regional seminar on private higher education in asia and...

Private Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific

A Regional Seminar organized byUNESCO PROAP and SEAMEO RIHED

hosted by Xiamen University Xiamen, China31 October -3 November 1995

Final ReportPart I: Summary and Recommendations

Edited byTong-In Wongsothorn and Wang Yibing

UNESCO PROAP SEAMEO RIHEDBangkok

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) document. WARNING! Spelling errors might subsist. In order to accessto the original document in image form, click on "Original" button on 1st page.

CONTENTS

Editorial Note by Tong-In Wongsotorn andWang Yibing

Foreword by Victor Ordonez,Director, UNESCO PROAP

Welcome Address by Lin Zugeng,President, Xiamen University

Remarks by Tong-In Wongsothorn,RIHED Interim Director

Remarks by Wang Yibing,UNESCO Specialist on Higher Education

PART I : Summary and Recommendations

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: State Legislation and Government Policiesfor the Development of Private Higher Education

Chapter 3: Financing Private Higher Education Institutions

Chapter 4: Quality Assurance in Private Higher Education

Chapter 5: Country Case Studies

Chapter 6: Recommendations


PART II : Seminar Papers

1. CHINAPan Maoyuan

Zhou Nanzhou

2. INDIAJandhyala B G Tilak

3. INDONESIAJoetata Hadihardaja

4. JAPANMasahiro Arimatsu

5. REPUBLIC OF KOREAHyun Chong Lee

6. MALAYSIADato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid

7. MONGOLIAB. Erdenesuren

8. PHILIPPINESMona D. Valisno

9. THAILANDThanu Kulachol

Chantavit Sujatanond

Legislation Guarantee for the Developmentof Private Higher Education

The Evolution and Policies ConcerningNGO-Sponsored Higher Education in China

A Note on Private Higher Education in India

Private Higher Education in Indonesia:Current Developments and ExistingProblems

Current Status and Issues Involved withPrivate Higher Education in Japan

Government Policies and Private HigherEducation: The Korean Case.

Private Higher Education in Malaysia:Current Development and Future Direction

Private Higher Institutions in Mongolia:Introduction to Their Contributions andProblematic Issues Requiring UrgentRectification

Private Higher Education in the Philippines:Performance and Challenges in the 21stCentury

Private Higher Education in Thailand

Mechanism in the Supervision of PrivateHigher Education Institution in Thailand


10. VIET NAMLam Quan Thiep The Private Sector of Higher Education in

Viet Nam

ANNEXES

Annex 1 Programme of the Seminar

Annex 2 List of Participants and Observers

Annex 3 List of Papers Distributed at the Seminar


Editorial Note

This final report of the Regional Seminar on Private Higher Educationconsists of two parts: Part 1 summarizes the keynote addresses, country reports,discussions, and recommendations. Part 2 presents papers from participants andspeakers from 10 countries: China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,Mongolia, Philippines, Thailand and Viet Nam.

For the first part we are very grateful to Dr. Jondhyala B.G. Tilak, Head ofEducational Finance Unit, National Institute of Education Planning andAdministration, New Delhi, India who, as a Rapporteur of the seminar, worked sohard to have the summary and recommendations adopted during the seminar.

For the second part, we are very grateful to the authors themselves. Specialappreciations are also conveyed to Mr. Kevin, SEAMEO RIHED PublicationsOfficer, who served as a technical editor of this report. Secretarial staff ofSEAMEO RIHED also made a great contribution to the final product.

We hope this report will be useful to policy makers and administratorsconcerned with private higher education as well as students and readers in the fieldof higher education.

Tong-In WongsothornSEAMEO RIHED

Wang YibingUNESCO PROAP

1


Foreword byDr. Victor Ordonez, Director, UNESCO PROAP

It has been one of the important features in the development of highereducation in this region that the private sector has played a critical role indemocratization of higher education in countries like the Philippines, Japan,Republic of Korea, Indonesia and Thailand. Since the early eighties, andincreasing number of countries, those in transition from central planning towardsmarket economies in particular, have expressed great interest inrelaxing policies tocreates new or expand an existing private sector, in order to ease growing pressurefor access to higher education.

The development and quality of private higher education in the region hasbecome a major concern at the Sixth Regional Conference of Ministers ofEducation and those Responsible for Economic Planning in Asia and the pacific,which was held from 21 to 24 June 1993 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and theDirector General of UNESCO has been requested to support, regional and nationalprogrammes for monitoring the development and quality of private highereducation.

The Regional Seminar on Private Higher Education in Asia and the Pacificwas organized at Xiamen University, Xiamen, China from 31 October to 3November 1995 in collaboration with SEAMEO RIHED as response of UNESCOPROAP to the above concern. It become also the first action ever taken by thisoffice concerning private sector in higher education. The main objectives of theSeminar were to share experiences and information, examine critical issues andchallenges facing private institutions and governments and formulatecorresponding recommendations.

Although the participation in the Seminar was limited to only ten countriesdue to budget constraints, it included senior government officials, well knownresearchers in the field as well as representatives of private universities to ensure aquality discussion on various aspects of the issue such as legislation andgovernment policies, financing, quality control and regional and internationalcooperation in this regard. I firmly believe that the recommendations produced atthe Seminar regarding all the aspects of the issue will be useful not only for privatehigher education institutions, but also for governments in their legislation andpolicy formulation to ensure the smooth development and quality of private highereducation.


I hope this Seminar will constitute the first of a series of actions asrecommended by the participants in dealing with such a complex issue.

I would like to express UNESCO’s grateful thanks OT the ChineseGovernment for its voluntary contributions and the Xiamen University for itsexcellent preparation higher education programme in the region for its valuablecollaboration in the whole process of planning and organizing the Seminar.

3


Welcome Address byMr. Lin Zugen

President, Xiamen University

On the successful opening of the Regional Seminar on the Private HigherEducation in Asian-Pacific Region, please allow me, on behalf of all the staffmembers of Xiamen University, to extend our hearty welcome to all the foreignguests, Chinese experts and friends.

We just said good-bye not long ago to physicists and chemists from all partsof the world, who come hereto attend the 19th International Workshop on StatisticalPhysics and the 46th international Conference on Electrochemistry respectively. Yetnow we feel very happy from the bottom of our hearts to see the educationists fromAsian-Pacific countries.

Xiamen University, a 74-years-old comprehensive university with suchbranches of learning as arts, sciences, engineering, law, business and so on, is one ofthe 34 key universities of China. She is also the sole key university with a graduateschool that is run by the Educational Committee of China in the Special EconomicZones. The University comprises 58 specialities in her 26 departments and 35research institutes. She has been granted the right to confer Ph.D. degrees in 20disciplines and master’s degrees in 60 disciplines. In the University there are 12,000fill-time students and over 3,400 staff members, among whom there are 1,600teachers and researchers. In June this year, Xiamen University passed the pre-appraisal for ‘211 Project’ by the State Education. The aim we are striving for is tobuild Xiamen University into a comprehensive university Commission that is thefirst class one in the country and has certain international fame.

What is worth mentioning here especially is that the history of XiamenUniversity has a special tie with the theme of this Seminar. At the very beginning,Xiamen University was a private university setup in 1921 by Chen Jiageng, afamous patriotic overseas Chinese. Mr. Chen regarded it his lofly ideal of life to setup schools. He not only spent large amount of money sutting up Xiamen University,but also made painstaking efforts for the establishment and development of XiamenUniversity. At the early stage of establishment, Xiamen University won thelaudatory title of ‘Giant In The South’ because of her excellent staff members andteaching quality and became a world-famous private university.

Xiamen University was a success in her privately run period, which showsthat:

4


Firstly, a university should have stable sources of finding. When ChenJiageng was setting up the University, the world was in economic crisis. Under verydifficult circumstances, Mr. Chen tried to maintain a supply of funds for running theUniversity at the expense of his enterprises and real property, thus ensuring stablesources of funding for the University.

Secondly, there should be a good president. When making preparations forthe founding of the University, Mr. Chen began to look at home and aboard forcandidates for president. To have a good university, be considered it necessary tohave a president with excellent knowledge, personality and ability.

Thirdly there should be a group of excellent teachers. There could not be agood university without good teachers. Mr. Chen spared no expense to hire famousexperts and scholars to work in Xiamen University by paying them good salaries. Alarge group of famous experts and scholar from at home and abroad gathered atXiamen University, forming a teaching staff which could be siad to the first class oneat the time.

Lastly, there shouId be a good style of study.

In a word, for schools to train individuals, first priority should be given toeducation.

Although Xiamen University was changed into a state-run university long ago,the privately-run period of the University is an important part in the University’shistory and plays critical role. In recent year, the Higher Education Research Instituteof our University has been doing research work on private higher education. Thisseminar offers us a good chance to learn from you. For this, I want to express myhearty thanks to UNESCO Asian-Pacific Office and all the distinguished guests andfiends.

It maybe the first time that you friends have come to Xiamen University.Situated at the hillside and facing the sea, Xiamen University has a beautiful naturalenvironment. It would be a good idea if you would take a walk around the campusand have a look after intense meetings. If you have any requirements andsuggestions, we will do our best to provide you with the maximum of convenienceand help.

May you have a happy time during your stay in Xiamen.May the Seminar be a complete success.Thank you for your attention.

5


Remarks byDr. Tong-In Wongsothorn, Interim Director, SEAMEO RIHED

As a co-organizer of the seminar, and on behalf of SEAMEO RIHED, Iwould like to extend a warm welcome to our distinguished participants, speakersand observers. Welcome to the seminar and welcome to the beautiful city ofXiamen.

The seminar has four important objectives: to share information and ideason the development of private higher education in the region, to examine criticalissues in private higher education, to provide policy recommendations forgovernments, and to promote co-operation and collaboration in private highereducation. SEAMEO RIHED attaches great importance to all these objectives.Attending this seminar are RIHED Governing Board Members and representativesfrom 5 SEAMEO member countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines,Thailand, and Viet Nam. As a regional organization committed to regionalunderstanding and cooperation in higher education, RIHED is expecting from thisseminar policy recommendations and guidelines to promote collaboration and co-operation in higher education. We hope to share what we learn here with policy-makers and university administrators in our SEAMEO member countries

Private higher education has an important role to play. In the course of thedevelopment, there will be three important issues: Control, Quality and Finance.The first issue deals with the relationship between the government and privatehigher education institutions. The second is about quality assurance. The third isconcerned with financing private higher education. These three important issueswill be examined in small group discussions, The recommendations from thisseminar will be very valuable for governments, international organizations andconcerned agencies in the development and promotion of private higher education.I am therefore very grateful to the delegates and observers for your contribution tothis seminar. I am also grateful to the four distinguished speakers who will sharewith us their valuable experiences and ideas for the development and promotion ofprivate higher education in this region.

On this occasion, I would like also to express my deep gratitude andappreciation to UNESCO PROAP, especially to Prof. Wang Yibing, the UNESCOSpecialist on Higher and Distance Education for his initiative and contribution inorganizing this seminar. Finally to the host institute, we are grateful for thesupport and hospitality extended to us.

I look forward to a successful and fruitful seminar. Thank you very muchfor your attention

6


Remarks byDr. Wang Yibing, Programme Specialist in Higher Education,

UNESCO PROAP

It is both a pleasure and honour for me to be here to welcome all of you,including a big group of observers from the host country, to attend the RegionalSeminar on Private Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific on behalf of Dr.VictorOrdonez, Director of UNESCO PROAP. May I take this opportunity also to extendUNESCO’s sincere gratitude to the Chinese Government for its volunteer contributioncombined with some funds from UNESCO’s regular programme and RIHED toenable us to meet here. Sincere thanks should go equally to Dr. Tong-In, PresidentLin, Prof. Pan and all of your colleagues at the Research Institute of Higher Educationfor your kind cooperation and contribution in the whole process of preparation of theSeminar.

This Seminar is the first action initiated by UNESCO PROAP in cooperationwith RIHED as a response to the concern over the development and quality ofprivate higher education in the region expressed at the Sixth Regional Conference ofMinisters of Education and those responsible for economic planning in Asia and thePacific, which was held from 21 to 24 June 1993 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Private Higher Education has existed for thousands of years in the world aswell as in this region. The first question we are raising here and trying to answer atthis Seminar is how to redefine its strategic role at a time when :

Education is conceived today as one of the basic human rights, while millionsof qualified candidates for tertiary education produced from the rapidlyexpanding basic education have been neglected due to government inability toprovide enough opportunities at the tertiary level, since the lion’s share oftheir budget has to be spent for EFA purposes;

Human resources development has been taken by more and moregovernments as a major way out to enhanc their cutting-edge in thecompetitive world and as a key strategy to face the challenge of the cominginformation and learning society being materialized at a much faster pace;

Some of the market ways and means have been increasingly introduced in thehigher education system in many countries in the region, reform andmanagement is reeded in order to overcome some of the weaknesses in thepublic sector of higher education.

7


The second question we may also raise here is what is the role thegovernment should play in the process. It is interesting to have found from itshistorical background that the relationship between government and private highereducation had dominated the whole story of the evolution and development ofprivate higher education and experienced, sooner or later, a kind of trilogy in almostall the countries: emergence of a private institution or sector in response to the social,economical or religious demands in a certain historical context without the formalrecognition of the government for years or decades; recognition by the governmentas a reality and part of the national higher education system with state laws andregulations to control its expansion and quality; tighter control with the start or incress of government subsidies and loans when the government had the ability orwillingness to do so. The time span taken to have gone through the trilogy variedfrom hundreds of years in some countries to one or two decades only in the other.

The whole issue seems focused not on whether the government should orshould not control the private higher education but on when, at what extent and inwhich means the government control should be brought in and implemented, in orderto realize the double goal: to minimize the possible malpractice of the private sectorfunctioning in a market-driven context and mechanism and, in the meantime, toensure more autonomy enjoyed by those private higher institutions who have reachedthe minimum standard for their survival and development. This is an art ofgovernance and becomes often a difficult policy choice.

Good quality, management and finance are three interdependent pillars, whichare necessary to be built for any private higher education institution to gain afoothold in a competitive higher education system. The thematic speeches to bemade at the plenary sessions of the Seminar will touch upon these key aspects,which, I believe, will lead to a fruitful discussion.

Although the participation in the Seminar has to be limited to only 10countries due to the budgetary constraints, it could well represents differentsituations of the region in this field with participants coming not only from differentgroups of countries: economies in transition, countries with a developed privatesector for decades and those with a clear determination to create or expand it, butalso from different levels and positions within governments, well known researchinstitutes of higher education as well as the private sector itself. I am fully confidentthat, with this high level participation of different backgrounds and experiences toensure a high quality discussion and dialogue, the Seminar will mark an importantstep and open anew page of the history in the development of and regionalcooperation in the private higher education in Asia and the Pacific.

There is a saying that the theory is grey but the tree of life evergreen. I thinkthis is true in particular for a region like ours: vast, diversified and dynamic, in whichone-short seminar cannot be a successful strategy in assisting member states to

8


formulate policies dealing with a extremely long and complicated issue like privatehigher education. I hope, therefore, with your kind cooperation and activeparticipation, this Seminar will not mark the end, but just a beginning of a series ofendeavors in formulation of new strategies at a new time for the smooth and healthydevelopment of private higher education in our region.

Last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to talk a little bit aboutone terminology: privatization of higher education, which is often used today inhigher education literature in both the West and East and may also be used by ourparticipants at this Seminar. The term maybe sensitive and even controversial butone may make an interesting note in what does it really mean in practice today. Itdoes not mean mainly the change in the nature of ownership of a public universityinto a private one, but usually refers to various forms of mobilization of financialresources as a strategy for the state to share the cost of higher education with usersand/or to overcome the negative effects of a higher education system dependingentirely or mainly on government support.

Thank you for your attention.

9


PART I :

Summary and Recommendations

10


Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context

Expansion of higher education in many countries of the Asia and the Pacificregion is essential for economic growth and development. Many economic reformprogrammes, initiated by the governments in the countries of the region criticallydepend upon the skilled manpower produced by higher education systems. Since 20per cent seems to be the threshold level of the enrolment ratio of the concerned age-group population in higher education for a country to become a “developed” one,most countries in the region, with a possible exception of Korea and the Philippines(and of course Japan), have to expand their higher education systems rapidly.

The economic reform programmes also will result in more and more demandfor higher educated manpower and accordingly social demand for higher educationwill increase rapidly in the near future. It is neither desirable nor may it be feasiblein some of the democratic societies to scuttle the growing social demand for highereducation. At the same time, many countries in the region suffer from a severeinadequacy of financial resources.

Thus governments in developing countries face serious challenges in thedevelopment of higher education. The fiscal conditions are, unfortunately, not veryfavorable to the development of higher education systems, but at the same time thedemand for higher education is likely to increase very fast in the near future. Thecountries have to evolve strategies to meet the huge demand for higher education.Otherwise, societies may face social unrest. Further, public higher educationsystems also have become highly rigid and inelastic to the changing needs anddemands of the dynamic socio-economic conditions. All this requires animaginative and long term perspective with respect to the development of highereducation. Thus the task of developing higher education systems in meeting thehuge social demand meaningfully poses a great challenge in several countries of theregion in general, and in resources, poor countries of the region in particular. In thiscontext, it is generally felt that public and private sectors can meaningfully share theresponsibility of meeting these challenges. The role of the private sector becomesparticularly important. It can even be expected to play a very significant role in sucha way that public higher education systems will be compelled to initiate significantreforms towards improvement in quality, efficiency and overall relevance. As aresult, the whole system might become more efficient.

In the whole task, the role of the government also becomes very critical.Governments may have to play a facilitating role by enacting appropriate legislation,

11


a promotional role by adopting policies that stimulate private efforts towards thedevelopment of higher education, and also play at the same time, a monitoring role toensure high quality in private as well as in public higher education institutions. Inaddition, of course, the governments have an ethical, social and legal obligation toprovide higher education for their citizens. They also have an obligation to promoteequality and growth for the rapid socio-economic development of their societies.

1.2 Objectives of the Seminar

Thus, in these overall national, regional and international contexts, a thoroughdiscussion on the role of private higher education institutions, and the correspondingrole of the government is very important. To discuss these issues, a four-dayRegional Seminar on Private Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific, co-sponsoredby UNESCO PROAP and SEAMEO RIHED, was organised at the Institute ofHigher Education Science, Xiamen University on 31 October to 3 November 1995on the premises of the University. The seminar serves as the first action initiated byUNESCO PROAP as a response to the concern over the development and quality ofprivate higher education in the region expressed at the sixth Regional Conference ofMinisters of Education and those responsible for economic planning in Asia and thePacific, which was held from 21 to 24 June 1993 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

The seminar was organised with the following specific objectives:

a)

b)

c)

d)

to share information among the participants of the region on theirexperiences with respect to the development of private highereducation institutions in the region,

to examine some of the critical issues being faced by the private highereducation institutions and by governments in the region,

to formulate a set of meaningful and sound policy recommendationsfor the governments, the private institutions and the international andregional organisations for the development of private higher educationinstitutions, and

to promote collaboration and networking among the private highereducation institutions in the region.

12


1.3 Proceedings of the Introductory Session

The seminar started with the unanimous election of Professor Zhou Nanzhao(China) and Dr Mona D Valisno (Philippines) as the co-chair persons, and ProfessorJandhyala B G Tilak (India) as the Rapporteur-General.

Welcoming the participants of the seminar, Mr. Lin Zugeng, President ofXiamen University observed that Xiamen University formed the most appropriatechoice of venue for the Seminar on private higher education, as Xiamen Universityitself was started as a private university by a great philanthropist by name, Mr. ChenJia Geng in 1921, who put all his resources m the building up of a great universityand in the process he even became bankrupt. But he did not regret his choice. Infact, he spared no efforts in making Xiamen University one of the best in thosetimes.

Mr Lin also highlighted four necessary important conditions for the successof a good public or private university, which Xiamen University fulfilled, when itwas started. They are: stable financial resources, excellent leadership (in the form ofPresident), faculties of high quality, and a highly conducive learning atmosphere topropagate “school spirit.”

Dr. Tong-In Wongsothorn (SEAMEO RIHED), as a co-organizer of theseminar, welcomed the participants and stressed three important issues in thedevelopment of private higher education; they are control, quality and finance.

In his introductory remarks, Professor Wang Yibing (UNESCO) stressed theimportance of the theme of the seminar, as governments in many countries in theregion were increasingly realising the importance of the private sector in thedevelopment of higher education. Professor Wang observed that private highereducation systems existed for several centuries and would continue to exist in thefuture. Today, therefore, the relevant question is not whether the government shouldor should not control private higher education, but when, to what extent and throughwhich means the government should control.

Professor Wang also observed that the term “privatisation”of higher educationdoes not necessarily mean mainly the change in the nature of ownership of a publicuniversity into a private one, but usually refers to various forms of mobilisation offinancial resources as a strategy for the state to share the cost of higher educationwith users.

13


1.4 A Brief Overview of the Seminar and the Report

There are various types and forms of private higher education systems andinstitutions, some of which are discussed in Chapter 3. Importantly, they includeuniversity level institutions and colleges. They also include recognised andunrecognised institutions. Among the recognised ones also, there are several types :recognised only as institutions fit for imparting higher education, recognised forawarding degrees /diplomas /certificates (which includes recognition for impartinghigher education) and recognised for financial assistance by state (which includesrecognition of the earlier two types). Thirdly, private institutions are of two othertypes: privately managed and publicly funded, and privately managed and privatelyfunded. Looking at the complexity of the nature and type of “private” institutions, asimple definition was adopted for discussions in the seminar. Private highereducation institutions here (a) include both universities and colleges, (b) they arenecessarily privately managed, but not necessarily totally privately funded, and (c)

they are recognised for imparting higher education.

In the context of the seminar, three questions have been identified as the mostimportant ones, as Dr. Tong-In Wongsothorn (SEAMEO RIHED) has highlighted.They are: requirements in terms of state legislation and public action for thedevelopment of higher education, financial, and quality assurance in private highereducation. As Professor Wang observed, all these three dimensions were inter-related and inter-dependent, and would be necessary to build strong private highereducation institutions. Four key note speeches were delivered in four plenarysessions on these four themes, viz., “State Legislation on Private Higher Education.“by Professor Pan Maoyuan (China), “Government Policies and Private HigherEducation” by Dr. Hyun Chong Lee (Republic of Korea), “Financing Private HigherEducation” by Professor Jandhyala B G Tilak (India) and “Quality Control in PrivateHigher Education” by Dr. Thanu Kulachol (Thailand). The following three chapterspresent a brief summary of the plenary speeches and accompanying discussions.

The four-day discussions revolved around several major and minor butimportant issues relating to private higher education institutions. The issuesdiscussed ranged from concepts, definitions, philosophical aspects and practicalproblems faced by governments, private institutions, and international organisationsin the development of private higher education systems. The exchange of ideas andsharing of experiences by the participants of the ten countries in the region was mostrewarding. In all, ten country case reports were presented in four sessions on China(by Mr. Dong Mingchuan), India (by Professor Jandhyala B G Tilak), Indonesia (byProfessor Dr. Joetata Hadihardaja), Japan (by Mr. Masahiro Arimatsu), Republic ofKorea (by Dr. Hyun Chong Lee), Malaysia (by Ms. Dato Nuraizan Abdul Hamidand Ms. Arpah Bt. Haji Mohammad), Mongolia (by Mr. B. Erdenesuren),Philippines (by Dr. Mrs Mona D. Valisno), Thailand (by Dr. Thanu Kulachol and Dr.Ms. Chantavit Sujatanond) and Viet Nam (by Professor Lam Quang Thiep). A few

14


case studies of private universities in China were also briefly presented anddiscussed. Chapter 5 presents a short summary of the discussions on country casereports.

The participants of the seminar formed themselves into three working groupson State Legislation and Government Policies and Private Higher Education,Financing Private Education and Quality Control in Private Higher Education anddiscussed in depth various issues and a set of recommendations were evolved, whichwere again discussed in plenary sessions. The main recommendations of theSeminar are given in Chapter 6.

Among the outside seminar hall activities, important ones were: a visit toXiamen Yingcai School, an elite private school in Xiamen city. Discussions with theschool officials and a brief tour of the class rooms and the campus were found to bevery useful. Discussions with them were found very informative and meaningful.Secondly, the participants also felt benefited by the visit to the Xiamen universitycampus, its various colleges, departments and institutions.

The reception given by the Vice-Governor of Fujian Province and DeputyMayor of Xiamen City to the participants of the Seminar was an another importantand useful programme. Participants were highly appreciative of the progress andpolicies of Fujian province and Xiamen City in general and particularly in the case ofeducation.

On the whole, it has been unanimously felt that the seminar was a very usefulone and a very timely one, as many countries in the region were engaged in initiatingand reforming legislation and formulating policies towards promotion of privatehigher education systems. It was also felt that regular periodic exchanges ofexperiences and ideas among the countries of the region in this task would be highlydesirable. Many participants in the seminar look forward to UNESCO, RIHED andother international organisations for necessary follow-up actions in regard.


Chapter 2

STATE LEGISLATION AND GOVERNMENT POLICIES FORTHE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

The first plenary session was devoted to a discussion on the importance ofstate legislation for the development of private higher education. Legislationembodies the will of the state in the development of private higher education.Development of private higher education, however, includes not only the provisionof a conducive atmosphere for the emergence and growth of private institutions, butalso the regulation of the growth of undesirable forms of private education.It provides for the regulation of the behaviour of the people in their activities inconducting private higher education. Hence a proper and timely legislation is animportant guarantee for the healthy development of private higher education. It wasargued that autonomy was an important condition for the development of privatehigher education institutions. Private institutions should be allowed to define theirown aims, mechanisms and models of management in their operation.Independence, autonomy and flexibility are the important necessary conditions forprivate higher education institutions. The responsibilities of the state should includenot only approval, regulation and supervision, but also provision of guidance andsupport to private higher education institutions. The support might also includeprovision of financial assistance to institutions in the form of grants and to studentsin the form of scholarships and financial aid. At the same time, fair competitionbetween public and private institutions has to be encouraged so that qualityimproves. A sound and detailed accreditation and evaluation system has to beestablished by the government. While the state has important responsibilities in thedevelopment of private education, it should not interfere too much in themanagement of private education institutions. At the same time, the social nature ofprivate higher education must be in line with the given social system.

One should not overlook the dangers associated with private institutions. Bycatering to the tastes of the students, these institutions may be characterised withshort sighted behaviour and accordingly produce serious manpower imbalances inthe labor market. Rapid growth in the short turn might lead to graduateunemployment. Further, unless the quality of the private higher educationinstitutions is exceptionally high, they may not be able to sustain. In the absence ofgood and effective legislation, diploma mills and certificate shops may be born indisturbing numbers, which will not be desirable for the development of good highereducation. Similarly, growth of profit-making private education institutions may notbe desirable for the development of a healthy education system. While financialefficiency requires generation of resources in a significant way, it also requires theirreinvestment in education activities. State legislation should make clear theseaspects.

16


The most important question raised in this context is: where should thegovernment begin and where should its role end. State legislation should be helpfulto good private institutions and should serve as a deterrent for the growth of bad andundesirable types of private higher education institutions. This delicate task ofbalancing the protective and restrictive roles of the government is indeed achallenging one. Carefully made state legislation only can serve this twin purpose.

Besides providing an effective legislation, the state has to play an importantrole in promoting private higher education systems. Government policies can eitherscuttle or stimulate the private efforts. In this sense, government policies assumeutmost importance. Laissez-faire policies do not necessarily help the development ofprivate higher education institutions, nor do the policies of extremely tight controland regulation. Government should initiate planned efforts and proper regulation.Meaningful government policies are required specifically concerning managementof institutions, the strengthening of teaching and research functions in the privatehigher education institutions, building up of capital and other infrastructure facilities,building up of faculty and administrative infrastructure, evaluation and qualitycontrol, and with respect to financing. Government policies providing for liberal taxincentives help private institutions to buildup a sufficiently adequate resource base.Tuition policies seem to be very crucial in developing private higher educationinstitutions. Thirdly, the need for financial assistance by the state to the privateinstitutions is also generally felt obvious. Government should also provide reliableforecasts on the manpower needs of the economy, so that private institutions do notproduce over- or under-optimum levels of manpower, that would result in seriousimbalances in that labor market.

17


Chapter 3

FINANCING PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

Finance is the most important issue relating to the development of privatehigher education institutions. It is well recognised that adequacy of finances is abasic necessary condition for development of sustainable private higher educationsystems. How, why and who finances and how the funds are utilised determines thenature and structure of the private higher education systems. ‘While discussing theissues relating to financing private higher education institutions, the need fordifferentiation between several kinds of private institutions is increasingly felt.There exist very good, good, bad and very bad private higher education institutionsin the countries of the region. The various types of privatisation of higher educationsystems can be classified into four kinds : (a) “extreme” degree of privatisation,represented by profit-seeking private education institutions with no financialassistance from the state and very limited government control and regulation, oftenresulting in vulgar forms of commercialisation of higher education systems, (b)“strong” degree of privatisation, represented by private institutions receiving nofinancial assistance from the state, and are characterised by full cost recovery fromthe students, (c) “pseudo” private higher education institutions represented by privateinstitutions that depend upon the state for most of their expenditure, and (d)“moderate” form of privatisation represented by private as well as public institutions,financed partly by state and partly by non-governmental sources, including fees,community contributions and donations. It was argued that while every socio-economic system has to chose an appropriate form of privatisation, the mostdesirable form seems to be the last one.

Most of the private higher education institutions in the region are either aidedby the state, or self-financing in nature. While self-financing institutions generallydo not receive, by definition, any assistance from state, state aided private highereducation institutions receive assistance of various types. Government assistance toprivate higher education institutions towards capital costs is somewhat rare. Even ifsuch assistance is given, it is partial. But most institutions of this category receiveassistance towards meeting recurring expenditure; in some cases very highproportions of recurring costs are met by state grants, and in some cases very limitedassistance is provided. It is also noted that often state assistance is only provided afew years after starting the institutions by the private management.

With respect to fee policies, most self-financing private higher educationinstitutions attempt at recovering full costs, and sometimes excessive levels ofprofits, while the state-assisted private institutions fees are regulated by thegovernment.


In the increasingly globalised systems, it is felt that developing countries inthe region can learn a few important lessons from the experiences of the developedcountries. Certain comparisons between developing and developed countries in thiscontext seem to be both interesting and valuable. While the pattern of financingprivate higher education institutions is highly diverse in several countries, on thewhole, in general, fees seem to be the dominant source of finance in private highereducation institutions, while it is not a very important source of finance in publicinstitutions. In developed countries the share of fees in the cost of higher educationis less than in developing countries. This is true in the case of public institutionsaswell. Government is the major source of finances for public higher education andin contrast, fees are the major source of finances for private higher education and thisis more true in the case for developing countries. In developing countries, non-student and non-government sources of finances are negligible in private highereducation systems, as they tend to depend upon either government assistance and/oron student fees, while in developed countries, such as USA, non-student, non-government sources contribute sizable funds for private and even public highereducation. It was also brought to the attention of the participants of the seminar thatin many developed countries, fees in private higher education institutions are only 2-6 times higher than the fees in public institutions. These aspects need to be kept inmind while formulating policies relating to private higher education institutions inthe countries of Asia and the Pacific region.

It is strongly argued that the state should not abdicate its responsibilities offinding higher education. The level of investment in higher education in manycountries of the region is below the required levels, particularly in relation to nationalincome (GNP) and government (federal and provincial) budgets. Governments haveto step up the allocations to higher education substantially, and private efforts couldbe viewed as necessarily complementing the public efforts in promoting highereducation in society and the nature and pattern of financing by the state shouldstimulate the private efforts in their endeavors.

19


Chapter 4

QUALITY ASSURANCE IN PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Private higher education institutions in the Asian region can aim at reachingsuperb quality as in case of private institutions in the USA like Harvard, Yale,Stanford, etc. Discussing the issues relating to quality assurance in private highereducation institutions, it was noted that freedom, trust, fear and control are the basicparameters that ensure equilibrium and good quality. Quality of education can bemeasured at four levels, viz., (a) in terms of institutional efficiency in governance,administration and accountability, (b) the quality of faculty--qualifications,composition and professional expertise, (c) curriculum -- its design and delivery,and (d) students -- their selection procedures, entry qualifications, monitoring,counseling and ensuring competence. A good policy of the state with regard toquality assurance in private higher education institutions should involveparticipation of the private sector. Public policies should be basically supportive tothe promotion of quality in private institutions, ensure autonomy and equal and fairtreatment by the government compared to public institutions. Elaborate and soundadministrative and managerial structures are essential in the form of a board ofhigher education, board of trustees, and committees on curriculum, accreditation,evaluation, etc., to perform various functions. Evaluation procedures should also besound and they may include evaluation of the students by internal and externalexaminers. After all, good quality higher education institutions are a great factor inbuilding up qualified and high quality manpower for the development of theeconomy. State laws should provide for a positive atmosphere in developing suchan environment, rather than playing a restrictive and negative role.

Sound systems of quality assurance incorporate four levels of assessment,viz., at the institutional level, the faculty level, the level of the students, andcurriculum. Quality assessment at the institutional level must be done centrally bythe government as a quality assurance system. The factors to be considered includegood management, reliable financial support, good governance and accountability ofthe system. Secondly, at faculty level, the faculty or academic programme should beevaluated and accredited on the basis of the level of quality controls offered,composition of faculty members, their qualifications, experience and research.Thirdly, evaluation of the curriculum has to be based on basic criteria that is centrallydecided by one agency responsible for private higher education and its conceptualframework, as provided by the institution. Lastly, the quality of students /candidateswill have to be evaluated on the basis of entry qualifications required, the selectionprocess, the system of monitoring process, counseling practices to the students andthe process of ensuring the competence of graduates through regular assessment andevaluation.

20


In order to ensure that such a quality assurance mechanism is properlyimplemented, appropriate legislation is necessary to be formulated to provide anappropriate mechanism which will be neither too loose nor too rigid but rather onethat would suit the specific situation and national requirements of each country.Such a law should, among other things, provide for the following:

Same standards and norms would apply to both public as well asprivate higher educational institutions.

A national body, e.g., a Board, be setup at the level of the Ministryresponsible for private higher education to decide on the standards’,criteria and system for quality control and generally guide and monitorprivate higher education. This Board will provide for participationfrom the private institutions.

At the institutional level, a body, such as a Board of Trusteesj willhave to be provided for. This body will decide on general policydirection for the development and management of the institution.It maybe necessary to have some members of this body beingappointed by the Minister responsible for private higher education tohelp monitor the functioning of the institution.

There must also be provision for external evaluators at all levels tocarry out continuous evaluation. The evaluators will have to beformed into various committees, e.g., curriculum committee, standardscommittee, etc. These committees carry out specific tasks fora specific period of time and make recommendations to the Board forPrivate Higher Education. Their members have to be appointed by theBoard and will have to be financially compensated. They would alsocomprise of experts from the private and public sectors and be selectedfrom among experts and professionals from their respectivedisciplines. Evaluation will provide for general standards forinstitutions as well as for specific standards for courses of study.

Assessment has to be carried out regularly at short intervals in the firstfew years of the institution. Once its quality is established, it can becarried out at longer regular intervals. The institution should thenbegin to institutionalise its own assessment system while externalassessment could be done once in five years.

Quality of education is a multi-faceted one, having a serious impact on thelife-time careers of graduates and the development of societies. It is necessary thatstate legislation recognises it and provides adequate, sound and feasible methods forensuring high quality in both public and private higher education institutions.

21


Chapter 5

COUNTRY CASE STUDIES

In all, ten country-case studies were presented by respective countryrepresentattives and were discussed during the Seminar. They are: China, India,Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Philippines, Thailand, andViet Nam. All the ten countries have had in some form or other private highereducation systems. Some of these countries have had private higher educationinstitutions for several centuries. But the nature and relative size of private highereducation systems in the relation to the public (and accordingly total) highereducation system varies significantly. Japan has a large elaborately planned privatehigher education system. The higher education systems in the Philippines and Koreaare generally regarded as characterised by predominant private higher educationsystems. The private higher education system in Thailand is fast expanding and isalready at a high level. Private higher education systems in Malaysia and Indonesiacome next. The private higher education system in China, Mongolia, and Viet Namis small and is of very recent origin; but it also seems to be expanding rapidly. Whilethe private higher education system in India is described as “peripheral” in sizetaking into account the nature of financing of the private higher education system,strictly based on the nature of ownership, India also has a predominantly largeprivate higher education system. The ten countries can be classified into fourcategories : (i) Japan, an advanced industrialised economy with a large privatehigher education system; (ii) South-East and Asian countries, viz., Philippines,South Korea, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia where the private higher educationsystem has been large and is growing fast; (iii) India in the South Asian sub-continent which is characterised with a large private higher education system withpublic finds; and (iv) transition societies of China, Mongolia and Viet Nam wherethe private system is relatively of a very recent origin but is growing rapidly.

Japan has had a large private education system with more than 400universities and 500 junior colleges. Private higher education institutions account formore than three-fourths of the total higher education system both in terms ofinstitutions and enrollments. While in the case of universities and junior colleges, theprivate system is very dominant, surprisingly there are only three private colleges oftechnology, compared to 59 institutions in the public sector. Enrollments in theseinstitutions also account for only 5.5 per cent, the remaining 95 per cent being innational and local public colleges of technology. That the private sector entered lesscapital in the higher education sector is abundantly clear from this. One of theproblems of private institutions in Japan has been a steady decline in state subsidies,which formed only 12 per cent of the current budgets of these institutions, comparedto 30 per cent in the past. Distribution of subsidies favours obviously non-profitseeking corporations running higher education institutions. Public and private

22


institutions attempt to continuously respond to the changing needs of the students onthe one hand, and progressing knowledge on the other.

The massive expansion of private higher education in the Philippines hasperhaps no parallel in the world. With independent policies adopted by the privateinstitutions with regard to admission, and with somewhat liberal financial assistanceby the state to students in private institutions, such a rapid expansion has beenpossible. Promotion of social justice and equity, social development and labormarket efficiency, apart from promotion of culture of excellence in higher educationhave been the objectives of recent measures and reforms being initiated by thegovernment in higher education. Creation of a Higher Education Development Fundfor the development of higher education, including private higher education is one ofthe very important measures that the government is contemplating in this regard topromote sustainable growth of good quality private higher education institutions.This is expected to correct the weakness of the existing laws that prohibit financialassistance to private education institutions directly.

The Republic of Korea is yet another country that has developed a largeprivate higher education system. 75 per cent of the universities and 96 per cent of thejunior colleges in all 82 per cent of the higher education institutions are in the privatesector. The rapid growth of higher education, including higher private education isessentially due to the “educalcoholic” nature of the society on the one hand, andgovernment policies on the other. The whole society emphasises education. Andgovernment policy, for example, with reference to fees, are generally felt to beliberal, though fees are linked to consumer prices. The rapid expansion of the privatehigher education system is feared to have caused serious imbalances in the labormarket and social unrest, though paradoxically at the same time, the demand forhigher education is also growing. Most of the budgetary requirements of privatehigher education institutions are met through student fees. At the same time theplanners in Korea are well aware that in most developed countries fees in privatehigher education institutions form a much smaller proportion of costs of highereducation than in Korea. Government aid to private higher education institutions isnegligible, less than two per cent. Korean experience also provides a case for longterm manpower planning and labor market analysis on a regular basis. TheGovernment has to provide reliable estimates of manpower requirements in the nearfuture. Diversity of higher education institutions in general, and private institutions inparticular, has become a serious problem in which to implement any uniformpolicies. Above all, it must be noted that the development of higher education inKorea largely depended upon the private sector, and the market determined approachto the development of higher education seems to be working. Hence, there is a needto formulate suitable policies for their efficient functioning, including appropriatemethods of financing.

23


Continuous reforms in Thailand, in the form of amendments to highereducation acts, and private higher education acts in particular, have contributed to thepromotion of private higher education in the country significantly. In view of thehighly transparent system, the government and private higher education institutionscould build trust and confidence in each other and forge close relations. All thishelped the society considerably in promoting higher education. Today, there are 15private universities and another 16 private colleges, compared to 22 publicinstitutions of higher education. 48 percent of the enrollments in higher education(excluding enrolment in open universities) in Thailand are in private institutions.None of these institutions can be considered as “profit-making” institutions. And allseem to be working efficiently. Thus the government and private sector share theresponsibility of providing higher education almost in equal proportions.

There has been a rapid growth of private higher education institutions inIndonesia since 1975. While until the end of the 1970s, Indonesia, like many othercountries, had adopted policies of containment in higher education, the 1980s and1990s have been characterised with liberalisation of and growth of higher education,including specifically private higher education. While during the decade 1974-84,enrolment both public and private education institutions was small and was more orless equal; during 1984-94 enrollments in private institutions grew fast, and theenrollments in public institutions nearly stagnated. About 60 per cent of theenrollments in higher education are in private institutions. Private higher educationinstitutions number as many as 1159, compared to less than 200 public institutions ofhigher education. Financial support from the state to private institutions is nil ornegligible. Quality control, adherence to state formulated procedures in themanagement of private institutions and curriculum development have been the issuesof focus of public efforts in this regard. The need for building a reliable base linedata on a variety of aspects on private and public higher education institutions isgenerally felt. With respect to accreditation, institutions go through three stages.They are first “registered”, later “acknowledged” and finally “equalised” (or fullyaccredited), etc. Elaborate loan programmes are also being launched to help privateeducation institutions to build sustainable institutions in Indonesia.

Proliferation of private higher education institutions is a relatively recentphenomenon in Malaysia. This is obviously a response of the private sector tochanging economic conditions, including rapid economic growth and the consequenthigh level of social demand for higher education. Since the capacity of publicinstitutions is limited, private higher education institutions play an important role inthis task. Public policies towards private institutions are largely aimed at fine tuningthe working mechanisms of private institutions and their proper growth. The aim ofthe government policy is to avoid proliferation of small and non-viable institutions,ensure good quality of education in the private higher education institutions, and ingeneral to encourage the growth of private education institutions. Appropriatepolicies are yet to be formulated in place of restrictive policies adopted so far.

24


Earlier acts are being amended and new acts specially tailored for the establishmentof private higher education institutions and foreign universities are also beingdrafted.

India presents a different case: it has a vast publicly funded private highereducation system. Though it has a large private higher education system, with nearlythree-fourths of the more than 8,200 colleges being private colleges, as most of theprivate colleges are funded by the state to nearly the full recurring costs, for allpractical purposes, except for their ownership, they can be treated as publicinstitutions. That there are no private universities until now, and self-financingprivate institutions are very few in number, which is also a recent phenomenon, alsoleads many to describe the Indian higher education system as a predominaintlypublic one. A private university bill is under consideration of the Parliament. But ingeneral, the approach of the government seems to favour growth of private highereducation institutions, state-aided institutions until recently and now the growth ofself-financing private institutions. Admission procedures and regulations regardingtuition and other fees in the self financing institutions are the major issues ofcontention and public policies in this regard are in the process of formulation.

China, Mongolia and Viet Nam can be regarded as transition economieswhere private higher education system is of recent origin, but expanding fast.

