law. A new Law on Higher Education (having prioritized legal authority) will differently regulate all relevant relations concerning legal entities of public law. The state authority to establish university only as LEPL will support the stable environment for university activities (including guarantees for maintaining property). The frameworks of the autonomy created by the law will be similar for LEPLs and private universities unles s defined differently by their own charters. In case of legal entities of private law, the appropriate relations should be regulated in a separate article. According to the law, the universities will develop long-term strategies for development that will correspond to the long-term state strategy for the development of higher education system and science, and focus on achievement of goals defined by the abovementioned documents. In medium-term period the basis for effective performance of universities should be the compliance between the medium-term priorities and programmes provided by the documents of general directions of the country and its long-term strategic goals and objectives. It is necessary to create a strategic planning manual for universities, as well as prepare the appropriate training programmes for university personnel. The Ministry of Education and Science should be obliged to prepare annual comprehensive evaluat ion reports of higher education and science systems and provide their publicity.

28

3.1 For high organizational autonomy of universities: •

It is advisable for universities to define, elaborate and approve of the rules for electing a rector. At the same time, the law should oblige the universities to comprehensively write out the whole procedure at length and in details in their charters and establishes the most widely spread and traditional rules of elections according to which a rector will be elected by an elective body comprised by a wider representation of a university (it should not be necessary for an external governing body to approve of its authority)

•

The law should identify only one criterion for the rector selection procedure – only an individua l holding (currently or in the past) a position of a professor can be elected as a rector (coming from the fact that a rector is a highest academic authority). Besides, universities should be granted a right to set up additional qualification requirements based on their missions.

•

Maximal and minimal terms of the rector’s office should be anticipated by the law. Besides, the dismissal procedures should be determined by the university charters elaborated and approved by the universities themselves.

•

The law should define a minimal number of the members of the academic boards that in fact guarantees the principle of self-government and realization of academic freedom.

•

The legislation should not limit the universities to involve external members in their governing bodies.

•

The law should allow universities to establish legal entities.

•

It is important to analyze the existing model(s) of university governance structures (dual/unitary) and to prepare certain recommendations for managing the appropriate relations in the law for the state (LEPL) and private universities.

3.1.2 For high financial autonomy of universities: •

A new standard of funding higher education should be elaborated. The “voucher system” should be eliminated step by step, and at the same time the mechanism of direct funding should be introduced that will guarantee the high financial autonomy of universities, as well as an adequate, reliable and sustainable state funding for universities. At the same time, a relevant accountability system should be established (as in absolute majority of the European universities). Together with this type of the state funding, the universities should maintain the authority to diversify the structure of their income. In this case the university autonomy will increase further.

•

The law should define the direct funding for universities (based on formula containing the indicators of assessment results) such as block grants. Universities should be able to independently decide the 29

directions of using/distributing the block grants. Besides the state budget should provide universities with direct funding (block grants) for research and development. This part of funding should be determined for medium term period based on the assessment of their performance. •

The universities should have an authority to take loans with the consent of the decision making body of the universities and in accordance with the law (maximum interest rate can be set up).

•

The universities should have an authority to independently define the tuition fee for undergraduate and graduate academic programmes. In case the state responsibility for university funding is high and adequate, it is possible to define tuition fees in cooperation with the external authority.

•

Additional mechanisms for funding/crediting should be elaborated that will support the realization of the right of getting high education. The state should retain the main responsibilities in implementatio n of these mechanisms.

Considering the existing reality, in order to achieve high financial autonomy for univers ities, it is recommended to take the following steps as soon as possible: •

To elaborate rules of direct funding (block grants) for universities

•

To elaborate the procedures for calculating state scholarships and state graduate scholarships, including funding doctoral studies, before the direct funding system is set in motion,

•

To revise the issues of the state funding for private universities in order to create compet itive environment in higher education.

•

To determine assignations for the state funding (direct funding as block grants) of the research in universities in the law on the state budget.