In China, the need of the hour seems to be a clear legislation by the state forthe development of private higher education institutions. There are above 800private higher education institutions in the country, but only about two per cent ofthem are recognised as institutions that can award mainly associate degrees to thestudents. The Chinese government is found to be adopting a very cautious approachtowards enacting any legislation in this regard. Private institutions are called “socialforces-run” or “social organisations-run” or “people-run” institutions or non-governmental higher education institutions. There are also “public-run” privateuniversities in the country. The effort of the government in China is to strike abalance between such institutions to be run in a market framework and the socialisticideology. For the same reason, the profit making purpose of such schools is severelydecried. Experiences of a few private higher education institutions in China seem tobe highly encouraging ftom the point of view of finances: they expanded rapidly; theindividual institutions that started with little and inadequate resources could build uphuge structures and facilities and “prosper” well and rather became highlysustainable financially, and otherwise. Conflicts between social justice and market-oriented private higher education systems seem to be important, though sometimes,these are over-exaggerated. Issues relating to autonomy, the relationship and statusof private college, and private university are under debate. Lastly, in China,promotion of degree-awarding private high education institutions has to wait forsome more time, given the present socio-economic conditions.

25


In the process of successful economic transition, policies are being formulatedin Mongolia paving the way for the establishment of private higher educationinstitutions, as the demand for higher education exceeds public supply of highereducation. State policies aim at assisting private schools so that the level ofdevelopment of Mongolian education can be developed significantly. Presently thereare 36 private post-secondary schools in Mongolia, accounting for 24 per cent of thestudents and 15 per cent of the teachers at post-secondary level. These institutionsprovide training in business administration, social sciences, multi-media andtraditional medicine.

In Viet Nam private education institutions are referred to as “people-established” institutions. There are such private institutions, public institutions andsemi-public institutions whose initial infrastructure and the staff are provided by thegovernment, but recurring expenditure is covered by non-government sources.However, private higher education in Viet Nam is a new phenomenon. The Privatesector accounts for only 10 per cent of the total enrollments in higher education.Adequate manpower to run and administer the higher education system in generaland the private system in particular, scarcity of financial resources, qualitymaintenance etc., are some of the issues that the government has to contemplate tomake appropriate policies soon.

On the whole, massive expansion of higher education in the countries of theAsia and the Pacific region has taken place with the active participation of the privatesector. It is believed that but for the involvement of the private sector, such animpressive growth could not have been experienced. This has been necessitated bythe inelasticity of public finds to the growing needs of the higher education systems.Recent and evolving state policies in most of these countries in the region favourexpansion of the private higher education system to meet the growing social demandfor higher education.

26


Chapter 6

RECOMMENDATIONS

Several participants of the Seminar strongly felt that the role of the privatehigher education system is indeed very significant in the changing socio-economicconditions in the countries of the Asian Pacific region. It was argued that the privatehigher education system should be viewed as (a) a way to mobilise the much neededscarce financial resources for higher education, (b) a way to help in meeting thegrowing social demand for higher education and changing labour market needs, (c)away to promote quality and efficiency in higher education by promotingcompetition with public institutions, (d) a way to revitalise public, and thereby thewhole, higher education systems, (e) a development strategy to achieve the goal of alearning society, a knowledge-intensive society, in which education, specificallyhigher education plays a vital role, and (f) and as a way to promote economic growthand development. Accordingly, it was argued that as the role of private highereducation institutions is positive and significant, it should be viewed asindispensable, and not just as a supplementary or a complementary one, but it shouldbe viewed as a partner with the public sector in the development of higher education.Private universities also seem to contribute more significantly towards theinternationalisation of education programmes compared to public institutions insome countries, as private institutions enjoy more freedom in launching suchprogrammes. Generally the dynamism of private universities is well appreciated bythe governments in countries like Thailand, and also by society at large.

Therefore, it was argued that government policies should aim at promotingprivate higher education institutions by creating a favorable environment. It should(a) introduce appropriate legislative measures and develop an appropriate legalframework to protect and regulate private higher education institutions; (b) developappropriate accreditation and monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to promotequality in private and public higher education institutions; set standards for licensing,for curriculum development, etc.; (c) provide indirect financial assistance, includingloans, fiscal incentives, subsidised material and inputs; (d) ensure academic freedomand autonomy.

The approaches of the various governments to the development andpromotion of private higher education systems are diverse and also changing, but aregenerally positive to the growth of private higher education systems. The wholeapproach needs to promote free and fair competition between several highereducation institutions, public and private.

It is increasingly noted that distinctions must be made between profit makingprivate higher education institutions working on the basis of undesirable commercial

27


considerations and non-profit seeking philanthropic private higher educationinstitutions. Government policies should be helpful to the latter and should serve as adeterrent to the former kind of institution. There are also various other types ofprivate higher education institutions, and it is necessary that proper distinctions aremade between them.

It was also felt that there are no universal solutions applicable to all countriesand times, and specific policy reforms have to be introduced in each country takinginto account country-specific socio-economic conditions and the changingenvironment.

Specific Recommendations

Many views and policy recommendations emerged from discussions in theseminar including in depth discussions in the working groups and plenary sessions.They were concerned with questions relating to state legislation, financing, andquality. The various recommendations can be classified into the followingcategories, though there is some overlap :

Recommendations to Government

Recommendations to Private Higher Education Institutions, and

Recommendations to International and Regional Organisations

1. Recommendations to Government

* Government should recognise the important role of the private highereducational institutions as a partner in the development of higher education.

* There is a strong need for state legislation pertaining to private highereducation. All governments may make suitable and appropriate legislation toencourage the growth of desirable forms of private higher educationinstitutions and to serve as a deterrent to the growth of undesirable forms ofprivate education.

* Private higher educational institutions which are accredited to be of goodquality should be treated equal and of the same standing as the public highereducational institutions, including with respect to recognition of theircertificates (diplomas and degrees).

28


*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

There should be close monitoring of private higher educational institutions toensure higher quality. There should be legislation pertaining to private highereducational institutions, rules and regulations should be stipulated by theregional or central government so as to protect the interests of the institutionsas well as the welfare of the staff and students in private higher educationinstitutions.

Quality assessment at the institutional level must be done centrally by thegovernment through a quality assurance system. The factors to be consideredinclude good management, reliable financial support, good governance andaccountability of the system.

Same standards regarding quality assurance should apply to both public aswell as to private higher education institutions.

A national body, e.g., a Board, be setup at the level of the Ministryresponsible for private higher education to decide on the standards, criteriaand system for quality control and generally guide and monitor private highereducation. This Board will provide for participation from the privateinstitutions.

Government should stimulate private efforts in promoting higher education inthe country. Policies relating to financing of education should be guided bythis general principle.

Direct financial assistance to private higher education institutions is generallynot desirable, because it may lead to excessive government intervention,eroding financial and other dimensions of institutional autonomy. However,new institutions may be provided partial and limited financial assistance bythe governments so that they overcome the teething problems and in the longrun they stand on their own.

Indirect financial assistance to private higher education institutions is veryimportant. Particularly, fiscal incentives in the form of tax concessions shouldbe provided to private higher education institutions on par with those of publicinstitutions. Such tax concessions should be extended to donations and othercontributions made to private higher education institutions.

Tax concessions may also have to be given to private higher educationinstitutions on acquiring educational material and equipment, both frominternal and external markets.

29


*

*

*

*

*

2.

*

*

*

Another kind of indirect assistance by the state maybe partial assistance increating provident fund schemes for the faculty and other staff of privatehigher education institutions.

Revolving funds and other mechanism including through banks and otherappropriate agencies have to be created to float soft loans to help the privatesector to establish financially sound and academically good higher educationinstitutions.

Direct assistance to students is necessary in the form of scholarships and/orloans, regardless of their enrolment in private or public institutions of highereducation. However, the actual amount of scholarship or loan will have to beadjusted in accordance with fees paid by the students.

Reasonable level of costs can be generated through tuition fees, but the wholeburden of costs should not be transferred to the students. Institutions shouldbe encouraged with appropriate fiscal incentives to individuals andorganisations, to raise resources from non-governmental, non-student sources.

Above all, government policies slould allow flexibility to private institutionsin formulating tuition fee and other policies taking into account regionalvariations in costs of providing higher education.

Recommendations to Private Higher Education Institutions

All private higher educational institutions should comply to minimumstandards set by the countries in the national specific context with respect tothe following: mission and vision, facilities, equipment, curriculum andcourses of studies, self-quality assurance mechanism, government and privateaccreditation mechanism, research programme and staff developmentprogramme.

Both public and private higher education institutions should be subjected tointernal and external accreditation mechanisms developed by government andgovernment authorised bodies.

Private higher educational institutions should be subjected to an acceptablelevel of control by both the regional and central governments. Institutionalautonomy should be encouraged, but there should be accountability andresponsibility on the part of the private higher educational institutions.

30


*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Private higher education institutions should try to diversify the resource baserather than relying totally on any single source like tuition fees. Institutionsneed to be encouraged to generate additional resources through not onlytuition fees, but also through patent rights and the transfer of technology in thecase of higher professional education in particular, college-run enterprises,social donations and endowments,

Institutions should also strive to forge close links with industry and theproduction units to generate physical and financial resources on the one hand,and to improve the quality of education on the other, by enhancing the labormarket relevance.

Private higher education institutions should also work towards establishinghorizontal linkages with other private and public institutions so that nationalresources are put to optimum utilisation.

There is a need for the private higher education institutions to allocate sizableresources for awarding scholarships to reward merit and to promote equity inhigher education, enabling educationally meritorious but economicallyweaker sections of society to enter higher education institutions.

It is absolutely essential that all resources generated by private highereducation institutions should be used for proper educational purposes only,including for scholarships and loans to the needy students. They should notbe diverted to non-educational activities.

The quality of candidates needs to be evaluated on the basis of entryqualifications required, the selection process, the system of monitoringprocess, and counseling practices to the students and the process of ensuringcompetence of graduates through regular evaluation and assessment.

The faculty or academic programme will have to be evaluated and accreditedon the basis of the level of quality controls offered, composition of facultymembers, their qualifications, experience and research.

The evaluation of the curriculum should be based on the basic criteria that iscentrally decided by one agency responsible for private higher education andits conceptual framework as provided by the institution.

At the institutional level, a body, such as a Board of Trustees, should beprovided for, which will decide on general policy direction for thedevelopment and management of the institution. It maybe necessary to havesome members of this body being appointed by the Minister responsible forprivate higher education to help monitor the functioning of the institution.


* There must also be provision for external evaluation at all levels to carry outcontinous evaluation. The evaluators will have to be formed into variouscommittees like curriculum committee, standards committee etc., to carry outspecific tasks for a specific period of time and make recommendations to theBoard for private higher education. The members may have to be appointedby the Board and will have to be financially compensated. They should alsocomprise experts from private and public sectors and be selected from amongexperts and professionals from their respective disciplines. Evaluation shouldprovide for general standards for institutions as well as for specific standardsfor courses of study.

* Assessment must be carried out very regularly in the first few years of theinstitution. Once its quality is established, it can be carried out at longer,regular intervals. The institution should then begin to institutionalise its ownassessment system while external assessment could be done once every fiveyears.

3. Recommendations to International and Regional Organisations

* International organisations have an important responsibility in promotinghigher education in the countries of the region. Financial assistance maybeprovided by such organisations to organise international and regional forumsto facilitate development of private higher education.

* They may also provide assistance and support for international and regionalcollaboration in research and for exchange of information on private highereducation, and for networking of higher education institutions and systems,including private higher education. Assistance may also include study visitsand attachment programmes.

* International organisations may provide technical assistance in developingappropriate models of development for promotion of private higher education.

* Lastly, international and regional organisations should serve as clearinghouses of inter-country information on private higher education institutions.

32


ANNEXES


Annex 2 List of Participants andObservers

Annex 3 List of Papers Distributedat the Seminar

33


Annex 1

PROGRAMME OF THE SEMINAR

Tuesday, 31 October 1995

08:30-09:00 Registration

09:00-10:00 OPENING SESSION

Election ofCo-Chairpersons andRapporteur-General

Welcoming AddressLin ZugengPresident, Xiamen University

Remarks by UNESCO RepresentativeWang Yibing

Remarks by SEAMEO RIHED RepresentativeTong-In Wongsothorn

Remarks by Participants:Dong Mingchuan, Du Yue andDato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid

10:00-10:30 Coffee/Tea

10:30-11:30 Plenary Session 1STATE LEGISLATION ON PRIVATE HIGHEREDUCATION

Pan Mao Yuan

11.30-12.30 Plenary Session 2GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRIVATEHIGHER EDUCATION

Hyun-Chong Lee

12.30-14.30 Lunch

34


14.30-15.30 Plenary Session 3FINANCING PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Jandhyala B G Tilak

16.00-17.00 Plenary Session 4QUALITY CONTROL IN PRIVATE HIGHEREDUCATION

Thanu Kulachol

18:00-20:00 Reception/Dinner hosted by the President,Xiamen University

Wednesday, 1 November 1995

08.30-10.00

10.00-10.30

10.30-12.00

12.00-14,00

14.00-15.00

15.00-15.30

15.00-17.00

Case Reports 1:CHINA (Dong Mingchuan)INDIA (Jandhyala B G Tilak)INDONESIA (Ir. Joetata Hadihardaja)

Coffee/Tea

Case Reports 2:JAPAN (Masahiro Arimatsu)KOREA (Rep. of) (Hyun Chong Lee)MALAYSIA (Dato Nuraizah Abdul

Hamid and Arpah Bt. Haji Mohammad)

Lunch

Case Reports 3:MONGOLIA (B. Erdenesuren)PHILIPPINES (Mona D. Valisno)

Coffee/Tea

Case Reports 4:THAILAND (Thanu Kulachol and

Chantavit Sujatanond)VIET NAM (Lam Quang Thiep)

35


Thursday, 2 November 1995

08.30-10.00 GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Group 1: State Legislation and Government Policiesand Private Higher Education

Group Chairman : Hyun Chong LeeGroup Rapporteur : Dato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid

Group 2: Financing Private Education QualityControl in Private Higher Education

Group Chairman : Jandhyala B G TilakGroup Rapporteur : Chantavit Sujatanond

Group 3: Quality Control in Private HigherEducation

Group Chairman : Thanu KulachalGroup Rapporteur : Arpah Bt. Haji Mohammad

10.00-10.30

10.30-12.00

12.00-14.00

14.00-15.00

15.00-15.30

15.30-17.00

18:00-20:30

Coffee/Tea

Presentation of the Reports of the Groups byRepresentative of Group 1Representative of Group 2Representative of Group 3

Discussions on Group Reports in the Plenary Session

Lunch

Discussions on Group Reports in the Plenary Session(contd..)

Coffee/Tea

Field Visit (Xiamen University)

Dinner-Meeting hosted by Deputy Governor ofFujian Province and Vice-Mayor, Xiamen City

36


Friday, 3 November 1995

08.30-12.00 Field Visit (to Gulang Island)

12.00-14.00 Lunch

14.00-15.30 DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORTAND RECOMMENDATIONS

15.00-15.30 Coffee/Tea

15.30-16.30 Closing Session

17:30-19:30 Farewell Dinner hosted by Institute of HigherEducation Science, Xiamen University

37


China

India

Annex 2

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS

PARTICIPANTS

Professor Pan Maoyuan,Professor and the Honorary Director,Institute of Higher Education Science,Xiamen University,Xiamen, Fujian 361005,P.R. China.Tel : (0592) 2086413;Fax: (0592) 2086402E-Mail : [email protected]

Mr. Dong Mingchuan,Director-General : Adult Education Department,State Education Commission,No.25, DaMuCan Hutong, Xidan,Beijing 100816, P. R. China.Tel: (86 10) 6096553,6096249Fax : (86 10)6017912

Dr. Zhou Nanzhao,Research Professor and Deputy Director,The National Institute of Educational Research,State Education Commission,Bei-san-huan-zhong-lu 46,Beijing 100088, P.R. China.Tel :2031012,2033132 (Office); 2050904 (Home)E-mail : [email protected]

Professor Dr. Jandhyala B.G. Tilak,Head : Educational Finance Unit,National Institute of EducationalPlanning and Administration,17 B Sri Aurobindo Marg,New Delhi 110016, India.Tel. (91 011)661938, 665135,6962120Fax. (91’ 011) 6853041; Cable: NIEPA (ND)E-mail : [email protected]

38


Indonesia Professor Dr. Joetata Hadihardaja,Director of Private University,Directorate-General of Higher Education,Ministry of Education and Culture,Jt.Jend Sudirman, Pintu I Senayan,Jakarta 10270, Indonesia.Phone/Fax: (62-21) 5731987E-mail : [email protected]

Japan Mr. Masahiro Arimatsu,Deputy Director,Private Education Institution Aid Division,Private Education Institution Department,Higher Education Bureau.c/o : Japanese National Commission,Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture,2-2 Kasumigaseki 3-chome,Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100, Japan.Phone : (03)3581-4211Fax: (81 3) 35819149

Malaysia Ms. Dato Nuraizah binti Abdul Hamid,Deputy Secretary General I,Ministry of Education,Level 7, Block J, Damansara Town Centre,50604 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Phone/Fax: (093) 2543107

Ms. Arpah Bt. Haji Mohammad,Deputy Director General,Deputy Registrar-General of Schools and Teachers ,Ministry of Education,Level 7, Block K, Damansarn Town Centre,50604 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Phone: (6)03-2534673; Fax: (6)03-2535463

Mongolia Mr. B. Erdenesuren.Director-General, Private Higher Education Association .c/o Secretary-General,Mongolia National Commission for UNESCO,Ministry of Science and Education,Ulaanbatar - 44, Mongolia.Tel : (976 1) 322480, 324598;Fax: 323158,326683

39


Philippines Dr. Ms. Mona D. Valisno,Commissioner: Commission on Higher Education,Office of the President,DAP Building, 5th Floor, San Miguel Avenue,Ortigas Center, Pasig City,Manila, Philippines.Tel : (63-2) 6331926,6335573,6337862Fax : (63-2) 6331927

Korea(Rep. of)

Thailand

Viet Nam

Dr. Hyun Chong Lee,Executive Director,Research Institute of Higher Education,Korean Council for University Education,27-2 Youido-dong, Youngdungpo-gu,Seoul 150-742, Republic of Korea.Tel : (82 2)7833892; Fax: 7808311

Dr. Ms. Chantavit Sujatanond,Director : Bureau of Private Higher Education,Ministry of University Affairs,328 Si Ayutthaya Road,Bangkok 10400, Thailand.Tel : (662) 2459322,2461106-11 Ext. 602Fax: (662) 2480459,246-8882

Dr. Thanu Kulachol,President, Bangkok University andPresident, Association ofPrivate Higher Education Institutions of Thailand,Bangkok University,Rama 4 Road, Bangkok 10110, Thailand.Tel : (662) 6717333, Ext.101Fax : (662) 2496274,2401516E-mail : [email protected]

Professor Dr. Lam Quang Thiep,Director of the Higher Educational Department,Ministry of Education and Training,49 Dai Co Viet Str. Hanoi, Viet Nam.Tel : (84-46) 694884,691862Fax : (84-46) 94085,93243

40


SEAMEO RIHED Dr. Tong-In Wongsothorn,Interim Director: SEAMEO RIHED,5th Floor, Ministry of University Affairs Building,328 Si Ayutthaya Road,Bangkok 10400, Thailand.Tel. (66 2) 6445418, Fax. (662) 6445421E-mail : [email protected]

UNESCO Professor Wang Yibing,Specialist in Higher Education: ACEID,UNESCO PROAP, 920 Sukhumvit Road,Box 967 Prakanong Post Office,Bangkok, Thailand.Tel : (66-2) 391-0879,390-2565Fax : (66-2) 391-0866, Cable: UNESCO, BANGKOK

Mr. Du Yue,National Commission of the People’s Republic ofChina for UNESCO,37, Damucanghutong, Xidan,Beijing, China.Tel : (86-1) 6096553,6096883,6097170Cable : UNESCOCOM BEIJINGFax: (86-1) 6017912

41


You Qing Quan

Chen Ban Yu

Nu Xiamin

Hou De Fu

Zhou Yi Wen

Qiang Lianging

Chen Zhen Yi

Zhan Xing Yi

Wu Shari Ping

Betty Dai

Professor and President of Hubei CorrespondenceUniversity,Deputy Executive-Director of Chinese Civilian-RunHigher Education Commission of P.R.C.

Professor and Vice-President of Beijing HaidianUniversity, Vice-Director of Private HigherEducation Commission of P.R.C.

Associate Professor and President of Nanhna BusinessCollege,Vice-Director of Private Higher EducationCommission of P.R.C.

Professor and President of Private Guang ZhouHualian University,Vice-Director of Private Higher EducationCommission of P.R.C.

Associate Professor and Director of the ResearchOffice for Adult Higher Education of HubeiCorrespondence University,Deputy Secretary-General of Chinese Civilian-RunHigher Education Commission of P.R.C.

Professor, Fudan University, Director ofInstitute of Higher Education Research.

Professor and Academic Vice President,International Studies College, Beijing UnionUniversity.

President of Private Song Hua Jiang University.

Professor of Xinhua Sciences and TechnologiesCollege in Sichuan Province.

Professor and President of Jiangxi Hualian ForeignTrade College.

42


Chen Tiangchu Chief of General Division, Department of HigherEducation, State Education Commission of P.R.C.

Wei Yan Xiang Professor and President, Wu Han Chengcai University.

Chen Zhi-Kuan Director of Rights-Protection Section,Council of People-Run Higher Education of China.

Zhang Zhong Zhe Chief-editor, “People-Run Education”.

Zhang Zhi Yi Vice-Director, Research Centre for People-RunSchool Education of the National Institute ofEducation Science.

Hu Dabai Vice-President of Yellow-River College of Scienceand Technology.

43


Annex 3

LIST OF PAPERS DISTRIBUTED AT THE SEMINAR

COUNTRY PAPERS

INDIAJandhyala B G Tilak

INDONESIAJoetata Hadihardaja

JAPANMasahiro Arimatsu

KOREA (Republic of)Hyun Chong Lee

MALAYSIADato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid

MONGOLIAB. Erdenesuren

PHILIPPINESMona D. Valisno

THAILANDThanu Kulachol




Private Higher Education in Indonesia: CurrentDevelopments and Existing Problems

Current Status and Issues Involved with PrivateHigher Education in Japan

Country Periodical Report: Korea

Private Higher Education in Malaysia: CurrentDevelopment and Future Direction

Mongolia: Private Higher Institutions: AnIntroduction to Their Contributions andProblematic Issues Requiring UrgentRectification

Private Higher Education in the Philippines:Performance and Challenges in the 21st Century


Higher Education in Thailand

Mechanisms in the Supervision of PrivateHigher Education Institution in Thailand

44


VIETNAMLam Quang Thiep

CHINAWei Yitong and Zhang Guocai

Niu Xianmin

Qin Guo-Zhu and Yang Rui

Dai Yiren

China National Institute

Zhou Nanzhou

Chen Baoyu

Qiang Lianqing and Yuan Ji

Hou De-Fu

Hou Defu and zhu Jihu

GuoYong

Anonymous

The Private Sector of Higher Educationin Viet Nam

A Historical Perspective on non-governmentalHigher Education in China

Nanhua: A Private College in Guangzhou

Private Higher Education in the People’sRepublic of China: A Silent Resurgence

Promoting Teaching Quality for Improving,Practicing Concrete Skills for Developing

A Study on NGO-sponsored and Private HigherEducational Research Education in China

Conclusions and Policy RecommendationDerived from the Study on NGO-SponsoredHigher Education in China

A Type of Collective Run and GovernmentSupport University and the Experience in thePractice

The Prospects of China’s Private HigherEducation : A Case Study of Sanda University

The Private Hua Lian College: An Introduction

The Road for China’s Running of PrivateColleges and Universities: Practical KnowledgeGained in Running Guagndong Private HualianUniversity

A Shallow Argument on the Leading System ofHIRLPs

To Establish the Socialist Local-People-RunCollege Characterized by Distmotive ChinesFeatures


OPENING STATEMENT

Wang Yibing Statement at the Regional Seminar on PrivateHigher Education in Asia and Pacific

KEY-NOTE SPEECHES

Pan Maoyuan and Wei Yitong Legislation--Guarantee for the Development ofPrivate Higher Education

Hun Chong Lee Government Policies and Private HigherEducation: The Korea Case

Jandhyala B G Tilak Financing Private Higher Education: Patternsand Trends

Thanu Kulachol Quality Control in Private Higher Education

46


For more information, contact

Dr. Tong-In Wongsothorn,

Director

SEAMEO RIHED

5th floor, Ministry of University Affairs Building,

328 Sri-Ayutthaya Road, Phaya Thai, Rajthevee

Bangkok 10400, ThailandTel: (662) 644-5418, 644-5591

Fax: (662) 644-5421

Email : [email protected]


A Regional Seminar organized by UNESCO PROAP and SEAMEO RIHEDhosted by Xiamen University, Xiamen, China. 31 October-3 November 1995

Part IIFinal Report

PapersSeminar

Edited byTong-in Wongsothorn and Wang Yibing

UNESCO PROAP SEAMEO RIHEDBANGKOK


CONTENTS

Editorial Note

Foreword

Welcome Address

Remarks

Remarks

by Tong-In Wongsotorn andWang Yibing

by Victor Ordonez,Director, UNESCO PROAP

by Lin Zugeng,President, Xiamen University

by Tong-In Wongsothorn,RIHED Interim Director

by Wang Yibing,UNESCO Specialist on Higher Education

PART I : Summary and Recommendations

Chapter 1:

Chapter 2:

Chapter 3:

Chapter 4:

Chapter 5:

Chapter 6:

Introduction

State Legislation and Government Policies for theDevelopment of Private Higher Education

Financing Private Higher Education Institutions

Quality Assurance in Private Higher Education

Country Case Studies

Recommendations


PART II : Seminar Papers

1. CHINAPan Maoyuan andWei Yitong

Zhou Nanzhao et al.

2. INDIAJandhyala B G Tilak

3. INDONESIAJoetata Hadihardaja

4. JAPANMasahiro Arimatsu

5. REPUBLIC OF KOREAHyun Chong Lee

6. MALAYSIADato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid

7. MONGOLIAB. Erdenesuren

8. PHILIPPINESMona D. Valisno

9. THAILANDChantavit Sujatanond

Thanu Kulachol

10. VIET NAMLam Quang Thiep

Legislation: Guarantee for the Development ofPrivate Higher Education

The Evolution and Policies ConcerningNGO-Sponsored Higher Education in China


Private Higher Education in Indonesia:Current Developments and Existing Problems

Current Status and Issues Involved with PrivateHigher Education in Japan

Government Policies and Private Higher Education:The Korean Case.

Private Higher Education in Malaysia:Current Development and Future Direction

Private Higher Institutions in Mongolia: Introductionto Their Contributions and Problematic IssuesRequiring Urgent Rectification

Private Higher Education in the Philippines:Performance and Challenges in the 21st Century

Mechanism in the Supervision of Private HigherEducation Institution in Thailand


The Private Sector of Higher Education in Viet Nam



Annex 2 List of Participants and Observers

Annex 3 List of Papers Distributed at the Seminar


This volume is Part II of the final report of the Regional Seminar on Private HigherEducation in Asia and the Pacific. It is a collection of country papers from participants andspeakers. There were many papers distributed at the Seminar; but due to the limited space, only12 papers are published in this report.

Reading the report, one can see that the existence of private higher education in Asia andthe Pacific is varied. As summarized in Part 1 on the country case studies, the ten countries canbe classified into four categories: (i) Japan, an advance industrialised economy with a large privatehigher education system; (ii) South-East and Asian countries, viz., Philippines, South Korea,Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia where the private higher education system has been large andis growing fast; (iii) India in the South Asian sub-continent which is characterised with a largeprivate higher education component in its system with public funds; and (iv) transition societies ofChina, Mongolia and Viet Nam where the private system is relatively of a very recent origin but isgrowing rapidly.

This volume of essays is an attempt to examine some of the problems and issues in thedevelopment of private higher education. There are three main important issues of concern.The first is a government policy on approval, supervision, and control of private sector highereducation institutions. The second is a financial matter which is concerned with government policyon subsidies and tax exemption, tuition, student financial aid, bank lending policy, and institutionalfinancial management. The third is quality control which is concerned with admission criteria,accreditation, curriculum and degree offerings, faculty recruitment and development, promotion ofresearch, and university partnerships and linkages with government and private institutions.These three main issues call for policy guidelines from the governments and agencies concernedwith the development of private higher education. The three issues are addressed in thesepapers, in addition to presentation of background, historical development and current status ofprivate higher education in each country. Contributors to this volume are scholars, educators andadministrators from Asia and the Pacific who have been or are presently involved in thedevelopment of private higher education in their own institution or country.

For this second part, we are very grateful to the authors themselves. Specialappreciations are also conveyed to Mr. Kevin Kettle, SEAMEO RIHED Publications Officer andMiss Wachareeporn, SEAMEO RIHED Documentation Officer, who served as technical editors ofthis report. Secretarial staff of SEAMEO RIHED: Mrs. Pichaya and Mrs. Prateep also made greatcontributions to the fine product of this report.

We hope this report will be useful to policy makers and administrators concerned withprivate higher education as well as students and researchers in the field of higher education.

Tong-In WongsothornSEAMEO RIHED

Wang YibingUNESCO PROAP


It has been one of the important features in the development of higher education in thisregion that the private sector has played a critical role in democratization of higher education incountries like the Philippines, Japan, Republic of Korea, Indonesia and Thailand. Since the earlyeighties an increasing number of countries, those in transition from central planning towardsmarket economies in particular, have expressed great interest in relaxing policies to create a newor expand an existing private sector, in order to ease growing pressure for access to highereducation.

The development and quality of private higher education in the region became a majorconcern at the Sixth Regional Conference of Ministers of Education and those responsible at theeconomic planning in Asia and the Pacific, which was held from 21 to 24 June, 1993, in KualaLumpur, Malaysia. The Director-General of UNESCO was requested to support regional andnational programmes for monitoring the development and quality of private higher education.

The Regional Seminar on Private Higher Education in Asia and the Pacific was organizedat Xiamen University, Xiamen, China from 31 October to 3 November, 1995, in collaboration withSEAMEO RIHED as a response of UNESCO PROAP to the above concern. It was the first actionever taken by this office concerning the private sector in higher education. The main objectives ofthe Seminar were to share experiences and information, examine critical issues and challengesfacing private institutions and governments and formulate corresponding recommendations.

Although the participation in the Seminar was limited to only ten countries due to budgetconstraints, it included senior government officials, well known researchers in the field as well asrepresentatives of private universities to ensure a quality discussion on various aspects of theissue such as legislation and government policies, financing, quality control, and regional andinternational cooperation. I firmly believe that the recommendations produced at the Seminarregarding all the aspects of the issue will be useful not only for private higher educationinstitutions, but also for governments in their legislation and policy formulation to ensure thesmooth development and quality of private higher education.

I hope this Seminar will constitute the first of a series of actions as recommended by theparticipants in dealing with such a complex issue.

I would like to express UNESCO’s grateful thanks to the Chinese Government for itsvoluntary contributions and Xiamen University for its excellent preparation and valuablecollaboration in the whole process of planning and organizing the Seminar.


On the successful opening of the Regional Seminar on the Private Higher Education inAsian-Pacific Region, please allow me, on behalf of all the staff members of Xiamen University, toextend our hearty welcome to all the foreign guests, Chinese experts and friends.

We just said good-bye not long ago to physicists and chemists from all parts of the world,who came here to attend the 19th International Workshop on Statistical Physics and the 46thInternational Conference on Electrochemistry respectively. Yet now we feel very happy from thebottom of our hearts to see the educationists from Asian-Pacific countries.

Xiamen University, a 74-year-old comprehensive university with such branches of learningas arts, sciences, engineering, law, business and so on, is one of the 34 key universities of China.She is also the sole key university with a graduate school that is run by the Educational Committee ofChina in the Special Economic Zones. The University comprises 58 specialities in her 26departments and 35 research institutes. She has been granted the right to confer Ph.D. degrees in20 disciplines and master’s degrees in 60 disciplines. In the University there are 12,000 full-timestudents and over 3,400 staff members, among whom there are 1,600 teachers and researchers.In June this year, Xiamen University passed the pre-appraisal for ’211 Project’ by the StateEducation Commission. The aim we are striving for is to build Xiamen University into acomprehensive university which is first class with a certain international fame.

What is worth mentioning here especially is that the history of Xiamen University has aspecial tie with the theme of this Seminar. At the very beginning, Xiamen University was a privateuniversity set up in 1921 by Chen Jiageng, a famous patriotic overseas Chinese. Mr. Chen regardedit his Iofly ideal of life to set up schools. He not only spent large amounts of money setting up XiamenUniversity, but also made painstaking efforts for the establishment and development of XiamenUniversity. At the early stage of establishment, Xiamen University won the laudatory title of ‘Giant InThe South’ because of her excellent staff members and teaching quality and became a world-famousprivate university.

Xiamen University was a success in her privately run period, which shows that:

Firstly, a university should have stable sources of funding. When Chen Jiageng was settingup the University, the world was in economic crisis. Under very difficult circumstances, Mr. Chentried to maintain a supply of funds for running the University at the expense of his enterprises andreal property, thus ensuring stable sources of funding for the University.

Secondly, there should be a good president. When making preparations for the founding ofthe University, Mr. Chen began to look at home and aboard for candidates for president. To have agood university, it is necessary to have a president with excellent knowledge, personality and ability.

Thirdly, there should be a group of excellent teachers. There cannot be a good universitywithout good teachers. Mr. Chen spared no expense to hire famous experts and scholars to work inXiamen University by paying them good salaries. A large group of famous experts and scholars fromhome and abroad gathered at Xiamen University, forming a teaching staff which could be said to bethe first class one at the time.

Lastly, there should be a good style of study.

3


In a word, for schools to train individuals, first priority should be given to education.

Although Xiamen University was changed into a state-run university long ago, the privately-run period of the University is an important part in the University’s history and plays a critical role. Inrecent years, the Higher Education Research Institute of our University has been doing research workon private higher education. This seminar offers us a good chance to learn from you. For this, I wantto express my hearty thanks to UNESCO Asian-Pacific Office and all the distinguished guests andfriends.

It may be the first time that you friends have come to Xiamen University. Situated at thehillside and facing the sea, Xiamen University has a beautiful natural environment. It would be agood idea if you would take a walk around the campus and have a look after these intense meetings.If you have any requirements and suggestions, we will do our best to provide you with the maximumof convenience and help.

May you have a happy time during your stay in Xiamen.May the Seminar be a complete success.Thank you for your attention.

4


As a co-organizer of the seminar, and on behalf of SEAMEO RIHED, I would like toextend a warm welcome to our distinguished participants, speakers and observers. Welcome tothe seminar and welcome to the beautiful city of Xiamen.

The seminar has four important objectives: to share information and ideas on thedevelopment of private higher education in the region, to examine critical issues in private highereducation, to provide policy recommendations for governments, and to promote co-operation andcollaboration in private higher education. SEAMEO RIHED attaches great importance to all theseobjectives. Attending this seminar are RIHED Governing Board Members and representativesfrom 5 SEAMEO member countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Viet Nam.As a regional organization committed to regional understanding and cooperation in highereducation, RIHED is expecting from this seminar policy recommendations and guidelines topromote collaboration and co-operation in higher education. We hope to share what we learn herewith policy-makers and university administrators in our SEAMEO member countries

Private higher education has an important role to play. In the course of the development,there will be three important issues: Control, Qualify and Finance. The first issue deals with therelationship between the government and private higher education institutions. The second isabout quality assurance. The third is concerned with financing private higher education. Thesethree important issues will be examined in small group discussions. The recommendations fromthis seminar will be very valuable for governments, international organizations and concernedagencies in the development and promotion of private higher education. I am therefore verygrateful to the delegates and observers for your contribution to this seminar. I am also grateful tothe four distinguished speakers who will share with us their valuable experiences and ideas for thedevelopment and promotion of private higher education in this region.

On this occasion, I would like also to express my deep gratitude and appreciation toUNESCO PROAP, especially to Prof. Wang Yibing, the UNESCO Specialist on Higher andDistance Education for his initiative and contribution in organizing this seminar. Finally to the hostinstitute, we are grateful for the support and hospitality extended to us.

I look forward to a successful and fruitful seminar. Thank you very much for your attention


It is both a pleasure and honour for me to be here to welcome all of you, including a big groupof observers from the host country, to attend the Regional Seminar on Private Higher Education in Asiaand the Pacific. On behalf of Dr. Victor Ordonez, Director of UNESCO PROAP, may I take thisopportunity also to extend UNESCO’s sincere gratitude to the Chinese Government for its volunteercontribution combined with some funds from UNESCO's regular programme and RIHED to enable usto meet here. Sincere thanks should go equally to Dr. Tong-In, President Lin, Prof. Pan and all of yourcolleagues at the Research Institute of Higher Education for your kind cooperation and contribution inthe whole process of preparation of the Seminar.

This Seminar is the first action initiated by UNESCO PROAP in cooperation with RIHED as aresponse to the concern over the development and quality of private higher education in the regionexpressed at the Sixth Regional Conference of Ministers of Education and those responsible foreconomic planning in Asia and the Pacific, which was held from 21 to 24 June 1993 in Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia.

Private Higher Education has existed for thousands of years in the world as well as in thisregion. The first question we are raising here and trying to answer at this Seminar is how to redefineits strategic role at a time when :

Education is conceived today as one of the basic human rights, while millions of qualifiedcandidates for tertiary education produced from the rapidly expanding basic education havebeen neglected due to government inability to provide enough opportunities at the tertiary level,since the lion’s share of their budget has to be spent for EFA purposes;

Human resources development has been taken by more and more governments as a majorway out to enhance their cutting-edge in the competitive world and as a key strategy to face thechallenge of the coming information and learning society being materialized at a much fasterpace;

Some of the market ways and means have been increasingly introduced in the higher educationsystem in many countries in the region; reform and management is reeded in order toovercome some of the weaknesses in the public sector of higher education.

The second question we may also raise here is what is the role the government should playin the process. It is interesting to have found from its historical background that the relationshipbetween government and private higher education had dominated the whole story of the evolutionand development of private higher education and experienced, sooner or later, a kind of trilogy inalmost all the countries emergence of a private institution or sector in response to the social,economical or religious demands in a certain historical context without the formal recognition of thegovernment for years or decades; recognition by the government as a reality and part of the nationalhigher education system with state laws and regulations to control its expansion and quality; tightercontrol with the start or increase of government subsidies and loans when the government had theability or willingness to do so. The time span taken to have gone through the trilogy varied fromhundreds of years in some countries to one or two decades only in the other.

The whole issue seems focused not on whether the government should or should not controlthe private higher education but on when, at what extent and in which means the government controlshould be brought in and implemented, in order to realize the double goal: to minimize the possible

6


malpractice of the private sector functioning in a market-driven context and mechanism and, in themeantime, to ensure more autonomy enjoyed by those private higher institutions who have reachedthe minimum standard for their survival and development. This is an art of governance and becomesoften a difficult policy choice.

Good quality, management and finance are three interdependent pillars, which arenecessary to be built for any private higher education institution to gain a foothold in a competitivehigher education system. The thematic speeches to be made at the plenary sessions of the Seminarwill touch upon these key aspects, which, I believe, will lead to a fruitful discussion.

Although the participation in the Seminar has to be limited to only 10 countries due to thebudgetary constraints, it could well represent different situations of the region in this field withparticipants coming not only from different groups of countries: economies in transition, countries witha developed private sector for decades and those with a clear determination to create or expand it,but also from different levels and positions within governments, well known research institutes ofhigher education as well as the private sector itself. I am fully confident that, with this high levelparticipation of different backgrounds and experiences to ensure a high quality discussion anddialogue, the Seminar will mark an important step and open a new page of the history in thedevelopment of regional cooperation in the private higher education in Asia and the Pacific.

There is a saying that the theory is grey but the tree of life evergreen. I think this is true inparticular for a region like ours: vast, diversified and dynamic, in which one-short seminar cannot bea successful strategy in assisting member states to formulate policies dealing with a extremely longand complicated issue like private higher education. I hope, therefore, with your kind cooperationand active paticipation, this Seminar will not mark the end, but just a beginning of a series ofendeavors in formulation of new strategies at a new time for the smooth and healthy development ofprivate higher education in our region.

Last but not least, I would like to take this opportunity to talk a little bit about one terminology:privatization of higher education, which is often used today in higher education literature in both theWest and East and may also be used by our participants at this Seminar. The term may be sensitiveand even controversial but one may make an interesting note in what does it really mean in practicetoday. It does not mean mainly the change in the nature of ownership of a public university into aprivate one, but usually refers to various forms of mobilization of financial resources as a strategy forthe state to share the cost of higher education with users and/or to overcome the negative effects ofa higher education system depending entirely or mainly on government support,

Thank you for your attention.

7


PART II :

Seminar Papers


Pan Maoyuan and Wei Yitong

Legislation on private higher education refers to the laws made by a state or territories toregulate behaviors of people in their activities of conducting private higher education, It embodiesthe will of the state or territories in the development of private higher education, and reflects andadjusts a variety of internal and external relations of private higher education.

Since the end of the Second World War, there has been a rapid growth of private highereducation in most countries and territories in Asia and the Pacific region. Their experiences gainedin the process of developing private higher education systems have been summed up andreflected in the relevant laws and regulations.

Since the 1980s, accompanied with the reform of the economic system and thedevelopment of the national economy, private higher education in China (usually called People-runor NGO-run higher education) has reappeared and developed rapidly. However, legislation onprivate higher education has been imperfect. In 1990, the State Education Commission entrustedus (The Institute of Higher Education of Xiamen University) with the research project of“Preliminary Study on Legislation on NGO-run (or people-run) Higher Education”. We havelearned from the preliminary comparative study and survey on the history and practices thatproper and timely legislation is an important guarantee for healthy development and the quality ofprivate higher education. Meanwhile it is also found that a series of challenges face legislation onprivate higher education.

I. ISSUES REGARDING LEGISLATION ON PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Some of the complicated problems faced in legislation on private higher education areunique to China, others may be common in many other countries.

1. Aim of private higher education. Public higher education run by the government(including local governments) keeps rather definite aims and responsibilities, Privateinstitutions of higher education are run by individuals and corporations. Though privatehigher education institutions, like public ones, must follow educational policies and lawsof the state, they are given more autonomy to define their own aims, mechanisms andmanagement models in their operation. Therefore, it is impossible and unreasonableto impose mechanically management models and methods of public higher educationalinstitutions on those of private higher education.

2. Independence and autonomy. Private higher education institutions relatively havemore independence and greater autonomy. This gives flexibility to private highereducational institutions to meet the practical needs of society, but on the other hand, ittends to overshoot the temporary needs of the labor market, or to cater for the taste ofstudents. As a result of this shortsighted behaviour national manpower planning isaffected bringing about a graduate surplus in certain fields of study.

3. Growth, Private Higher education financially relies mainly on its own funds and doesnot largely increase the burden of the state budget. However, if it is developed tooquickly in a certain period, it might go beyond the needs of the labor market, leading toincreased graduate unemployment which would have a negative impact on socialstability.

9


4. Educational quality. Interference in private higher education comes not only from thegovernment but also from enterprises and other social forces which financially aidprivate higher education, so that it is hard for the academic cores to resist outsidenegative pressure and to comply with educational rules, thus educational quality maydeteriorate.

5. Unsuitability of its budget. Private institutions of higher education in China will not getofficial permission to open unless they can guarantee the initial cost. But it is a factthat their current expenditures are not as stable as those of public institutions. It is stilla controversial topic : whether the state should provide some amount of financialsupport to them in case of financial hardship.

Presented above are only some of the complicated problems that we have met in ourstudy on legislation on private higher education, There are also many other problems which arenot yet mentioned here.

Il. MAIN POINTS TO BE CONSIDERED IN LEGISLATION ON PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Though their social systems and educational systems are different from one another in allcounties and territories, there are still some common points to be considered in legislation onprivate higher education. On the basis of study on legislation on private higher education inChina, I would like to mention some main points in the following:

1. The social nature of private higher education must be maintained in line with the socialsystem of the state. China is a socialist country. Both public and private highereducation in China has to adhere to the direction of socialism. Institutions of highereducation must carry out the socialist policy of education and comply with theconstitution and laws of the state, regardless of who is the owner of the school or whatparticular aim the school may have. In fact, this is common in all countries andterritories.

For example, in France, after the French Revolution, the bourgeois government closed22 universities built in the Middle Ages. Later, Napoleon rebuilt the newly establishedinstitutions and put them into the Imperial University System controlled by hisgovernment. As soon as the United States obtained its independence, it took over thepower of ratifying charters on private institutions. A third example, when Taiwan wasreturned to China from Japanese rule, the Private Women College in Taipei(established in the period of Japanese occupation) was closed. The purpose of allthese transactions was to make educational institutions in line with the current politicaland economic system.

2. Relative independence, autonomy and flexible adaptability should be given to privateinstitutions of higher education. Public institutions are run by government and rely ongovernmental appropriation, while private institutions are run by various social groupsand corporations, depending mainly on tuition fees. Therefore on the prerequisite thatthey follow educational policies and laws of the state, private institutions of highereducation should enjoy more independence and autonomy so that their owners mayhave a stronger initiative and sense of responsibility, and their flexibility may be put intofull play to meet the needs of the labor market, to adapt themselves in time and tooperate with their own features. The strength of the incentive for private highereducation lies in its independence, autonomy and flexibility.

3. Private institutions of higher education should be treated equally and fair competitionshould be encouraged. Except for investment, the government should treat private andpublic institutions of higher education equally. Institutions, teachers and students

10


should enjoy equality in legal and social status; and diplomas granted by privateinstitutions approved by the government should be as valid as those granted by publicones. Fair competition between public and private institutions should be encouraged inimproving educational quality, conducting scientific research and social service. Equalachievements deserve the same praise. By so doing, it would be helpful to thedevelopment of higher education as a whole, both public and private,

4. The responsibility should be defined. In legislation, responsibilities should be clear anddefinite among owners, managers and the state for private higher educationalinstitutions. The state should take not only the responsibilities of approving, regulatingand supervising, but also the responsibilities of guiding and supporting. For example,the state may guide adjustment of specialties and scientific research orientation inprivate higher education by providing scholarships and financial aid, or it mayencourage better development of private higher education by granting lands,equipment and funds.

5. An evaluation (accreditation) system should be established. Though it takes theresponsibilities of regulation and supervision, the state should not interfere so much inprivate institutions of higher education as it does in public institutions. An effective wayof supervision and guidance is to establish an evaluation system. The educationalauthority of the government may work out evaluation standards and rules foradministration and organize a group of experts to carry out evaluation regularly. Ifconditions permit, evaluation can be transferred from the authority to social evaluationcommittees. The establishment of an evaluation system is not only beneficial toguidance and supervision but also to inspiration.

All the points above are only those specially emphasized here in the light of conditions inChina.

Ill. SOME CHALLENGES FACED IN FURTHER STUDY ON LEGISLATION ON PRIVATEHIGHER EDUCATION

1. Equal standard versus different conditions. Private and public institutions of the samelevel and the same kind should stand on an equal footing in educational quality, facultyqualification, admission requirements and diploma value, etc. But practically, there aregreat gaps between private and public institutions in conditions of school operation. Ingeneral (but not in every case), while funds, buildings, equipment and teachers’benefits of private institutions are not as good as those of public ones, tuition and otherschool fees charged by private institutions are much higher, meanwhile, the quality oftheir freshman is lower. Especially, at the beginning, private institutions are very oftennot likely to comply with the requirements and standards applied to public institutions.But in its development process, private institutions are expected to improve theirconditions step by step, and to catch up with the general level of public institutions.

2. Protection and restriction. While legislation should be made in the view of protection,laws and statute usually contain restrictive provisions. Reasonable restriction is in asense a protection. If there is “laissez-faire” without necessary restrictions, someprivate educational institutions could become “certificate-shops” or “diploma mills”;educational quality would not be secured and private higher education would be hardlydeveloped. Therefore, when making restrictive provisions, it should be borne in mindwith a positive attitude of guarantee and support, but not with an attitude of negativesuppression.

11


3. How to define non-profit making. Education is a public utility. It has been stipulated inmost countries that profit-making shall not be the objective of private highereducational institutions, while in some countries, it is believed that public utility andprofit-making can go well together, and that the purpose of profit-making may stimulateinitiative for private educational institutions, as a result, it can in turn better their publicutility, provided that the profit- making private institutions pay tax. But this may lead tohigher tuition fees, and it is also very easy to incur bad practices, and as a result,negatively affect educational quality. In China, it is provided in law that “profit-makingshall not be the purpose of education”. This provision agrees with the social nature ofeducational enterprises. However, the denial of profit-making as the purpose does notmean that private educational institutions shall not conduct profit-making activities.Since public institutions of higher education in China may raise funds by profit-makingactivities, it is needless to mention private ones. Legitimate profit-making activitiesshould be allowed in private higher educational institutions just as it is in public ones.And private schools should be allowed to charge higher tuition fees. But all of theincome should be used as educational funds, such as payment for salaries andschooling expenditures, leading to the betterment of staff welfare; and the conditions ofeducation, and should not slide into the hands of school managers as their individualextra gains.

12


Zhou Nanzhao et al.

Since the convening of the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh Central Committee of theCommunist Party of China in December 1978, the focus of the work of the Party and the state hasshifted to economic construction. The restoration and development of economic construction haspushed forward the reform and development of education. Accordingly, NGO-sponsored highereducation, whose development had been interrupted for more than three decades, has been revivedand developed during the past ten-odd years. NGO-sponsored higher education has played anincreasingly significant role in the nation’s socialist modernization drive:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

supplementing the inadequate provision of public higher education and increasing society’sinput into education;

meeting the needs of socio-economic development for trained personnel of variousdescriptions and satisfying the aspirations of individual citizens for acquisition of knowledge;

effecting a change in the monopoly of higher education by the government and giving rise to asituation in which the private sector vies with the public sector, being conducive to the probingof new ways of educational reform and upgrading of the quality of education and schooloperation;

enriching the social and cultural life of the broad masses and stimulating the advance ofsocialist culture and ethics. The place occupied by NGO-sponsored higher education in thesystem of national education is determined by the important role played by it in socio-economicdevelopment, and thus there is ample reason to regard it as an integral part of China’s highereducation system.

1. DEVELOPMENT OF NGO-SPONSORED HIGHER EDUCATION

Generally speaking, the development of NGO-sponsored higher education may be dividedinto the following four phases:

1.1 Emergence of NGO-sponsored higher education (1978-1982)

With the restoration and development of the nation’s economic construction theshortage of professional manpower and the generally low educational attainment of thework force have become urgent policy issues to be tackled. On the one hand, thedemand for trained personnel is very urgent, on the other hand, millions of youngpeople are urgently in need of opportunities to continue their studies and upgrade theirqualifications. Nevertheless, China’s educational infrastructure is rather weak, and theaftermath of the Cultural Revolution does not allow the state to allocate more resourcesto education when so many things compete for the scarce resources available.Consequently, the Chinese government has to adopt a policy of “walking on two legs”,that is, finding new avenues to increase and speed up the output of skilled manpower.Accordingly, a network of Radio and Television Universities (RTVUs) began to enrolstudents in 1980, and in the same year state administered higher education

* This chapter is taken from A Study on NGO-Sponsored and Private Higher Education in China. A study headed byZhou Nanzhao, China National Institute of Educational Research, May 1995.

13


examinations were held in Beijing on a trial basis; and in the meantime, in a number ofurban centers emerged NGO-sponsored educational institutions providing diverseeducational programs, including compensatory education, tutorial classes helpingstudents to prepare for state-administered higher education examinations, and culturalor recreational programs. In March 1982, Zhonghua Societal University, the first NGO-sponsored HE I was established in the country, and in the same year over 100 similarinstitutions were established in close succession in Beijing, Shanghai, Harbin,Changchun, Wuhan, and Xi’an with the approval of local educational departments.

1.2 A phase of rapid development (1982-1986) of NGO-sponsored higher education

Article 19 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China adopted at the FifthSession of the Fifth National People’s Congress in December 1982 provides: “Thestate encourages the collective economic organizations, state enterprises andinstitutions and other sectors of society to establish educational institutions of varioustypes in accordance with the law,” furnishing the legal basis for NGO-sponsorededucation, and providing a strong stimulus to the zeal of many intellectuals in settingup and running NGO-sponsored HEIs. In 1980 Deng Xiaoping inscribed the name of“Beijing Self-Study (zixiu) University,” creating a widespread impact in society atlarge. In a short span of several years, the number of NGO-sponsored HEIs grew toover 170, including the well-known ones such as China Science and Technology andBusiness Administration University (zhongguo keji jingying guanli daxue), ZhonghuaSocietal University, Qianjin Jinxiu College in Shanghai; all operating on a fairly largescale. Since most of the earlier founded sponsored HEIs were able to offereducational programs and courses responding to the needs of society, exhibitflexibility in the provision of programs and other matters, exercised strict internalmanagement, paid attention to the quality of instruction, and succeeded in trainingtens of thousands of skilled personnel of various fields, they won favorable commentfrom various quarters of society.

1.3 A phase of readjustment, consolidation, and upgrading (1987-1991)

With the development of NGO-sponsored higher education, inadequacies andproblems existing in educational provision and management manifested themselvesgradually. As far as management is concerned, there were the following problems:incomplete legal provision, inadequate experience in management, insufficientmacro-level regulation on NGO-sponsored higher education, as evidenced ininadequate support and encouragement given to the well-run institutions andinadequate sanctions taken against poorly run or malpracticing institutions. As far asthe quality of programs is concerned, parts of institutions lacked the necessaryresources, and the quality of education fluctuated; there were institutions set upwithout prior approval by local educational departments, and some institutions awardedgraduation diplomas or certificates unrecognized by the state, creating confusion in thecommunities; there were even a few institutions which published deceitfuladvertisements in the press, seriously harming the reputation of NGO-sponsoredinstitutions. The appearance of these negative phenomena led to the formulation andpromulgation of the “Provisional Regulations Concerning the Operation of EducationalInstitutions Run by Social Forces” by Social Education division of China (SEdC) onJuly 8, 1987, which dealt with problems cropping up in the course of the developmentof NGO-sponsored education, and required local governments to take effectivemeasures to cope with them. The promulgation of the “Provisional Regulations”marked the beginning of a new phase of the development of educational institutions runby social forces, that is, a phase of readjustment, consolidation, and upgrading.Subsequently, the following documents were formulated and issued by SEdC in closesuccession : “Provisional Regulations on Financial Management in Institutions Run bySocial Forces” (December 28, 1987); ‘(Notice Concerning Several Issues Arising in the

14


Operation of Educational Institutions Run by Social Forces” (October 17, 1988). Thenin the light of these regulations, local educational departments collaborated with othergovernmental agencies concerned in formulating more detailed implementationregulations bearing on all major aspects of the establishment and operation of NGO--sponsored HEIs. Specifically speaking, these local regulations cover the followingmatters: the place and role and orientation of NGO-sponsored HEIs, limits of authorityconcerning the examination and approval of the establishment of new institutions,enrolment of students, goals of training, curricula and syllabuses, management ofstudents’status and record keeping, issuance of graduation certificates to graduates,financial management, nature of school properties, closure of schools, handling of post-closure affairs, etc. Meanwhile local authorities started a new round of examinationand assessment of existing institutions, scrutinizing the legitimacy of the establishment,available resources, procedure of examination and approval, etc. Those institutionspassing successfully this process of examination and approval were recognized andpermitted to renew their registration, while those which failed to pass the examinationwere ordered to suspend operation or to close down. Through a process ofreadjustment and consolidation, the legitimate rights of authentic NGO-sponsored HEIswere protected, and the well-run institutions were able to consolidate their position;while the notoriously bad ones characterized by low quality of programs and confusedmanagement were closed down, paving a way for a sound and steady development ofNGO-sponsored higher education.

1.4 A new phase of development (1992--up to date)

Having gone through a phase of readjustment, consolidation, and upgrading, NGO-sponsored higher education entered a new phase of development from 1992 onward.With the deepening of the reform of the socio-economic structure, a consensus wasreached: “the structure of the provision of education needs be reformed, and thesituation in which the government monopolises the provision of education should bechanged and a new pattern be gradually shaped in which the government would still bethe main provider of education, to be supplemented by educational institutionssponsored by other sectors of society”. The government’s policy of “positivemanagement” has enabled NGO-sponsored higher education to make big strides in afew years, and the number of institutions has been doubled. According to data of 1994,there were over 800 NGO-sponsored HEIs in the whole country, of which 18 have gonethrough the accreditation process of the National Committee for the Establishment ofHigher Education Institutions, and have been authorized by SEdC to award state-recognized academic qualifications.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF NGO-SPONSORED COLLEGES

In its process of development NGO-sponsored higher education in China has graduallyacquired its specific features. They may be summarized as follows:

2.1 Pluralism in the Provision of Education

As pointed out in the “Guidelines on the Reform and Development of Education inChina”, the situation in which the government monopolises the provision of highereducation is to be gradually replaced by a new pattern in which the government willcontinue to be the main provider, while institutions sponsored by other sectors ofsociety will supplement the educational provision of public institutions. Among theexisting 800-odd NGO-sponsored HEIs we can find a variety of sponsors. The firstcategory of sponsors are enterprises and institutions which take advantage of theirown favorable conditions to establish their own HEIs with a view to meeting themanpower needs of their own sector or department or industry; the second category

15


of sponsors are mass organizations, people’s associations, and learned societies ;and the third category of sponsors are the democratic parties. Besides, there areNGO-sponsored HEIs jointly established and operated by our compatriots in HongKong, Macau or Taiwan or foreign friendly organizations and Chinese legal entities(educational institutions or organizations). Furthermore, individual citizens are alsoallowed to establish schools. The growing variety of sponsors embodies the spirit ofreform aiming at changing the monopolistic position of the government in educationalprovision.

2.2 Autonomy in Decision Making

Once an NGO- sponsored HEI has been approved by the government, it immediatelybecomes an independent legal entity (a provider of education ) and enjoys the rightsof a legal entity accordingly, that is, it enjoys full autonomy in handling mattersrelated to the operation of the institution, with the proviso that it conscientiouslyobserve the state’s laws and regulations, implements the state’s educational policiesand guiding principles, and accepts the supervision and monitoring, evaluation andauditing by the government. It raises funds and seeks self-development by its ownefforts.

2.3 Competition between Institutions

The decision to develop a socialist market economy in China brings with it newopportunities for development, and at the same time pressure. This pressureessentially originates from a competitive environment in which the law of evolution--survival of the fittest--operates. On the surface we can see the competition forstudents, for better facilities-and more resources, but in reality, it is the competition ofthe quality of education that is decisive. Not only is there competition between NGO-sponsored HEIs of the same category, but also there is competition between them andregular HEIs. Besides external competition there is internal competition within aninstitution, such as the competitive appointment system applied to faculty members,the competition between graduates for available vacancies, etc. Thus, each phase ofthe development of an NGO-sponsored HEI is full of competition, a natural outcome ofthe operation of the market mechanisms.

2.4 Flexibility of Operation

In view of the fact the clientele served by NGO-sponsored higher education varies inage, in intellectual endowment, in educational preparation, in occupational and lifeexperiences, in tastes and interests, in family environment, and in economic conditions,NGO-sponsored HEIs have to adopt flexible operative mechanisms in handling theprograms and courses offered so as to meet the needs of learners. Besides offeringprograms and courses oriented to the acquisition of formal qualifications (mostly atsubdegree level) for part of their students, they try to provide training courses (classes)of various forms, refresher courses, and lecture series on specific themes to cater tothe needs of their clientele. Flexible operative mechanisms and a streamlined internalmanagement system constitute the basis for the existence and development of NGO-sponsored HEIs.

2.5 Practicality and Diversity of Programs Provided

The reason why NGO-sponsored HEIs can revive, survive and develop further liesbasically in the fact that the educational programs and courses offered by theseinstitutions are oriented to the needs of society, the needs of the labor market, and theneeds of local economic and social development, and the needs of the students asclients. These institutions have to strive to train personnel that are in short supply. For

16


example, the findings of the survey of 207 NGO-sponsored HEIs conducted by usindicate that 143 programs (specialties) provided by these institutions train personnel inshort supply. In China University of Science and Technology and BusinessAdministration, an NGO-sponsored HEI in Beijing, are offered 88 of these programs,ranging over a wide spectrum of fields including : mechanical engineering, electronics,automation, finance and accounting, journalism, advertising, English for foreigntrade, international finance, international trade, accounting involving foreigntransactions, business administration, industrial arts, nutrition and food, etc--all ofthem are highly practical. The NGO-sponsored HEIs strive to offer newly createdcourses catering to the needs of these new programs,

For example, in Yanjing Huaqiao University at Beijing, for the program ofinternational finance the following courses have been offered : international finance,international settlements, money and banking, financial accounting, bank accounting,finance, bank administration, bank credits management, computer and itsapplications, foundation of English, aural comprehension of English, spoken English,specialized English, and so on, These efforts fully reflect the practicality anddiversity of the programs provided by the NGO-sponsored HEIs.

3. POLICIES AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING NGO-SPONSORED HIGHER EDUCATION.

From the account given above, it can be concluded that the revival and development ofNGO-sponsored/private higher education is not an accidental and isolated phenomenon. It is anoutcome of the interaction of many factors in the historical context of the primary stage ofsocialism, of which the policy of encouragement and support extended by the Chinese CommunistParty and the state, and a series of regulations and statutes formulated with a view to providingproper guidance and strengthening management so as to promote its healthy development, arethe more important ones.

3.1 Policies and Regulations Formulated at the National Level

Article 19 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China adopted in 1982explicitly states: “The state encourages the collective economic organizations, stateenterprises and institutions and other sectors of society to establish educationalinstitutions of various types in accordance with law. ” Thus the legitimate place ofNGO-sponsored education is formally confirmed by the fundamental law of the PRC.

From 1987 onwards the State Education Commission has formulated in collaborationwith relevant departments a series of regulations concerning NGO-sponsorededucation so as to encourage and support the sound development of NGO-sponsorededucation, and protect its legitimate interests, and strengthen management andsupervision. Following are some of the more important regulations with a bearing onNGO-sponsored higher education. According to the letter and spirit of Article 19 of theConstitution, in recent years the following regulations have been formulated: “SomeProvisional Regulations on Education on Education Institutions Operated by NGOS”(July 1987 ); “Provisional Regulations on Financial Management in NGO-sponsoredEducational Institutions”; “A Circular Concerning Several Questions RegardingSchools Run by NGOS”; “Provisional Regulations on the Management of Teaching inNGO-sponsored Schools”; “A Circular Concerning the Limits of Power of Examinationand Approval Regarding Enrolment Advertisements Published Across the Borders ofProvinces, Autonomous Regions, and Municipalities Directly Under the CentralGovernment”; “Provisional Regulations on the Management of Seals of NGO-sponsored Educational Institutions”; “Provisional Regulations on the Establishment ofNGO-sponsored HEIs”; “Provisional Regulations on Chinese-Foreign Jointly Operated


Educational Institutions” ; and “Regulations on NGO-sponsored EducationalInstitutions” (forthcoming, replacing the Provisional Regulations).

These statutes and regulations not only clarify the place and role of NGO-sponsoredhigher education in the entire educational undertaking of China, but also provideexplicit stipulations concerning the following matters: educational orientation, normsand standards for the establishment of institutions, organizational set-up andoperation, school property and financial affairs, changes and adjustment, managementand supervision, security and support, reward and sanction, and operation of schoolsoutside the territory of the PRC or beyond the jurisdiction of the PRC, and so on.These statutes and regulations embody the state’s educational policies concerningNGO-sponsored education on the one hand, and constitute the legal basis for theoperation of NGO-sponsored institutions and supervision of them by the educationaldepartments on the other. They constitute the fundamental guide and norm for thehealthy development of NGO-sponsored higher education. Following is a briefaccount of the more important policies.

3.1.1 Policies of encouragement and support

The promulgated statutes and regulations concerning NGO-sponsored educationexplicitly stipulate that NGO-sponsored education is an integral part of theeducational enterprise of the country. The state adopts a policy of activeencouragement, energetic support, proper guidance, and strengthenedmanagement with regard to the establishment and operation of NGO-sponsorededucational institutions. Although the Chinese government is still not in a positionto provide financial aid to all NGO-sponsored institutions, the state deems itadvisable that where conditions permit, local governments should try to improvethe conditions of NGO-sponsored institutions in the light of their needs and withinthe means of the government. In matters concerning the requisition of land, thepurchase of building materials, importation of instruments and equipment used forteaching and research, local governments at various levels and the relevant centralministries and agencies should extend to NGO-sponsored institutions the samepreferential treatment that is accorded to public institutions in accordance with legalprovisions. In matters concerning the distribution of official documents, theconvening of working conferences, the provision of professional guidance, theorganization of exchange of experiences related to teaching practice and othermatters, the citation and rewarding of outstanding educational workers, etc.,educational departments at various levels should accord them the same treatmentas is meted out to public institutions. With regard to policies concerningenterprises run by NGO-sponsored institutions, these enterprises should beaccorded the same benefit of tax reliefs as is accorded to public institutions by thestate. The implementation of these policies lays a solid foundation for thedevelopment of NGO-sponsored higher education.

3.1.2 An integrated approach is adopted with regard to educational planning

In as much as NGO-sponsored higher education is taken as an integral part ofChina’s educational enterprise, an integrated approach is adopted with regard toeducational planning, which should comprise NGO-sponsored institutions as well asregular HEIs and adult HEIs. The “Provisional Regulations on the Establishment ofNGO-sponsored HEIs” explicitly stipulate : “The establishment of NGO-sponsoredHEIs should be adapted to the needs of economic construction and socialdevelopment, and an integrated approach should be taken with full consideration ofexisting public institutions, so that their establishment should be conducive to theimprovement of the geographical location of HEIs and the improvement of thestructural composition of fields of study and the proper balance of different levels of

18


tertiary training.” The “Guidelines for the Reform and Development of Education inChina” further provide that “Steps should be taken so that a new framework ofhigher education will gradually take shape in which higher education institutions aremainly set up and maintained by governments at the national and provincial levels(including autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the CentralGovernment) and supplemented by HEIs established by NGOS or various socialsectors.”ln the light of the overall plan for educational development, the stateencourages the establishment of NGO-sponsored HEIs at the subdegree (short-cycle) level and encourages their establishment in rural and remote regions, anddeems it desirable for them to place emphasis on vocational and adult educationprograms. During the past decade NGO-sponsored HEIs have strived to complywith the macro-level requirements set by the state on educational structure andserve the needs of society in skilled manpower and have succeeded in training alarge number of urgently needed skilled personnel by giving scope to theiradvantages and avoiding their own disadvantages.

3.1.3 Policies of reward and sanction

To guarantee the healthy development of NGO-sponsored higher education, thestate adopts a policy of proper combination of reward and sanction meted out toNGO-sponsored HEIs in the light of their behaviour. Advanced sponsors of suchinstitutions and good NGO-sponsored HEIs are to be commended in time, whilethose institutions with malpractice will be given due warning or punishment inconsideration of the circumstances. Article 3 of “Some Provisional Regulations onNGO-sponsored Schools” stipulate: “People’s governments and educationaldepartments at various levels should encourage and support various sectors ofsociety in their efforts to establish educational institutions of various descriptionsand protect the legitimate interests of such institutions, and protect their initiatives ineducational provision, and try to help overcome obstacles faced by theseinstitutions within their means, and commend those with outstandingachievements.” Article 32 of the” Provisional Regulations on the Establishment ofNGO-sponsored HE Is” stipulates: “ (for) those NGO-sponsored HE Is which havebeen set up and have enrolled students without prior authorization; which haveindiscriminately issued diplomas and certificates of academic qualifications; whichhave given rise to disorders and created bad influences because of badmanagement; whose quality of education has been very low or has deterioratedseriously; which have seriously violated the stated goals of education, disciplinarymeasures will be meted out, such as warning, rectification within limited period, orsuspension of enrolment according to the circumstances. For an institution whosemalpractice has been especially serious, closure may be enforced, subject to theapproval of the State Education Commission. ”

3.1.4 Policies concerning the award of academic qualifications

A system of diplomas and certificates is an integral part of a nation’s educationsystem, representing the requirements set by the state on graduation, on the levelof academic achievement, and on the quality of education. In order to maintain thesolemnity of academic qualifications the state has taken the following policymeasures : “Any NGO-sponsored HEI which offers formal tertiary programs andwants to be authorized to award academic qualifications recognized by the statehas to obtain such authorization through a process of examination and verificationconducted by the local educational department, subject to the final approval of theState Education Commission.” Any institution without such authorization may notaward diplomas or certificates of graduation testifying to such formal qualifications.However, such an institution may issue “certificates of completion of courses” tostudents who have finished their studies, testifying to the courses studied and

19


scores of examinations, Any student who has completed his or her study in suchan institution and wants to acquire state-recognized academic qualifications has toprepare for and sit the state-administered higher education examinations held forthe specific field, Anybody who has successfully passed such examinations will beawarded a certificate of formal qualification recognized by the state.

3.1.5 Decision making powers enjoyed by an NGO-sponsored HEIs

Any NGO-sponsored HEI, in accordance with the state’s statutes and policies inforce, enjoys autonomy or decision making powers in the following matters :(1) to formulate or revise the institution’s regulations and rules; (2) to setupinternal management bodies; (3) to appoint its principal (director) and staff andworkers and determine the norms of their salaries and wages; (4) to administerdisciplinary measures to its staff and workers and students in accordance with theinstitution’s regulations and rules; (5) to enjoy the preferential treatment accordedby the state to HEIs; (6) to provide specific educational programs (specialties) ormake adjustment of them; (7) to determine the norms of tuition fees in accordancewith regulations promulgated by the local government; (8) to accept gifts anddonations, and to conduct exchange and cooperation with domestic and foreigninstitutions; (9) to set up school-run enterprises, to engage in scientific andtechnical cooperation, and to provide social services, (1 O) to enjoy other rightsgranted by relevant legal provisions.

3.1.6 Regulations concerning the names of institutions

Article 9 of “Some Provisional Regulations on Educational Institutions Operated byNGOs’’provides : “The name of NGO-sponsored HEIs should be decided inaccordance with the state’s regulations on the names of HEIs, and generallyspeaking, its name should accord with the level of programs provided and thename proper should be preceded by “minban” (here rendered as NGO-sponsored).In case an NGO-sponsored HEI is still in the preparatory stage, “chouban” inparentheses should be placed after the name. Without the approval of theeducational department under the State Council, the characters “zhonghua”,“zhongguo”or “guoji” (international) are not allowed to constitute the first part of thename. ”

3.1.7 Regulations concerning Chinese- Foreign Jointly operated institutions

Chinese-Foreign jointly operated educational institutions constitute an importantform of international exchange and cooperation in education and play asupplementary role in China’s educational undertaking. According to currentregulations institutions located outside the territory of China are welcome to makedonations for educational purposes or co-sponsor with Chinese partners jointlyoperated educational institutions in accordance with Chinese laws and decrees.These jointly operated institutions must abide by Chinese laws and decrees,implement China’s educational policies, provide programs in response to the needsof manpower training and educational development, guarantee the quality ofeducation, and may not do harm to societal and public interests. The educationalactivities of jointly operated institutions are conducted under the jurisdiction of andprotected by Chinese laws.

During the past ten years or so, certain progress has been made in educational legislationconcerning NGO-sponsored education, yet on the whole this work is still at the initialstage. Up to now no self-contained law on NGO-sponsored education has beenformulated. Therefore, it is imperative to speed up the process of educational legislationin this field, and subsequently to develop policies accordingly. It remains a gigantic task to

20


provide a comprehensive legal basis for the development and operation of NGO-sponsored HEIs.

3.2 Local Policies and Regulations

In order to ensure the implementation of the Party’s and the state’s guiding principlesand policies concerning NGO-sponsored education, people’s governments of the 30mainland provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under theCentral Government and of about 10 large and medium sized cities (listed separatelyon the state plans) have in recent years formulated corresponding local laws anddecrees or regulations concerning NGO-sponsored education in the light of therealities and needs of local socio-economic development. For instance, in 1981, thepeople’s government of Beijing promulgated “Beijing’s Provisional AdministrativeMeasures for Private School”, in 1984 the people’s government of Xi’an promulgated“Provisional Administrative Measures for NGO-sponsored/private EducationalInstitutions”, the people’s government of Tianjin approved and transmitted the“Administrative Measures for NGO-sponsored Educational institutions” formulated bythe Second Bureau of Education of Tianjin; in 1989 the people’s government ofShanghai promulgated the “Shanghai’s Administrative Measures for NGO-sponsoredEducational Institutions”. In order to effectively implement the local governmentalregulations, a number of local educational departments have drawn up implementingregulations, and collaborated with local departments of price control, industry andcommerce administration, public security, and publicity in jointly formulatingregulations and measures concerning NGO-sponsored HEIs in matters related toteaching, financial affairs, norms of tuition fees, advertisement, and sealsrespectively. The formulation and promulgation of these regulations and measureshave succeeded in bringing the development of and operation of NGO-sponsoredHEIs onto a track with a firm legal basis.

Although these regulations and measures may not have been formulated with thespecific needs of NGO-sponsored HEIs in mind, and may not contain specific articlesaddressing the policy issues faced by NGO-sponsored HEIs, they are usuallyapplicable to them and constitute an integral part of educational legislation orientedto the needs of NGO-sponsored HEIs.

The letter and spirit of these local regulations and measures are largely similar, andtheir essential points in common may be summarized as follows:

* A provider of NGO-sponsored education must fulfil procedures of examinationand approval by the local educational department, subject to the final approval ofthe competent authority, and the operation of a school can only be started afterauthorization by the issue of a permit.

* A principal and his deputies of an NGO-sponsored HEI should have the followingattributes : having educational and professional qualifications necessary for thedischarge of their duties ; having had at least 5 years of experience ofeducational work; having a healthy physique; and having a suitable age, notexceeding a certain limit (in Beijing the ceiling is set for 75 for men, and 65 forwomen).

* An NGO-sponsored school must observe the state’s regulations and may notviolate the four cardinal principles; may not be engaged in feudalistic andsuperstitious activities; and may not earn money through fraudulent practicesand seek profits illegally.

21


3.3

* In providing an educational program (specialty) which has a strong technical biasand important impact on the physical and mental health of the general public,prior consent must be sought from the relevant supervisory authority, subject tothe approval of the local educational department.

* An NGO-sponsored school may not be profit seeking. The tuition fees paid bythe students should be used for educational purposes being guided by theprinciple of maintaining a balance of income and expenses with a little surplus.On principle, norms of tuition fees should be set for NGO-sponsored schools.

* In the collection of tuition fees by an NGO-sponsored school, the use of aspecial-purpose receipt book uniformly printed by the local competent authority ismandatory, and the school is obliged to periodically report to its supervisory bodyits financial account and accept the inspection and control of competentauthorities,

* Each NGO-sponsored school should pay to its supervisory body managementexpenses which are used for providing services of professional guidance anddefraying the costs of administration,

* The permit granted for the operation of an NGO-sponsored school is to berenewed each year.

● In advertising through the media for an NGO-sponsored school, prior approval bythe competent educational department is mandatory.

* For an NGO-sponsored school established in one area to extend its services toanother area by recruiting students or setting up a branch school there, it musthold a certificate testifying to the consent of its supervisory educationaldepartment and then obtain the approval of the educational department of thenew area served.

Definition of legal entities for providers of NGO-sponsored highereducation and conditions for registration

In accordance with the limits of scope of NGO-sponsored higher education definedby the State Education Commission, the legal entities for providers of educationinclude various social organizations (NGOs) and individual citizens, excluding stateorgans and state entities and institutions. Following are the main types of theseentities:

* Non-state economic organizations, mainly referring to collective economicorganizations with the status of a legal entity, economic organizations operatedby individual owners, and joint venture economic organizations.

* Learned societies, including academic associations, learned societies, andresearch associations with the status of a legal entity.

* Mass organizations, referring to various types of mass organizations establishedwith state approval and having the status of a legal entity, such as: fellow-students associations, alumni associations, and certain trade associations.

* Democratic parties and industry and commerce associations.

* Individual citizens capable of independently undertaking legal responsibilities.

* Foreign organizations and individuals

At present the development of NGO-sponsored higher education is still at its initialstage, and in order to promote its development the State Education Commissionhas decided to somewhat relax the standards for establishing NGO-sponsored HEIs

22


and allow the existence of a preparatory stage. Thus a newly founded institutionwhich fully meets the requirements set by the State Education Commission mayimmediately apply for its formal establishment, while one falling short of theserequirements is allowed to apply for preparations.

The requisite conditions for tending an application for establishing an NGO-sponsored HEIs are as follows:

* The chief executives (principal and his deputies) selected should have thefollowing attributes: having at least a first degree level college education orequivalent professional qualifications; having work experiences in tertiaryeducation; having strong management abilities and good health; and working full-time. Besides, the institution should be equipped with departmental and/orsectional heads with at least the academic rank of an associate professor.

* Having a stable contingent of teachers with their numbers commensurate withthe total enrolment of students. All commonly required obligatory courses,courses of the fundamentals of a specialty, and specialized courses should haveat least a teacher with the rank of an associate professor or higher.

* At least three programs (specialties) should be provided and the total enrolmentof an institution should be no less than 500, of which students studying for formaltertiary qualifications should be no less than 300.

* There should be permanent, independent and relatively compact school groundsand buildings comprising classrooms, libraries, laboratories, rooms foradministrative offices and other purposes. Norms for per student floor space inthe aggregate are as follows: for an institution providing programs in thehumanities and social sciences :10 sq. m.; for one providing programs in science,engineering, agriculture or medicine: 16 sq. m. An institution should have spacefor students’ physical activities and sports.

* There should be available instruments and equipment as well as libraryresources necessary to meet the needs of teaching and learning,

* Funds should be available in an amount meeting the needs of the schoolestablishment and steady sources of operation expenses should be available.The norms of funding are set by provincial-level governments.

An NGO-sponsored HEI fully meeting the above-mentioned requirements is authorizedto award state-recognized academic qualifications, subject to the examination and approval of theState Education Commission.

An NGO-sponsored HEI falling short of these requirements, however, may apply forpreparatory status as set by provincial-level governments. In principle, it should basically meet theneeds of teaching and learning. The standards set for the appointment of the principal and hisdeputies, the requirements for provision of educational programs, the scale of operation in termsof total enrolment, and requirements set for teaching staff are similar to those provided in the“Provisional Regulations on the Establishment of NGO-sponsored HEIs” formulated by the StateEducation Commission, with flexible requirements set on school buildings, allowing the use ofrented school buildings and sites for teaching secured through formally concluded contracts withlegal validity.

23


REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9

Wang Zhiqiang, “NGO-sponsored Higher Education in Retrospect and Its Future Prospects:Development and Reform of Adult Higher Education, No, 5, 1993.

Wang Mingda, “Striving for a Healthy Development of NGO-sponsored Higher Education, ”Horizons of NGO-sponsored Hgher Education, No. 6, 1994.

He Shui, “The Characteristics, Role and Functions of NGO-sponsored Higher Education, ”Horizons of NGO-sponsored Higher Education, No. 2, 1993.

You Qingquan, “Certainty and Chance,” Horizons of NGO-sponsored Higher Education,No. 2, 1993,

The Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, November 1982,

Provisional Regulations on Schools Run by Social Forces, July, 1987.

Notice Concerning Several Issues Related to Schools Run by Social Forces, October, 1988.

Notice Concerning the Management of Non-school Equivalency Programs (awarding noformal qualifications) provided by Schools Run by Social Forces, February, 1990.

Provisional Regulations on the Establishment of NGO-sponsored Higher EducationInstitutions, August, 1993.

24


Jandhyala B G Tilak

INTRODUCTION

Private education is not an altogether a new phenomenon in India. Some kind of privatesystem of education existed in India even during ancient and medieval periods. Private highereducation is not an exception. To start with, higher education used to exist in many ancient societieslargely provided by private individuals and organisations. Later the State found it necessary tofinance education, including higher education, as education was found to be beneficial to the wholesociety, not just to those who acquired it, and if left to private individuals, education would not developto socially desirable optimum levels. Thus governments entered into the education sector. Today, inIndia as in most other societies, both private and public sectors co-exist, but in varying degrees andtypes. Higher education systems range widely -- systems where private higher education isperipheral and public higher education is dominant, and systems where private higher education israther massive in quantum. Most private institutions are given financial assistance by the state.Emergence of private institutions that do not rely upon state support in India, generally known as self-financing institutions, are a very recent phenomenon, and coherent policies towards such institutionsare yet to be formulated on a large scale. But nowadays discussion on the private system of highereducation is largely concentrated on the later type, i.e., self-financing institutions, as state supportedprivate institutions are largely akin to government systems of higher education in several respects,and they receive substantial state aid.

PRIVATE UNIVERSITIES

In modern India, particularly in post-independent India, higher education has expanded fast,and higher education is mostly public in nature. While there are nearly 250 universities including“institutions deemed to be universities”, there are no private universities per se at all. There are a fewspecific private institutions of higher education that are recognised by the University GrantsCommission as institutions deemed to be universities. Such universities are very small in number,many of them were started by private individuals and organisations in response to specificeducational needs, and later they started receiving state support in terms of financial assistance.(e.g., Tata Institute of Social Sciences (TISS), Birla Institute of Technological Sciences (BITS) ..).Such institutions specialize in research and post-graduate education and generally in selected fields.There are few institutions of this kind that completely rely upon their own private resources. Onlyvery recently one such private institution that totally relies on private finances, was accorded thestatus of an institution deemed to be a university (viz., the Maniple Academy in medical sciences).

Recent public efforts are however directed towards enabling private organisations to openself-financing universities. A bill is under the consideration of the Parliament in this regard, but it istoo early to discuss this bill.

PRIVATE COLLEGES

In the college sector, that indeed accounts for more than 80 per cent of the enrollments inhigher education in India, private institutions are large in number. With very few exceptions, collegesimpart under-graduate and degree level courses but not post-graduate courses. Of more than 8,000colleges, according to available estimates, two-thirds to three-fourths of them are private colleges.Even in the case of colleges imparting professional education, like medicine, engineering, dentalsciences, nursing, etc., private colleges today outnumber government colleges. While many of the

25


private professional colleges that were started in the 1950s, 1960s and even 1970s were largely state-aided private colleges, a good number of colleges started in the 1990s and late 1980s were mostlyself-financing institutions, and they are commonly known as “cavitation fee colleges,” as they chargehuge cavitation fees to the students which generally covers more than the costs. Private individualsand organisations in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s used to prefer giving donations to public institutions,and secondly to start their own colleges. Today, even with very negligible financial investments,private individuals and organisations tend to start self-financing institutions as they are found to beone of the best ways of making quick profits.

ENROLMENT

There are above five million students enrolled in colleges, universities and other institutionsof higher education in India. According to the available estimates referring to the late 1980s, 57 percent of the students in higher education were in private institutions, and 43 per cent in publicinstitutions. Most of the enrollments in private colleges are however in the state-aided privateinstitutions. Enrollments in self-financing institutions are very small, if not negligible.

EVOLVING PUBLIC POLICY

As somebody recently remarked, there are not one, but 26 governments in India, i.e., onecentral government and 25 State governments. Though education is, according to the Constitution(amended in 1976) a “concurrent” subject, with both the central government and the stategovernments having responsibility for providing education, practically it is regarded as a state(provincial) duty. As a result, government policies with respect to several aspects, includingspecifically towards private colleges are diverse. Mostly, the governments have had a positiveapproach towards encouraging the growth of private colleges that rely upon state assistance.However, the policies are very varied with respect to several provisions, for example, with regard togranting recognition to the institution, and provision of financial assistance. Colleges have to wait forgenerally three years (in some states it is less, and in some states for longer periods) before theybecome eligible for financial assistance. With regard to financial assistance there are different kindsof provisions. A large number of states provide assistance to meet only recurring expenditures, butnot capital costs, though some states provide for capital costs after a given period of time. Again amajority of states provide assistance towards payment of salaries to teachers and non-teaching staff,but some do not provide for payment of salaries to non-teaching staff. Assistance is generallyprovided to many other items of a recurring expenditure nature. In all, however, the assistance isexpected to cover a substantial, but not generally total, recurring expenditure. The correspondingproportions generally vary between 90 and 100 per cent of the total recurring expenditure. Theseprivate colleges are for most general purposes treated as government colleges, except that theirmanagement lies with private individuals or trusts or organisations. Accordingly, they receiveassistance for many activities that the government supports, as in the case of government colleges.

Fees in these state-aided private colleges are also regulated by the government. Generally,the fees are equal to the fees in government colleges. But this is with respect to tuition fee andexamination fees only. The private colleges enjoy more freedom in the case of levying several otherkinds of fees, like registration fee, admission fee, college development fund, library fee etc.

During the last two decades, recruitment and admission to these institutions has beenregulated by the government to ensure quality and equity. In quite a few states, teachers arerecruited even to the private aided colleges through a common qualifying/competitive test conductedby public bodies. The testis common to the recruitment of teachers in both government and aidedprivate colleges. Teachers are also paid salaries based not only on the same scales as the teachersin government colleges, but also they are paid by the government directly through commercial banksetc., so as to reduce corruption and avoid control of the management on the teachers. However,teachers in private aided colleges are not generally transferable to the government colleges. In a few

26


other states, teacher recruitment to private colleges is done directly by the concerned college. But inall cases, salary discrimination between government college teachers and private college teachers isno more allowed. Some of these developments came into effect, after a few reforms were introducedin response to complaints by the teachers about questionable practices being adopted by the privatecollege management bodies. In the earlier periods, when the teachers protested loudly, in a goodnumber of states, a good number of colleges were also taken over by the government.

Most recent approaches of the government seem to, however, favour growth of self-financing institutions. These institutions are less regulated by the government, and the role of thegovernment is largely confined to recognition of the institution as an institution fit for providing highereducation, and approval of the syllabus. This role is performed either by the government directly, orby the University Grants Commission, or through the universities, to which they seek affiliation for theaward of the degrees. Mostly, the examinations are conducted by the universities.

As these colleges do not receive any financial assistance from the government, they aresubject to less rigorous control, and they enjoy considerable freedom in formulating financial policies-- in generating revenues and in their spending. Mostly, fees seem to be the single most importantsource of revenue. Other sources are negligible. Not only recurring costs, even capital costs couldbe gradually recovered from the students. The allocation of resources, including fixing salaries forteachers and others, is mostly left to those institutions. Recently, the Supreme Court was to enterinto the scene and direct the public bodies like the University Grants Commission, the All-IndiaCouncil for Technical Education, the Medical Council of India, etc., to formulate norms and guidelinesto fix reasonable levels of fees in such a way that all costs are recovered from the students andadequate provision is made for students from socially and economically disadvantaged groups.