•

To implement an effective assessment system of the performance of National Science Foundation. To revise the mechanisms of funding research projects in order to guarantee the rational expenditure of finances the science and provide an environment for healthy competition. Within this project the funding should be allocated not for basic academic units of the universities, but for the universities as a whole.

3.1.3 For high staffing autonomy of universities •

The law on higher education should define the list of scientific/research positions of the universities . This will create the guarantees for effective performance of the university research units (including

30

the ones joined the universities during last ten year). Estonia has the analogical experience in this respect, since it implemented the similar reform. •

The law should define the qualification requirements for the research staff. Considering the development of unified research system, it is possible to regulate this issue by the Law of Georgia on Science, Technology and their Development. The relevant qualification requirements should be reflected in the accreditation-authorization standards of the HE institution.

•

Academic and research staff should be selected via open competition in every five years. Besides, the law should define the terms of office for academic and research staff; the terms should be similar (five years). Different contract terms (constant position) should be established for professors (former full professors) who have occupied the position of a professor not less than 11 years. The establishing of the constant professorships will support the realization of academic freedom.

•

The decision-making collegial body of the university should define the terms and procedures of academic and research competitions. The abovementioned body should decide on the selection of professors on academic positions; while the decision on other academic positions, as we ll as the research ones, should be made by the decision-making collegial bodies of the basic academic units. The labour relations with other staff should be regulated by the labour code of Georgia.

•

The law should not impose any limitations (conforming remuneration and staff schedules with external authority) and universities should have possibility to independently define the salary ranges for academic, research and administrative staff.

•

The law should not define (expect the existing labour code) the specific regulations for dismiss ing academic or administrative staff.

•

The legislation should not impose any limitations and universities should have a right to independently promote the staff.

Considering the existing reality, in order to achieve high staffing autonomy for univers ities, it is recommended to take the following steps as soon as possible: •

To define the terms of contract of academic and research staff by the law (terms of arranging next contest); the Law on Higher Education should define what is regarded as “a scientific-pedagogical experience,” as it is a necessary requirement for academic position at the moment.

•

The law should define the university responsibility to establish a promotion mechanisms of academic, research and administrative staff according to their charters.

•

To elaborate and decide on an effective rule for creating competition committee for selecting academic personnel; the rule should define the minimal qualification requirements and obligation for the committee members to justify their decision on candidates, as well as provide objectivity and lawabiding performance of the committee.

31

•

To create a competition committee and appeal committee for academic competitions.

•

The academic competition committee should elaborate a rule for guaranteeing transparent, equal and fair competition. In particular, the adequate and clear criteria (including minimal qualification requirements) will be defined for selecting the candidates, as well as the share of each component in the final evaluation of the candidates.

•

Competitions should be announced on all academic positions of professors (supervisors/co -supervisors of directions). The law should define only the necessity to work on fulltime positions, besides, an individual should be able to occupy this position only in one university.

•

A system oriented on the qualification enhancement of academic, research and administrative staff should be created (arranging scientific conferences, workshops, etc.) and implement target programmes for this purpose.

3.1.4 For high academic autonomy of universities •

A balanced system for acquiring a right to study at the university should be created that will guarantee the connection between general and higher education, as well as the authority of universities to independently define the admission criteria for students. According to this system, applicants will be enrolled based on the unified national high school exams and additional criteria defined by the HE institutions (exams, interviews). The system should be balanced in a way to exclude the risk s (corruption, etc) connected with the participants/components of the system.

•

According to the legislation, the universities should have an authority to independently select a quality assurance international agency.

Considering the existing reality, in order to achieve high academic autonomy for univers ities, it is recommended to take the following steps as soon as possible: •

To provide the independence of the National Centre for Educational Quality Enhancement from the state.

•

To elaborate clear standards for authorization and accreditation of the universities and an objective assessment mechanism for these processes.

•

To include additional requirements in authorization and accreditation standards for enhancing the education quality

•

To define a rule of compiling the authorization and accreditation groups as well as the qualification requirements for the members of these groups by the normative acts. 32

•

The admission of applicants in to universities should be based on the unified nationa l school examinations; the regulation of conducting the abovementioned exams (including the programme of unified school examinations and the tests) should be elaborated in closed cooperation with the universities.

3.1.5 University autonomy and accountability The law regulating the higher education system defines: •

University is autonomous within the frameworks defined by the law.

•

University is accountable to its community, as well as the whole society.

•

Together with the autonomy assigned by the law, a university is obliged to create an effective accountability system based on the research methodology; the system should provide the preparation of transparent, realistic and easily understandable reports; the reports should be accessible for the society.

•

University is obliged to prepare and publicize statistical (including the numbers of individuals willing to continue studying on the next level and employment records of the alumni) and budgetary reports on its own activities.

•

University guarantees the publicity of the self-evaluation report.

3.1.6 Constitutional and special legislative guarantees for academic freedom In order to provide constitutional and special legislative guarantees of academic f reedom: The Constitution should define the following: •

The Constitution widely recognizes and protects …academic freedom – right of academic staff and students to independently teach, study and research.

•

University autonomy is recognized and protected within the frameworks defined by the law.

The law should provide the definition of autonomy in the following way (instead the current on): “autonomy is a freedom of HE institution and its basic academic units to independently define and implement organizational, financial and academic activities, as well as in human resources.”

33

3.1.7 University self-governments as one of the major factors for realization of academic freedom In order to provide effective self-government of universities, it is recommended to define detailed regulations for forming university governing bodies (including academic council) by the law; this will guarantee the wider participation of university society in the activities of the governing bodies. Legal, institutional and financial mechanism should be established for guaranteeing the real independence of student self-governments and students participation in university management. At the same time, one of the main functions of the university self-government should be protection of students’ rights. Besides, in order to active involvement of students in the university life, as well as maximum realization of their rights, special development programmes for students’ skills should be developed.

3.1.8 Tenure A different type of contract terms should be established for the professors working at the universities for no less than 11 years – a constant position. Besides, the law should define a reasonable period for enforcement of this regulation that will provide high level of teaching and research, together with the guarantees of academic freedom. The performance of professors should be assessed on regular basis. It is recommended to define the list of academic personnel by the law. The list should contain only one position of a “professor” (the other professors may be docent, lecturer, assistant, and teacher). Support programmes/events for collaboration of different universities should be implemented, including the elaboration of documents (recommendations) for regulation of tenure system.

Bibliography 1. The Constitution of Georgia 2. The Law of Georgia on Higher Education 3. The Law of Georgia on Educational Quality Enhancement 4. The Law of Georgia on Science, Technology and Their Development 5. The Law of Georgia on Legal Entity of Public Law

34

6. Decree No 99/N of the Minister of Education and Science on “defining regulations of authorization and fees of Higher Education institutions,” dated 1 October 2013. 7. Decree No 56/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “approving accreditation provisions and costs of academic programmes at the higher education institutions,” dated 4 May 2011. 8. Decree No154/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia about “The rules and procedures of awarding state undergraduate and graduate scholarships and transfer of state undergraduate and graduate scholarships between the accredited higher educational programs of the higher education institutio ns,” dated 15 September 2011. 9. Rsolution No 84 of the Government of Georgia about “The state grants for fundamental research” dated 16 February 2011. 10. Rsolution No 85 of the Government of Georgia about “The state grants for applied research,” dated 16 February 2011. 11. Decree No 135/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “Approval of the charter of Legal Entity of Public Law - Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,” dated 11 September 2013. 12. Decree No 134/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “Approval of the charter of Legal Entity of Public Law – Ilia State University,” dated 11 September 2013. 13. Decree No 133/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “Approv al of the charter of Legal Entity of Public Law – Georgian Technical University,” dated 9 September 2013. 14. Decree No 490 of Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “Approval of the charter of Legal Entity of Public Law - Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,” dated 29 May 2008 (invalid based on the Decree No, 04/Nof the Minister of Educatio and Science, dated 1 June 2012). 15. Decree No 208/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “Approval of the charter of NonEnterpreneurial (Non-Commercial) Legal Entity Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University,” dated 28 December 2011 (invalid based on the Decree No 135/N of the Minister of Education and Science, dated 11 September 2013). 16. Decree No 27/N of the Minister of Education and Science of Georgia on “Approval of the charter of Legal Entity of Public Law – Ilia state University,” dated 20 April 2010 (invalid based on the Decree No 235/N of the Minister of Education and Science, dated 06 June 2012). 17. Decree No. 235/N of the Minister of Education and Science on “Approval of the charter of Non-entrepreneurial (Noncommercial) Legal Entity – Ilia State University,” dated 6 November 2012 (invalid based on the Decree No. 134/N of the Minister of Education and Science, dated 11 September 2013). 18. Decree No. 41/N of the Minister of Education and Science on “Approval of the charter of Legal Entity of Public Law – Georgian Technical University,” dated 21 March 2011 (invalid based on the Decree No. 04/N of the Minister of Education and Science, dated 1 June 2012) 19. Decree No. 41/N of the Minister of Education and Science on “Approval of the charter of Non-entrepreneurial (Noncommercial) Legal Entity – Georgian Technical University,” dated 21 March 2011 (invalid based on the Decree No. 133/N of the Minister of Education and Science, dated 9 September 2013)