Generally, higher education in India is financed by two major sources, viz., the government(central and state), and students (in the form of fees). Other sources contribute negligibleproportions to the financing of higher education. This is the same pattern in the government andgovernment supported private colleges. In the case of self-financing colleges, students become theonly source of revenues for the college. The rest of society does not come into the picture in anysignificant way.

EMERGING PROBLEMS

The recent favorable approach to emergence and growth of private colleges, including morespecifically self-financing colleges, is largely based on increasingly worsening budgetary conditions,in relation to allocation to higher education. As the state-aided private colleges do not ease thefinancial burden on the part of the government the government seems to favour self-financingcolleges. But the government is aware of the problems associated with such colleges. The mostimportant fears, which are being proved true to a great extent, refer to vulgar commercialisation ofhigher education, and playing on the vulnerable conditions of the “gullible parents”, chargingexorbitant fees formally and informally, starting from application fee to examination and grade-sheetfees. Students paying exorbitantly high fees obviously do lack any consideration for nationalinterests such as public service, service in rural areas, service of the poor, etc.

The second most important problem refers to the ensurance of equity in higher education.While the government could to a great extent see that its protective discrimination policies arefollowed in the private aided colleges, resistance to such policies is much higher in the case of self-financing institutions.

Thirdly, the government’s inability to control the quality of education is also beingincreasingly felt. The first choice of the parents and students in general is a government college, andwhen they fail to gain admission into a government college they seek admission in a private college,where admission criteria is relaxed for those who can pay heavily. Unfortunately, even the strongproponents of private higher education systems argue for the government to take responsibility of

27


regulating quality in private higher education institutions. But given the social and political-economicfactors, the government seems to feel severely handicapped in ensuring quality in these institutions.Generally, once recognition is granted to a private institution, and that is not found to be very difficult,the government cannot enforce any of its conditions. This is true to some extent even in the case ofstate-aided private colleges. Even state grants cannot be stopped or delayed for any reason.

Fourthly, to reduce corruption and ensure fair practices in recruitment of teachers in privateaided institutions, only some state governments have been able to introduce reasonably goodreforms. Many state governments find it difficult to introduce such reforms.

Fifthly, conflicts between national manpower needs and short term market signals thatinfluence private higher education institutions are found to be serious, which in the long run mightproduce serious manpower imbalances -- both shortages and gluts. This is evident from theestimates and corresponding recommendations made by professional public bodies like the All-IndiaCouncil for Technical Education, the Medical Council of India etc., with regard to the required numberof colleges and manpower required by the economy, which are best cared for by the private colleges.

All these problems are with respect to ‘recognised’ private institutions. Emergence of ‘fake’universities and ghost institutions imparting higher education and awarding degrees is also a problemthat is coming to surface in serious dimensions. As these institutions are not even ‘recognised’, therole of the government is practically nil. Occasionally, the University Grants Commission or theAssociation of Indian Universities makes public announcements listing the fake universities and ghostinstitutions, only to warn the students and parents to be cautious.

Private higher education systems are expected to compete with public education systems interms of quality and efficiency. Successful competition requires the spread of knowledge of thesystems among the consumers -- the parents and students. Researchers and public policy planners,and not to speak of students and parents, find it extremely difficult to get any authentic information onany aspect of the private colleges. In fact, it is generally felt that private colleges succeed byconcealing information on the policies and practices adopted by the colleges, and even quantitativeinformation like the background of the students, the financial contributions of the students, numberand qualifications of teachers, etc., cannot be obtained.

The many legal battles being fought in the high courts and the Supreme Court and thedetailed instructions that the courts were to issue frequently to public bodies suggest some kind of aserious failure on the part of the government to promote private higher education in the countrywithout seriously and adversely affecting the equity criteria, principles of efficiency, norms ofeducational excellence, and most importantly the cherished national goals and ideals.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

As stated earlier, policies with regard to private higher education in India are still in the stageof formulation. The complexity of emerging problems compel the policy planners to quickly findeffective solutions. Two kinds of solutions are being suggested in this regard. One is: not to allowthe growth of private higher education, particularly of a self-financing nature, at all, and rather to closedown all such colleges. In the changing socio-economic conditions, particularly of the 1990s, this isregarded as an extreme proposal and as impractical. So the alternative approach is to find piece-mealsolutions to several problems. Recent public efforts are mostly directed towards this approach.

It is increasingly felt that the very rapid growth of a private self-financing higher educationsystem, in such a short period, might not be desirable and might not even be sustainable in the longrun.

Further, from the point of view of finances, it is felt necessary that the resource base of theprivate higher education systems have to be diversified. Non-governmental, non-student sources of

28


revenues should be exploited, as the whole financial burden cannot be and rather should not betransferred to the students.

Basically the limits to privatise the higher education systems have to be noted. After all,there should be some balance between the private system and the size of the public highereducation system. A country that had followed and still follows somewhat a socialistic approach indevelopment, cannot altogether abandon its path and privatise its higher education system on amassive scale.

29


Joetata Hadihardaja

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Historical Development

As a result of having being occupied by Dutch colonists for about 350 years, Indonesia’soverall development suffered leaving her not only lagging behind in physical developments andeconomic and social aspects but in human resources too. The Indonesian proclamation of August17, 1945 was the stepping stone in which the nationalists began building the country incorporatingthe desire to pursue developments in social standing, economics, culture, welfare, security, etc. forthe prosperity of the community and the country.

Due to the vast aspects of developments and to the limited funds, the government had to create a priority system for building and developing the country. Necessarily, national developmentswere also made in phases and terms based on the prevailing conditions and the needs of the nation.One aspect that was always emphasized in every term of development was building humanresources with the aim of making people qualified for the sake of the national development itself,Through their competent hands natural resources are brought about to conceive tremendous valuefor the country. Surely, building qualified human resources means ensuring capability in managingscience and technology and fashioning people to become knowledgeable of the country’sdevelopment needs.

One valuable prop that may bolster the successful developments in Indonesia is the hugepopulation of the country which is now 190 million. Indeed, such an immense number of people is anational asset that can develop the country if they are proficient; on the contrary, they grow tobecome a national burden if they are unqualified and unsuitable for the country’s development.

It may go without saying that the geographical condition of the country may hinder the flow ofdevelopment that is targetted to touch all the people. Indonesians are scattered over many islands(about 17,600 islands). Comsidering this fact, one of the development strategies is to make theisolated areas or islands become connected with each other through building supra-structures toensure that economic development is spread equally. The building of streets, bridges, seatransportation, air transportation, satellites, telephone manufactures, etc., which the government isstrenuously performing to provoke economic growth at the present time, has attenuated a largeamount of the national budget.

It is surely acknowledged that the budget for education, especially in higher learning,allocated by the government is far below the budget alloted for the facilitation of the economic sector.The real budget for higher education is relatively low so that to cover the vast programs of educationin many different sectors, especially the promotion of education facilities, is inadequate.Correspondingly, the government (The Ministry of Education and Culture, Republic of Indonesia)invites all the communities to participate in setting up private universities or become involved inmanaging higher education. Through Constitution No. 2 of the year 1989 on National System ofEducation and Public Law No. 30 of the year 1990 on Higher Education, the legal standing of privateinstitutions in managing higher education is affirmed. The existance of private higher education ispositioned equally as that of state universities or institutes. There are several ministries ordepartments that manage higher education within the Indonesian Government they are:

30


1) Department of Education and Culture (State Universities and Institutes),2) Department of Religion (State Universities on Religion),3) Other Departments (Colleges for Official Training),4) Non Department Higher Education Institutions.

Meanwhile, institutions of higher education conducted by the community are recognized asPrivate Higher Education Institutions (PHEI).

Private Higher Education Institutions (PHEI) were established for the first time between1945-1950 by patriotic groups of nationalists and some religious groups. The founder of a newprivate institution of higher learning is required to meet basic pre-requisites based on a kind of fea-sibility study, emphasizing needs, analysis and resource requirements. The government has encour-aged the private sector to participate in education development to meet the rising demand as a con-sequence of a rapid growth in population, social demands and manpower needs.

Strategies of developing PHEIs are planned in periodical terms that began in 1975. Statedbriefly, the terms of development can be assembled in five phases that are described in Table 1below.

Table 1: Strategies of Developing PHEI in Indonesia from 1975 to 2000

PHASE YEAR ACTION

I. 1975-1980 Socialization of PHEII 1

Il. 1980-1985 Physical DevelopmentI I

Ill. 1985-1990 Academic Development

IV. 1990-1995 Simultaneous Development of Physical andAcademic Standing

V. 1995-2000 Professional Management of PHEI

1.2 Number of Private Higher Education Institutions and Enrolment

Now private higher education institutions are expanding rapidly in the number of institutions,total enrolment, variety of programs and degrees granted. The number has far exceeded that of thestate institutions of higher education. The government’s reason to extend the number of universitieswas the result of an over-flow of high school graduates who could not be accommodated in theexisting public higher education institutes. This policy is in line with the long term development thatemphasizes on the human factors, in promoting the quality of the people in a democratic life basedon the Five Basic Principles.

The government needs to boost the private sector’s participation in the development of thecountry’s education as part of an effort to cover the limited education funds. That participation in thehigher education development has shown significant contribution as the public higher institutionshave limited absorptive capacity of senior high school graduates. The expansion of private institu-tions of higher learning, student body and graduates is shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 onthe following pages.

31


Fig. 1: Growth of Private Institutions of Higher Learning 1975-1995 (in thousands)

,1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

iI I I

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

Fig. 2: Growth of Students from 1975-1995 (in millions)

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

+=

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995

1.3 Types of Higher Education Institutions

As stated in Education Law No. 22 of the year 1961, the national higher education systemhas two components i.e. public and private higher education institutions, which consist ofacademies, schools, institutes and universities. Education Law No. 22 of the year 1961 wasreplaced by Law No. 2 of the year 1989 concerning the national education system. The new lawfollows the government regulation No. 30 of the year 1990 on higher education, where it wasstated that the higher education institutions consist of:

1) Academies (diploma program),2) Polytechnics (diploma program),3) Schools (diploma program and degree program),4) Institutes (diploma program and degree program), and5) Universities (diploma program and degree program)

32


Fig. 3: Growth of Student Enrolment Year 1974-1994 (in thousands)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Private

Public

74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94

Source : Book of Data on Public and Private Higher Education in Indonesia 1974-1992 and Annual Reports of the Year1986-1992.

1.4 Growth of Private Higher Education Institutions

Through intensive programs of development, the growth of the community’s participation inmanaging higher education which offers vast fields of studies is significant. Likewise, the publicuniversities and institutes continue to extend their programs of studies and accommodate moreintakes of full time students. Now the number of higher learning institutions in Indonesia based ondata of December 1994 is 1339:76 public institutions, 1159 private institutions, and 104 institutionsof other types.

The proportion of higher education based on types of institutions can be seen in Figure 4and Figure 5.

Fig. 4: Proportion of Public Higher Education Based on Types of Institutions

Polytechnics34%

Schools5%

Academies3%

versities40%

18%

0 Universities = Institutes UAcademies ESchools ● Polytechnics

33


Fig. 5: Proportion of Private Higher Education Based on Types of Institutions

:s 1 %

Universities 21%

Institutes 4%Schools 41%

13 Academies ~ Polytechnics u Universities = Institutes ~ Schools

Table 2: Growth of Private Higher Education Based on Types of Institutions from1990 to 1994

No TYPES OF PHEI YEARS1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

1. Academies 290 294 337 375 3802. Polytechnics 2 2 5 9 83. Schools 350 373 394 445 4764. Institutes 51 51 51 50 475. Universities 221 232 240 243 248

Total 914 952 1,027 1,122 1,159

Fig. 6: Growth of Private Higher Education Based on Types of Institutions from1990 to 1994

Academies Polytechnics Schools Institutes Universities

rn1990 ~1991 01992 ❑ I1993 ■ 1994

34


For the sake of supervision and for maintaining the outgrowth of the existing PHEIsthroughout Indonesia, the Directorate of Private Higher Education provides regional offices insome provinces. The office which is addressed with the term Kopertis (Coordination of PrivateHigher Education Institutions), among others, is to function as coordinator and give direction to theinstitutions so as to uphold the relevant education acts, laws, national policies, and other nationaldevelopment strategies.

The prevailing organization structure within the Ministry of Education and Culture,Republic of Indonesia is described in Figure 8.

There are twelve offices or Kopertis that organize all the PHEIs which are spreadthroughout the 27 Provinces of Indonesia. The twelve Kopertis and the cities where the officesreside are as follows:

1. Kopertis I2. Kopertis II3. Kopertis Ill4. Kopertis IV5. Kopertis V6. Kopertis VI7. Kopertis VlI8. Kopertis Vlll9. Kopertis IX

10. Kopertis X11. Kopertis Xl12. Kopertis XII

in Medan, North Sumatrain Palembangin Jakartain Bandung, West Javain Yogyakartain Semarang, Central Javain Surabaya, East Javain Denpasar, Baliin Ujung Pandang, South Celebesin Padang, West Sumatrain Banjarmasin, South Kalimanatanin Ambon

(2 provinces)(3 provinces)(1 province)(1 province)(1 province)(1 province)(1 province)(1 province)(3 provinces)(3 provinces)(4 Provinces)(2 provinces)

Fig.7 : Coordination Offices of Private Higher Education Institutions

Notes of Areas:1. Medan 7. Surabaya2. Palembang 8. Denpasar3. Jakarta 9. Ujung Pandang4. Bandung 10. Padang5. Yogyakarta 11. Banjarmasin6. Semarang 12. Ambon

35


Fig.8: Organization Chart of Directorate of Private Higher Education.

To illustrate clearly the picture of the growth of PHEIs in each Kopertis, the following is dataconcerning the number of institutions from 1990 to 1994. The data is presented in Table 3 andFigure 9.

36


Table 3: Growth of Private Higher Education Institutions Based on Areas of Kopertis I-XIIfrom 1990 to 1994

OFFICES YEARSKOPERTIS 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

I 89 96 99 109 108II 52 51 54 58 65Ill 150 158 168 178 180IV 81 86 100 113 123V 53 55 55 58 65VI 65 67 71 97 92Vll 172 172 181 187 189Vlll 45 48 50 49 53lX 91 95 101 108 116X 52 55 62 70 71XI I 49 I 53 I 64 I 71 I 73. XII 15 16 22 24 24

TOTAL 914 952 1,027 1,122 1,159

The fast growth of higher education institutions is aided by an increase of participation frompeople of all social and economic levels throughout Indonesia. As an illustration, the number ofparticipating school-age children in the Long-Term of National Development (LTND) Phase 1(1969-1994) is relatively impressive compared to the previous figures. It is found that at elementary schoolparticipation is 90 %, junior high school 40 %, senior high school 30 %; nevertheless, at the higherlearning level it is only 1070.

Fig.9: Growth of Private Higher Education institutions Based on Areas of Kopertis I-XIIfrom 1990 to 1994

I II Ill IV V VI VII Vlll lX X XI XII

■ 1990 ■ 1991 IJ1992 EILI1993 H1994

In the meantime, in the LTND, Phase II (1994-2019) the level of school learningparticipation is expected to be boosted. The following Table 4 describes figures of schoolpartnership advocated by the university at the end of LTND, Phase I or at the end of the Five-Year Development (FYD), the Fifth. The figures are projected to direct and achieve the goal ofLTND, Phase II or in the Five-Year Development (FYD), the Tenth.

37


On the other hand, the Ministry of Education and Culture has established a direction forthe development of higher education that emphasizes on promoting the fields of natural sciencesand technologies in LTND, Phase Il. The proportion of Engineering & Technology, NaturalSciences, and Social Sciences (and Education) is 14:19:67 in LTND Phase I, projected to go upto 45:25:30 in LTND, Phase II, respectively.

Table 4: Student Enrolment at Universities in LTND I and LTND II and the proportionbetween Public and Private Higher Education.

Higher Education Sharing 10 % 1Public HE Institutions 500,000Private HE Institutions

1,150,

1Other HE Institutions 200:000 400,000

DESCRIPTIVE ITEMS LTND I, Phase I (FYDV) LTND, Phase II (FYDX)Age of 19-24 years 21,000,000 24,000,000

(2.1 mil.) 25 % (6 mil.)

1 0001.400.000 4,500,000

2. PRESENT STATUS OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

2.1 Government Policy on Private Higher Education

As required by the Education Act No. 2 of the year 1989, the development of higher educa-tion should use a single pattern for both “public” and “private” institutions. The government givesguidance to both public and private institutions in accordance with the act. So, there is only onesystem of higher education in Indonesia, meaning that the academic references for the public andprivate institution are the same.

Based on the new Education Law No. 2 of the year 1989, the national higher institutionsmaintain two streams of education practices; they are:

1) Academic stream (Academies, Polytechnics, Schools, Institutes, Universities)

2) Professional stream (Schools, Institutes, Universities).

As compared to the academic stream at present about 25% of the total student body isenrolled in the professional stream. Chart of Higher Educational System is shown in Figure 10 onthe following page.

The academic stream or degree programs are scientifically oriented, The program consistsof strata one, two and three (S1, S2, S3). Strata one (S1 ) is designed to produce first graduatesdegree, while strata two (S2) leads to Magister and Strata three (S3) leads to Doctor’s degrees whichare classified as research degree programs of private institutions of higher learning and well knownas Yayasan BP-PTS (Kepmen No. 0339/U/94).

38


Fig.10: Chart of Higher Education System

Academic Stream Professional Stream

High School

The academic stream mainly becomes the responsibility of schools, institutes anduniversities. The diploma (D) program has four terminals, one year to four years of study toprovide skilled graduates of different levels (DI-DIV). These graduates are expected to be ready towork after they graduate from universities or colleges. While specialist one and two (Sp I, Sp II)are equivalent to Magister and Doctorate degree.

FINANCING PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION.

The difference between public and private institutions lies especially in the sources offunding. Public higher institutions are funded by the government; meanwhile private higherinstitutions are funded by their own efforts. However, the government provides subsidies toprivate higher institutions in accordance with the existing regulations.

39

—


The private institutions of higher learning were established by the law of the nationaleducation system. A private institution is managed by its owner, that is a Foundation or aCorporate body.

Every private institution of higher learning has a special art to struggle for its survival. Thegovernment complement the private sector’s participation by giving contributions as incentives toencourage them to improve their facilities and standards of their program. Such incentives to privateinstitutions of higher learning may include physical facilities as well as directives, motivations andregular staff seconded to a private institution. The government supports are aimed at stimulatingefforts for achieving good performances and to enable the development and better management ofthe institutions by their own strength in the future.

At present many Private Institutions of Higher Learning (PIHL) have achieved an exellentperformance record and are able to attract a large number of students. In turn, these institutions seta high standard for admission and also a higher funding that only the wealthy can afford to pay. Thehigh funds should be invested to provide a high standard of education, facilities, equipment, library,qualified staff and scholarships for at least two percent of the student body.

Sources of income of PIHL generally come from student fees, auxiliary services, gifts,grants, donation, and others, Meanwhile, the expenses for the university management cover thefollowing items: paying salaries, operating expenses, maintenance and repairs, laboratory expenses,researches, scholarship grants, medical expenses, contribution services, and others,

2.2 Quality Control

The opening of a new PHEI must undergo the recommendation of the Director of PrivateHigher Education fowarded to the Minister of Education and Culture which issues the letter oflegalization. Through the Minister’s Decree (Kepmen No. 0686/U/91 and its subordinate)requirements for setting up new institutions of higher education are regulated. One essential regula-tion is that each study program must have at least six full-time lecturers qualified in science related tothe study program. Besides this, facilities and equipment such a library, laboratories, funds, etc.must be available.

Each study program managed by the PHEI is evaluated periodically by the government.Evaluation and monitoring the program are directly conducted by the Directorate of Private HigherEducation and its offices in their residing areas and the action is aimed to control the quality ofeducation the institutions offer. As the qualifying attribute of the program standing, the governmentgrants three different classifications of accreditation to each study program. The three levels ofaccreditation are (I) registered , (II) acknowledged , (Ill) equalized/fully accredited.

Specially for controlling the process of teaching and learning the government imposes stateexaminations for all students of PHEIs. The state examination includes several subjects extractedfrom the core curriculum of each study program and is conducted twice a year after the end of eachsemester. The number of credits or subject matters under the government evaluation varies fromone education strata to another. For example the students registered at S1 stratum and whose studyload within the program is around 144-160 units are to take 15 subjects (32-36 units), thoseregistered at D-Ill and whose study load is 110-120 units are to take 10 subjects (22-26 units), etc.

The state examination is indeed an evaluation process in which every activity, data,documents, events, etc. relating to the examination is instantaneously reported to the Office ofPrivate Higher Education. The administration of the state examination is conducted by boards ofexaminers that comprise university teachers from either public or private higher education institu-tions. The status of accreditation may affect the proportion of examiners representing theirinstitutions. The “Registered” status of study program is assigned with 50 % from both public andprivate universities, the “Acknowledged” is represented by 75 % from private universities and 25 %from public universities, and the “Equalized” is represented by 100 % from private universities.

40


The status of accreditation granted to PHEIs is reviewed by the government for a period oftime, depending on the type of status they have. The “Registered” is evaluated every 5 years,“Acknowledged” 4 years, and “Equalized” 3 years. Results of evaluation may affect the existingattribute of accreditation; or in other words, the status may change to either go up or down dependingon the results of evaluation.

There are 9 items describing the on-going university standing based on the Ministry DecreeNo. 141/D/Q/1989 that should be reported to the government by the university rectors, The subjectsof reports cover aspects of (1) organisation, (2) curriculum, (3) full-time teachers, (4) ratio of full-timeteachers and the students, (5) facilities, (6) student development, (7) education process, (8)graduates or alumni, and (9) activities of research and social services.

Concerning university teachers, each is stipulated to possess legal functional standingauthorizing him to manage the teaching and learning process, research and social service. Thereare 9 stages of functional standings in which the university teachers may pursue their careers.Moving from the lower to higher position one is needed to accumulate an amount of credits of hisprofessional activities that cover teaching, research and social services. Regulation on universityteachers’ standing is issued by the Minister of Employment of State Workers No. 59/MENPAN/1987describing technicalities of promotion, credit calculation, authorities, etc. which are briefly illustratedbelow.

Table 5: University Teachers’ Promotion, Authorities, and Accumulated Credits

PROMOTION AUTHORITIES CREDIT

Assistant Supervised Classroom Management, Research and Social 100Service

Senior Assistant Supervised Classroom Management, Research and Social 150Services

Junior Lecturer Independent Social Service, Supervised Classroom 200Management and Research

Associate Lecturer Independent Classroom Management and Services, Supervised 300Research

Lecturer Independent Classroom Management, Research and Social 400Services, Supervising Assistants

Associate Chief Lecture Independent Classroom Management, Research and Social 550Services, Supervising Assistants

Chief Lecturer Independent Classroom Management, Research and Social 700Services, Supervising Assistants

Associate Professor Independent Classroom Management, Research and Social 850Services, Supervising Assistants

Professor Independent Classroom Management, Research and Social 1000Services, Supervising Assistants

2.3 Regional and International Linkages

To make the growth of private higher education more atmospheric, the governmentencourages the institutions to collaborate with other institutions or organizations besides making thethemselves grow internally. Up to now a great number of PHEIs have already setup programs,particularly responding to the programs of “Link and Match.”

41


The collaborative parties may take the forms of development of joint programs for staffdevelopment, research, workshops and seminars, curriculum development, exchanging teachers,grants of books, etc. The cooperation for those particular subjects maybe setup between :

1. PHEI and Public Higher Education Institution

2. PHEI and PHEI (through Consultative Organization of PHEI)

3. PHEI and other departments or ministries

4. PHEI and other universities or institutions abroad

To build collaboration between PHEI with institutions abroad both parties should ensueprescribed regulations set up by the Indonesian government. The government admission is verymuch required, in which among others the institutions must present Records of Discussion (ROD),Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and other supporting documents.

3. PROBLEMS

The impressive development of PHEIs in terms of expansion of higher learning seats inuniversities or colleges is widely acknowledged by all people. The expansion really bolstersparticipation of the university-age community to come to the campus and the condition may bringabout an accretion of qualified human resources that are still highly needed for the development ofthe country. Nowadays, PHEIs are not only existant in a capital city or metropolis but are also foundin small cities. The vast ubiquity of PHEI in many cities is indeed a facilitation for the community tobuild their knowledge, science and technologies without having to migrate to big cities leaving theirhome town stranded.

However, such a big number of PHEIs presents problems especially when dealing withquality control of the education they offer. The community must be assured and convinced that theexisting PHEIs really yield good education and qualified higher learning. Necessarily, thegovernment must be ready to present data (of the 1159 PHEIs) to the public so they would not beeasily allured with propaganda or the physical entities of the campus.

Briefly stated, intensive controls as well as effective directives are routinely addressed tomonitor the PHEIs developments. To some extent, the controls sound weak due to the fact thatmonitoring activities are not easy and necessitate a high cost because some of the PHEIs arelocated in scattered areas. Generally, the problems of monitoring the PHEIs lead to severalparticulars concerning government policies, quality control, and financial matters.

3.1 Government Policies

The government (Ministry of Education and Culture) setup rules and policies on the merit ofdeveloping the PHEIs. The Education Act No. 2 of the Year 1989 on National System of Educationand the Public Law No. 30 of the Year 1990 on Higher Education are the platforms for managinghigher education on which practices, conducts, and other activities of higher learning are to bebased. Rules, regulations, procedures, and other higher learning particulars formulated by thegovernment are really the materialization of the two sources of the education system into action.

Respectively, the PHEIs re-word and translate the existing government regulationsconforming with their unique conditions to become references for the university administrators. Thedemanding items of references are usually included in the University Statute and Basic Plans ofDevelopment (BPD) that every PHEI has to devise. Within the statute direction and order of thecampus life and through scrutinizing the BPD, aspects and targets of development can be traced.One big problem is that not all of the PHEIs supply their organization with those two instruments,

42


University Statute and BSD, and this creates second-order consequences that are definitely violatingthe government policy.

The following are some common problems that are now under distinct and serious attentionby the government:

1 Some non-registered PHEIs or new PHEIs insist on offering study programs to the community,perform student admission and conduct teaching and learning process without makingapplication for clearance or reports to the government.

2. Some registered PHEIs offer new study programs without legal standing or governmentclearance. In some cases, the extension of a study program is opened instantly without referringto the BPD.

3. The PHEIs application for the opening of a new study program which is not supplied withcomplete documents may cause the process of legalization to take a long time. Sometimes thegovernment cannot grant legal standing to the new applied study program because of therestricted rules inherent in the nature of the subject matter itself. For example, PHEI applies fora graduate program (S1 ) in tourism and the government must consider at length whether to granta status to the institutions since government policy views tourism as not being in the stream ofacademic studies.

4. The outcast dispute between boards of foundation and university administrators or disagreementamong groups of individuals within the foundation or the university in some PHEIs is reallydamaging. The prevalent disputes and disagreement may destabilize the campus life andinterfere with the process of teaching and learning.

5. The government policy on curriculum reviews that yield a new structure of subject matters andsyllabuses is not responded to with flexible application. Consequently, the students aresacrificing their time, energy and money because some subjects they have passed may not beaccepted in the new curriculum.

6. The absence of a comprehensive data base of university teachers in the Offices of Private HigherEducation creates difficulties in making effective administration and identification of universityteachers home base. The practices of double status in which one lecturer belongs to two differentinstitutions and claims to be a full-time teacher are difficult to detect. Many PHEIs grasp teachersfrom each other and they even sieze their faculties from public higher education institutions.Likewise, the program of faculty development devised by PHEI becomes impertinent andimpractical.

7. Regulation on authorities of the teachers’ standing is not consciously applied by the PHEIs;meanwhile the Office of Private Higher Education cannot authorize particular sanctions becauseof the limited number of university teachers recognized to have proper and high standing.

8. The appointed new rector or president of the university should undergo the Minister’s admission.Due to the bureaucratic administration the inauguration of the new rector takes a longer timethan really necessary causing some works of the university administration to be delayed.

3.2 Quality Control

As described previously, quality control devised by the government takes the forms of thePHEIs annual report and by imposing state examinations on some subject matters within thecurriculum. Considering the facts, there are some common findings that depict actual practices inoperation contrary to the government regulation. Some problems of this issue are stated in thefollowing items :

43


1. The ratio between active students and the campus facilities of either hardware or software insome PHEIs is below the performance standard. The condition will surely influence badpractices of teaching and learning; moreover it impairs the quality of education or ruins theplatforms of the education system in general.

2. Data on PHEIs being reported to the government in many cases do not fit with the real

3.

4.

5.

condition of the campus life. The false reports are made by the PHEIs to maintain theircurrent status or standing and the Office of Private Higher Education cannot check and matchevery detail with the PHEIs physical entities due to the limited number of staff and becausethere are a great number of universities.

Concerning the state examination, monitoring the practices of administration isrelatively weak because there are many committees that handle a great number of subjectmatters for different levels/strata of education.

Highly correlated with the problem of fewer faculties in PHEIs is that boards of examinersrepresenting the private institution, as a rule, cannot be fully completed. So their position istaken over by the boards of examiners from the public higher education institutions.

Announcement of results of the state examination is very late so that the students havedifficulties in planning their studies for the following term: In general the students needinformation of how many credits they are granted for the next term, what subjects they did notpass in the state examination so that they can plan for the coming semester, etc.

3.3 Financial Matters

It is widely acknowledged that the main source of funds the PHEIs collect is from thestudents. Course fees and voluntary contributions of rupiahs for every new student are the typicalpractices of fund raising conducted by the foundation to finance the expenses of universityadministration. Besides that, grants from other organizations or institutions and the governmentsubsidies the PHEIs may take advantage of; nevertheless, the amount is quite limited and small.

Since the condition of PHEIs or department of studies varies a great deal from one toanother, problems may arise such as:

1 One particular program study within PHEI which is less favoured by the students; like, physics,mathematics, chemistry, pharmacy, etc. must be subsidized by departments that manage popularstudy programs; such as, business, economics, law, engineering, etc. The policy of cross subsi-dies is taken by the Foundation to maintain the less favoured study programs in operation,

2. The government subsidies may be distributed unequally; where only some PHEIs enjoy thegovernment funding if they are classified to show strong finance. Weaker PHEIs never receivethe government subsidies.

3. Only a few PHEIs are able to absorb advantages of collaborating with other organizations,institutions, or companies that provide finance or grants. Unfortunately, only strong PHEIs canpursue such action because they have already been recognized and are well-known withinsociety and can win trust from their counterparts.

4. The department or study program that only has a small student body has to subsidize moremoney to hold the state examination. The examination fee collected from the participating student(the amount is RP.10,000.00 per subject matter) never covers the cost of the event.

44


4. RECOMMENDATION

In spite of the existing problems, the government have already accomplished managementauthorities on the tracks. Tremendous increases of PHEIs In terms of their quantity and quality thecommunity can see and take advantage of, Socialization of the PHEIs brings about a risingmotivation of the community towards higher learning as well as making them knowledgeable inchoosing outstanding universities for themselves or their children,

The government realizes that more pro-active actions are still required to develop thegeneral standing of the current PHEIs. Of the identified problems, some of the items below arerecommended so that the government can devise comprehensive programs for improvement:

1. Subordinating Basic Development Plan (BDP) should be taken as a must for PHEIs that apply foropening a new study program, promotion of the institution standing.

2. Building of an on-line data base of university teachers that can be shared by either the Office ofPrivate Higher Education or the PHEIs themselves, The data base includes information on thegiven teacher related to his profession and career. Each university teacher should be assignedwith a registration number unique to himself so that the double status of home base can beavoided.

3. The concept of full time teacher should be formulated rigorously to state that one is assigned with12 units of credit semester including teaching, research and social services. Instruments tocontrol the work load should be devised so that the PHEIs can apply and present complete dataof a teacher’s active work in the institution or the government.

4. Control of the university teachers’ legal authorization or programs of two-year promotion shouldbe incited firmly. Scientific forums, such as seminars, workshops, researches, etc. should bepromulgated to provide the lecturers with enough credits for promotion. Further learning ingraduate (S-2) and doctor (S-3) should be facilitated with enough funds and various incentives.

5. The changing curriculum should be administered so as not to sacrifice student study programsthrough phasing-out program, transfer of some equivalent units, or the like.

6. The Office of Private Higher Education (Kopertis) should be engaged in pro-active action tomonitor, direct, or supervise the PHEIs that propose to appoint a new rector.

7. The new student enrolment should be based on the ratio of the projected student body with thecampus facilities and teachers. The PHEIs may not surpass the requisite limit if the Office ofPrivate Higher Education has already alloted the amount of new students by giving the PHEIssome specified numbers of student registration.

8. Matching the annual reports of PHEIs with supporting facts should be actively done by the Officeof Private Higher Education. The findings are served as consideration to reassign the status ofaccreditation of the program study the PHEIs administer.

9. Boards of examiners are to be made more responsible to their tasks by conceiving managableand effective work plans. Results of examinations as well as reports of activities should bedone on time so as not to make the institution or students illfated.

10. The administration of the state examination should be done more professionally so that qualitycontrol through this activity can produce a comprehensive outlook of quality of all PHEIs.

11. The funds collected from the state examination should be managed in a comprehensive wayin which a given department with many participants can subsidize one with fewer participants.

45


12. The department or study program that is less favoured by the community should receive moreattention from the government to mold the interest. The PHEIs should make pro-activeactivities to approach the high school graduates during the admission period or on anyoccasion where the high school students are assembled.

13. The government should push the program “Link and Match” in action to the corresponding de-partments or ministries. The PHEIs action to respond to the program may involve a jointprogram with industries or an invitation to professionals to the campus to present theadvancement of technologies in operation.

14. The government should carefully select the PHEIs that need subsidies or grants so that thefunds are a valuable support for the institution development.

REFERENCES

Achyani Atmakusuma, Prof., Dr. Private Higher Education in Indonesia, 1993.

Annual Report of Directorate of Higher Education, 1994.

Bambang Suhendro, Prof., Dr. Ir. Pendidikan Tinggi dalam Menyongsong PJPT II, Jakarta, 1994.

Harsya W. Bachtia. Prof., Dr. Developing Universities in Multi-Ethnic, Jakarta, 1993.

Joetata Hadihardaja, Prof., Ir. Himpunan Pidato dan Makalah.

Muchtar Buchari, Dr. Sketches of Indonesian Society, IKIP Muhammdiyah, Jakarta Press, 1994.

Sambas Wirakusumah, Prof., Dr. Articles Jakarta, 1993., — !

Sukisno, Prof., Ir. Himpunan Makalah dan Artikel 1975-1985.

Yuahara Sukra, Prof., Dr., Himpunan Pidato dan Artikel, 1992.

46


Current Status and Issues Involved with Private Higher Education in Japan

Masahiro Arimatsu

1. BACKGROUND

Since the Second World War, Japanese education has spread widely and developed greatlybased on the new constitution. The context for this development was a variety of factors includingthe enthusiasm of the Japanese for education and the rise in personal income. The spread anddevelopment of education, have contributed to the human resource development necessary forJapan’s further economic growth, which benefits the quality of life and culture of the people as awhole.

Higher education was no exception, In 1960, 10.3 percent of the 18-year-old populationwent on to four-year universities and short-term junior colleges after graduation from secondaryschools. By 1975, 15 years later, this figure had reached 37.8 percent. After 1975, policies wereadopted to basically restrain the expansion of universities and junior colleges,

As of 1994, Japan had 552 universities with 2,480,000 students (of which 120,000 weregraduate students), 593 junior colleges with 520,000 students, and about 40 percent of the 18-year-old population went on to these universities and junior colleges.

In addition, there are colleges of technology aiming at providing a five year education, inwhich emphasis is placed on experiment, practical skill training and special training schools (morethan 700,000 students) providing practical training for different professions. If these are included,then one out of every two people of the same age goes on to some form of higher education.

Therefore, the greatest issue facing higher education at present is not an expansion in thenumber of students but the improvement of the quality of education.

The massive expansion of higher education was definitely not the intended result of thegovernment’s policies. The main role was played by private institutions.

The role of private institutions has been great, especially at the higher education level.In 1994, there were 910 universities, junior colleges, and colleges of technology enrolling 2,300,000students, which accounted for 75 percent of all universities, junior colleges and colleges oftechnology in the number of institutions and 76 percent in enrolment.

Retrospectively, in 1950 there were 278 private institutions of higher education, in which180,000 students were enrolled. The economic growth of the nation which began in the 1960’sbrought about a rapid increase in university applicants, which led to the expansion of privateinstitutions. (Many new institutions, faculties and departments were created and the number ofstudent places increased. ) As a result, both the number of private institutions and the enrolmenthave dramatically increased and today private institutions constitute a great part of the highereducation system in Japan, quantitatively,

In recent years, as our society has become more “internationalized”, more information-oriented and more mature, educational institutions as a whole are required to carry out moredistinctive and more unique educational programs in response to the more diverse and moreheightened demands of people. In this context, in addition to their quantitative contribution in thedissemination of formal education, private institutions are playing a more and more important

47


qualitative role in developing unique and diverse educational and research programs on the basis oftheir founders’ philosophies and principles.

There were two special features in the post-war government policies regarding privateinstitutions. Firstly, the powers of government authorities regarding private institutions were reduced,and high regard was paid to the autonomy of these institutions. Secondly, the right to found privateinstitutions was given primarily to non-profit “school corporations” and every school corporation hadto have an appropriate mechanism as is relevant to the organ managing educational institutions.

Regarding government financial assistance, a Private School Promotion Subsidy Law wasenacted in 1975, The law provided for government subsidies to private universities and otherinstitutions for their current expenditures and also specified that both national and local governmentshould strive to give school corporations favorable consideration regarding taxation.

Under this law, the national government has been making efforts to promote the activities ofprivate institutions, through (1) providing subsidies to private institutions for their current and otherexpenditures, (2) offering long-term loans to private institutions through the Japan Private SchoolPromotion Foundation, and (3) offering favorable taxation measures to school corporations,

2. CURRENT STATUS

2.1 Current State of Higher Education Institutions

In 1994, there were 552 universities, 593 junior colleges, and 62 colleges of technology.Total enrollments were 2,480,000 in universities, 520,000 in junior colleges, and 20,000 in colleges oftechnology. About 75 percent of universities, junior colleges, and colleges of technology were privateones, and about 76 percent of total enrolment in these institutions was in private ones. In particular,93 percent of all students in junior colleges were enrolled in private colleges. Private institutions havebeen playing a very important role quantitatively. This is a very unique feature of the Japanesehigher education system as compared with many other countries. (See Tables 1 a and 2b)

However, regarding graduate schools, students enrolled in private institutions account foronly 32 percent of all graduate students.

The proportion of the age group advancing to universities, junior colleges and colleges oftechnology was 43.9 percent in 1994. In recent years, the proportion has been increasing a little andthe percentage of fema!e students going on to universities and junior colleges has been increasingsubstantially. From 1989, the proportion of the age group advancing to these institutions hasbecome higher for female than for male.

2.2 Trends in establishment of new private institutions

In Japan, both national and private universities, junior colleges and colleges of technologyare established and operated based on the same standards, and there are no differences in thesystem or the field of study.

However, an overall view reveals that national universities emphasize natural science andengineering, and graduate school, in keeping with government policy. In contrast, private universitieshave other characteristics; they educate in the spirit of their various founders, and in fields of study,the humanities and social sciences play large roles, reflecting the preferences of students, who areconsumers, and the business-oriented perspectives of school management.

In recent years, in response to such social changes as internationalization and the spread ofinformation technology, many new faculties and departments were established in the fields ofinternational relations and information science,

48


Table 1-a: Number of Institutions of Higher Education, 1994

Types of TotalInstitution

There have been many new private universities and junior colleges founded on the basis ofjoint cooperation by local governments and school corporations. Local governments have beencooperating with school corporations by means of granting or lending public land and subsidizingexpenditures for founding private institutions. Apart from such financial cooperation, there are somelocal governments which provide school corporations with the help of knowledgeable persons whoassist these corporations in the administration and management of the institution to be founded.

49


2.3 Various conditions for education and research of private institutions

As there is a great difference in the composition of faculties and departments betweennational and private institutions, the stating and physical conditions of educational and researchactivities in private institutions cannot easily be compared with those in national institutions.(See Charts 1a and 1b)

Generally speaking, there are still more gaps in the conditions for education and researchbetween private and national institutions, though the level of the conditions in the former ones hasbeen improved in general.

Student fees at private institutions vary according to the university and the department. Onaverage, they are slightly less than double those at national universities. Therefore, students atprivate institutions bear heavy financial burdens.

Chart l-a: Trends in the Average Number of Students per Teacher

Chart l-b: Trends in the Average Floor Area of School Buildings per Student

(

2.4 Financial assistance of the government

Subsidies are provided to school corporations. The purpose of these subsidies, which coveressential operating expenses for education and research (including salaries of teaching staff andother employees, and other operating expenses for education and research), is to maintain andimprove educational and research conditions in private universities, junior colleges, and colleges oftechnology, and to reduce the financial burden on students. (See Chart 2)

50


Subsidies are divided into general subsidies and special subsidies, and are calculatedaccording to certain criteria. Allocations of general subsidies are based on the number of teachingpersonnel and students, and weighted according to various factors, such as (1 ) management ofenrolment prescribed, (2) the quality of educational and research conditions, and (3) the proportionof student fees devoted to educational and research activities. Special subsidies are paid in additionto general subsidies to schools that have implemented original educational and research activitiesthat closely reflect society’s needs, such as the expansion of graduate schools and the advancementof education and research, the development of international exchanges in education and research,and the promotion of lifelong learning.

Chart 2: Trends in Current Expenditures of Private Institutions of Higher Education andAmounts of Subsidies

Source: Ministry of Education, Science and Culture surveys,

In spite of the central government’s extremely difficult fiscal situation, provision in the fiscal1995 budget for this purpose was increased to x 280 billion.

In addition to this, subsidies are provided for expenditures on large-scale educational andresearch equipment, and on research facilities needed for basic research in private institutions. Inthe fiscal 1995 budget a total of x 12 billion was allocated for this purpose.

Japan has been in a serious financial situation since the 1980s, and as a result, governmentfinancial support to higher education remains at rather inadequate levels. Government subsidies toprivate institutions have been restrained; the proportion of private institutions’ budgets covered bysubsidies has fallen from the peak of 30 % to 12 %.

In this context, the weighting of the general subsidy allocation has been emphasized moreand special subsidies have been expanded. These changes reflect the need to ensure efficientutilization through policy guidance designed to encourage active management efforts, to maintainand improve educational and research conditions, and to expand original educational and researchactivities.

51


2.5 Loans and Tax systems

The Japan Private School Promotion Foundation provides long-term and low-interest loansto supply private schools with funds for facility and equipment improvement and other requirements.The purpose of this program is to improve educational and research conditions and contribute tomanagement stability in private schools.

In fiscal year 1995, the foundation planned to increase funds to ~ 90 billion, in response torecent trends in the demand for funds by school corporations,

Because of their important social role, school corporations that establish private schools are,unless they engage in profit-raising programs, exempt from both national taxes, including thecorporation tax, income tax and land price tax, and regional taxes, such as the enterprise tax,residence tax and fixed asset tax. In addition to this, in undertaking some profit-raising programs, taxrates for those school corporations are lower than for other corporations.

3. FUTURE ISSUES

3.1 Reform of Higher Education

In Japan, the greatest issue facing higher education at present is not an expansion in thenumber of students but the improvement of the quality of education.

Japanese education has expanded in terms of volume, However, in view of the abruptchanges in society in the past few years, education confronts a variety of issues including theuniformity of education and excess competition in examinations. It also needs to respondappropriately to the changing times, including the trends to internationalization and to the informationsociety,

The most important four reasons why substantive reform of the universities is urgentlyneeded are cited below.

First of all, student needs are changing. The mass education phenomenon seen up throughthe 1970s also involved a diversification in student needs. However, the university side adhered tothe traditional view of higher education as being for the elite; it was thus slow to provide educationsuited to student needs.

Secondly, the body of knowledge is progressing, and society and the economy are evolving.Recent advances in science and technology, and the resulting technical innovations and changes inindustrial structure are increasing the needs for better educated human resources and so there is aneed to address the trend toward the information society and internationalization. Higher educationhas been slow to respond to such changes.

Thirdly, needs for life-long learning are increasing. As society matures, more and morepeople are demanding spiritual enrichment through learning. People are also increasingly seeking toacquire new knowledge and techniques to cope with changes in society, Nonetheless, universitieshave so far been unable to fully respond to the new demands for high-quality, flexible educationalopportunities,

Fourthly, Japan’s birth rate is dropping. The 18-year-old population will decline rapidly in thefuture, falling in the year 2000 to three-quarters of its peak in 1992, and eventually to one-half.University administrators, gripped by fears of a crisis in securing students, have begun to recognizethe need to improve the content of education.

52


The above look at the current situation of higher education institutions in Japan highlights anumber of important problems that must be resolved. These include the uniformity of highereducation, the loose evaluation system and the resulting lack of competition, the isolated and rigidmanagement of institutions, and their weak financial bases.

The Ministry of Education, Science and Culture established the University Council in 1987 asan advisory body to the Minister, to begin consideration of detailed policies for the reform of highereducation institutions. In 1991, the Ministry, acting upon the series of reports it had received,formulated a set of detailed policies for the reform of higher education. These may be regarded asthe most important reforms to higher education since the end of the Second World War.

3.2 The aim of the policies maybe summarized under three main points.

The first focuses on the improvement of the content of higher education and the promotion ofindividuality. To this purpose, the Ministry abstracted and simplified the standards it set to regulatethe educational activities of universities and junior colleges, enabling universities and junior collegesto take the responsibility for formulating theirown curricula.

Second, is the raising of the level of education and research by expandinggraduate institutions. Graduate schools are viewed not only as central to the promotionof scientific research but also as increasingly important for the training of highly skilled humanresources as well as researchers. But, at present, Japan’s graduate institutions are of a rather smallscale. One of the reports submitted by the University Council (1991) proposed that the number ofgraduate students should be doubled by the year 2000.

The third point is the flexibility of the system of higher education to meet the needs of peoplefor life-long learning. As technology advances and the structure of industry changes, peopleincreasingly need continued training at institutions of higher education in order to acquire up-to-dateknowledge of sophisticated technologies. In this context, to promote part-time study, the Ministry hasintroduced a system to accommodate students who do not wish to participate in full programs (onlywant to take certain courses) and has institutionalized both day and evening courses.

It is said that the basic approach to the above three directions for reform involves therelaxation of regulation and exercise of the principle of self-responsibility.

3.3 Financial support

As mentioned above, Japan has been in a serious financial situation since the 1980s, and asa result, government financial support to higher education remains at low levels. Governmentsubsidies to private institutions have been restrained in this context and the proportion of privateinstitutions’ current budgets covered by subsidies has fallen from the peak of 30% to 12%.

In addition to this, student fees at private institutions, on average, are slightly less thandouble those at national universities. Therefore, students at private institutions bear heavyfinancial burdens. Families with university students face heavy financial burdens.

The main issue facing university finances is the securing of financial resources. Aninternational comparison reveals that the proportion of national income devoted to public outlays forhigher education in Japan is only half that of the United States and the U.K.

Accordingly, first is the necessity to step up public outlays. However, under the presentbudgetary formula, in which each ministry and agency is limited to requesting only a certainproportion of its previous year’s budget for the following fiscal year, the Ministry of Education,Science and Culture can hardly expect to increase its budget specially. Consequently, the Ministryas a whole has to shift resources to priority areas. Recently, the Ministry has been putting togetherits budget request to reflect its emphasis on higher education and scientific research.

53


Regarding financial aid to private institutions, it will be very important to secure anadequate total amount of subsidies in the future.

It will be also very important to emphasize more on the weighting of subsidy allocationaccording to educational and research conditions of each school and to expand special subsidiesthat are paid to schools implementing educational and research activities reflecting society’s needs,such as the expansion of graduate schools and the acceptance of foreign students and so on, in viewof the efficient utilization of limited financial resources.

Taking high student fees into consideration, scholarships play a major role. ScholarshipsFoundation, in fiscal 1994, provided loans totaling ~ 165 billion to about 340,000 students. However,the number of receivers amounts to only 10 percent of all students. In addition to this, at thegraduate level, the projected expansion of graduate schools raises the issue of expansion of thescholarship program for graduate students.

4. FUTURE OUTLOOK AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Active support to university reform

At present, foundations have been laid in legal and regulatory areas that directly have aninfluence upon the reform of education and research. From now on, it will be up to each individualinstitution of higher education to take advantage of its own knowledge and expertise to vitalize itsown educational and research programs. In that sense, it is now up to institutions of highereducation to take the next steps.

Nonetheless, some issues remain for the government to face. One of them isto consider policies to vitalize university administration. At present, the University Council isstudying some issues including the promotion of personnel exchange through the introduction of alimited-term hiring system, a framework enabling university presidents to display leadership, and aframework in which opinions from outsiders, such as representatives of the local community andso on, are reflected.

4.2 The issue of finances

Future steps should be emphasized on the securing of financial resources. To this purpose,it is very important for the government to realize this point throughout, and to make efforts forimprovement gradually.

In addition to this, donations from external sources will be equally important. It is hoped thatfavorable taxation measures should be taken and each school should make active managementefforts, in order to get more donations from external sources.

To make the most of limited resources, the principle of competition needs to operate welland resources should be allocated according to evaluations of eachinstitution’s education and research programs.

4.3 Coping with internationalization

Today, the member countries of the international community are more and moreinterdependent. As Japan has been improving its place in the international community on the basisof its economic strength, the international expectation of Japan has been increasing in varioussectors, and the role of Japan will be more and more important. The survival and prosperity of Japanin the future will be largely dependent on the maintenance and development of sound relations withmany other countries.

The Japanese living in the 21st century will be participating in various areas of activity in theinternational community.

54


From this point of view, it will bean important future task for Japanese institutions of highereducation not only to strive to improve the level of their educational and research programs but alsoto make themselves widely open to foreign students, teachers and researchers. Each institution willbe required to accept more foreign students and to increase its activities for international scientificexchanges with teachers overseas.

In conclusion, Japanese universities are in the midst of a transition, gradually emerging fromtheir isolation or protected and comfortable existence into an age of free competition which allowsthem to improve their quality and display their individuality.

Change has already begun, but it has not reached a stage in which the results are visible.The approaches taken by universities and the government right now will greatly decide the future.

In that sense, this period today must be considered highly important.

55


Hyun Chong Lee

1. INTRODUCTION

The 21st century will be the Asia-Pacific Era. At present a new international order is beingformed following a series of socio- political changes wordwide. Korea cannot be an exceptional casefrom these world wide socio-educational changes. The most important reform for KoreanUniversities is, without exception, government polices related to quality improvement in instruction,personnel facilities and finances. In particular, with the recent trend of globalization, Korea is facingfierce competition and at the same time, new opportunities. The 20th century was characterized byideological conflicts and national individualism. At the end of this century, however, the world hasbeen going into the stage of unlimited competition and cooperation. In particular, it is important tounderstand the current debates on the opening up of the education market and its countermeasureswithin the framework of globalization. Education services can be considered a transaction betweenthose who need the service and those who provide it within the education market. It is exactly for thisreason that the educational institutions and policies as well as the mentality and ethics must all beadapted to the changes and be directed towards globalization.

The mission of the institutions of higher education in this context must be to provideinternational level knowledge to its clients and to increase their adaptive capabilities for enhancingnational competitiveness. The traditionally admitted term of “university” has been changed into theterm of “multiversity” according to the changing role of a university’s function. In particular, I canidentify four major changes in higher education: From Nation of Ivory Tower” to “Education IndustrialSociety”; from “closed schooling”; to “open schooling” ; from “teaching oriented” to “learning oriented”;from “student as passive learner” to “student consumerism”. In this sense, the term of “multiversity”is not enough to define the role of a modern university as a complex entity in the rapidly changingsociety. Thus, new terms such as “Televersity”, “Andraversity” and “Worldversity”.

However this paper is presented for the purpose of providing the participants of this seminarwith an overall sketch of how private higher education policies are set up and how university financein Korea stands in particular and what problems are at issue. Also, I would like to mention the recenteducation reform agenda which is related to the overall sketch.

2. CHANGING CONTEXTS OF HIGHER EDUCATION : KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION ATTHE CROSSROADS

2.1 The overall historical development

A college is a complex mechanism that is responsible for transforming a variety of inputs forexample, students’ time, teacher’s time, consumable materials, equipment and buildings, intoknowledge products usually in the forms of qualified people and intellectual property.

In this sense, the 1980s was a decade of radical change in Korean higher education and inseveral ways it was a period of expansion.

Not surprisingly, it was a period of expansion of private higher education in Korea. In 1995,80.2% universities (out of total number of 160 higher education institutions) were private institutions.

56


Within this quantitative expansion of higher education since 1948 some differences in termsof the total number of students can be noticed, period by period. In this paper, I would like to sketchthe overall historical development of Korean Higher Education as follows;

a. Laissez-Faire stage (1948-1961: Since independence to the late 1950’s(1) Government’s loose regulation and control of higher education

(Institutional establishment program-opening, enrolment quotas, selection of students,maintaining academic standards).

(2) Rapid quantitative expansion achieved.(3) Public confidence lost on higher education.

b. Government’s tight control and regulation institutionalized (1961-early 1970’s)(1) External control on higher education legally institutionalized.(2) Emphasis given to maintaining social reasonabilities of higher education:

- fair-competition in entrance examination,- maintaining “optimal” size of enrolment,- limits to the increase in tuition level.

c. Government’s planned efforts toward the development of higher education(The early 1970’s to the late 1970’s)(1) University quality improvements through “University Experiment Program”:

external criteria for the quality of university education.selective support for the University which meets the external criteria.

(2) Planned regulation on the enrolment increase:Manpower and political consideration results in very limited enrolment expansion.Entrance-exam competition became severe and an ever-increasing social demand forhigher education generated the context of several kinds of educational problems (Exam-oriented high school education, ever-increasing size of repeaters. Unacceptable level ofprivate tutoring, etc).

d. Enrolment Expansions and tight control on University Education (1980’s-1988). The 7:30Educational Reform in 1980:(1) Unprecedented and unprepared expansion of enrolment quota. Increased enrolment

quotas. 30% more quotas added to the admission quotas and this additional enrolment to be dropped-out by graduation (This policy is called “Enrolment Quota on Graduation Policy”).

(2) Changes in the system of Higher Educational institutions: Upgrade teacher’s college status from two years to four years. Upgrade Air and Correspondence University from two years to four years Upgrade Junior Technical Schools to Technical College Status.

(3) Reform of Entrance examination: Abolish entrance exam by each college and university and replace it with Statewide National Exam of High School Achievement Test.

(4) Government’s tight control on Administration of University Education. (Motivated by political causes).

e. New Policy direction towards “Autonomy of University Education”, proclaimed by the government(1988 - present).(1) The Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (PCER) recommended Policy direction

and Task for Higher Education, higher priority is given to “Autonomy” with several goals.(2) Ministry of Education took the proposal of a step-wise gradual approach to “Autonomy of higher

education”. However the policy framework is not clear yet. Government’s policy for autonomystates that full autonomy will be given to universities in the early 1990’s.

57


2.2 Present Situations of Higher Education

There are seven types of higher education institution in Korea, namely: 1) Colleges andUniversities offering four-year undergraduate programmes with the exception of six-year medical anddental colleges, 2) Teachers’ Colleges, 3) Two-year Junior Colleges, 4) Air and CorrespondenceUniversity, 5) Open Universities, 6) Miscellaneous Schools, and 7) Graduate Schools.

All institutions of higher education, public and private, must adhere to educational law andpresidential and ministerial decrees. They are under the supervision of the Ministry of Education. TheMinistry of Education exercises control over qualifications of teaching staff, curriculum and degreerequirements, general education, college and university military training, faculty standards foruniversities and colleges, establishment of curricula, regulation for the establishment and closure ofinstitutions, fiscal review, inspection of facilities and the establishment of the overall official quota ofstudents for each higher education institution. A significant part of this control, however, is now beingdecentralized thus enabling more autonomy for higher education institutions.

The presidents of public or national universities and colleges, for example, can be elected bythe direct vote of faculty members or selected by the electorate board instead of by the EducationMinister’s recommendation for a president. Also, in private universities and in private four-year collegesand junior colleges, the institutions’ Board of Trustees can nominate the president or the facultymembers can elect the president through a general vote. The individual is then appointed to thepresidency by the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, The college and university presidents exercisemore power and control than is normally the case with their counterparts in colleges and universities inthe United States.

As of 1994, institutions of higher education numbered 314:135 two-year junior coIleges;160 four-year institutions offering bachelor’s degrees (1 Korea Air and Correspondence University, 14 OpenUniversities, 22 Miscellaneous Schools and 11 Teachers’ Colleges are included) and 251 graduateschools with master’s and doctorate programmes. (Table 1)

Table 1 shows a summary of the Korean higher education institutions. 2,200,000 studentsare about 70% of the population aged between 18 to 21. The population size of the Korean highereducation may be the largest in the world when we include the junior colleges. The number of femalestudents accounts for more than 30 percent of total enrollments. Especially in the case of teacher’scolleges, about 73 percent of the total enrolment are female students. It suggests that the increasingnumber of women engaged in teaching has become one of the most salient problems of today.

At present, students enrolled in private universities and colleges account for 82.2 percent ofthe total number of students. The Korea Air and Correspondence University, which, with 310,950students, is the largest university in Korea, is a national institution with a national network of 48participating colleges.

58


Table 1:institutions of Higher Education, Summary (1994)

)

As shown in the Table 2, 258 (82.2%) of the institutions are private and 53 (16.8%) arenational and 3 (1%) are public schools. Therefore, it can be said that Korean higher education is heavilydependent upon the private institution.

Table 2: Types of Higher Education Institutions

Type National Public Private Total

Number (%) 53 (16.8%) 3 (1%) 258 (82.2%) 314 (100%)

Table 3: Percentage of Private Institutions(unit:%)

Institutions Students EducationExpenditure

Junior Colleges 93.3% 95.9% 96.40%Universities 80.2% 74.8% 75.80%

Source: The Ministry of Education, Statistical Yearbook of Education, 1994.

Since 1960, Korean higher education has seen an increase in the student population of 14.4times the level of the base year. Yet the changing social context such as the rising social demand forhigher education, the growing need for high level manpower and the development of life-long educationwill exert pressure on higher education to expand at a moderate speed.

Table 4 shows the ratios of pupil-teacher. Teacher-pupil ratio comes to 54.1 in junior collegesand 27.1 in 4-year colleges and universities. These numbers become more serious when we considerprivate schools only, 55.1 and 29.1 respectively. Also, as shown in this table, the pupil-teacher ratio(PTR) of Korea is unfavorable compared with those of other developed countries. This bad situation ismainly derived from the Educational Reform of July 30, 1980. Since the Educational Reform, freshmanquotas have markedly increased, but the needed teaching personnel were not adequatelysupplemented.

59


Table 4: The Ratio of Student Professor by the Type of Higher Education Institution(Unit: Person)

Institutions Total National & Public Private

Junior Vocational Colleges 54.1 37.0 55.1Colleges & Universities

I27.1 23.1 29.1

ISource: The Ministry of Education, Statistical Yearbook of Education, 1994.

Table 5: Teacher-Pupil Ratio of University Compared to other Countries

Country University

Korea (1993) 37.8Turkey (1990) 21.8Brazil (1990) 11.7Malaysia (1990) 10.2Canada (1990) 22.0Japan (1990) 9.9

Source: The Ministry of Education, The Ministry of Education Data Booket, 1994, p 45.

Each institution of higher education in Korea can be summarized as follows :

a. Junior Colleges

There are 135 junior colleges, 110 national and 125 private. Junior college enrolmentrepresents approximately 23% of the students involved in higher education. In the past, the two-yearliberal arts junior college was not well received in Korea, and diminished in importance. Many formerliberal arts junior colleges were the antecedents for some of the present four-year colleges anduniversities as well as for a number of junior vocational colleges. The junior college movement helpeddevelop institutions that became junior teachers’ colleges, junior technical colleges, and junior vocationalcolleges. In 1963, a five-year programme was developed for students in junior vocational collegeswhich included a three-year senior vocational high school programme and a two-year junior vocationalcollege programme.

The junior colleges of today no longer include a senior high school segment. Theirprogrammes are two years in length, with the exception of the fisheries/marine colleges which offer anadditional six-month course for navigation practice, and the nursing programmes which are three yearsin length. Junior colleges offer programmes in these general categories: 1) commerce, 2) kindergarteneducation, 3) engineering/technical, e.g., agriculture fisheries, civil and electronics technology, 4) liberalarts, 5) nursing and health, 6) textiles and design. The majority of programmes for the training ofkindergarten teachers are offered by junior colleges although there area few programmes also offeredby four-year colleges and universities.

b. Colleges and Universities

There are 34 national, 2 municipal and 124 private colleges and universities, forming a total of160 four-year colleges and universities. Four-year colleges and universities provide programmesleading to the bachelor’s degree. A number of colleges and universities have programmes in medicine,oriental medicine, and dentistry. These programmes are six years in length. A four-year college mayalso have a graduate programme.

In general, one credit requires one hour of class attendance per week per semester.Laboratory work requires two hours per unit per week. Generally, the maximum credits that can be

60


registered in a semester are twenty-four and a minimum of 140 credits is required for graduation in abachelor’s course. All programmes are divided into required courses and electives. The requiredcourses which can now be determined by each university emphasize general education including abalance of arts, humanities, social sciences and natural sciences.

The curriculum for the bachelor’s degree is divided into approximately three areas : one-thirdfor required courses, one-third for electives and one-third in the field of speciality. In most instances thewriting of a dissertation or its equivalent is required.

c. Graduate Schools

Korean graduate schools are classified into two types, on the whole, in accordance with theirfunctions and goals: professional graduate schools and general graduate schools. The professionalgraduate schools, which numbered 159 in 1988, provide instruction in professional areas and serve aspreparation for careers in education, business administration, public administration and other fields.The academic degree which the professional graduate schools confer is the professional master’sdegree. The name used to designate the professional degree, therefore, is stated as “Master of(Professional Field)”.

General graduate schools, aiming at fostering creativity, initiative and leadership inspecialized academic disciplines, numbered 92 colleges and universities as of 1988. General graduateprogrammes are more generally tailored to the individual student not the discipline, than those ofprofessional graduate schools. Usually the general graduate schools confer as their first degree, theMaster of Arts or Master of Science to those who meet the academic standards through submission ofa thesis, and to those whose graduation requirements are complete. Only the general graduate schoolsare authorized to judge dissertations and thereafter to confer doctoral degrees to eligiblecandidates in Korea.

Students requesting admission to a graduate school must have a bachelor’s degree orits equivalent from a college or university with approved standing. Usually a minimum course-work oftwenty-four credit hours in four semesters or two years for professional graduate schools, and twenty-seven credit hours in four semesters, a comprehensive examination and an examination in one foreignlanguage, as well as a thesis is required to get a master’s degree. Students requesting admission to adoctoral programme must have a master’s degree or its equivalent, a scholarly background in the fieldof specialty with some demonstrated research experience, and recommendations from individuals in themaster’s degree field of specialty. Generally, a doctoral programme requires a minimum of sixty creditstaken over three or more years. Students must pass a foreign language test to demonstrate an ability tocomprehend and write in at least two foreign languages. They must also pass a comprehensiveexamination, complete the coursework with a 3,0 or B average or better, submit a disserdation and haveit accepted, and pass an oral examination. An advisory committee is appointed for students at doctorallevel.

d. Teachers’ Colleges

There are eleven primary teachers’ colleges in Korea. They are national in their funding andcontrol. These colleges are distributed across Korea by province and major city. In 1981, these elevennational junior teachers’ colleges were changed to four-year institutions. Graduates from these collegesreceive a bachelor’s degree and certification to teach in primary schools. Students who are providedwith tuition to attend national four-year teacher’s colleges are obliged, upon graduation, to teach for atleast four years in the primary schools to which they are assigned.

e. Korea Air and Correspondence University

The Korea Air and Correspondence University started as a junior college within Seoul NationalUniversity in 1972. In 1982, when it separated from Seoul National University, it developed a five-yearuniversity programme offering a bachelor’s degree:

61


Now, the Korea Air and Correspondence University operates as an independent institution,offering a four-year programme of a bachelor’s degree. The drop-out rate for the Korea Air andCorrespondence University is approximately 700/.. The programme is fairly rigorous and students whocomplete a degree have reached a high standard of academic excellence as compared with juniorvocational college students.

f. Open colleges

The first open university was established in 1981. There are now 14 open universities whichoffer five-year courses for bachelor’s degrees.

g. Miscellaneous Schools

This category, miscellaneous schools, was established by the Ministry of Education to indicateinstitutions which are highly specialized and are not broadly diversified in their academic programme.As a rule, these schools lack a sufficient liberal arts core or basic general expenditure programmes tomeet the standards for an accepted undergraduate college or university programme in Korea. They arepredominantly theological or single purpose institutions. Miscellaneous schools that have receivedMinistry of Education approval have four-year courses and the students receive a diploma oncompletion of their programme. Students from these institutions may be accepted for graduate levelwork by colleges or universities if their specialized training is adequate preparation for graduate levelstudies.

3. MAJOR ISSUES OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND EDUCATION REFORM AGENDA

It is little wonder that much of the recent criticism of higher education has focused on quality ofeducation, autonomy in education, and accountability of higher education. These major issues arecentered around the issues of quantity or quality, finances, faculty productivity, student achievement andphysical facilities etc. These issues are about the future state of the nation and of its educational needs.

Accordingly we focus on three areas: flexibility and diversity, education as a service andstudent consumerism, the balance between competition and cooperation in education.

In Korea, it is required that the educational system in the new era be changed in such a way asto promote diversity and individuality. Flexible management of that system is also urgent. Indeed,respect for creativity across the whole spectrum of education, ranging from the educational policies toclassroom practices, and the accommodation of diverse educational systems and methods areessential to any substantial reduction of the conflicts and confusion observed in education.

Secondly, institutions of higher education need to be reformed in such a way as to be moreresponsive to student needs. In other words, we have to view education as a service and provide aneducational service in which the aptitudes and characteristics of individual students are fully taken intoaccount. It is only when we become susceptible to the aspirations and desires of our clientele, i.e., thestudents, that colleges and universities can adequately fulfill their function for the future.

Thirdly, the balance between competition and cooperation in education is one of reform issue.It is important that in education the common good and individual goals be pursued through cooperationas well as competition. The current education system in Korea, however, fosters the spirit ofcompetition at the expense of the spirit of cooperation. As a result, it is generally agreed that there is toomuch competition and too little cooperation among students in schools. Any educational reform,therefore, should address this issue and come up with measures designed to create an atmosphere inwhich there is a balance between cooperation and competition among the students.

In this regard several higher educational reform agendas were set up:

62


1 Role Differentiation and Build up of Independent Institutional Characters2. Gradual Transfer of Rights of Student Selection and Student Quota Management3. Rational Organization and Management of the Curriculum4. Strengthening of Teaching and Research Functions5. Betterment of Student Welfare and Campus Environment6. Modernization of Facilities7 Expansion of Libraries and Computer Centers8. Strengthening of Administrative and Other Support9. Strengthening of Inter-University and School, Industry, Government, and Research

Cooperation10. Strengthening of the University Evaluation System

4. KOREAN HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCE

It being superfluous to argue and stress the strategic importance of university education on asound financial basis, this paper is designed to deal with the outstanding issues to be solved for thehealthy development of university institutions in Korea. With these considerations in mind, I will try tosummarize the overall picture of university finance in general and of private universitities specifically.

University education in Korea started from scratch only after the liberation of the country fromJapanese colonialism in 1945. The turmoil and confusion the country had been undergoing in theprocess of state-building made it an extremely difficult job to establish higher education. Not to mentionthe scarcity of qualified teachers and financial resources required, the absence of an unified andconsolidated national education policy; and the ideological divisions between the right and left as to theidentity formation of university education. Furthermore the out-break of the Korean war in 1950 broughttotal devastation to the education system in general.

Despite these difficulties and setbacks, higher education in Korea had managed not onlysurvival but also growth and expansion. One can only cite the Confucian cultural tradition of Korea,which is permeated within the cult of Iiterati education, for the explanation of the phenomenon. Such acultural tradition, coupled with the popular belief that the key to national as well as individualdevelopment depends on education, has instilled the eagerness for intensive learning into the minds ofstudents and the commitment to pursue the successful venture of education into those of governmentand educators.

Meanwhile, there emerged a Korean pattern of growth and expansion in the mode of universityfinancing, To initiate and lead the movement, the government got directly involved in establishing andmanaging national universities in metropolitan and regional provinces. It also established and managedvarieties of special colleges as vocational institutes. The governmental involvement was designed toprovide a guideline of educational policy and to give a catalytic effect in inducing more privateparticipation in undertaking educational investments. Under these circumstances, it was natural forprivate funds to be encouraged and supported to undertake the remainder of university educationdemand not met by the government. As of 1994, the total number of colleges and universities was 160and that of students enrolled was 1,580,106. The number of private colleges and universities and thatof students enrolled therein were 124 and 688,506, respectively. The above figure shows what animportant role private higher education plays in Korea.

The financial structure of Korean higher education is thus composed of two distinct role players:the govenment budgetary allocation for state-run colleges and universities and private foundations forthose of non-governmental entities. This feature was to characterize the growth pattern of Koreanhigher educational institutions which came into full bloom during the 50’s when its foundation was laidafter the cease-fire of the Korean War. Once the demand for higher education exploded, in parallel withthe rapid rate of economic recovery and development, the numerical expansion of colleges anduniversities was beyond its normal range of expectation. The number of colleges and universities andstudent enrollments had expanded from 47 and 105,238 to 160 and 1,580,106, respectively between

63


1963 and 1994. In terms of numerical figures, Korean higher education has successfully managed notonly to catch up with the explosion of education demand and but has also managed to meet the man-power demand posed by the expanding socio-economic development of the country. Setting aside theproblem of quality sufficiency of higher education, the timely supply of educated man-power which ledto the expanding economy of the country, whose average GNP growth was around 10% during thedecades covered, was a catalyst as well as a motivating force of the socio-economic development ofthe country. During these periods, the stage of Korean economic growth was of such a nature thatindustrial know-how could be provided by the infusion of standardized technological knowledge, whichwas easily introduced from abroad and imparted to students, requiring less educational investment andteaching effort.

Such a complacent picture of Korean higher education is rapidly changing with the passage ofthe country into a higher technological society. Quantity supply of colleges and university graduatescompatible with the age of conventional technology can no longer meet the challenges of a high-technological society utilizing theoretical knowledge, which is, unlike technological knowledge, not easilyavailable without an intensive quality education and research at the level of higher education.

With the coming of these new circumstantial changes, Korean higher education has become anew focal point of government and public concerns. It aroused attention to the need to identify whatmajor problem the nation faces and seeks solutions of the problems in order to place higher educationon a sound footing, capable of accommodating the coming challenges.

The priority problem to be solved for the viable development of Korean higher education isnone other than a financial one. The attainment of the education goal aimed at by Korean highereducation in its efforts to lead and accommodate the rapid process of transition of the country into amature industrial society, is predicated upon the timely and smooth provision of financial resourcesrequired for large investment in sophisticated modern education facilities and the increasing scale ofcost involved in offering quality education to students. Unless the financial problem is successfullytackled, any serious efforts to improve the standard of higher education is doomed to failure.

Therefore, the up-grading of academic as well as organizational structures is to follow on asound financial condition. It is against this background that the financial issues receive priority attentionand effort from both the government and the public in general. We cannot overemphasize the fact thatfinance is a vital factor determining the contents and goals of higher education.

When we talk about the outside support of academic communities: we mean the channeling ofgovernment assistance and outside donations. In the case of the government-run colleges anduniversities, government assistance is no more than an increased scale of budgetary allocation andoutside donations are private endowments and grants for specific purposes. Since the latter kind ofsupport is not directly related to the cost of education, the main problem is of a quantitative nature, Anincreased inflow of budgetary allocation through the existing funding mechanism is called for. Thepicture of private colleges and universities, the sector which shares and plays the dominant role inhigher education in Korea, is quite different. There is neither a funding mechanism for the infusion ofgovernment assistance nor a policy program to institute such a mechanism. Up to now, all privateinstitutes were left to manage by themselves. The government and public in general came to take it forgranted that private education belongs to the private realm of business; not to be financially involvedbeyond the policy guidance and administrative control of government. The fact that private education isno more a matter of private concern and ought to be therefore supported by the public subsidy of centraland local government, as are the cases of the U.S. and Japan, each contributing up to 22% and 14%against total revenue of private institutes in 1983, is not understood and accepted by the educationalculture of Korea. The reorientation of this kind of educational culture is thus a priority agenda topicbefore any realistic efforts are launched to place the financing of higher educition on a sound basiscapable of accommodating the challenge of the coming age of an advanced industrial society. In thisconnection, the prospect is, however, not so pessimistic.

64


Compared to higher education in the industrially advanced countries, Korean higher educationis characterized by a higher number of students per professor (40 against the US average of 11-14) andlow level of expenditure per student (3,400,000 won compared to US $19,800 at Harvard Univ. and US$5,782 at Manchester Univ.). Quality education calls for fewer numbers of students per professor anda higher level of expenditure, comparable to other countries. The present number and level of highereducation in Korea reflects the poor financial conditions faced by this sector. If we look into the incomegenerated by the sector, the picture becomes more serious. Out of the total revenue of universities inKorea, more than 89% is generated by the tuition of students. The revenue coming from the transferfrom foundations, donations and others constitutes less than 10%. This figure stands in sharp contrastwith other countries (Japanese 60% and US 53%).

Table 5: Sources of University Finance

Total (Won) Government Aid Tuition Donation Others

2,307,595 18.1% 63.6 11.5 6.8674.691 I 60.0% I 34.4 l - l 5.7

1,632,905I

0.7%I

75.7I

16.3I

7.3

1 1 1 ,

Source: Youn, Jung-ii, “Prospects and Problems of Higher Education Finance,” Korean Education Finance, Association ofEconomics, Education Finance, Economic Study, No.1, 1992, p. 114.

Table 6: Government Aid to Private Higher Institution Finance(Unit: Million Won)

Junior Colleges UniversitiesTotal Government Aid % Total Government %

Expenditure Expenditure Aid1

7

I I I I I ISource : The Ministry of Education, The Statistical Yearbook of Education, 1985-1 992; The Ministry of Education, Budget Outline

of Education, 1985-1992.

Table 7: Sources of Education Revenue of Private University (Compared to Other Countries)

Government Tuition School Donation Research OthersAid Contribution Contracts

I I ISource: Korean Council for University Education, International Comparative Study of University Finance, Korean Council of

University Education, 1988; The Ministry of Education, Present Situation and its Expanding Policy of Private SchoolFinance,1993.

65


It wouldn’t be wide of mark to say that Korean higher education almost entirely depends uponthe tuition fee, which is constrained by the income of student’s parents and the level of GNP, amongother factors. Currently, the average fee students pay for one academic year is around 1,000,000 wonequivalent to about US $1,300. On the other hand, the share of student fees in GNP expenditure ismore than 0.73%. compared to 0.42% of U.S. and 0.14% in Japan. With these figures, it is not difficult tosurmise the fact that the recourse to tuition fees as a further source of revenue cannot be relied uponany more. A limit is placed upon the increase of tuition fees to bear the cost of quality education.Viewed from these angles, higher education in Korea is being threatened by a serious financial pinch,the removal of which poses itself as the most urgent problem to be solved during the coming years.Furthermore, the problem is not of such a nature that can be tackled and solved by the efforts ofeducational entities involved alone. When it is considered that there developed an ever-widening gapbetween the capacity of educational funds and endowments and the demand for a rapid expansion ofquality educational facilities, the self-help efforts of educational entities reached a limit point. The taskinvolved calls for a combination of self-help and outside support,

However, when considering these situations regarding higher education finance in general andprivate institution finance specifically, we must look at the following limitations. First, we must look atwhether the supply and demand curves are balanced. In the case of higher education in Korea,demand exceeds supply at this moment, but it is expected that it will soon change into oversupply. Infact, due to the number of students wishing to enter colleges, overdemand has been chronic. However,the year 2003 will be a turning point, with the number of students wishing to enter colleges balancing outwith the number of students being accepted by the colleges and universities. If foreign educationalinstitutions are added to the picture, regional universities and other small universities will feel their veryexistence threatened. The elite universities will find that students will not be interested in the lesspopular departments which will lead to a situation where all colleges will become similar. In view of thefact that the government has abolished freshmen quotas and combined with the effect that thecampuses of foreign universities will have, in reality, the oversupply situation will be a lot more severe.

Second, another problem that must be taken into consideration along with the reversal of thedemand/supply proportion is differences in the institutions of higher education. In a nutshell, Koreauniversities are comparatively disadvantaged. The government which provides the service of educationand the foundations has neglected to invest and consequently, private as well as public colleges lackbasic educational facilities, support facilities and faculties, The average number of students perprofessor in Korea is over 33 students. This is far behind not only the U.S. (10 students), Japan (9.7students), and other advanced countries, but also Hong Kong (13 students) and Singapore (11.2students). It is true that the educational costs per student are less than 50% that of Hong Kong andMalaysia.

The third problem is the lack of diversity in educational institutions. There is no difference in theeducational services and in the curriculum by region or by university. There is only hierarchicaldifferentiation among the so-called, first class, second class, and third class universities. Therefore,if foreign universities which have a distinct character, use their comparative advantage topenetrate any region, those universities ranked in the middle to lower levels will find it difficult tosurvive.

In order to overcome such limitations, universities should change the way they are runand they should implant an internationally competitive form of management. This must includeways to secure funds, to specialize the educational content and managerial autonomy, to reinforcethe cooperative structure among universities, and to establish countermeasures to liberalizationand penetration, These strategies cannot be separated from one another. However, forconvenience sake, the elements have been separated in the following manner

66


5. MAJOR PROBLEMS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Focus on Private Higher Education

Based upon this analytical study on higher education finance, the major problems relatedto higher education finance in Korea can be summarized as follows.

First, there is a problem of what constitutes the optimal university population for a specificcountry at a certain developmental stage. The number of university students of course is closelyrelated to university finance, with variation among nations, institutions and sectors. We have allexperienced, although to a different extent, the so-called “crisis of number” resulting in a moneycrisis and deterioration of the quality of university education. In this connection it is noteworthythat many speakers have described the problem of university finance in relation to expansion ofuniversity student population. Perhaps we need to explore this problem further in depth, learningfrom each other’s experiences as to rational planning for expansion of university expenditureunder specific conditions of the country and society concerned.

Secondly, the problem of tuition policy seems to be a central problem of concern to mostcountries represented here. As to the tuition policy a side variation is to be found in Asia, itseems, ranging from the high tuition policy to the low tuition policy. Since there are many differentpatterns of tuition policy found in the region, we should naturally learn from each other’sexperiences as to the efficiency in financing, equity in university education, etc. If, for instance, acountry with high tuition policy for the private sector wants to learn something from another countrywill low tuition policy or a reduced gap between the public and private sectors, or vice versa, it maydo so through a more elaborated comparative analysis. The tuition policy in relation to public-private division and the family income differential seems to be a point of focus that has been madeclose-up in our presentations, which needs a closer look at in the Asian context. In relation toadequacy, efficiency, autonomy and equity of university finance the problem needs in- depth analysis.

Thirdly, the role of government central and/or provincial, seems to be an important issue,because in many countries of Asia the government has been increasingly playing a pivotal role inuniversity finance as well as other areas of university education, The above-mentioned tuition policy isan indication of governmental involvement in university finance. In addition, various forms ofgovernment financial aids to colleges and universities have been provided. Differential effects ofgovernmental aids upon university finance and university education, however have not been fullydeliberated in this seminar, although the dilemma of “alleviative efficiency vs. distributive equity” hasbeen mentioned.

No doubt, flat general grants, research grants, scholarships, loans and various other forms ofgovernmental aids in different contexts need to be further analyzed and compared as far as possible.

Fourthly, the problem of public-private discrepancy in university finance, along with other formsof discrepancies has been conspicuous in many presentations of this seminar. Thus in many countriesof Asia the need for government financial aid to private colleges and universities is becoming a reality,pressing for a more or less urgent solution. With the possible exception of Japan and India for obviouslydifferent reasons, however, many nations in the region have failed to take substantial measures on anyvisible scale, leaving a great deal to be done in the future, it appears. Due to the differential financialabilities of the countries, however, no uniform approach seems applicable. Each country shouldperhaps devise the best practical way fitting to its own circumstances and yet one could learn a greatdeal from another by way of reading the existing discrepancy.

67

Fifth, there are new approaches and innovations in the higher education system in relation toincreasing efficiency in university finance, Innovations in higher education are varied. New avenues arenow open, which have been barely touched upon. For instance, the high technologies, the potentialityof which is virtually unknown, are opening up new avenues of challenge and opportunity for future


development of higher education. And needless to say that they are bound to exert profound effectsupon university finance in the years to come.

Sixth, the Korean government is excessively dependent upon private institutions. Thepercentage of private institutions and students enrolled in private institutions against total institutions andstudents increased in proportion to school levels. In the case of higher education, about three quartersof total higher education, in terms of number of institutions and students, are in the private sector.When we consider the nature of education as a merit goods, the universalizing trend of highereducation, and training and supply of the highly educated manpower needed for national development,it can be said that the private sector share of total higher education is too high.

Seventh, is lack of understanding about private education. Education as a public orientedactivity should render services to the public to promote their interests. Judging from this point of view,there are two kinds of mistaken notions about private schools. The first one is the establisher’s notionthat “The school is my property” and the second one is that the government should not render financialsupport to private schools based upon the principle of the establisher’s burden. If we regard a school asa public organization to enhance public welfare, government should give positive support to privateschools without any discrimination. Moreover, we should recognize that the development of Koreanhigher education depends upon the private institutions of higher education.

Next is the insignificant educational expenditure per student. The budget of the Ministry ofEducation has reached 3.5 percent of GNP and 20.3 percent of the Government budget. And morethan 29 percent of public expenditure on education is allocated to higher education. However, theeducational expenditure per student is only 1,367$, which is a quarter that of those advanced countries.The main reasons for this poor expenditure per student is that the total amount of GNP is too small,contrary to the fact that a great many students are enrolled in higher education institutions.

Ninth, is the heavy burden on the student. Due to the lack of financial aid from government therevenue of higher education institutions is entirely dependent on students’ tuition and fees. Especiallyprivate institutions which secure more than 82 percent of their total revenue from student fees.Historically, the principle of beneficiaries pay has been applied to higher education. Moreover, inaddition to the public expenditure on education, students defray private expenditure on their education.The total amount of private expenditure is equivalent to 50 percent of total public expenditure, it can beconcluded that the students’ burden for higher education is a huge amount.

Tenth, is scantiness of contributions and donations. Contributions and donations from theprivate sector are quite popular in the advanced countries, Nearly 10 to 30 percent of educationalexpenditure in private universities of world reputation such as Harvard University and the University ofManchester are covered by these sources of revenue. In 1983-84 school year, Harvard University

secured 125.2 million dollars and Stanford University secured 111.8 million dollars from donations.***

However, due to some adverse effects, this program is not popular in this country. In 1985, therevenue from contributions and donations was only 1 percent of the total budget of higher educationinstitutions. Yet contributions and donations are considered an effective way of mobilizing privateresources for education. The fact that an enormous amount of resources was put into private tutoring inthe past suggests the desirability of devising a new scheme to bring the hidden resources to the fore.

Finally, there is an imbalance of expenditure structure. The most significant difference betweenKorea and advanced countries in the expenditure structure of higher education institutions is personnelexpense. Generally, it is said that personnel expense should be 60%5 percent of total expenditure if aneducational institution is operated optimally. In contrast to this proportion, the higher educationinstitutions in Korea assign only 43 percent to personnel expense and 23-26 percent to capital outlay.

*

**

***

The percentage of the private sector, in terms of number of students, in middle school and higher school is 31.8 percentand 80.5 percent respectively.Harvard University, Op. tit, p.5.Illinois Alumni News, Vol. 64, No.6. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, September, 1985.

68


The higher education institutions in the United States assigns less than 10 percent of their total budgetto capital outlay, and the universities of world reputation assign about 5 percent to capital outlay, Thesefacts suggest that the priority of investment in Korea is given to the expansion of educational facilitiesrather than the improvement of the professor’s socio-economic status.

Therefore, there must be continued efforts to initiate new methods and techniques of efficientfinancial management in order to obtain the full effects of the various measures suggested above,

6. EDUCATIONAL REFORM AGENDA

Measures to meet the financial requirements

To solve the mountainous problems besetting Korean education and to work out a long-rangedevelopment requires an enormous amount of resources. Since educational investment is not intendedto yield short-term effects but sets its eyes on returns to come about in the remote future, educationalfinancing is primarily concerned with securing sources of financing in a way that provides stability over along period of time.

In order to improve the quality of higher education, vast amounts of finance must be secured.And, there should be various sources for it. It is a pity that at present, tuition and fees from the studentsare the only source for most private colleges and universities. There should be a considerable amountof governmental subsidies for them as is the case is in many advanced countries. Justification for thesubsidies is very simple, because private institutions are rendering “public” service through education.

To secure new sources of education financing means a substantial increase in the percentageof the Ministry of Education’s budget in relation to GNP. The target percentage to be achieved by 2001is 5.0 percent. This requires that taxes be increased and priority be given to education in the allocatingof budget funds. Simultaneously, encouragement should be given to participation of the private sectorin education development as a means to pump capital from the private sector into education.

To finance the implementation of the planned reform of education requires a cost increase ineducational investment. The percentage of MOE budget to GNP should rise from 3.35 percent atpresent to 4.7 percent by 2001. In budgeting and allocating resources, education should be givenhigher priority in competition with other sectors of the economy, and a scheme should be evolved toinspire the contribution of the private sector to education, Reactivating the PTA, flexibility in determiningtuition fees, and encouraging donations from the private sector are some measures compellingconsideration.

Therefore, measures to meet the financial requirements and to secure new sources ofeducation financing may be as follows.