35

20. Magna Carta Universitatum (1988), http://www.magna-charta.org/cm s/cm spage.aspx?pageU id={d4bd2cba-e26b499e80d5-b7a2973d5d97. Last accessed on 1 August 2013. 21. Bologna process documents, http://www.mes.gov.ge/content.php?id=1856&lang=geo. Last accessed on 1 September 2013. 22. European higher education and research legislation taken from the official web-pages of the relevant institutio ns 23. The Lisbon Declaration. Europe`s Universities beyond 2010: Diversity with a Common Purpose. 2007. 24. Recommendations concerning the Status of Higher-Education Teaching Personnel, UNESCO, 1997. 25. 1940 Statenment of Principles on Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure with 1970 Interpretive Comments. American Association of University Professors. 1970. 26. Post-Tenure Review: An AAUP Response. American Association of University Professors. 1999. 27. Academic Freedom in Europe: A Preliminary Comparative Analysis, International Association of Universities, Higher Education Policy, 2007, 20, 289–313. 28. University Autonomy in Europe I, Exploratory study by Thomas Estermann and Terhi, European University Association, 2009. 29. University Autonomy in Europe II, The Scorecard, By Thomas Estermann, Terhi Nokkala and Monika Steinel, European University Association, 2011. 30. Higher Education Governance in Europe. Policies, Structures, Funding and Academic Staff. EURYDICE. 2009. 31. Financially Sustainable Universities II. European universities diversifying income streams. Europ ean University Association. Thomas Esterman and Enora Pruvot. 2011. 32. Lika Glonti, From Public to Non-Commercial Legal Status - Universities in Georgia: Status Quo and Perspectives of Strategic Development, 2012. http://css.ge/files/books/papers/Lika_Glo nti,_June_2012.pdf. Last accessed on 1 August 2013. 33. Maia Chankseliani, Spatial Inequities in Higher Education Admissions in Georgia: Likelihood of Choosing and Gaining Access to Prestigious Higher Education Institutions, 2012. http://css.ge/files/books/papers/Maia_Chankselini,_Sept_2012_Geo.pdf. Last accessed on 1 August 2013. 34. Laws of Georgia on the State Budget, adopted in 2004-2013. http://www.mof.ge/4979, Last accessed on 10 October 2013. 35. Documents of main data and directions of the country, adopted in 2006 -2013. http://www.mof.ge/BDD, Last accessed on 10 October 2013. 36. Evaluations of experts/stakeholders (based on interviews). The interviews with the following experts/stakeholders were conducted during the research:

36

•

Zurab Davitashvili – Member of the Academic Council of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

•

Davit Chomakhidze – Head of Administration of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University

•

Ketevan Kokrashvili – Head of Administration of the Georgian Technical University

•

Zaza Maruashvili – Dean of Law School at the Caucasus University

•

Mamuka Beriashvili – Head of Department of Higher Education and Science Development, Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia

37