1) Increasing public investment

Benefits from educational activities spill over to a specific group of beneficiaries in the localcommunity and in society at large. This principle warns that education should not be dependent on theprivate sector which is buffeted by fluctuations of the free market system. It suggests that thegovernment on the central and local level should assume primary responsibility for education.Therefore, it is essential to create a local education tax, while funds transferred from the generalaccount of the local government are increased.

a) Expanding Funds for Research and Development of Higher Education

Grants, scholarships, and other forms of assistance to higher education institutions should beincreased to invigorate their research and development activities (The Ministry of Education and theMinistry of Science and Technology).

69


(1) In order to promote academic activities, the Minister of Education should increase grantsand scholarships for research and development, establish criteria to rationalize the allocation of funds,ensure the autonomy of research activities, and setup evaluation and feedback mechanisms to ensuremaximum utilization of research findings.

(2) The Ministry of Science and Technology should increase the proportion of the nation’sinvestment in basic research from the 16.8 percent figure of 1985 to 20 percent in 2001. The proportionof grants for higher education institutions should be increased from the 10.3 percent figure of 1985 to 15percent in 2001. Industry-school joint projects should be encouraged to supplement grants for basicresearch. Support for basic research by universities is directly linked to graduate education. Grantsshould be diversified to finance the four following kinds of development graduate education, researchby young scholars who are within five years of having finished their Ph. D., joint research by seniorfellows (frequently in cooperation with foreign scholars), and policy research with specific goals.

(3) The Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) should finance the development of high-Ievel manpower, the production of machinery and equipment replacing foreign-made items and thespecialization of research centers.

b) Creating a Fund for Development of Private School Education

Funds should be created to lend financial assistance to private schools to help them improveeducation quality (The Ministry of Education, and the Economic Planning Board).

2) Inducing Private Funds for Education

Because of limits of funding from the public sources in the uneasy Korean situation where thesouth is pitted against the north, it is inevitable to rely on the private sector to increase financial input.The largest possible part of the financial requirement for education reform should be met by publicsources, and the remaining should be met by the private sector. In view of the unique enthusiasm ofKoreans for education, the private sector is expected to fulfill a significant portion of the financialrequirement if conditions are made favorable to investment in education. The ways to pump up theresources of the private sector are diverse. Apart from contributions from donors and the tuition fee tobe paid by beneficiaries, opening a special account for national universities deserves consideration.

a. Inducing Donations

It is also highly recommended to create a university development fund to provide thenecessary money with nominal interest to the colleges and universities for their various improvements.This fund may be supported by Government, or strictly by private sources. In the last few years, fairlylarge amounts of donations, from both individuals and corporations, have been given to highereducation institutions, with or without conditions. For those donations, it is quite reasonable to exempttaxes. If so, there will be, in the future, a considerable amount of donations from industry, alumniassociations, and other sources. A mental climate of donations for higher learning should he stimulatedamong the Korean public. Along with it, university administrators, both national and private, should putmore time and efforts into fired raising activities from now on.

Also, parents should be given an active role in education, and measures should be taken toencourage their donations, particularly for private schools; the discriminatory treatment of donationsfavouring public against private schools should be corrected.(The Ministry of Education, the Economic Planning Board, the Ministry of Finance).

Another way to encourage donations for private schools is to rectify the discriminatorytreatment of donations between public and private schools. Donations for public schools are exemptedentirely from taxation, whereas limits are set to the tax exemption of donations for private schools. Inthe latter case, a certain percentage of the donation is subject to exemption from tax. The partialexemption is manifested by limiting donations in terms of the maximum percentage of income or total

70


capital. 10 percent is set against the income and 2 percent against the capital invested. The biasedtreatment of private schools in taxation is based on the principle that the properties of a school areprivately owned and yield benefits. It should be noticed that private schools are not so much the

properties of private ownership, purported to make profits. Rather a private school is an entity sewingthe same public good just, as public schools serve on behalf of the government. Now that they areserving the same function, equal treatment of donations is in order, irrespective of the ownership ofschools.

Fair management of donations prevents problems associated with misuse, such asconversion into commercial purposes. It may be effected by public accountability and by specifyingusage, say for the construction of buildings, scholarships, library expansion, etc., and by socialrecognition and appropriate treatment of donors.

Also, I believe that the time has come to implement college entrance by donation which hasbeen discussed sporadically. It is a superior way to secure funds which will contribute to the overallenhancement of the quality of education. Egalitarian and populist ways of thinking and action on thepart of the government and general public has to be reoriented to the ethos of industrially advancedcountries. The Government and the general public have been maintaining a stance to see to it that alleligible boys and girls should not be excluded from the opportunity to enjoy college and university justfor reason of the economic conditions of their parents.

This kind of egalitarian populism has brought about the explosion of college student enrolment,the limit of which was maintained only by the facility capacities of campuses. This is also responsible forprohibition of private donations connected with special grants of admission, a practice in use in theindustrially advanced countries. The opening of this venue becomes a topic of serious discussion in thecoming years. There must be found ways and means to institute admission donations without violatingthe popular sentiment of egalitarianism.

b. Determing Tuition Fees

The determination of tuition fees, even for private schools, is now under strict control by theGovernment due to fears of its profound impact on the living cost of people in general. The government‘s control not only undermines the autonomy of private schools but aggravates their financial status inthe virtual absence of true subsidies from the government. For these reasons, private schools areinferior to public schools in physical conditions. This kind of inequity has an adverse impact on teachermorale and performance and on education quality in the long run.

Granting autonomy to private schools in matters related to tuition and other fees will enablethem to improve their debt payment, and their education quality and accountability. It will inspirecompetition among private schools, which in turn will direct their efforts toward improving educationalpractices. In other words, autonomy dramatically activates their potential for self-renewal. By havingmore of the cost of education borne by its beneficiaries who can truly afford to pay, the cost of educationis spread more equitably, and more scholarships can be provided for bright and needy students.

Granting autonomy in determining tuition fees enables private universities to enhance thequality of programs, and put an end to the tendency to avoid natural sciences and engineering due tothe currently controlled, identical tuition fee for all students. It will reduce the gap between national andprivate universities. In the long run, autonomy will end a lot of discrimination and go a long way towardbringing into being a balanced development of higher education.

7. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the major problems faced by higher education in Korea stem from theinsufficiency and inefficiency of financing appropriate to the advanced level of higher education. Thepaper has looked into the phenomenon and causes of the problems, and tried to suggest some of the

71


measures deemed necessary to solve them at both the government level and public level. Thesuggestion is not an affirmative promise of confidence of success, but an expression of a view as to theeffectiveness of possible alternatives. The author only wishes that this presentation serves at least as abasis of serious discussion in exploring ways and means to improve the quality of higher education inKorea through better financing arrangements.

On the other hand, the confessional action asked of the government is to provide necessarylegal administrative measures to help the smooth business operation of private educational foundations.Liberalization of tax law regulations so that outside private donors to foundations can be given specialtreatment in impositon of capital gain tax, is included in this category.

The time has come to tap the resources of the private sector of society. Ways to increasecontributions and donations are considered here in the context of reducing the burden on students. Inthe case of celebrated private universities overseas, donations account for 30 percent of the annual totalrequirement. The enthusiasm of Koreans for education, which is unparalleled anywhere in the westernworld, augurs for the possibility of drawing on private sources also. Some hold a negative view ofrelying too much on the private sector in fear of its vicious side-effects of expecting unreasonablefavours. Viewed in a broad perspective, however, it has positive factors which outshine negativeeffects.

It was found that there are always conflicting opinions or interests on every policy. Forexample, quantity vs. quality; pure research vs. applied research ; equity vs. compensational; highereducation vs. common education, senior college vs. junior college; national universities vs. private ones;metropolitan institutions vs. rural institutions; and so on. Many splendid “reforms” in the past failedbecause they were introduced without proper understanding or preparation. Autonomy which we haveadvocated so much needs considerable preparation. Autonomy without self-evaluation, self-control, orself-renewal may bring chaos, or even disaster. Certainly, we should treasure this precious autonomywith a great sense of responsibility and self-respect.

The present control mechanism of government in strict imposition of a uniform scale of tuitionfees, regardless of the nature and kind of education provided to students, and uniform distribution ofexpenditure for the support of students and activities and scholarship grants, is only aggravating therigidity of financial management and the suppression of self-help initiatives. The up-grading of thequality of higher education is closely connected with improved financial structures coupled with greaterfinancial flexibility. The growing societal democratization as a gradual expansion of the private sectors’role vis-a-vis governmental control is a priority issue of the country. The greater autonomy of financialmanagement in the realm of higher education constitutes an important element of societaldemocratization, a trend one can only resist at the risk of swimming against the current of history.

72


Dato Nuraizah bt. Abdul Hamid

INTRODUCTION

1. It is universally accepted that education plays a pivotal role not only in the development of anindividual but also in providing human resources critical to the development of a nation. InMalaysia, education has always been given importance and high priority and it will remain asthe key vehicle to determine and sustain the nation’s success and progress in the years ahead.Efforts in education will continue to focus on producing well-balanced citizens capable ofcontributing effectively towards the development of a harmonious, united and just society.This holistic approach to education is reflected in the National Education Philosophy whichstates that:

“Education in Malaysia is an on-going effort towards further developing the potential ofindividuals in a holistic and integrated manner, so as to produce individuals who areintellectually, spiritually, emotionally and physically balanced and harmonious, based on afirm belief in and devotion to God. Such an effort is designed to produce Malaysians whoare knowledgeable and competent, who possess high moral standards, and who areresponsible and capable of achieving a high level of personal well-being as well as beingable to contribute to the harmony and betterment of the society and the nation at large”.

2. Higher education* in Malaysia provides the apex to the national education system. Thus, adiscussion on the position and future development of private higher education institutions inMalaysia must be carried out in the context of this system.

BACKGROUND ON HIGHER EDUCATION IN MALAYSIA

3.

Public Sector Institutions for Higher Education

Higher education in Malaysia has traditionally been a public sector enterprise. Although theEducation Act 1961 allows for the setting up of private schools and colleges, to date only publicsector universities are allowed to function in the country. Currently, nine such universities havebeen established :

(I)(II)(Ill)(IV)(V)(VI)(VII)(VIII)(lX)

University of Malaya.National University of Malaysia.University of Science, Malaysia.University of Agriculture, Malaysia.University of Technology, Malaysia,The Northern University, Malaysia,The International Islamic University, Malaysia.University of Malaysia, Sarawak.University of Malaysia, Sabah.

* Higher education in Malaysia is a term used to mainly refer to post-secondary education leading to the award of

certificates, diplomas and degrees. In this paper, the term incorporates university, colleges, teacher training collegesand polytechnics.

73


4. In addition, the Institute of Technology MARA (lTM), offers courses leading to awards ofDiploma and Advanced Diploma equivalent to General and Honors Degrees. Altogether, theuniversities and ITM provide only about 112,000 places for courses of study at the first degreelevel.

5. To date, 33 Teacher Training Colleges have been setup all over the country to provide teachertraining courses for teachers entering the Education Service in the public sector, Thesecolleges provide about 35,000 places for enrolment in their training programmes annually.

6. The government has established a total of 7 polytechnics to provide for courses of study inmainly technical and engineering fields at the sub-professional level. However, one of theseinstitutions was converted, in 1993, into a Polytechnic Staff Training Centre to produce about1,000 future staff, with post-graduate Diploma, Degree and Masters by 1999, for four newPolytechnics which are in the process of being built, At present, the 6 remaining polytechnicsprovide an annual enrolment of about 15,500 students, The four new polytechnics will addfurther to this number once they are in operation.

7. The Tunku Abdul Rahman College was setup as a private institution. However, since itreceives an annual grant from the Malaysian Government, it is managed in accordance withcertain terms and conditions specified by the Government. This college provides about 8,000places of study areas pertaining mainly to finance, commerce and accountancy.

Private Institutions of Higher Education

8. The last ten years or so have seen a proliferation in the establishment of private colleges.The number now registered with the Ministry of Education is 271 institutions with an annualenrolment of more than 41,000 students.

9. The registration and conduct of private education institutions are provided for, mainly, by theEducation Act 1961. The Act stipulates that all educational institutions operating in Malaysiaare required to get the approval of the Chief Registrar of Schools and Teachers in the Ministryof Education. Terms and conditions for registration and management of such institutions arespecified in Appendix 1.

10. Most private colleges operate through companies or societies (please refer to Appendix 2).Thus, the companies or societies are registered with the Registrar of Companies or Societieswhilst the educational institution itself is registered with the Ministry of Education.

The Chief Registrar is empowered through the Education Act 1961 and the Essential (HigherEducation Institution) Regulation 1969, to take action against any private educational institutionwhich does not comply with the terms and conditions specified for registration. The lack ofspecific provisions in the present legislation has enabled private colleges to sign agreementswith private universities to conduct courses jointly leading to the award of degrees by theseuniversities, thus circumventing the present rule to disallow the establishment of foreignuniversities in the country. Such agreements allow for twinning, linkage and AdvancedStanding programmes to be carried out. The records show that there are now about 175programmes or courses in private colleges linked to foreign universities.

11. There are three categories of students who choose to join private colleges:

(I) those who fail to gain admission into local public universities;(II) those who are offered places in local universities but not in areas of study of

their choice;(Ill) those who prefer to do their higher education in the English Language

(the local public universities are required to conduct their courses mainly in theNational Language, Bahasa Malaysia).

74


Students in Higher Education Institutions Overseas

12. Malaysia has, for many years, been depending on higher education institutions overseas as asolution for the lack of capacity in the local institutions. Currently, it is estimated that about80,000 Malaysian students are studying abroad and spending a total of about RM 2 billion perannum on foreign education. Out of the total number involved, about 5,000 are sent annuallyon government sponsorship or through scholarships offered by government corporations andState Governments.

PRESENT STATUS OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

The proliferation of private institutions of higher education referred to earlier is quite a newphenomenon. It reflects an obvious change in the government’s stance towards private highereducation from one of firm containment in the seventies to one of controlled development in theeighties and the early nineties. This change can be attributed to several factors.

Rapid Economic Growth

Structural change in the national economy which began in the seventies is expected to continueand there are already positive indicators that national economic growth will be even more rapidin the period leading to the year 2000. Rate of annual growth of at least 8.5 % is quite a safeforecast for the period 1995-2000.

The prospect of maintaining and sustaining growth at a high and consistent rate to retain acompetitive edge at the international level is linked closely with the national capacity in humanresource development. A strategy for accelerated industrialization to fulfill the target ofbecoming a fully developed industrialized nation by the year 2020 as envisaged in Vision 2020,requires, among other things, a drastic increase in skilled manpower particularly inmanagement, professional, technical as well as research and development areas. The SecondOutline Perspective Plan (1991-2000) has already estimated an increase in demand for about153,000 engineers and technical assistants in the period 1991-2000.

Thus, in the next five years, the higher education system, as the link to the employment market,has to be the major player. Since the role of the public sector institutions is limited by their lackin capacity, private institutions for higher education have to play a supplementary andcomplementary role. This has become even more important in the face of rising costs ofstudying abroad to students and parents as well as to public sector sponsors, The governmenttoo has to be concerned with the increasing loss in foreign exchange.

Trend Towards Mass Higher Education

Like other countries in the region, Malaysia has reached a critical cross-roads in thedevelopment of its higher education programme, that is, the shift from an elite to mass highereducation. In 1993, the total number of students pursuing higher education in local institutionsand overseas was estimated at 232,100 or 13.4% of the 19-24 years cohort. In the forseablefuture, the number wishing for access in a programme for higher education is expected toincrease enormously. Among others, this is the result of:

(i) the policy on democratization of education at all levels;(ii) the social demand and rising expectation, especially from adult scholars and

those already working;(iii) easier access to higher education through educational facilities off-campus

and through distance education; and(iv) expansion of private higher education institutions and facilities.

75


18. At the same time, the Government has expressed its intention to reduce, in stages, the

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

sending of sponsored students for undergraduate level study to institutions overseas. Thus,the challenge facing those who formulate policies and others who manage institutions ofhigher education is to provide the capacity (including physical facilities and academic staff) tofulfill the demand which will be expected to increase tremendously in the years leading to andbeyond 2000.

Financing Higher Education

On average 30% of the development budget of the Ministry of Education is spent on theprogramme for higher education. The trend indicates that government expenditure on highereducation will continue to increase. Between 1986-1993, for example, the developmentallocation increased from RM 259.83 million to RM 470.43 million. In the same period, theoperating budget rose from RM 637.59 million to RM 999.29 million.

Studies have shown that Malaysian Government expenditure in the education sector is thehighest among the ASEAN countries. Yet, in relative terms, enrolment at the diploma and firstdegree level in public sector institutions is the lowest, that is, only about 4.3 % in 1990. It hasalso been observed that the cost to build, equip and maintain each higher education institutionrequires a big financial outlay. Should there be a constraint in increasing the overall allocationto the Ministry in support of this, there is a distinct possibility that this may encroach on theallocation required for public sector primary and secondary education.

With competing demands for public sector finance, allocations for higher education cannotcontinue to be an increasing burden to the government.

Higher Education as an Export Commodity

Besides responding to the local demand for higher education, it is also the governments’declared intention to turn higher education into a service industry as well as a commoditycapable of being exported. This move is further supported by the objective of making Malaysiaa centre of excellence for higher education at the regional and international levels.

In this connection, the challenge posed is the ability to attract students, academicians andresearchers of repute - whether to undertake studies, to teach or to conduct research - in thelocal institutions of higher education.

Policy on Private Higher Education

It has become clear that to achieve and sustain intensive growth of the national economy aswell as maintain a competitive edge in the international market, Malaysia needs to develophuman resources that are skilled and relevant in fulfilling the demands of industrial developmentin the country, especially in achieving the targets of Vision 2020. Since the capacity ofinstitutions of higher education in the public sector is limited, private higher education institutionsplay an important role in contributing towards these needs. Thus, it has become necessary tonot only allow the development but also to promote the growth and establishment of privateinstitutions of higher education to an optimum and productive level. However, by optimumgrowth and expansion, it means that these institutions must be in consonance with actualdemand and supply of national human resource requirements as well as specified controlmechanisms so as to be in line with the national education policy and interests of the nation asa whole. ‘Productive’ expansion refers to the quality of their product, areas of study which arerelevant as well as an effective delivery system. In short, the growth and expansion of privatehigher education institutions must be able to contribute towards building a Malaysian nation thatis united, progressive and resilient as envisaged in Vision 2020.

76


25. Thus, the basic policies with regard to private higher education institutions must be fine-tunedand carefully implemented. There cannot be uncontrolled growth and expansion. There mustbe productive regulation. Standards have to be institutionalised. There cannot be’ a proliferationof small, non-viable institutions which could bring a negative impact on the quality of highereducation in Malaysia.

26. In view of the above, it has become imperative for private higher education institutions to begiven their proper place in the national education system. This would also be in tandem with theconcept of Malaysia Incorporated and the shift towards a private sector-led economic growth.Higher education is ready to be regarded as an industry as well as an export commodity thuscontributing also to the government policy on internationalization of education and makingMalaysia a centre for educational excellence.

PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

While a shift in the policy on private higher education has become evident, it has not totallyremoved problems and issues relevant to this new development. Should these problems andissues continue to exist, the operation and expansion of private institutions of higher educationmay not bring about the positive impact desired.

Legal and Enforcement Issues

The current Education and Higher Education Acts are still restrictive to the development ofprivate higher education in the country. Private institutions are still not authorised to conferdegrees; they are restricted to diploma courses and degrees conferred by foreign universitiesthrough the twinning programmes. Thus, in order to promote and encourage the private sector toplay an active role in developing the nation’s educational potential, it would be necessary toundertake a review of the relevant Acts.

Given the variety of practices and the recent proliferation of private colleges offering differentprogrammes, a mechanism must also be devised to consider all licensing and monitoringaspects of private colleges and other institutions of higher education to ensure quality andviability of their programmes and resources. Such a mechanism should also be able to monitorgrowth and development of private institutions of higher education so that they are consistentwith the policies and programmes for higher education in the public sector.

Issue of Certification and Accreditation

Certification and recognition of certificates, diplomas and degrees by the government or thePublic Service Department and by the professional bodies are different. The recognition ofdegrees and diplomas obtained was originally important as an entry point into the public servicein the respective salary scales. The private sector then takes it as a guideline in formulatingtheir own salary scales. It is, however, at the levels of basic degree and above that thequestion of recognition by government becomes important and critical. Those at the technicaland vocational levels are less urgent because the private sector is, basically, the mainemployer.

Currently, diplomas and certificates awarded by most of the local private colleges are notrecognised by the government. In order to provide an incentive to the future development ofprivate institutions of higher education, this issue needs careful review. This review should takeinto account the need to control the quality and standard of private institutions as well as to cutcosts in terms of training through the public sector, leaving this task to private educationalinstitutions.

77


32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

The Issue of Quality and Relevance

It is clear that there has to be an improvement in the quality of present private sector highereducation and standards must be ensured in the future.

In terms of relevance, it is also essential that the tendency for the private sector to naturallyprovide courses that require less capital investments and lower operational costs will need to beaddressed. This becomes even more imperative in view of the massive growth needed inskilled manpower in the science, engineering and technological areas in the years ahead.Thus, private higher education institutions must be able to contribute to this escalating demandfor skilled manpower which also has the capacity to adapt and be retrained in an environment ofremarkable and rapid changes and advances in technology.

Issue of Social Justice

It is of critical importance that the growth and expansion of private higher education in Malaysiawill not impact negatively on the objective of social justice of Vision 2020. Thus, the feesimposed, the structure of studies, the management profile and the operational policies of suchinstitutions should in no way discourage access to any specific groups of the population.

In the context of democratization of education, it becomes the moral obligation of theseinstitutions to take into account the individual right of every Malaysian to opportunities foreducation as well as a basic human right for self-development.

It is also important that private higher education institutions, like their counterparts in the publicsector, contribute as fully as is reasonable, to the social ends specified in Vision 2020, that is,the creation of:(a) a united Malaysian nation;(b) a psychologically liberated, secure and developed Malaysian people with faith and

confidence in itself;(c) a mature, consensual, community-oriented Malaysian democracy;(d) a fully moral and ethical society:(e) a matured, liberal and tolerant society;(f) a scientific and progressive society; and(9) a fully caring society.

It is certainly not acceptable for a course in higher education to be completed without theinstilling of some basic social values, whether-this be in the curricular or extra-curricularexperience. A higher education institution, be it public or private, cannot operate as a factorymass-producing through a process that is bereft of social content and education.

FUTURE DIRECTION

38. In the words of our Prime Minister “Malaysia has one of the best educational systems in theThird World. But for the journey that we must make over our second generation, new standardshave to be set and new results achieved.” In line with this thinking, the Ministry of Educationhas committed itself to the mission of providing world class education, the achievement of whichrequires new direction and policy shifts both in the public and private sectors of education.Malaysia has reached a critical stage in the development of its higher education, especially tomeet the challenges of the 21st century. In the light of the government budgetary constraintsand the high demand for higher education, the policy of the government is to encourage theprivate sector to take an active role in education by supplementing and complementing thegovernment’s efforts. In the spirit of Malaysia Incorporated, the vast resources available in theprivate sector would be tapped to contribute rapidly to the realisation of making Malaysia acentre of educational excellence at the regional and international levels.

78


39. As a Centre of excellence, Malaysia should maintain its reputation of having excellent quality ofeducation and this challenge is achievable with the following policy directions:

(a) A much more liberal attitude towards education can be achieved through legislation.The 1961 Education Act is now being amended to make it more relevant to the needs ofthe current and future scenario. Another Act, specially tailored for private highereducation institutions is also being drafted. Among other things, the act is to cater forthe establishment of private universities and the branches of foreign universities in thiscountry.

(b) In our pursuit of educational excellence, the Government of Malaysia has acceptededucation as an industry. Today, education is fast becoming a commodity with its ownsupply and demand mechanism and should therefore be very marketable at a cheapercost without compromising quality standards. However, unlike other industries, oureducation philosophy is base on competitive growth with responsibility and social equity.

(c) To be a centre of excellence, teaching must be efficiently delivered by professionals whoare well qualified and equipped with the most recent and innovative teaching methodsand aids. To monitor and maintain the efficiency and quality in education, there is a planto establish a National Accreditation Board. This government machinery will ensureconstant surveillance and adequate supervision of all higher educational institutions.The Board will also be entrusted with matters of recognition of the qualifications offeredby the private higher educational institutions. However, ideally, in the long run theseinstitutions should carry out their internal auditing voluntarily.

(d) The Ministry of Education is now actively proposing to establish a National HigherEducation Council (NHEC). This Council will plan strategies and formulate policiespertaining to higher education. The Council will also oversee the development of highereducation in both private and public institutions as well as to evaluate the progress of thehigher education system in ensuring better quality of education.

(e) To assume the role of a regional centre of excellence in education, Malaysia needs tobuild a national image and, at the same time, must be prepared to adopt andaccommodate some international elements. Malaysia must, therefore, continue tostrengthen its national identity by continuously promoting the teaching of BahasaMalaysia, the national language. In order to maintain its competitiveness internationally,the teaching of other languages such as English, Chinese, Arabic, French and the likemust also be promoted.

(f) Corporatisation of public universities is one strategy taken by the Ministry of Education tobe in line with the government’s aspirations to make Malaysia a regional center foreducational excellence. By adopting this strategy, universities will be more autonomousand commercialised in their management. With this change, universities can stillmaintain their status as non-profit oriented organisations. By optimizing their efforts,particularly in respect of their financial assets and staff management, universities canmeet the challenges of being centers of excellence academically and in research anddevelopment.

(9) Expansion in education, especially higher education, includes exploitation of distancelearning strategies. With the latest modern technology available, Malaysia will havemuch more flexible and accessible education and training opportunities through thedistance learning mode. The public universities are already geared towards this changeand are embracing everything from computers to video conferencing and satellitecommunications. It is foreseen that education in the future will be taken directly into thehome or work place thus providing more opportunities for a life-long education.

79


(h) If private education is considered an important complement to public institutions, it isnecessary to consider some form of financial support or incentives to provide for anorderly development of private institutions for higher education. First, it may bereasonable that the government consider giving incentives to private colleges that areproviding technical education. This is in consideration of the fact that the setting up oftechnical colleges can be very capital-intensive ventures in terms of equipment andIaboratory. Second, consideration could also be given to giving some form of taxexemption to such institutions.

CONCLUSION

40. By way of summing up, it is seen that Malaysia is undergoing a massive policy shift in the fieldof higher education. The new direction is intended to address the critical issues in Malaysianhigher education and promises good prospects for the proposed new role of Malaysia becominga regional center of excellence in education. This vision can only be realised through activeparticipation of both the public and private sectors as providers of education in the various fieldsand levels. However, its success depends on the extent of their commitment to maintainquality standards and their ability to promote higher education regionally and internationally.The task before us is enormous and extremely challenging. However, there is firmdetermination and commitment to achieve our desired educational goals of producingMalaysians of our own mould who are skilled and resilient yet imbued with good moral values.They must be able to contribute towards our national aspiration of transforming Malaysia into afully developed and industrialised nation by the year 2020.

80


APPENDIX 1

Establishment of Private Schools or Educational Institutions in Malaysia

1. Legal Provisions

The conduct of education in Malaysia is governed by the provisions of three legal documentsas well as rules and regulations made thereunder. They are:

1.1 The Education Act 19611.2 The Essential (Higher Educational Institution) Regulations 19611.3 The University and University College Act 1961

2. Current Policies

2.1

2.2

2.3

2.4

2.5

Wholly owned by Malaysians, with at least 40% Bumiputra equity. If justifiable, amaximum of 20% foreign equity is allowable.

There must be a property setup and responsible management team comprising ofqualified and experienced Malaysians.

The applicant must be able to submit proof of their capability and suitability to conductthe courses of studies in respect of teaching staff, facilities and curricula to ensurequality education.

Courses offered must meet the national aspirations of Malaysia and current manpowerrequirements.

Collaborative programmes with foreign institutions and universities are allowable.They must:

2.5.1 be offered in a mode of delivery approvable by the Malaysian Ministry of Education

2.5.2 courses conducted must be of quality and the qualifications offered must berecognised by the Malaysian Government.

3. Submission of Applications

3.1 Applicants must prepare and submit a proposal paper outlining the details as requiredby the Ministry of Education. Guidelines for the proposal paper are available at theDivision. The paper must be submitted to the address given below.

3.2 A school or educational institution can only function fully after it has obtained the fullwritten consent of the Minister of Education and has been registered under theEducation Act 1961.

3.3 Any changes made thereafter in respect of the conditions of approval and registrationcan only be made by the Ministry of Education on application.

81


Registration of Schools and Teachers DivisionMinistry of Education MalaysiaLevel I Block KDamansara Town Centre50604 Kuala LumpurMALAYSIA

Tel : 03-253-4671Fax : 03-253-5463

APPENDIX 2

Private Institutions of Higher Education

Private Institutions of Higher Education can be setup by:

(a) individual entrepreneurs;

(b) partnership arrangements comprising of 2-3 individuals;

(c) a company incorporated in Malaysia;

(d) a consortium of companies incorporated in Malaysia;

(e) multi-national companies e.g. Sunway College Ltd., Land and General, etc.;

(f) Foundations e.g. Selangor Foundation, Perak Foundation,MARA Educational Foundation etc.;

(g) Government Corporations e.g. PETRONAS, Telecoms Malaysia, Tenaga National etc.;

(h) Societies or non profit or charitable organizations e.g. La Salle Brothers, MethodistChurch etc.

82


B. Erdenesuren

While the populace of Mongolia is in the midst of social and political change, theeducational community is experiencing this, also. At the center of this educational transition is agroup of post-secondary institutions making an effort to establish themselves as independentestablishments. These private institutions share a concern for successful economic transition;they share a concern for the improvement and fortification of the Mongolian educational system.Though these schools are experiencing great progress, the promise of support to them granted bythe government of Mongolia, while being generous in theory, is being neglected, and these privateinstitutions feel that with active state support their contribution can be increased drastically.

The democratization of Mongolia has enabled the establishment of private, post-secondary schools. In only four years private, post-secondary schools have made a measurablecontribution to the Mongolian educational system. Presently, there are thirty-six in Mongolia.These schools employ fifteen percent of Mongolian teachers; twenty-four percent of Mongolian,post-secondary students are being educated in private establishments. The number of studentapplicants exceeds this percentage, and it is growing steadily, These private institutions providetraining in business administration, the social sciences, the multi-media, and traditional medicine,Additionally, teachers of various subjects are being trained (including those of Asian and Europeanlanguages). These schools are, indeed, playing an essential role in the development of theMongolian educational system,

The independence of these private schools increases their benefit further. Because oftheir financial independence, the ability of these schools to attract faculty staff is enhanced;currently, the teacher employment rate is stable. Methodological development consistent withcurrent Western methodology is being adopted, rapidly, as bureaucratic deficiencies areimmaterial appreciably, (Taking the aforementioned assertions into account, preparatory work forthe privatization of some state schools is occurring).

In the last two years, relations between foreign countries and Mongolian, private, post-secondary schools have developed. To the present, approximately one hundred twenty studentsand twelve teachers of these institutions have studied abroad. Now, there are approximately fiftyforeign teachers in private universities building methodological developmental capacity in variousdisciplines.

Currently, the state imposes strict control over private, post-secondary institutions. TheMinistry of Education and Science grants permission to form private, post-secondary establishments.The Ministry of Education and Science assumes active intervention based upon the statutory lawsregulating the entire Mongolian educational system adopted by the Great Hural in July, 1995.According to the stipulations of educational statutory law, all forms of property in the educationalcommunity are equal. The State should support private schools as they strengthen themselves on amaterial resource basis and prepare skilled teachers. Before the Ministry of Education and Sciencewill grant permission to organize, it will exercise intense scrutiny regarding a particular school’sprospective real estate, training materials, and teachers. The Ministry of Education and Scienceapproves a private, post-secondary school’s curriculum and appoints the director of that school.These statutory directives were adopted to aid and alleviate the urgent problem of raising theMongolia educational system up to the world standard. Failure to do so will prevent Mongolia fromdeveloping competitively with other countries.

83


If the Mongolian government will engender rational policies to develop private schools,then the results will prove favorable; however, the government, failing to consider the output andefficiency of private, post-secondary institutions, pays more attention to state schools, and oldmethodology (administrative and curricular), still predominates.

Supporting private schools until they are able to compete with state schools will providethem the opportunity to develop their own method of activity. As state schools have receivedgovernment sponsorship for many years; as their expenses have long been the responsibility ofthe government; as the majority of assistance from donor countries is allocated to state schools;as state orders for request training is granted primarily to state schools, their developmentalresources are sufficient. Though governmental directives state that private schools and stateschools shall be supported equally without making distinctions between forms of property, but onlyaccording to their activity, this is not happening. Because Mongolia is a small country with pooreconomic potential, it cannot support all educational establishments financially, but if it will grantequal consideration to private schools on a short-term basis, then the state’s financial burden canbe diminished as private schools improve their economic position and academic quality.

They are several ways to remedy the situation. If the government will allow state andprivate schools to compete equally for state orders of request training for the education ofspecialists, then the academic quality of private schools will improve. When these orders aregranted, financial support (allocated according to the size of the order), accompanies them. Thegovernment should divide assistance from donor countries, fairly, among state and privateschools, In this way private, post-secondary schools will be able to attain necessary materialsmore easily. Mongolian, private schools should receive government support to develop andmaintain mutually beneficial relations with private schools and their associations in Asian andPacific countries. These relations include student and teacher exchange programs, exchange oftangible resources, and development of international joint-research projects. Immediatecooperation in these areas of concern will streamline methodological development, ease financialburdens, and enhance the proficiency levels of those specialists in their respective fields.

84


Private Higher Education Institutions in Mongolia, 1995.

Names of the institutes

1. The Mongolian Business Institute2. The Mongol Medleg Institute3. The Institute of Mongolian National Sports4. The Otgontenger Institute5. The Otoch Maaramba Institute6. The Shihihutug Institute7. The Orhon Institute8. The Onol Institute9. The Institute of Oriental Studies and Philosophy

10. The Tsog Institute11. The Mandakh Institute12. The Ikh Shavi Institute13. The Tsagaan Lavai14. The European Languages Institute15. The Institute of Mongolian Language16. The Gurvan-Endene Institute17. The Gobi Institute18. The Ireedui Institute19. The Khan Khuhii Institute20. The Bers Institute21. The Shinjeech-XXl Institute22. The Institute of Mongolian National Philology23. The Institute of Business24. The Ouyu Institute25. The Khan-Uul Institute26. The Ider Institute27. The Tenger Institute28. The Gazarchin Institute29. The Natural Research Institute30. The Institute Hartsaga31. The Institute of Designers32. The Institute of Mongolian Buddists33. The Setgemj Institute34. The Institute of Literature35. The Institute of Traveling Management36. The University of Oriental Studies and Literature

Total

Number ofstudents

150265365465

3085

450198110500328170150290360402141100170

8619019067645538384056839276

1055746

102

6114

Number ofteachers

158

1827

65

3258

16111512111414

58

1489855566847

382

116

345

85


Hon. Mona D. Valisno

FOREWORD

Keeping abreast in the global village in terms of high-quality and globally competitivehigher education is one challenging must. Comprehensive planning, a sense of priority andperhaps, refocusing of one country’s development efforts are but some essentials in upgradingand maintaining an excellent higher education system. In the Philippine context, becoming a“professional” is still such an alluring and prestigious phenomenon not unknown to most Filipinoparents as evidenced by the increasing influx of students in higher education institutions.

At present, the 1,185 higher education institutions, both public and private, that abound inthe Philippines is more than manageable for our supply of graduates. In fact, even at theinternational context, the country has had and continues to have, its share in human resourcesdevelopment and sharing. In 1994 alone, the Philippines’ net foreign exchange inflow ininternational labor market placements has reached over two billion U.S. Dollars.

This paper on “PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES: PERFORMANCEAND CHALLENGES IN THE 21st Century “ is an attempt at presenting an objective look at thepresent state of private higher education in the Philippines in the context of total higher educationdevelopment in the country and in the light of global concerns and realities.

INTRODUCTION

The Philippines has set as a bold goal the achievement of PHILIPPINES 2000-a strategicinitiative of President Ramos designed to empower the Filipino people and to enhance the country‘s global competitiveness. The Higher Education sector of the country is at the forefront of theseinitiatives - it being the main producer of the desired high-calibe manpower, scientists, andtechnologists.

In the end, through a much improved and responsive higher education system, we hopeto achieve a better quality of life for our people, accelerate economic growth, help propel andmaintain sustainable development through increasing initiatives in high-technology, high valueadded activities, and to spur greater employment opportunities for the country’s labor force.

The Commission on Higher Education in response to this challenge has adopted a plancalled --LONG-TERM PHILIPPINE HIGHER EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN. Thegeneral objective of the Philippine Higher Education Plan is to develop and employ a strategy thatwill fully harness human resources, especially in the leading edges of technology, to enable thePhilippines to fully realize its human resources potentials.

A. BRIEF HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The Philippine higher education system is a unique system: since its early beginnings, ithas been characterized by predominantly private sector initiatives, Today, the private schoolscomprise roughly 80% to 85% of the entire higher education system. No system in the world cancompare with the Philippine system of higher education. Its tremendous private-sector

86


participation ensures that the system constantly responds to the market demands not only locallybut also globally.

For almost three centuries since the early part of the 17th century, the higher educationsystem in the Philippines was in fact a private higher education system. It started during theSpanish period in the early 17th century with the establishment of the private-run University of St.Tomas by the Dominican friars in the City of Manila in 1611. This was followed by theestablishment of the University of San Ignacio, also in Manila and the University of San Carlos inCebu City. The Spaniards used these institutions as a means to Christianize the Filipinos.

Enrolment during this period was generally limited to the elite which consisted of theSpanish colonials, the rich Indies as the natives were then called, and the mestizos, the offspringof mixed marriages between Spaniards and Indies. This situation remained fairly stable both interms of the number of institutions and enrolment until the end of the 19th century.

At the turn of the 20th century, the Americans occupied the country and introduced theirsystem of education. This was the start of the establishment of several public higher educationinstitutions. The most notable of which is the University of the Philippines (UP) and the PhilippineNormal University (PNU). This time, higher education aimed at the democratization of thePhilippines according to American patterns, with emphasis on self-government, propagation of theEnglish language, promotion of the dignity of labor, and the initiation of mass education as thebase of an enlightened citizenry.

During the brief Japanese occupation (1942-1 945), the educational policies centeredalong nationalism and nationalistic ways of life. The schools heeding the call for reopening wereplaced under strict surveillance by the Japanese Military Administration.

After the war, however, the American system of education, especially of higher education,was reestablished in the country and has prevailed up to the present. Modifications andadaptations, though, have been instituted in the higher education system to make it moreresponsive to the present and future needs of the country.

B. CONSTITUTIONAL - LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Philippine educational system, until recently, was under the monolithic supervision ofthe Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS). However, by virtue of the passage ofRepublic Act 7722, otherwise known as the HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1994, the supervisionof higher education institutions, both public and private, was vested upon the COMMISSION ONHIGHER EDUCATION.

Thus, the 1987 Constitution and Republic Act 7722 (An Act Creating the Commission onHigher Education, Appropriating Funds Therefore and for Other Purposes) mandate thefollowing:

1. The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to affordable qualityeducation at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.

2. The establishment, maintenance and support of a complete, adequate and integratedsystem of education relevant to the needs of the people and society.

3. The recognition of the complementary roles of public and private institutions in theeducational system.

4. The promotion and protection of academic freedom and the observance for thecontinuing intellectual growth, and education of high-level and middle-level professionals.

87


State supported institutions of higher learning shall gear their programs to national,regional or local development plans. Finally, all institutions of higher learning shall exemplifythrough their physical and national surroundings the dignity and beauty of, as well as their pride in,intellectual and scholarly life,

Section 3 (2) Article XIV of the Constitution set the broad aims of education, viz: “They [alleducational institutions] shall inculcate patriotism and nationalism, foster love of humanity, respectfor human rights, appreciation of the role of national heroes in the historical development of thecountry, teach the rights and duties of citizenship, strengthen ethical and spiritual values, developmoral character and personal discipline, encourage critical and creative thinking, broadenscientific and technological knowledge, and promote vocational efficiency.”

Moreover, the Education Act of 1982 (Batas Pambansa Big. 232), in Section 4, Chapter 2,Part I of said law narrows down still further the goals of higher education by stating that theeducational system shall aim to:

1. Provide for a broad general education that will assist each individual, in thepeculiar ecology of his own society, to (a) attain his potentials as a humanbeing; (b) enhance the range and quality of individual and group participationin the basic functions of society; and (c) acquire the essential educationalfoundation of his development into a productive and versatile citizen;

2. Train the nation’s manpower in the middle-level skills required for nationaldevelopment;

3. Develop the professions that will provide leadership for the nation in theadvancement of knowledge for improving the quality of human life; and

4. Respond effectively to changing needs and conditions of the nation through asystem of educational planning and evaluation.

And Section 23, Chapter 1, Part II of the same BP 232 specifies the objectives of highereducation thus:

1. To provide a general education program that will promote national identity,cultural consciousness, moral integrity and spiritual vigor;

2. To train the nation’s manpower in the skills required for national development;

3. To develop the professions that will provide leadership for the nation; and

4. To advance knowledge through research work and apply new knowledge forimproving the quality of human life and responding effectively to changingsocietal needs and conditions.

In the Philippines, public tertiary institutions are established by legislation while privateschools are established either through Act No. 2706, the Private Education Law, as amended, orBatas Pambansa No. 232, and incorporated as educational institutions under Act No. 1459, theCorporation Law as amended. However, the private HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS canoperate only after securing an authority from the COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION in theform of a temporary permit or recognition to offer specific tertiary courses.

88


C. REFORMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION: PAST INITIATIVES

The EDCOM Study Report

The Philippines through the Congressional Commission Education conducted a study onthe Philippine education system (EDCOM). EDCOM was tasked to review and assess the formalschools at all levels, including graduate education, among others.

What did they find ?

The EDCOM report revealed, amongst other things, that: the quality of Philippineeducation is declining considerably; the elementary and high schools are failing to teach thecompetence an average citizen needs to become responsible, productive and self-fulfilling;colleges and technical/vocational schools are not producing the manpower required to develop theeconomy; graduate education is mediocre and does not generate the research- based knowledgenecessary to create more jobs and to raise the value of production.

The decline was attributed primarily to two principal reasons:

(a) Under-investment in education; and(b) Poorly-managed schools.

The problem could have been solved simply by throwing more money, by way ofinvestments, into the educational system to address the above-cited problems but the PhilippineGovernment is currently on a tight financial fix to provide adequate funding to develop all levels ofeducation. The best thing to do according to the EDCOM report is to extract more efficiency andmore productivity from both the education budget and the education establishment.

Therefore, EDCOM, recommends the restructuring of the DECS to ensure that programfocus is clear, resources are allocated rationally, and plans are realistic and attainable. Hence, forbetter planning, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of education and training of highereducation, the Commission proposed the creation of a National Council for Education. TheCouncil is tasked to assess Philippine education periodically in order to make it more effective andresponsive.

Thus, on May 18, 1994, R.A. No. 7722 or the Higher Education Act of 1994, created theCommission on Higher Education (CHED), a cabinet or department/ministry level agency of thegovernment, 93 years after the establishment of the Philippine educational system. CHED isattached to the Office of the President for administrative purposes. It covers both public andprivate higher education institutions (HEIs) as well as degree granting programs in all public andprivate post-secondary schools.

The separation of higher education concerns from the DECS manifests the critical rolethat higher education plays in the national development equation. Consequently, CHED ismandated to undertake the following tasks:

1. Promote quality education;2. Take appropriate steps to ensure that education shall be accessible to all; and3. Ensure and protect academic freedom for the continuing intellectual growth, the

advancement of learning and research, the development of responsible and effectiveleadership, the education of high level professionals, and the enrichment of historicaland cultural heritage.

At present, CHED sees to it that all HEIs participate in the improvement of quality andrelevance of higher education through a collegial process.

89


Number of Private Higher Education Institutions

At present, CHED oversees a total of 1,185 HEIs, about 80 percent (or 950) of which areprivately owned (Refer to Table 1- Distribution of HEIs by Region and Sector), strategicallydistributed in 15 regions of the country composed of more than 7,000 islands. It is obvious thatthe major feature of the higher education system in the Philippines is its heavy reliance on theprivate sector.

Enrolment

Enrolment in the 1,185 HEIs reached 1.7-MILLION in SY 1994-1995 in more than 6,000undergraduate and graduate programs. Of the 1.7 M enrollees, 1.3 M or about 78 percent are inthe private institutions. (See Table 2 - Enrolment by region and by sector - SY 1994-1995). Thissupports the above contention that higher education in the Philippines can be characterized as aprivately-run enterprise. Enrolment, however, is lopsided and is high only in some tertiary coursessuch as commerce/business, medicine and health-related areas and engineering and technology.[Refer to Table 3 - Enrolment by Program (Public and Private) SY 1994-1995].

D. HIGHER EDUCATION PHILOSOPHY, VISION AND STATUS

1. National Development Framework

(a) Medium-Term Development Plans

The 1993-1998 Philippine Medium-Term Development Plan clearly enunciates that inpursuit of a BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE for all Filipinos, the strategy of human development shallseek to attain the following goals :

1) To enable the majority of the population to meet their basic minimum needs;2) To provide focused basic services to the more disadvantaged sectors at a level which

shall allow them to manage and control their resources as well as benefit from developmentalinterventions;

3) To harness the productive capacity of the country’s human resource base towardinternational competitiveness.

(b) Philippines 2000

Global excellence! This is the vision and aspiration that President Ramos has set out forthe country to attain at the turn of the 21st century. Philippines 2000 promises to bring thecountry into a newly industrialized country status by the year 2000.

The key thrusts of this vision revolve in achieving global competitiveness andempowerment of the people. As reiterated by the President in his state-of-the-nation address(SONA) last July 25, 1994, he said that the end goal of the country must be to secure equity forthe poorest among us, particularly the basic amenities of life and to enable the Filipino to develophis or her potentials to their maximum limits. In line with this, he has also mentioned that the keyreform is to give the ordinary individual an inherent stake in the system-- the opportunity to ownand mange an honest livelihood and thus, win his DESTINY. Indeed, people empowerment in thetrue sense.

Relevant to the thrust of higher education is the Presidents’s pronouncements on theimperatives of upgrading the country’s science and technology manpower capability. The need toproduce more competent scientists and engineers and the continued fast-tracking of theimprovement of science and technology foundations of young Filipinos appear to be key

90


ingredients in the institution building and human capital enhancement goals of our developmentefforts.

(c) Sectoral Development Framework

The various stakeholders of higher education during the plan period shall be configured tosupport the realization of Philippines 2000 through the education and training of globally-competitive manpower and world-class managers that would advance the frontiers of economicdevelopment in the Philippines, primarily through accelerating growth in science, technology andengineering.

The primary concerns of policy in higher education shall be the provision of better qualityeducation, the development of appropriate manpower for national development and theintensification of research and extension services.

To support these concerns, the main thrusts shall be to achieve quality, equity, efficiency,relevance and excellence in all higher education institutions both in State Colleges andUniversities (SCUs) and the private schools.

E. STATE OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

1. Higher Education in General

Where are we now?

The myriad issues confronting higher education today and those of the past appear tohave remained the same as shown by the findings of both the Presidential Commission to SurveyPhilippine Education (PCSPE) conducted in 1969 and the recent Congressional Commission onEducation (EDCOM). The problems have not changed. They have only increased in magnitudeand have become more complex.

For the past two decades since the 70’s, higher education seemingly failed to live up tothe national expectation in providing quality education and training that would match therequirements of the continuously changing and developing national economy. It is currentlyargued that the policies that were drawn up in the 70’s and the 80’s have created adverse effectson the outputs of tertiary education. Enrolment in higher education for instance has not beeneffectively directed for disciplines deemed necessary for national development. Traditionalcourses in commerce, arts and letters have been producing the largest segments of completers.Institutions of higher education have continuously offered courses in these areas, leading tounnecessary and wasteful duplication of program offerings, thus resulting in an acute imbalance ofgraduates by disciplines. This is exacerbated by the fact that in most instances, the quality ofoutputs of higher education institutions leaves much to be desired. The oversupply of graduatesin certain disciplines led to the cheapening of the market value of graduates. For most graduates,unemployment after collegiate life became their stark reality. Unemployment, underemploymentand misemployment have persisted. Accompanying this national problem is the increasingexodus of trained and\or educated human resources, in search of opportunities outside thecountry.

The problems higher education in the Philippines need to address to enable itself to meetthe requirements of the economy in its search for NIChood call for urgent and permanentsolutions. In pursuit of this program of restructuring, and consistent with the specific aimsabovementioned, in September 1993, the Philippine Task Force on Higher Education wasorganized to review Higher Education with the objective of producing implementation plans for theimprovement of higher education in the Philippines. Problems and strengths of the presentsystem were analyzed and recommendations and appropriate strategies have been drawn up that

91


would give new life to higher education. (Dr. Josephine Hykin, H.E. Specialist from the WorldBank provided some technical advice during the initial phase of the project.)

Specifically, this task force has focused on systematic studies on the following areas ofconcern:

a. policy making, planning and programming which include governance andrationalization of state colleges and universities;

b. quality and relevance which include comparability/ equivalence andaccreditation; and,

c. internal and external efficiencies.

The results of these studies would form the integral parts of the baseline document forpreparing the national plan for improving higher education in the Philippines.

The Education Commission or EDCOM for short, after two years of extensive nationwideconsultations with different sectors identified critical areas for development. While appropriateenabling legislations are well advanced, the translation of the various proposals/strategies intofeasible and implementable plans, still remains to be addressed.

2. Private Higher Education: Government Policies and Interventions

a) Establishment

Private schools are established in accordance with law, duly authorized to operateeducational courses by CHED, supported and maintained principally through tuition and otherstudent fees, and owned and administered by a private person or a corporation. These schoolsare classified either as sectarian or non-sectarian colleges and universities. Sectarian schoolsare usually non-stock, non-profit institutions. Non-sectarian schools are owned by privatecorporations which are not affiliated to any religious organization. More of which are stock and afew are non-stock, non-profit corporations while a number are foundations.

(b) Admission Requirements

Private schools have their own admission and screening procedures. However,courses like dentistry, doctor of medicine, and law have specific general requirements imposed byCHED. For instance, students who have successfully completed a two-year pre-dental educationand who wish to continue in dentistry proper should get a certificate of eligibility to enter dentistry.Medical education, as a second degree, requires students to finish a four-year baccalaureatedegree course, pass the National Medical Admission Test (NMAT) and have a certificate ofeligibility for admission to the medicine proper. Similarly, legal education requires would bestudents to finish a four-year baccalaureate degree course and to present a certificate of eligibilityfor law (CEL).

(c) School Calendar

The academic year consists of not less than 36 weeks, or 18 weeks a semester ofnormally 6 school days each, exclusive of approved vacations and including registration days,legal and special holidays, and days for special activities. The total number of days in whichregular school sessions are held is not less than 200 or 100 each semester. The summer term forcollegiate courses consists of 6 weeks. A number of colleges and universities such as De LaSalle University (DLSU) offer trimestral terms in a school year.

92


(d) Language of lnstruction

CHED has adopted the policy of bilingualism. Bilingual education is definedoperationally as the separate use of Filipino and English as the medium of instruction in specificsubjects. English, however, remains the medium of instruction in all colleges and universities inthe country. The comparative advantage of the Philippines, relative to the other Asian countries,remains in its proficiency in the use of English as a medium, not only in the confines of the schoolsbut in almost every aspect of the Filipinos’ lives.

(e) Governance of Private Schools

Governance may be defined as control and regulation by authority. In thePhilippines, the CHED has jurisdiction over all institutions of higher learning offering tertiary degreeprograms. This includes both public and private schools and even degree-granting programs in allpost-secondary educational institutions. Also covered herein are all the State Colleges andUniversities (SUCs) numbering 97 with 88 campuses. As per CHED’s mandate, the “Chairman ofthe commission shall serve as Chairman of the Governing Boards of SCUs until such time as theirexisting charters are revised”. However, this notwithstanding, there seems to exist a dualisticapproach in the governance of private and public higher education institutions. While all thepolicies, rules and standards that CHED issue apply to all the private schools and CHED-supervised schools, the SUCs are essentially left alone to pursue their own independent agenda inactual practice. A private school has to apply for a permit to open a course and has to apply forrecognition to graduate its students. The system of education in the country requires that programofferings should be recognized by the government before students enroll in a program. In order toaward this authority, it has to follow the requirements prescribed in specific policies and standardsper program.

A private school experiences some measure of freedom only when it reachesLevel Ill in accreditation. It can then initiate reforms in its curricular offerings without the need forCHED approval. Accreditation is being done by external private accrediting bodies to measure thequality of school’s programs. Usually the school initiates the request for accreditation. But thiscan be done only after the school’s tertiary programs are duly recognized by CHED.

(f) Financing Private Higher Education

The national government contributes to the financial support of educationalprograms pursuant to the goals of education as declared in the Philippine Constitution. Towardsthis end, the government shall (1) adopt measures to broaden access to education throughfinancial assistance and other forms of incentives to schools, teachers, pupils and students; and(2) encourage and stimulate private support to education through, among others, fiscal and otherassistance measures.

Private schools may be funded from their capital investments or equitydistributions, tuition fees, and other school fees or charges, grants, donations, loans, subsidies,passive investment income, and other sources. However, any private school may receive anygrant and legacy, donation, gift, bequest or devise from any individual, institution, corporation,foundation, trust, philanthropic organization and research institution or organization.

Private schools may also engage in any auxiliary enterprise to generate incomeprimarily to finance their educational operations and/or reduce the need to increase student’s fees.

(9) incentives to Private Higher Education

In line with the policy of the Government to provide ample support to the privatesector, CHED gives indirect assistance to private HEIs as a way to open windows of opportunitiesfor them to improve the quality of their tertiary program offerings through the provision ofscholarships and study grants, viz:

93


(1) State Scholarship Program (SSP). This scholarship program in operation since1969 by virtue of R.A. 4090 provides for state scholarship in science, arts and lettersfor “poor but deserving Filipino students” The state scholars pursue higher educationleading to diversified baccalaureate degrees considered as priority courses in line withcurrent national development needs.

(2) Private Education Student Financial Assistance Program (PESFA).This program extends assistance exclusively to students in private colleges anduniversities. The program is designed to correct the bias currently prevailing in mostscholarship programs which tend to benefit more the students from the upper andmiddle economic classes rather than those in the lowest bracket.

(3) Study Now Pay Later Plan (SNPLP). This program extends loans to the poor butdeserving students to finance their school fees and other expenses. The loan is to bepaid after a period of 10 years for degree courses and 5 years for non-degreecourses.

(4) National Integration Study Grant Program (NISGP). This provides that the studygrants be provided to deserving members of the cultural communities throughsystematic selection of graduates to appropriate courses in line with their aptitudesand manpower needs of their communities.

(5) Selected Ethnic Group Educational Assistance Program (SEGEAP). Thisprogram provides educational opportunities to qualified and deserving members ofnon-Muslim cultural communities (hill tribes) with leadership potentials who are in aposition to help their people in the upliftment of their socio-economic conditions.

(6) Study Grant for Rebel-Returnees Under National Reconciliation andDevelopment Program. This special program affords to the provisions ofPresidential Memorandum Or. No. 697. It is in line with the policy of the nationalgovernment to ensure a lasting and peaceful settlement of the conflict in the SouthernPhilippines and other troubled areas through a build-up of a politically, economicallyand socially stable citizenry.

(7) College Faculty Development Fund (CFDF). This program started in 1991 and wasdesigned to improve the quality of teaching in priority courses by providing deservingfaculty members from private HEIs some assistance to pursue graduate educationthrough scholarship grants.

As an added incentive, private schools are exempted from import duties forinstructional/science equipment, books and other instructional materials to support their programofferings.

3. Quality Control Through Accreditation

One good strategy currently being employed in the Philippines in order to ensurequality and relevance of higher education programs is through accreditation. Accreditation isviewed as a mechanism through which institutions voluntarily pursue educational quality throughself-evaluation and peer visitation. CHED encourages accreditation by giving schools greaterindependence in curriculum development and the setting of tuition fees, However, the incentiveon fee setting is no longer relevant since tuition fees have very recently been deregulated startingSY 1993.

A school’s accredited status is valuable information to students and employers for itestablishes its academic standard. However, relatively few colleges and universities have taken

94


advantage of the benefits of accreditation. Of the 1,185 colleges and universities offering scoresof fields, only 295 programs in 100 institutions have been accredited. Of these, 212 have beengranted reaccredited status (Level Ill) while 83 are in the process of getting accredited (Level 1) orare acquiring accreditation for the first time (Level II), The accredited programs are predominantlyin commerce, education, and liberal arts, which are offered by private sectarian schools. Sixty-five percent of the reaccredited programs are in Catholic institutions.

The Sub-Task Force on Accreditation found that accreditation processes havesignificantly helped improve the quality of the accredited schools. The improvement is clearlyevident in the review and monitoring processes the accrediting bodies have undertaken. It istherefore unfortunate that only a small minority of schools have taken advantage of accreditation.

The obstacles to accreditation appear to be mainly organizational in nature and partlydue to lack of incentives. Currently, there are four accrediting bodies that are based oninstitutional affiliation. Each caters to its own group: the Catholic schools have the PhilippineAccrediting Association of Schools Colleges and Universities (PAASCU); the non- sectarianschools have the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities-Commission on Accreditation(PACU-COA); the other religious institutions have the Association of Christian Schools andColleges-Accrediting Agency, Inc. (ACSA-AAI); and the SUCs their own accrediting body theAssociation of Accrediting Agencies for State Colleges and Universities (AAASCU). While theFederation of Accrediting Agencies of the Philippines (FAAP) coordinates these differentaccrediting bodies, it has no clout to press schools to get accredited. The incentives currentlybeing provided by appropriate government agencies are insignificant. In the same way thatminimum academic standards have been weakly enforced, accreditation has not been pushedadequately, The SUCs are not governed by minimum standards and there is no policy toencourage them to obtain accreditation. Therefore the information value of accreditation (forstudents and employers) has not been effectively utilized.

4. A Quality Assurance System

One of the most basic rationale for the creation of CHED is the EDCOM’s findings onthe deteriorating quality of graduates which immediately translates to the quality of highereducation institutions. In a series of World Bank-funded studies (1988, 1992, 1995), the sameconcerns were raised to immediately provide for effective intervention measures to arrest thistrend in higher education.

Around 50 percent of the concerns of higher education rests on Quality issues, whilethe remaining 50 percent may be divided equally on Access, Equity, and Relevance issues.

Understandably, this root problem on quality ripples through a whole gamut ofconcerns for higher education: proliferation of substandard schools, inequitable distribution ofresources, mismatch between skills learned in schools and skills needed by industries, etc.

F. CHALLENGES AND PROBLEMS OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

1. In General

Numerous studies and researches by economists and higher education scholars, bothhere and abroad, have time and again confirmed the fact that the degree of economicadvancement of a country is largely dependent on the level of science and technology that is builtinto the existing material and human infrastructure of that country, and the technical know-how ofthe labor force and the quality of the productive organizational machinery of the economy.

The implications of the projected economic transformation during the next two decades onthe education sector pose greater challenges for the higher education system, because it is

95


primarily the bridge between the world of education and the world of work. The fundamental issueis whether the current system is sufficient as to meet the challenges of the 1990s and the early 21st century, or whether there is a need for a major rethinking and restructuring of the highereducation system.

The current higher education system can possibly be characterized by the following:(1) it is relatively open and accessible, (2) it is relatively cheap, (3) to some degree, it is dependentupon the inter-play of market forces, (4) the quality of higher education outputs is not consistentlygood, (5) there is proliferation of sub-standard educational programs and institutions, and (6)apparently, there is under-investment in higher education, in general.

The Philippine educational system has been largely influenced by the American system ofwidespread public education and wide access to higher education. Because the Philippines ispoor and has limited budgetary resources, wide access to higher education found implementationthrough the provision of higher education by private sectarian and non-sectarian schools relativelycheaply and preponderantly of low quality. Cheaper fees and quality deterioration mean thathigher education has become more accessible.

The preponderantly private character of the higher education system, together with its lowcost and low quality, suggests that the colleges hue themselves close to the demands of the freemarket, that is, there is flexibility in course offerings so that courses are expanded or trimmeddown depending upon student demands and developments in the labor market. The recentupsurge of enrollments in computer and nursing courses and the relative decline in enrolment ineconomics and accounting are manifestations of the flexibility of the private higher educationsystem in meeting perceived demands in the labor market.

It can even be argued that the deterioration in the quality of higher education during theprevious two decades reflects in part the adjustment of the educational sector to the qualitydemands of the labor market. More specifically, the import substitution and domestic orientationcharacter of the industrial development strategy during the 1960s and 1970s demanded largelyeasily-trainable college graduates who were then provided with the needed technical training inthe companies. In effect, college graduates were recruited primarily for their general educationrather than for their technical education. The general findings of the HELMS studies that collegegraduates get gobs within a year and that there is salary and queuing premium to qualityeducation (e.g., University of the Philippines) suggest that the oft-lamented mismatch betweeneducation preparation and job requirements may not have been serious after all.

In view of these circumstances, the higher education sector must continually revitalizeitself and must persistently review its systems and procedures to adapt to the quantum changesdictated by development efforts by the turn of the century.

2. Problems of Higher Education

The following are the problems besetting private HEIs in the Philippines:

(a) Organizational Inertia

Private schools development hardly depends on students’ patronage and supportsfrom benefactors and friends. Proceeds, from which, however, are barely enough to cope withadvancement in information technology, The rising “sunrise enterprises” need specific skills whichschools are hardly able to comply with.

(b) Under-investment in Education

Many of the problems in education today may it be public or private can be traced tounder-investment in education. If the demand for education is of normal price elasticity, it is

96


expected that higher tuition cost would discourage many from enrolment into a college of loweracademic quality.

Hence, diploma mills would be priced out of the school system. If private schools are notderegulated unless they are Level Ill accredited, then schools cannot adjust tuition fees to theircorrect levels needed to promote greater efficiency in delivery of educational services.

(c) Lack of internal market analysis

Current occupational codes have no clear categories for jobs required by “sunrise”industries, such as those found in biotechnology, computer-related fields, nautical marineengineering and sciences, health sciences and the like. It is important to ask whether or not theschool system is ready for these types of industries,

(d) Lack of efficient and effective monitoring and evacuation system

The lack of an efficient and effective monitoring and evaluation system has resulted inthe deterioration of the quality of tertiary programs and institutions since comparability in terms ofacademic standards and quality of graduates between and among the HEIs has become verydifficult to maintain.

(e) Lack of harmony wilh employment policies

This uncoordinated situation hampers the development of matching the needs ofindustry and graduates produced by schools.

G. MEASURES AND REFORMS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

In general, the primary concern of and orientation of higher education policies must begeared at the optimization of the contribution of higher education outputs and delivery systems tothe goals of national development. In short, higher education policies must continue to impact onthe following key ingredients for human capital formation and total human development :

1. Attainment of enhanced labor-market productivity of higher education products/professionals.

2. Social development through research leadership and creative work.3. Promotion of social justice and equity,4. Total individual personal development.5. Promotion of a culture of excellence.

Along this framework, the inter-relationship of government policies, laws, rules andregulations, other support mechanisms as well as the intellectual values of institutions of higherlearning vis-a-vis the above key ingredients must converge at a balance somewhere such that asymbiotic effect is achieved for the greater good of the Filipino people.

H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED REFORMS AND POLICY INTERVENTIONS

1. Provision for Higher Education Development Fund

CHED has the mandate to establish and maintain a fund called Higher EducationDevelopment Fund (HEDF) in order to support its development initiatives. The HEDF wasdesigned exclusively for the strengthening of higher education in the country. It has a seedcapital of $20M to be sourced from the Bases Conversion Plan of the government; $2M fromPAGCOR (Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation); $35M from the proceeds of the sale

97


of Fort Bonifacio property; $20M from the 40 percent Travel Tax; $19M from the 30 percent shareof professional fee collection of the Professional Regulation Commission; $1 M from the 1 percentLotto operation. About P 870B is required to cover the full-time salary of grantees and thesalaries of the substitute teachers under the College Faculty Development Fund program whichserves as a counterpart of the private HEIs to the government’s financial assistance to privateeducation,

2. Creation of Centers of Excellence

Given the finite and limited resources of the government, it is not possible to assist allthe 1,185 HE Is. Therefore, the government can only afford to assist a few promising ones but atthe same time, strategize the assistance so that “ripple effect” through the other institutions maybe obtained.

3. Establishing QUALITY Assurance System (QAS)

QAS aims to develop in CHED a systematic and effective system of measuring andassessing quality as well as describing the conditions by which quality education may be achievedin order to better allocate resources through:

a) Institutional and program quality assessment involving staff training on measurement,research on cost of quality education, evolution of instruments, and mechanics/operationalization of assessment strategies;

b) Quality teaching and staff development which include higher education staffdevelopment, measurement of teaching competencies and recertification/renewal ofprofessional license; and

c) Assessment of educational outcomes by assessing graduate performance in theboard examinations, skills proficiency and other competencies, establishment of adatabase on market demands and placement.

In order to achieve these objectives, the program/project will revolve around the followingdimensions:

Dimension 1: Institutional and Program Quality Assessment

This refers to the dimension of evolving a Philippine concept of quality and qualityassessment. In particular, the following sets of activities will be undertaken under this dimension:development of materials for quality assessment, training of staff on assessment and measurement,identification of quality assessors. Moreover, the dimension will also develop a Resource AllocationScheme which can be used by all higher education institutions in the calculation of cost per studentper program as budgetary benchmarks as well as by CHED in the distribution of the highereducation development fund.

Dimension 2: Quality Teaching

This Project Dimension involves a systematic review and assessment of the capabilities ofthe faculty and personnel of higher education institutions for the purpose of developing a HigherEducation Staff Development Program similar to the ones implemented in the United Kingdom.This dimension also involves in-service training and aspects of continuing professional education.


Dimension 3: Assessment of Educational Outcomes

This dimension is a very essential component for determining the progress of the country’shigher education system. The educational outcomes will be measured on the basis of establishedboard examinations, market demands, and placement analysis.

99


SUCs(8.2%)

Distribution of HEIs by TypeAs of October 1995

CGED Supervised Community College

(9.3%) (2.4%)

RlVATE(80.2%)

Distribution of HEIs by SectorAs of October 1995

PUBLIC (19.8%)

PRIVATE (80.2%)

Enrolment by SectorSchool Year 1994-1995

PUBLIC 21.6%

PRIVATE 78.4%

100


300

280

260

240

220

200

180

60

40

20

0

Enrolment by Sector School Year 1994-1995Distribution of HEIs by Region and by Sector, School Year 1994-1995

I

102



1. BACKGROUND

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Private higher education in Thailand can be classified mainly into 2 groups as follows:

(a) Post-secondary technical, vocational and agricultural programs offering anequivalent program to associate degree which are under the supervision of theMinistry of Education.

(b) Full undergraduate and graduate degree programs are offerred in privateinstitutions under the Ministry of University Affairs (MUA) and under the legalframework of Private Higher Education Act 1979 (Revised 1992).

The private sector or an individual wishing to invest in higher education provisionmust apply for a license from the MUA. Once licensed the institution becomes alegal entity operating under the policy guidelines of the institution’s council and themanagement of appointed executive, or in other words, the president of theuniversity or college.

The institutions are allowed freedom in organizational management and can set theirown fees. In addition, incomes of the institution are tax exempted with duty free forimported instructional equipment. There are no direct subsidies from the governmentto fund the operation of the private universities.

In 1995, there were 31 licensed private universities and colleges enrolling a totalnumber of 159,349 students, and employing 5,622 full-time teaching staff. Annualnew student admission is 59,173 and graduates total 22,420.

2. PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION ACT 1979 (REVISED 1992)

2.1

2.2

2.3

The Private Higher Education Act superseded the former “Private College Act 1969”when all the private colleges were allowed to offer only associate degree programsand were then under the supervision of the Ministry of Education.

Contents of the law comprise an introductory and eight sections which are:

1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)

the establishment and administration of private higher education institutions;Private Higher Education Board;operation of private higher education institutions;credentials and symbolic representations;accounting and assets;control of private higher education institutions;abdication or transfer of the business; and,penalties (see details in Annex 1)

This law was revised in 1992 in order to recognize the strength and stability of privateuniversities and colleges in the provision of higher education. The revised version ofthe law reflects allowance of flexibility and freedom in the operation of private

103


universities and colleges. A number of control measures have been lifted includingthe ceiling on tuition fees collected from the students. More autonomy has beenauthorized to the university administration such as appointment of teaching staff,consideration and appointment of academic position and title, and so on.

3. PROCESS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE HIGHEREDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

3.1 Mechanism to appraise and approve establishment project at the MUA are set at3 levels as shown in Chart 1.

3.2 First stage, the project proposal is processed at the Bureau of Private HigherEducation (BOPHE) which serves as coordinating agency to perform an advisoryfunction for the interested public and also to serve as secretariat to the EstablishmentScreening Committee (ESC) and the Private Higher Education Board (PHEB).BOPHE officers will appraise the proposed project and submit comments for ESC’sconsideration and approval,

3.3 The Establishment Screening Committee (ESC) comprises a top MUA executive aschairman with members who are experts from relevant areas of specialization suchas renowned educators, architects, accountants, lawyers, and representation of theprivate universities/colleges community. The ESC will appraise the proposed projectat greater length and more depth to make sure that administrative, physical,academic, staff and financial plans are all synchronized and feasible before reachingthe conclusion to approve the project.

3.4 The Private Higher Education Board (PHEB) is a larger body at policy level composedof experts from relevant areas of specialization, representation from related nationaldevelopment planning agencies, from private business and industry, and from theprivate universities colleges community. PHEB meets regularly once a month todirect and oversee improvement of private higher education of the country.

3.5 When the proposed establishment project has received the PHEB’s blessing,recommendations will be submitted to the Minister of University Affairs forendorsement and for his signature on the license.

3.6 The approved project document will then become a binding legal document which theMUA will use as a basis for further monitoring and evaluation of the institutionsperformance. The details contained in the project documents appear in the attachedAnnex II.

4. MECHANISM AND PROCESS TO APPROVE ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

4.1 After obtaining an establishment license, the institution normally works on drafting theacademic programs simultaneously with physical construction undertakings. Eachacademic program to be offered must be approved by the MUA. The normal processusually takes no more than 3 months. The process to approve the academicprogram is shown in Chart Il.

4.2 The Ministry of University Affairs through the Private Higher Education Board setuprequirements for approving programs of study offered in private higher educationinstitutions in accordance with Article 15 and Article 48 respectively of Private HigherEducation Act (revised 1992) as follows:

104


4.3 Any institution can offer any programs of study only after the approval by the PrivateHigher Education Board. The requirements to be considered for the approval aredivided into two parts: curriculum and the readiness in program management.

4.4 Among the requirements of the curriculum structure are the number of credits forbachelor degree programs which are designed between 120-150 credits on thecondition that it consists of at least 30 credits for general education coursesintegrating social sciences, humanity, language and mathematics, and at least 90credits for specialized courses plus at least 3-6 credits for free electives.

4.5 Readiness in curriculum management. The requirements needed areas follows:

(a) Faculty and staff (for bachelor degree program), there should beat least threefull-time instructors with at least one of them holding a Master degree in thesame field of study program to be offered. In addition, the ratio of faculty andstudents are strictly considered, based on MUA standards set for varying fieldsof study.

(b) Library, texts and other facilities such as buildings, equipment, lecture rooms,laboratories (language and science) are also strictly required.

5. PROCESS FOR PROGRAM ACCREDITATION

5.1 The institution implements the academic program as approved by the MUA, Externalexamination is applied to monitor the quality aspects of the program. Every semester, anappointed External Examination Committee (3 appointed by the institution and 2 by theMUA) will examine the test items of all subjects in each program to make sure that theyare relevant to the course outlines and that grading practices are of general standard.The reports of the External Examination Committee will be used as inputs foraccreditation to take place during the third or fourth year of the program.

5.2 At least one academic year after the academic programs mentioned have been approvedabove or about 2 years before awarding the degree, the institution has to submit theapplication for the programs accreditation. The requirements to be considered are alongthe same basis as those of the application for approving academic programs. TheCommittee of experts in the specialization will appraise the on-going program against theproposed plan along with inputs from the External Examination Committee, interviews ofstaff and students, and a site visit. The Committee then recommends approval to theBoard. Finally, programs will be accredited by the Minister with the recommendation forapproval by the Private Higher Education Board.

5.3 The mechanism and procedures to accredit the academic program is shown in Chart Ill.

105


(Clarificationsif necessary)

I

MinisterMinistry of University Affairs

(endorsement) k

1 (5)

Private Higher Education Board(final approval)

I (4)

1

Establishment Screening Committee(initial approval)

(3)

I I

II Appraised & Analyzed initially byBureau of Private Higher Education, MUA.

(6)

Chart I : Application Process for Establishment of Private Higher EducationInstitution

1 * Proposal to establish a new college/institute/university.2 * Proposal to change the status of an institution (from a college or an institute

to become a university)

106


(Clarificationsif necessary) I

—


I (endorsement)I (5)

~

Private Higher Education Board

(4)

1 Committees on Programmes of Study andAccreditation in related fields

(initial approval)

1-

(3)

,

Appraised and Analyzed byBureau of Private Higher Education

MUA

T(2)

(1)Private Higher k

Education Permanent SecretaryInstitution 4 for University Affairs.

(7)

(6)

1+Chart II : Process to Approve Academic Program

107



k1 I

?

(5)

Private Higher Education Board

I (4)

> Committee on Programs of~ ~ Study and Accreditation in

I related fields

Examined & Analyzed byb Bureau of Private Higher>

Education, MUA,

Private Higher (1)EducationInstitution *

(7)

(6)

Permanent Secretary

L

Office of the CivilOffice of the Permanent Service Commission

Secretary for University Affairs for EmploymentPurpose

Chart III : Accreditation Process

** Additional step to seek official validation for the purpose of placing graduatesat the appropriate salary scale at the entering point of employment.

108


Thanu Kulachol

1. BACKGROUND

1.1 Historical Development

Education in Thailand may be traced as far back as the reign of King Ramkhamhaeng whoinvented the Thai alphabet in 1283 and had inscription stones made in 1292. In the beginning,education in Thailand was essentially for boys. Girls were trained only to be housewives; if they wereto learn how to read and write, they would know just enough to read drug labels. In the olden times,Buddhist Monasteries served as the center of education. The abbot was the headmaster and othermonks were instructors. The method of learning was mainly through memorization.

Modern Thailand began with the reign of King Mongkut, who ruled from 1851-1868. Thechildren of King Mongkut were educated by the British governess Anna Leonowens, whose storywas the basis of the novel, Anna and the King of Siam, the book on which the play, the King and Iwas based. However, the first school of modern times in Thailand was founded in 1871 by KingChulalongkorn, King Mongkut’s son, in the royal palace to teach children of royalty and governmentofficials. In 1887 King Chulalongkorn established a department of education whose status he raisedto that of a ministry in 1892.

The first of the modern institutions of higher learning was Chulalongkorn University,established in 1916, under the royal guidance of King Vajiravudh who was King Chulalongkorn’s son,

Eighteen years later, in 1934, Thammasat University emerged as the second publicuniversity, preceding the establishment of Mahidol University, Kasetsart University and SilpakornUniversity in 1943. All these early-stage institutions were established in Bangkok. Not until 1964 didThailand have its first provincial public university, namely Chiangmai University in ChiangmaiProvince. The second of this kind was Khon Khaen University established in 1965 in the province ofKhon Khaen.

Interestingly enough, in 1966, the government resumed the development of Bangkok byinitiating the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA), which offered only graduatestudies. Later, in 1968, came the third provincial public higher education institution, Prince ofSongkhla University, in Songkhla province. Before 1969, when private higher education institutionscould play an active role in society, the Thai government had not allowed the private sector toestablish a college or university. The authority to provide higher learning was monopolized by thegovernment. However, the idea of private participation in higher learning was taken intoconsideration as early as in 1910, in the reign of King Vajiravudh. Attempts to form a private highereducation body were later made, in 1941 and from 1948 to 1949, with the major support of foreignresidents in the country but without success. Besides, in 1955, then Member of Parliament, TimPhuriphat, failed to obtain the approval of the House of Representatives upon his proposed Act toestablish private higher education institutions. This is because during that time the government gaveonly the arrangement of pre-higher learning education to the hands of the private sector.

The public demand for higher education increased to such a critical stage that the existingpublic universities, six in Bangkok and the other three in provincial areas, could not fulfill such a need.Each year, only less than 25 percent of applicants could be admitted. The unfortunate, yet able toafford a more expensive alternative, turned to studying abroad. Loss of national expenses wereestimated as very high, pressing hard on the government. Meanwhile, the private sector was actively

109


calling for legal authority to establish private higher education institutions to serve the country. Notwanting to violate the law, some private parties had to open similar institutions in the form ofvocational schools. Bangkok College was founded in 1962 as one of them.

Finally, on June 15, 1965, the Cabinet approved, in principle, the proposal for the privatesector to establish higher education institutions. However, not until February 21, 1969, was the Actpromulgated to allow the official existence of private higher education institutions in Thailand.

1.2 Early Development (1970 - 1976)

In 1970, the first six private colleges officially came into existence. Another five followedduring 1972-1976. All these colleges were overseen by the Ministry of Education during the earlyperiod, but later were in the hands of the National Council of Education, and finally the Ministry ofUniversity Affairs. In fact, at the early stage, the private colleges were not allowed to offer bachelor’sdegree programs but only a 2 to 3 year certificate curriculum as pilot projects. In 1971, thegovernment opened Ramkhamhang University, the first Open University. However, as expected, itfailed to cope with the increasing public demand for higher education.

Therefore, in the same year, the government decided to allow private colleges to offerbachelor’s degree programs according to the Private College Act B.E. 2512. This was on thecondition that the private institutions strictly conform to the standard-control measures set by thegovernment. Approved areas of studies were first limited to the fields needed for developing thecountry’s economy and human resources. This covered social science, law, and polytechnic, Later,pure science, medicine, humanities and engineering were added to the courses offered, to meet theincreasing demands of society.

The government set measures to control the standard of private colleges in the areas of thequality of graduates, instruction, evaluation procedures, the use of teaching language and otheraspects to ensure national security. Regarding management affairs, the government required thateach private college had a Board of Trustees, and a chief executive who was responsible for themanagement of the institutional affairs.

1.3 Modification Stage (1977 - 1981)

After assuming the official authority in organizing higher learning, private colleges had verymuch eased the government of the burden of developing the human resources of the country. ThePrivate College Act B.E. 2512 was amended and became the Private Higher Education Institution ActB.E. 2522 in 1979. Thus, the private sector was then encouraged to play a greater role in organizinghigher education.

In order to get permission to open a private college or a private university, the proposal mustinclude all necessary details together with supporting documents. At the same time, all curricula tobe offered would be scrutinized and institutional accreditation followed. Besides, there were somemodifications and readjustments in the controlling process which allowed each private highereducational institution to develop on its own capacity and readiness.

The government and private sectors, then, increased their cooperation in many ways.Particularly, the government turned to support the private institutions rather than to control theirdetailed operations. Both government and private sectors started to realize the importance ofworking and planning together to foster academic excellence, Anyway, many obstacles still existed,especially with regard to some laws and regulations which did not allow enough flexibility in theadministration of private colleges.

The shortage of higher learning institutions still prevailed, so in 1978 the governmentestablished Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University as an open university offering distant learningvia various media which provides a greater opportunity for the public to obtain higher education. At

110


that time, only two new private colleges were founded. Anyway, it is to be noted that the governmentextended permission to establish private universities apart from colleges, and to offer master’sdegree programs in addition to those at the bachelor’s level. Internal administration and facultystatus were also uplifted to the level held at the government institutions. Consequently, the privatecounterparts, being less bureaucratic, have progressed very rapidly and gained more publicrecognition and confidence, compared to their earlier condition.

1.4 Post-Modification Stage (1982 - 1991)

During this time, the government launched several policies providing for the development ofprivate higher education institutions. Particularly, the National Education Development Plan, Phase V(1982-1 986) indicated that “Each private higher education institution is encouraged to expand itscapacity to offer the fields of study, ready to grow under its circumstances. This is to let a privatehigher education institution share more responsibility of organizing particular fields of study it canaccommodate, at the maximum capacity; so that the government and private parties have theappropriate proportion in producing graduates in different fields. Also, ways and means of supportingan institution are to be clearly stated. ” Closer cooperation between the government and privateparties were promoted, accordingly.

The emphasis at that time was on the establishment of new private colleges as well as thestatus change from private college to university.

During the period of the National Education Development Plan, Phase V, nine new privatecolleges were founded, some in Bangkok and some in provincial areas, This helped minimize theshortage of higher learning institutions and better train the high-level human resources of the country,academically and professionally; most of all, to decentralize the educational opportunities nationwide.Another accomplishment was the granting of university status to some existing private colleges. In1984, the status of the first four institutions was changed to that of a university. Another one followedsuit in 1986.

In accordance with this, many regulations were revised and set to provide for academicexcellence. Concerns were, for instance, on the approval of new departments or schools in a privateinstitution and the standard control of such professional study as nursing education. Authorities andexperts from the private sector were included in the external examiner committees, which originallycontained members from the government sector only, The control system was also relaxed. As aresult, most courses offered in quality private institutions were officially accredited.

Private colleges and universities were increasingly recognized as entities meeting the publicdemand for higher learning, especially in provincial areas. The government, therefore, began toallocate a budget to support many projects concerning the development of private colleges anduniversities, in the area of academic improvement, administration and faculty development, researchand community services, including work camp projects by students.

The National Education Development Plan, Phase VI (1987-1991) stated that “Let closedadmission public universities adjust their direction and use all resources available to expand theirproduction quality and quantity-wise, in the fields of study conforming to the national policy indeveloping the country’s economy and industry. At the same time, the private sector is to beencouraged to take a larger share of national higher education development and to provide the pub/ita larger opportunity to receive higher education. ”

During the period of 1987-1991, three more private colleges were granted university status.Newly established were six private colleges, three in provincial areas which emphasized thedissemination of higher learning nationwide.

Later, the government eliminated a number of trivial control measures to make it moreconvenient for private institutions to operate at their best. Rather than controlling, the government

111


supervised and promoted collaboration among and between universities and colleges, public andprivate, domestic and overseas. Also encouraged was cooperation between the educationalinstitutions and the industrial sector.

1.5 Recent Development (1992 - 1996)

According to the National Education Development Plan, Phase Vll (1992-1996), thegovernment set a clear policy to support private higher education institutions. The policy stated that“Private higher education institutions will receive support with regard to the operations for thefulfilment of their missions, fund raising and other monetary incentives, personnel development aswell as freedom in academic administration to pursue excellent performance and be capable ofopening greater education opportunities for the pub/it”. To achieve this, the private sector was givenmore opportunities to take part in planning national economic and social development concerns.This brought about success not only in developing a particular private higher education institutionbut also in gaining more public recognition for the institutions.

In 1992, an unprecedented case emerged when the government approved theestablishment of a new private university without having to hold a college status first. Thegovernment also granted university status to another private college in the same year, The privatesector has taken more responsibilities in organizing higher learning, both in Bangkok and in provincialareas. In 1993, four private colleges, three of which are in provincial areas, were established. In1994, three private colleges were given university status, and one more private college was opened.In 1995, two more new private universities were established in the provincial areas. Many more areunder the consideration of the Ministry of University Affairs. Some of these are proposed to becolleges, others to be universities.

Presently, the highlight has been on the development of private higher education institutions,including the establishment of new universities and colleges, and the granting of university status toprivate colleges. Moreover, recently, many foreign universities such as those of the United States,England and Japan, have been very interested in forming their new campuses in Thailand. A numberhave a joint venture with local parties, trying to open new international universities in Thailand.(See Table 1 for chronological development of private higher education in Thailand.)

1.6 Number of Private Higher Education Institutions

The organization of higher learning in private institutions has been developed in both qualityand quantity under support from the government. Private higher education institutions with strongfinancial support and quality education have also been encouraged to take a greater part in highereducation. At the present time, there are altogether 32 private higher education institutions inThailand, 12 of which are under individual patronage, 8 under foundations, and 12 under businessorganizations and chambers of commerce. Sixteen of those 32 institutions hold university statuswhereas the other sixteen run as colleges.

In terms of location, 17 institutions are in Bangkok and 15 in provincial areas. All 32institutions offer programs ranging from the bachelor’s, master’s to doctoral degree levels, in differentfields of study. Private higher education institutions have proved themselves to be producers ofquality education for developing human resources of the country. This has been achieved underclose collaboration between the private sector and the Ministry of University Affairs through theoperation of the Association of Private Higher Education Institutions of Thailand. (See Table 2 for thename list of private higher education institutions and years founded.)

1.7 Proportion of Enrolment between Public and Private Higher EducationInstitutions

Records of 1995 showed that under the supervision of the Ministry of University Affairs,there are 32 private higher education institutions and 22 public institutions, 20 of which have a closed

112


admission system and two offer open admission. In 1995 the total enrolment of 28 privateinstitutions was 171,791; the other four were preparing for admission. Compared to the records ofclosed admission public institutions, 19 of them could accommodate 189,698 students; one waspreparing to admit students. The proportion of enrolment between closed admission public andprivate institutions was, therefore, 52.48:47.52.

As for the two public open universities, Ramkhamhaeng University and SukhothaiThammathirat Open University, qualified applicants do not have to sit for an entrance examination,In 1995, Ramkhaeng University had its total enrolment of 305,108, while Sukhothai ThammathiratOpen University had 218,475. (See Table 3 for the details of the enrolment)

It is to be noted that in 1995, the number of applicants registered for the National EntranceExamination to public closed admission universities was 140,515, whereas all public closedadmission institutions could accept only 33,048. Another 12,679 were admitted through particularmethods totalling 45,727, The remaining 107,467 had the choice to apply to private institutions,mostly requiring students to take their own entrance examinations. All the private institutions couldaccept altogether was 56,023. The non-selected then had another alternative, the two public openadmission universities which have unlimited admissions. Besides, there are also institutions underthe Ministry of Education and other Ministries.

2. PRESENT STATUS


In the past, the government policy apparently prohibited private participation in organizinghigher education for fear that the private sector could not organize quality education and that itinterfered with national security, and may take advantage of the opportunity. However, thegovernment was then forced by circumstances to include private sector participation.

Originally, private institutions were treated with great distrust. Rigid regulations wereenforced under close control of the government. Supports and incentives were very rare. Later,however, the rigidity was relaxed because the government and the public realized more and morethat private institutions could offer quality education.

To date, the government has a positive attitude towards private higher education institutions.The government has fully realized the importance of private higher education institutions,Consequently, it has set a policy to ensure the development of private institutions as follows.

1. To encourage the establishment of new private institutions provided that they havepotentials for quality education and operational efficiency,

2. To promote the stability of private colleges and universities through sound accreditingsystems and by providing academic supports to the institutions,

3. To promote the development of the fields of research and human resources and otheraspects providing for academic progress with the emphasis on expanding the field of studies in whicheach private institution has strong potentials to reach the highest standard in the field.

In brief, the government is now supportive in its supervision, rather than strictly controllingthe private institutions. If a private institution can prove its quality and efficiency, the government willlessen its supervising role and let that institution have maximium freedom. However, periodicsupervision, say every five years, is still in existence.

113


2.2 Financing Private Higher Education

In 1994, all public universities received a total budget of 20,543,917,000 baht* which coveredfull investment costs and 70 per cent of operating costs. Only 30 per cent of the operating costs wasfrom tuition and other fees and income. Therefore, the public institutions could afford low tuition feeswhereas the private institutions could not because they are self-supporting. Almost all of the incomeis from tuition and student fees, but rarely from donations. Private institutions, therefore, have todepend on higher tuition fees to cover all the costs, In spite of the stated fact, the application toll isconsistently high, Having limited seats, most of the private institutions require an entranceexamination. This is proof of public confidence in private higher education institutions.

However, the government has several measures to support private institutions financially, inkind but not in cash, They areas follows.

1. Revolving Fund for the Development of Private Higher Education Institutions

On April 4, 1990, the Cabinet approved the establishment of a revolving fund to be loaned at4 per cent interest rate for private institutions for purchasing instructional materials, equipment andfacility construction, The Bureau of the Budget is expected to allocate the total amount of 500 millionbaht (approximately US $20 million) in ten years (1990-2000). In 1994, the fund reached the amountof 240 million baht. This revolving fund is beneficial but rather too small an amount compared towhat is needed by the total number of 32 private higher education institutions in Thailand. Besides,each time a loan is made the ceiling is limited to only 30 million baht for construction and 10 millionbaht for purchasing instructional materials. The amount sometimes is not worth the burden ofpreparing paper work and the logistics involved.

2. Specific Assistance and General Subsidies

Each year, the government allocates another amount of 5.5 million baht for expenses in theacademic and administrative development of private higher education institutions, categorized asfollows:

- Research Development Fund: 700, 000 baht/year

- Academic Development Fund for such projects as composing, translating orcompiling texts: 300,000 baht/year

- Administration and Faculty Development Fund: 500,000 baht/year

- Community Service and Volunteer Work Camp Fund: 4,000,000 baht/year

In March 1995, the administration of then Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai initiated a policy inhuman resources development and set up a low- interest loan fund of 20,000 million baht. 10,000million is allocated for commodity and construction loans for institutions offering courses in the fieldsneeded, including those at secondary, vocational and higher education levels, without exception ofvocational training schools and centers which meet certain regulations set by the government.Another 7,000 million baht is set aside for commodity and construction loans for institutions offeringcourses in general fields. The rest of the 3,000 million baht is set aside for student loans. Thoughthe entire amount was not set up particularly for private higher education institutions, it has beencontributing a lot to institutional development.

Moreover, the government announced income tax exemption of the operational profitincluding that from books and instructional material sales, dormitory and cafeteria services. Taxexemption is also provided for the dividends earned from shares in educational institutions. In case

* 1 US$ = 25 baht

114


an individual or a legal business entity makes donations to a private educational institution, one canclaim tax deduction of not more than 10 percent of net income, and not more than 2 percent of netprofit respectively. This is the same regulation applied to the public institutions. Other benefitsprovided by the government are on excising tax and royal property rentals.

More importantly, the government is deregulating many measures as incentives to attract agreater participation of the private sector in developing the human resources of the country.

This policy sounds worthy but when it comes to implementation, a further evaluation isneeded.

2.3 Quality Control

To assure the quality education of private higher education institutions, the governmentrequires that the Board of Private Higher Education Institutions be composed of the PermanentSecretary-General of the Ministry of University Affairs as chairman, representatives from accreditingagencies, and other prominent scholar representatives from the private sector as board members.The Board oversees all aspects of the private higher education institutions. Besides, each institutionis to have a Board of Trustees responsible for administration affairs and operational quality. Themembers of the Board of Trustees are partly appointed by the Ministry of University Affairs. This is toreassure the education quality. The unit that directly supervises private higher education institutionsis the Bureau of Private Higher Education.

Furthermore, there are other committees and subcommittees appointed by the Ministry ofUniversity Affairs to screen all proposals regarding curriculum design, accreditation, status change,and others. The committees are : financial committee (revolving fund for the development of privatehigher education institutions), committee on screening durable instructional equipment entitled toimport tariff exemption, legal committee, academic title committee, academic development promotioncommittee, committee on work camp and community service subsidies administration, generaleducation committee, curriculum approval and accreditation committee, committee on long distanceeducation institution establishment, committee on solving problems of higher education institutionsand a committee to set out criteria allowing civil servants under the jurisdiction of the Ministry ofUniversity Affairs to work temporarily in private institutions.

This shows close supervision of the government over the private higher educationinstitutions. Above all, there is also an external examiner committee for each field of study. Eachsemester, the external examiner committee oversee characteristics of examinations including theevaluation system of a particular field of study, until the program is standard. Then, a privateinstitution is allowed to form its own examiner committee to take over the Ministry-appointed group.However, the Ministry follows up the examination every 5 years to make sure that a particular privateinstitution maintains a high standard of quality education,


All private higher education institutions have realized the importance of academiccooperation between and among institutions, regionally and internationally. Many are members ofmulti-national organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Institutions of HigherLearning (ASAIHL) and the International Association of University Presidents (lAUP). Collaborationbetween local private institutions and those from overseas are also practiced in many forms. In thecourse of such cooperation, the Ministry of University Affairs has also played a major role insupporting and promoting the mutual benefits of the parties concerned to internationalize highereducation of Thailand to achieve academic excellence through the help of technology transfer, sothat Thailand will be the center of regional education, research and higher training. More and moreprivate universities and colleges in Thailand have established academic relations with internationallyrecognized institutions from the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Europe and Asia. Suchacademic collaboration can be categorized as follows:

115


1. Faculty, staff and student exchange2. Information exchange including that on university administration, educational planning,

curriculum and instructional development, in forms of training, seminar and workobservations

3. Research cooperation4. Cooperation “in remote area development projects5. Cultural exchange6. Joint degree program offered, especially in graduate studies7. Cooperation in other projects contributing to institutional relations for mutual benefits and

understanding between cross-cultural institutions

3. PROBLEMS


Although nowadays the government has already had a clear policy to promote theestablishment, the existence and the development of private higher education institutions so thatthese institutions can make progress and fulfill the set goals effectively, there still exist someproblems and obstacles in the administration of private higher education institutions as follows :

a. The government has declared a clear policy in promoting the provision of privateeducation in every aspect. Nevertheless, in practice, some of the authorities and the committeesinvolved have neither enough understanding of this policy nor enough conviction to conform to it. Asa result, private higher education institutions still lack some operational flexibility and freedom tocreate their own identity.

b. Non-conformity to the set policy of some governmental units and the lack of controlor ignorance of the control affects investment in the private sector. For example, the governmentsector still continues to expand some programs in social sciences at the bachelor’s degree levelthough it is clearly stated that the government should allow the private sector to take moreresponsibility in these areas.

c. There is still a double standard between public and private higher educationinstitutions in the rules and regulations as well as the criteria. This causes unequal competition andcomparison in spite of the fact that the public universities have almost all the supportive funds fromthe tax of the country, whereas private higher education institutions have to support themselves inevery aspect.

d. The implementation of the government policy through various committees is not veryeffective since many of these were appointed without representatives from the private sector, soinaccurate conclusions from such committees may arise due to the lack of enough pertinentinformation.

e. The private higher education institutions themselves lack the cooperation and supportfrom some government units for benefits they are entitled to.

f. In curriculum administration, private higher education institutions are supervisedthrough complicated steps and strong criteria for the reason that the government emphasizes theguarantee of educational quality. However, those steps and criteria, to some extent, createinflexibility in the administration of private higher education institutions.

g. In some fields of study with professional accreditating agencies, which are thegovernment units, the Ministry of University Affairs lacks the enforcement in applying the samemeasures as that of the public universities. It causes a negative effect on the graduates from private

116


higher education institutions in dealing with government organizations such as the Legal Council ofThailand and the Medical Council.

h. The government has not allowed personnel from public universities to help developprivate higher education institutions on a full-time temporary basis despite the fact that this is allowedfor international organizations.

3.2 Financing Private Higher Education

Even though the government policy for the human resources development declared by thegovernment of Prime Minister Chuan Leekpai is good and practical in solving some of the problems,there is some limitation since these benefits are not applied to all private higher education institutionsin general. Therefore, the existing problems are as follows:

a. Individuals, companies or partnerships who make a donation to private higher educationinstitutions cannot get any tax reduction or have the amount donated deducted from the income taxcalculations.

b. Although private higher education institutions can exempt the import tariff on theinstructional materials in scientific and cultural education according to the Florence Agreement, thereare a lot of limitations and inconvenient steps. As for many other expensive instructional materials oreducational devices, which are not included in the list of exemptions, private higher educationinstitutions have to pay the full amount.

c. The government does not give any reduction on the operating expenses of private highereducation institutions such as water supply, electricity and other utility expenses, there is noreduction or exception of property tax or local taxation or on the value added tax (VAT) directlyinvolved with higher education provisions.

d. The set sum of 500 million baht revolving fund for the development of private highereducation institutions is too small.

e. Private higher education institutions usually cannot directly get a loan from internationalfinancial organizations. This causes unnecessary high expenses in making a loan.

f. The government has not yet fully promoted personnel in private higher educationinstitutions as it should, for example, there is no welfare fund and no income tax reduction.

3.3 Quality Control

In spite of the effective quality control system for private higher education institutions set bythe Ministry of University Affairs, there are still some problems as follows:

a. Private higher education institutions still lack freedom and academic autonomy. Therequest for the expansion, improvement and curriculum correction according to the need of the labormarket cannot be performed effectively because of some bureaucratic conditions and steps involvedwhich cause delay as well as inflexibility in the operation of the private institutions. Sometimes theresult of the curriculum correction by the committees appointed by the Ministry of University Affairsresults in a lack of its identity according to the educational provision required by the privateinstitutions.

b. Roles and operation of the external examiner committee in supervising the educationalstandard should be re-considered to suit the present circumstances and re-improved to meet a moreeffective standard.

117


c. Private higher education institutions still have problems in the cooperation and help inapprenticeship for students, researchers, personnel development and learning-teaching aids. Thegovernment should consider these and give help and coordination effectively.

d. Some private higher education institutions still need help and academic cooperation frompublic higher education institutions.

e. The cost of the equipment for learning and teaching, scientific Iaboratory, technology,engineering, medical science and agriculture is very high and certain equipment gets out-of-date veryquickly. Some private higher education institutions cannot afford these as specified by the Ministry ofUniversity Affairs. Consequently, the government should find the appropriate measures to help theseinstitutions.

f. Incentives for getting academic titles for faculty members in private higher educationinstitutions is not similar to those of public higher education institutions.

g. The mission of private higher education institutions in researches, community service andcultural preservation is not yet fulfilled in some institutions due to the lack of budget, suitable andsufficient supportive resources.

h. The specification stated by the Ministry of University Affairs in the qualification andexperiences of the faculty members in some fields of study affected the procurement of well-qualifiedfaculty members in some private institutions. Besides, the ratio between full-time and part-timefaculty members to the students should emphasize more on quality than on quantity.

i. Small, regional private higher education institutions often face the problems of shortage offull-time, qualified personnel in a specific field. The rate of personnel turnover is higher than that oflarge, central private higher education institutions.

j. With the increasing economic development, qualified personnel of private higher educationinstitutions may go to the business sector because of better pay, better work conditions and moreroom for advancement. This causes the loss of capable personnel to the private business sector.

k. The government still has no policy in allocating funds for the promotion of the personnel inprivate higher education institutions to have study tours and further their studies abroad. Thishinders the academic growth in some private institutions.


Private higher education institutions realized the importance of creating linkages at bothregional and international levels. However, high expenses such as membership fee fororganizations, traveling expenses for attending seminars, student and faculty member exchange aremain obstacles, to which the government sector has never made any contribution. Language used incommunication is another problem, since the means of teaching in most private and public highereducation institutions is Thai. There are only a few institutions which can efficiently create suchregional and international linkages.

3.5 Measures Taken

In fact, such problems as government policy, financing, quality control and even regional andinternational linkages have already been proposed to every government and the Minister ofUniversity Affairs. However, private higher education is relatively new and unfamiliar to Thailand andthe improvement and problem solving process takes quite some time. Nowadays, all theorganizations concerned, either the government sector, the Ministry of University Affairs or theprivate sector, agree that it is time for private higher education institutions to be fully supportedbecause, as it is clearly seen, private higher education institutions are beneficial organizations which

118


can actively help develop the country. Cooperation from both government and private highereducation institutions is needed to fulfill this goal.

Consequently, a committee was appointed, comprising the Deputy Permanent Secretary ofthe Ministry of University Affairs as the chairman, President of the Association of Private HigherEducation Institutions of Thailand as the vice-chairman, the representatives from private highereducation institutions, the representatives from the Ministry of University Affairs and Office of theRoyal Decree as committee members. The objective of this committee is to consider, improve andcorrect the present Private Higher Education Institution Act by upholding the following five conceptsto encourage the development and facilitate the operation of private higher education institutions.

1. Sufficient funds to run and develop private institutions2. Ensure “quality control”3. The facilitation and ability to administer independently4. The provision of higher education to promote the development of the country5. Equal status between public and private higher education institutions

This committee has held several meetings to achieve the above goals through theconsideration of all the related problems facing the effective development of private higher educationinstitutions. After the approval, this committee will propose its conclusion to the Private HigherEducation Institutions Commission to forward it to the Minister of University Affairs to be taken intothe Cabinet meeting, after which it will be approved by the Legislation Council.

If all these steps go smoothly, almost all the problems will be solved. Then the private highereducation institutions in Thailand will be a model for those in other countries in this region.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

The success of providing higher education through private higher education institutionsdepends on the capability to provide the appropriate education which matches both the needsrequired and the social and economic conditions of the present and the future. This success needsthe cooperation in policy setting, planning and the operation of all the related parties. As a result,any obstacles encountered in fulfilling the quality, efficiency and equality in higher education shouldbe taken under consideration for correction, contribution and support from the government sector inthe following :

4.1 General Policy of the Government

a. The government should have a clear policy set up at higher education level, to see whatproportion and field of study should be taken care of, by the government or private sector.

b. The government should equally supervise the standard of higher education in both thegovernment and private sectors.

c. Obsolete rules and regulations should be cancelled or corrected.

d. It should be taken into account that private higher education institutions play a vital role indeveloping society rather than being viewed as profit-concerned private businesses. In addition,equality of the learners should be emphasized.

e. The standard of quality guaranteed in private higher education institutions should be setand taken care of by the participation of the private sector.

119


f. The government should play an important role in creating the unity of higher educationalprovision, in both undergraduate and graduate levels in all higher education institutions to meet thesame standards.

g. A joint committee of government and private sectors for higher education should be setup to coordinate and benefit all in providing quality higher education in both public and privateinstitutions.

h. Opportunities should be offered to the staff and faculty members of the private highereducation institutions to further their studies, join seminars and training courses, and get governmentscholarships in various fields.

i. Scholarship allocations should be handled in appropriate proportions between the staffand faculty members of public and private institutions. Improper allocations result in fewer chancesfor those in the private higher education institutions to get such scholarships.

j. The government should allow personnel from the public sector to work temporarily inprivate higher education institutions without losing their other privileges and benefits.

4.2 Investment Support

a. In private higher education institutions, the government should promote investment in thesame way as those in business and industrial fields since private higher education institutions takepart in human resources development, which is more important than economic resourcesdevelopment. Therefore, the Board of Investment (BOI) should setup measures to directly supportprivate educational institutions.

b. To persuade the investor to invest in higher education institutions, the government shouldexempt or reduce the income tax charged on the dividends.

c. The government should encourage donations from the public sector for private highereducation institutions, and the amount donated can be deducted from the income tax calculations.

d. Since high public utility expenses result in high cost of educational organizations, the rateof public utilities should be decreased.

e. The government should reduce the property tax and local taxation for private highereducation institutions since these facilities are used to facilitate those institutions to provide botheducation and educational services to the community.

f. The burden of private higher education institutions in value added tax (VAT) should bereleased since this cannot be transferred to the consumers as in other forms of business.

g. The steps in exempting the complicated import tariff and the long period involved shouldbe improved.

h. The import tariff for educational devices and instructional materials should be exemptedfor each private higher education institution on the condition that this right can be terminated if theinstitution does not conform to the conditions stated.

i. The amount of the revolving fund for the development of private higher educationinstitutions should be increased to encourage them to improve. This expanded base will enablemore loans for the improvement of the private higher education institutions.

j. To help release the burden from the government and to expand the revolving fund,contribution should be sought from international financial organizations under the government’s

120


guarantee, and let those private institutions pay for their own interest with a rate higher than that ofthe fund, but lower than that of the commercial banks, both inside and outside the country.

k. Criteria of the loan from the revolving tired should be improved so that private institutionscan also get the loan for personnel development in furthering their education or other areas required.

1. A welfare fund should be established for faculty members in private higher educationinstitutions. This fund should consist of contributions from the government, private higher educationinstitution and the faculty member, which will be a good incentive for joining the private highereducation institution staff.

5. CONCLUSION

Since every nation has a limit of resources, it is the responsibility of both government andprivate sectors to cooperate and help improve the human resources of its own. The more the privatesector takes part, the more it will release the government burden. Consequently, the governmenthas to give full support to the private sector in the most effective way of quality control. In addition,the government should have a positive, not a negative attitude, towards the private sector. Thegovernment should find an effective way to reward the conformist and punish the violator withoutallowing the violators to obstruct the growth of the conformists,

The government should gather all its limited forces to, seriously and fully, supervise and giveassistance to the newly-founded private higher education institutions in order that they originate andsurvive with good quality. If any of those institutions cannot meet the set standards, the governmentshould find an absolute way to cope with such problems. This will avoid negative effects on theestablished private higher education institutions that meet the qualified standards and are widelyaccepted by the public. The government should encourage those established institutions to freelyexercise their authority within the appropriate limitations and, periodically, check upon them or whenneeded.

The Association of Private Higher Education Institutions of Thailand comprises all theprivate higher education institutions in Thailand. This association holds a monthly meeting toexchange ideas and discuss what is going on. Furthermore, this creates unity, cooperation andcontribution among the members. This association is very beneficial and accepted by the Ministry ofUniversity Affairs as well as other organizations both inside and outside the country. Therefore, ifprivate higher education institutions in this region can come together and cooperate in a creativeway, the quality of private higher education institutions will certainly be strengthened.

Qualified private higher education institutions are very vital, especially in developingcountries, since they help accelerate the development and effectively improve the quality of thepeople in the country.

121


TABLES

Table 1 : Chronological Development of Private Higher Education in Thailand

Year

1910

1941

1955

1956

1960

1964

1965

1967

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

The idea of Private Higher Education was formed but no action taken.

American missionaries made an effort to establish private higher education institutionsfor the first time and did so again in 1948-9 without success.

The bill for Private Higher Education Institutions Establishment was proposed by M.P.Tim Phuriphat unsuccessfully.

The National University Council considered how to increase the number of highereducation institutions with the participation of the private sector.

The National Education Plan stated that the private sector can help organize educationonly at the level lower than higher education.

The conclusion from the Cabinet on July 14, 1964 had the National Education Counciltake into consideration the possibility to let the private sector organize higher education.

The National Education Council on March 18, 1965 concluded that the private sectorcould establish higher education institutions but, could offer courses only at the levellower than bachelor’s degree under the supervision of the Ministry of Education..

On September 28, 1965 the National Education Council was assigned by the Cabinet tostudy the rules and regulations concerned.

The Cabinet on May 16, 1967 approved in principle the Private College Act andassigned the National Education Council for the draft.

Private College Act B.E. 2512 was enacted on February 21, 1969.

Six private colleges were officially founded: Bangkok College, Pattana College,Dhurakijpundit College, Krirk College, Thai-Suriya College (later became SripatumCollege in 1972), and Thai Chamber of Commerce College.

The Cabinet approved in principle to allow private colleges to organize education atbachelor’s degree level and the National Education Council was assigned to setup thecriteria for accreditation.

Assumption Business Administration College was founded.

Office of the Private Education Commission was established on September 29, 1972and private education of all levels including that of higher education was transferred tothis Commission.

The Ministry of University Affairs was founded on the same date according to theRevolutionary Committee’s Announcement Issue No.216.

Siam Technic College and South-East Asia College were founded.

The Cabinet on November 13, 1973 approved in principle the transfer of privatecolleges to the Ministry of University Affairs.

122


Year

1974

975

976

977

979

1981

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

Payap College was founded.

The Act transferring some parts of the Ministry of Education to the Ministry of UniversityAffairs was enacted on June 21, 1974. All private colleges were transferred to theMinistry of University Affairs.

The Private College Division was added to the Office of the Permanent Secretary of theMinistry of University Affairs.

Saengtham College was founded.

The Ministry of University Affairs withdrew the license of Pattana College.

Private Higher Education Institution Act B.E. 2522 was enacted.

Kanasawas College (later became Sri-Esan College in 1987)was founded.

The name of Private College Division was changed to Private Higher EducationInstitution Division.

Hua Chiew College was founded,

Christian College was founded.

Srisophon College and Vongchavalitkul College were founded.

Four private colleges were accredited as universities: Bangkok University, PayapUniversity, Dhurakijpundit University, and the University of the Thai Chamber ofCommerce.

Siam Pundit College and Rangsit College were founded.

Phakklang College, Mission College, Bandit Phisanulok College and Saint Louis NursingCollege were founded.

Siam Technic College was accredited as a university, changing its name into SiamUniversity.

Bundit Sakon Nakhon College and Kasem Bundit College were founded.

Krirk College was accredited as Institute of Social Technology (Krirk), and SripatumCollege as Sripatum University respectively.

North Eastern College and Yonok College were founded.

Saint John’s College was founded.

The Ministry of University Affairs withdrew the Iicence of Sri-Esan College.

Revolving fund for the development of private higher education institutions wasorganized by the government with the sum of 500 million baht as the target during1990-2000.

123


Year

1990 Assumption Business Administration College and Rangsit College were accredited asuniversities and the names changed to Assumption University and Rangsit Universityrespectively.

1991 Mahanakom College was founded.

The Ministry of University Affairs withdrew the Iicence of Bundit Phisanulok College.

South-East Asia College was accredited as South-East Asia University.

1992 Private Higher Education Institution Act B.E. 2535 (Amended B.E. 2535) was enacted.

Kasem Bundit College was accredited as Kasem Bundit University.

Hua Chiew Chalerm Prakiat University was founded; Hua Chiew College wasdissolved.

1993 Four more colleges were founded: Ratchathani College of Technology, RajaparkCollege, UMUC-Maryland (Thailand) College and Rama Ayodhaya College.

1994 Private Higher Education Institution Division was upgraded to Bureau of Private HigherEducation.

Mahanakorn College was accredited as Mahanakorn University of Technology.

Thongsook College was founded.

Vongchavalitkul College was accredited as Vongchavalitkul University.

Institute of Social Technology (Krirk) was approved to change its status and name toKrirk University.

1995 Sirinsiam International University and Eastern University were founded.

124


Table 2: Private Higher Education Institutions in Thailand: Name and Year Founded

Name Year Founded

1. Bangkok University 1970n

2. Dhurakijpundit University 1970

3. Krirk University 1970

4. Sripatum University 1970

5. The University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce 1970

6. Assumption University 1972

7. Siam University 1973

8. South-East Asia University 19731

9. Payap University 1974

10. Saengtham College 1976

11. Christian College 19831

12. Srisophon College 1984

13. Vongchavalitkul University 1984

14. Rangsit University 1985

16. Siam Pundit College 1985

16. Mission College 1986

17. Phakklang College 1986

18. Saint Louis Nursing College 1986

19. Bundit Sakon Nakhon College 19871

20. Kasem Bundit University 19871

21 North Eastern College 1988

22. Yonok College I 1988

23. Saint John’s College 1989

24. Mahanakom University of Technology 1991#

25. Hua Chiew Chalerm Prakiat University 1992I

26. Ratchathani College of Technology 1993

27. Rajapark College 1993

28. UMUC-Maryland (Thailand) College 1993I

29. Rama Ayodhaya College 19931

30. Thongsook College 1994I

31. Sirinsiam International University 1995

32. Eastern University 1995

125


Table 3: Enrolment in Public and Private Higher Education(as of September 1, 1995)

A. Closed Admission

Institutions in 1995

No. Name Public Private

1. Chulalongkorn University 22,8912. Kasetsart University 22,6283. Bangkok University 21,6404. The University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce 19,8615. Thammasat University 19,6366. Siam University 17,6277. Chiang Mai University 17,3718. Assumption University 16,5219. Dhurakijpundit University 16,50110. Mahidol University 14,81411. Sripatutn University 14,61612. Rangsit University 13,51313. Khon Kaen University 12,28214. Srinakharinwirot University 11,34415. King Mongkut’ s Institute of Technology,

North Bangkok 11,18216. Prince of Songkhla University 11,04617. King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology, Lat 9,573

Krabang18. Kasem Bundit University19.20.21.

9,553P a y a p U n i v e r s i t y 7,256National Institute of Development Administration 7,025South-East Asia University 5,613

22. I Burapha University I 5,364 I23. I Silpakorn University

-4,970

24. I King Mongkut’s Instftute of Technology, Thonburi 4,75925. I Maejo University 4,41926. Naresuan University 4,33627. Mahanakorn University of Technology 4,01128. Krirk University 3,78429. Hua Chiew Chalerm Prakiat University 3,77330. Sain t John’s College t I 3,26631. I Vongchavalitkul University

36. Mahasarakarm University ,Yonok College I

3,07532. Suranaree University of Technology 2,84433. North Eastern College 2,61234. Bundit Sakon Nakhon College 2,50035. Pakklang College I 2,402

2,26437. 1,35538. I Srisophon College I 687

95040. Ratchatani College of Technology 1 39741. Mission42. Saengtham College 23543. Saint Louis Nursing College 225

39. I Ubon Ratchathani University T

College 1 I 362

126


45. Siam Pundit College 8546. Thongsook College 5947. Rajapark College 3748. Walailak University Preparing for

admission49. Rama Ayodhaya College Preparing for

admission50. UMUC-Maryland (Thailand) College Preparing for

51.admission

Sirinsiam International University Preparing for

52.admission

Eastern University Preparing foradmission

Total 189,698 I 171,791Percentage 52.48 47.52

B. Open admission

No. Name Public Private

1. Ramkhamhaeng University 305,108

2. Sukhothai Thammathirat University 218,475

Total 523,583

127


Lam Quang Thiep

1) BACKGROUND

1.1 Since 1986 a profound socio-economic policy change has taken place in Vietnam :the transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy.

In response to the change of the socio-economic policy, since 1987 the higher education(H. E.) system has adopted some important renovation policies. H.E. training programs are aimedat serving not only the state and the collective economic sectors but also all other economicsectors, Budget for training was not only based on the allocation of the state budget but also onthe mobilization of other resources, including the tuition payment of the learners.

1.2 In the context of these renovation policies, “people-established” (a type of private)and semi-public H. E. institutions have been established. A “people-established” institution is aninstitution, which is established by a group of people, a mass-organization or an association and isself-financed. A semi-public institution is an institution whose initial infrastructure and staff areprovided by the Government, but its recurrent expenditure will be covered by non-governmentsources. The semi-public institutions are usually established on the basis of former public H.E.institutions.

The H. E. private center “Thang Long” was the first pilot private H. E. Institution, which wasestablished in 1989 in Hanoi. Since August 1994, 8 private H.E. institutions have come intoexistence: 3 in Hanoi (Thang Long, Phuong Dong, Dong Do), 4 in Ho Chi Minh City (ForeignLanguages and Informatics, Van Lang, Hung Vuong, Technology ), 1 in Danang (Duytan). For thetime being, they are operating according to temporary regulation by the Ministry of Education andTraining.

The Open University and a Junior College in Ho Chi Minh City, the first institutions of asemi-public type, were established in 1993.

1.3 The private sector of H.E. in Vietnam is newly established, so the data concerning thissector is stable. Some data regarding student enrolment is as follows. For each private H.E.institution the enrolment varies from 500 to 4,700 students, and so far the total enrolment is about13,000. For the semi-public sector the enrolment is about 22,000 students. The total enrolment ofthe public H.E. sector is about 330,000, so the proportion between the private plus the semi-publicsectors and the public sector of H.E. in Vietnam is about 10%.

1.4 Data on H.E. institutions in the private sector is presented in Table 1.

128


Table 1: Private H.E. Institutions in Vietnam

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Name ofInstitution

Thanglong

Phuongdong

Dongdo

ForeignLanguages and

Informatics

Vanlang

Hungvuong

Technology

Duytan

Location

Hanoi

Hanoi

Hanoi

Ho Chi MinhCity

Ho Chi MinhCity

Ho Chi MinhCity

Ho Chi MinhCity

Danang

Areas of concentration

Informatics, BusinessAdministration, Law,Foreign Languages

Informatics, BusinessAdministration, Law,

Accountancy, Banking,Foreign Languages


Foreign Studies, ForeignLanguages.


Foreign Studies, ForeignLanguages.

Informatics, BusinessAdministration, Law,Foreign Languages,

Finance and Banking, CivilEngineering, Thermo-

electro-Technique,EnvironmentalManagement

Informatics, BusinessAdministration, Law,Foreign Languages

Electrical, ElectronicEngineering, Informatics,Business Administration,

Foreign Languages

Informafics, BusinessAdministration, Law,Foreign Languages

TotalEnrolment

600

2,250

800

1,250

4,700

1,200

1,353

830

InitialTeaching

Staff

34

62

15

Source: Information Center of Ministry of Education and Training, 1995,

From this information on private H.E. institutions in Vietnam some issues can be identified.

At present in private H.E. institutions the number of permanent teaching staff is verylimited. They mainly rely on inviting staff from public H.E. and research institutions and this factcauses a lot of problems.

So far only one private institution,University, has its own building. All of theor other organizations.

namely the Foreign Languages and Infomaticsrest have to rent classrooms from other public schools

129


Tuition fees for all private H.E. institutions are about 3-4USD per credit (15 class hours),which means about 150USD per year, approximately 1.5 times higher than the tuition fees forpublic H.E. institutions. Let us compare the related data from government budgets for H. E.: in1995 recurrent expenditure per student was about 500USD, and all of the public H.E. institutionscomplained about the shortage of funds. So, student tuition fees in private H.E. institutions makeup about one third of the current expenditure per student in public H.E. institutions. Furthermore,for all of the private H.E. institutions, recurrent expenditures are based only on students fees. Thisfact, on the one hand, shows the financial limitation of the private H.E. institutions, and on theother hand, indicates the inefficient use of funds by public H.E. institutions.

Almost all of the private H.E. institutions offer programs such as Foreign Languages,Informatics and, Business Administration. These are in big demand at the present time. Manyinstitutions offer programs on Law, Economics, Foreign Studies, Humanities; but very fewinstitutions offer programs in some types of technological areas, for example civil engineering,thermo-electrical, and electronics engineering.

Although we are only in the initial period of the development of private H.E. institutions, itseems that at present in Ho Chi Minh City the conditions are more favorable than in Hanoi andother regions. The reason is that the private economy sector in Ho Chi Minh City is stronger thanelsewhere and the demand for H.E. is greater.

2. PRESENT STATUS OF PRIVATE H.E. INSTITUTIONS

The Government allows the establishment of private H.E. institutions, but so far there areno concrete measures to provide assistance to them.

The main financial resources of private H.E. institutions are:

a) Student fees.

b) Some donations or grants from private or overseas organizations.

The Government is in the process of setting up the quality assurance system andaccreditation for both private and public sectors of H. E.

Some international linkages are established between Vietnamese and overseas H.E.institutions: visiting academic staff, twinning programs of training, etc.

3. PROBLEMS

The private sector of H.E. is quite a new thing for the Vietnamese Government, so policymakers do not have enough experience to create a new legislative base for it. For instance, inthe temporary regulation there are no clear stipulations about the number of permanent teachingstaff for private H. E. institutions, especially what propottion of instructors are allowed to be invitedfrom other organizations (mainly from public H.E. institutions) to offer courses. This fact has givenrise to numerous debates in the H. E.community: the private sector of H.E. has attracted well-trained professors from the public sector only by paying high honorarium per teaching hours, andso this damages the interests of the public H.E. sector. Also, the procedures for quality control ofprivate H.E. institutions are not clearly formulated. In sum, the private H.E. sector in Vietnam isonly in the initial period of development and the lack of a legislation base and managementexperience is one of the big issues.

Finance resources for private H.E. institutions are so far mainly based on student fees.Nearly all institutions have to rent classrooms from public organizations. If private H.E. institutionsdo not have sponsorship from strong private companies or strong social organizations it is verydifficult for them to develop. In the meantime, in Vietnam so far there are no private companies

130


which are capable and willing to contribute to private H.E. institutions. The Government is trying tofind some ways to assist private H.E. institutions.

Quality of H.E. in general, and the quality of the private sector of H.E. in particular, is ofgreat concern to all stakeholders. We are preparing to establish a system of quality assurancethroughout all of the HE. in Vietnam. The plan is to organise procedures of self-assessmentwithin each institution and external assessment for institutions conducted by a H.E. QualityCommission, All of these activities are in the early stages; we lack both experience and financialresources.

Private HE. institutions in Vietnam are seeking regional and international linkages.However, these mutually beneficial linkages may be formed in the future, when there is a strongenough basis.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS

In Vietnam at present, encouragement for the H.E. private sector is Government policy.But we lack experience for the management of this sector. This kind of seminar is a very goodopportunity for managers in the private H.E. sector to share experiences.

In the future, through UNESCO or some other agency we should disseminateexperiences and exchange visitors in order to learn from each other.

131


ANNEXES


Annex 2 List of Participants andObservers

Annex 3 List of Papers Distributedat the Seminar

132


Annex 1

PROGRAMME OF THE SEMINAR

Tuesday, 31 October 1995

08:30-09:00

09:00-10:00

Registration

OPENING SESSION

Election ofCo-Chairpersons andRapporteur-General

Welcoming AddressLin ZugengPresident, Xiamen University

Remarks by UNESCO RepresentativeWang Yibing

Remarks by SEAMEO RIHED RepresentativeTong-In Wongsothorn

Remarks by Participants:Dong Mingchuan, Du Yue andDato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid

10:00-10:30

10:30-11:30

11:30-12:30

12:30-14:30

14:30-15:30

16:00-17:00

18:00-20:00

Coffee/Tea

Plenary Session 1STATE LEGISLATION ON PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Pan Mao Yuan

Plenary Session 2GOVERNMENT POLICIES ANDPRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Hyun-Chong Lee

Lunch

Plenary Session 3FINANCING PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Jandhyala B G Tilak

Plenary Session 4QUALITY CONTROL IN PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

Thanu Kulachol

Reception/Dinner hosted by the President,Xiamen University

133


Wednesday, 1 November 1995

10:00-10:30

10:30-12:00

08:30-10:00 Case Reports 1:CHINA (Dong Mingchuan)INDIA (Jandhyala B G Tilak)INDONESIA (Ir. Joetata Hadihardaja)

Coffee/Tea

Case Reports 2:JAPAN (Masahiro Arimatsu)KOREA (Rep. of (Hyun Chong Lee)MALAYSIA (Dato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid and

Arpah Bt. Haji Mohammad)

12:00-14:00

14:00-15:00

15:00-15:30

15:00-17:00

Lunch

Case Reports 3:MONGOLIAPHILIPPINES

Coffee/Tea

Case Reports 4:THAILAND

VIET NAM

(B. Erdenesuren)(Mona D. Valisno)

(Thanu Kulachol andChantavit Sujatanond)(Lam Quang Thiep)

Thursday, 2 November 1995

08:30-10:00 GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Group 1: State Legislation and Government Policiesand Private Higher Education

Group Chairman : Hyun Chong LeeGroup Rapporteur : Dato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid

Group 2: Financing Private Education Quality Control inPrivate Higher Education

Group Chairman : Jandhyala B G TilakGroup Rapporteur : Chantavit Sujatanond

Group 3: Quality Control in Private Higher Education

Group Chairman : Thanu KulachalGroup Rapporteur : Arpah Bt. Haji Mohammad

10:00-10:30

10:30-12:00

12:00-14:00

Coffee/Tea

Presentation of the Reports of the Groups byRepresentative of Group 1Representative of Group 2Representative of Group 3

Discussions on Group Reports in the Plenary Session

Lunch

134


14:00-15:00

15:00-15:30

15:30-17:00

18:00-20:30

Friday, 3 November 1995

08:30-12:00

12:00-14:00

14:00-15:30

15:00-15:30

15:30-16:30

17:30-19:30

Discussions on Group Reports in the Plenary Session (contd..)

Coffee/Tea

Field Visit (Xiamen University)

Dinner-Meeting hosted by Deputy Governor ofFujian Province and Vice-Mayor, Xiamen City

Field Visit (to Gulang Island)

Lunch

DISCUSSION AND ADOPTION OF THE REPORTAND RECOMMENDATIONS

Coffee/Tea

Closing Session

Farewell Dinner hosted by Institute of HigherEducation Science, Xiamen University

135


Annex 2

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND OBSERVERS

China

India

Indonesia

PARTICIPANTS

Professor Pan Maoyuan,Professor and the Honorary Director,Institute of Higher Education Science,Xiamen University,Xiamen, Fujian 361005,P.R. China.Tel : (0592) 2086413;Fax : (0592) 2086402E-Mail: [email protected]

Mr. Dong Mingchuan,Director-General : Adult Education Department,State Education Commission,No.25, DaMuCan Hutong, Xidan,Beijing 100816, P. R. China.Tel : (86 10) 6096553,6096249Fax: (86 10) 6017912

Dr. Zhou Nanzhao,Research Professor and Deputy Director,The National Institute of Educational Research,State Education Commission,Bei-san-huan-zhong-lu 46,Beijing 100088, P. R. China.Tel :2031012,2033132 (Office); 2050904 (Home)E-mail: [email protected]

Professor Dr. Jandhyala B.G. Tilak,Head : Educational Finance Unit,National Institute of EducationalPlanning and Administration,17 B Sri Aurobindo Marg ,New Delhi 110016, India.Tel. (91 011) 661938,665135,6962120Fax. (91 011 ) 6853041; Cable: NIEPA (ND)E-mail : [email protected]

Professor Dr. Joetata Hadihardaja,Director of Private University,Directorate-General of Higher Education,Ministry of Education and Culture,Jt.Jend Sudirman, Pintu I Senayan,Jakarta 10270, Indonesia.Phone/Fax : (62-21) 5731987E-mail : [email protected]

136


Japan

Malaysia

Mongolia

Philippines

Korea(Rep. of)

Mr. Masahiro Arimatsu,Deputy Director,Private Education Institution Aid Division,Private Education Institution Department,Higher Education Bureau.c/o: Japanese National Commission,Ministry of Education, Sports and Culture,2-2 Kasumigaseki 3-chome,Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100, Japan.Phone: (03)3581-4211Fax: (81 3) 35819149

Ms. Dato Nuraizah binti Abdul Hamid,Deputy Secretary General I,Ministry of Education,Level 7, Block J, Damansara Town Centre,50604 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Phone/Fax: (093) 2543107

Ms. Arpah Bt. Haji Mohammad,Deputy Director General ,Deputy Registrar-General of Schools and Teachers ,Ministry of Education,Level 7, Block K, Damansarn Town Centre,50604 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.Phone: (6)03-2534673; Fax: (6)03-2535463

Mr. B. Erdenesuren.Director-General, Private Higher Education Association .c/o Secretary-General,Mongolia National Commission for UNESCO,Ministry of Science and Education ,Ulaanbatar-44, Mongolia.Tel : (976 1) 322480, 324598;Fax: 323158, 326683

Dr. Ms. Mona D. Valisno,Commissioner Commission on Higher Education,Office of the President,DAP Building, 5th Floor, San Miguel Avenue,Ortigas Center, Pasig City,Manila, Philippines.Tel : (63-2) 6331926,6335573,6337862Fax: (63-2) 6331927

Dr. Hyun Chong Lee,Executive Director,Research Institute of Higher Education ,Korean Council for University Education ,27-2 Youido-dong, Youngdungpo-gu ,Seoul 150-742, Republic of Korea.Tel: (82 2)7833892; Fax: 7808311

137


Thailand

Viet Nam

Dr. Ms. Chantavit Sujatanond,Director: Bureau of Private Higher Education,Ministry of University Affairs,328 Si Ayutthaya Road,Bangkok 10400, Thailand.Tel : (662) 2459322,2461106-11 Ext. 602Fax : (662) 2480459,246-8882

Dr. Thanu Kulachol,President, Bangkok University andPresident, Association ofPrivate Higher Education Institutions of Thailand,Bangkok University ,Rama 4 Road, Bangkok 10110, Thailand.Tel : (662) 6717333, Ext.101Fax: (662) 2496274,2401516E-mail : [email protected]

Professor Dr. Lam Quang Thiep,Director of the Higher Educational Department ,Ministry of Education and Training ,49 Dai Co Viet Str. Hanoi, Viet Nam.Tel : (84-46) 694884,691862Fax: (84-46) 94085, 93243

SEAMEO RIHED Dr. Tong-In Wongsothorn,.

Interim Director: SEAMEO RIHED,5th Floor, Ministry of University Affairs Building ,328 Si Ayutthaya Road,Bangkok 10400, Thailand.Tel. (66 2) 6445418, Fax. (662) 6445421E-mail : [email protected]

UNESCO Professor Wang Yibing,Specialist in Higher Education: ACEID ,UNESCO PROAP, 920 Sukhumvit Road,Box 967 Prakanong Post Office,Bangkok, Thailand.Tel : (66-2) 391-0879, 390-2565Fax : (66-2) 391-0866, Cable: UNESCO, BANGKOK

Mr. Du Yue,National Commission of the People’s Republic ofChina for UNESCO,37, Damucanghutong, Xidan,Beijing, China.Tel : (86-1) 6096553,6096883,6097170Cable: UNESCOCOM BEIJINGFax : (86-1) 6017912

138


OBSERVERS

You Qing Quan

Chen Ban Yu

Nu Xiamin

Hou De Fu

Zhou Yi Wen

Qiang Lianging

Chen Zhen Yi

Zhan Xing Yi

Wu Shan Ping

Betty Dai

Chen Tiangchu

Wei Yan Xiang

Chen Zhi-Kuan

Zhang Zhong Zhe

Zhang Zhi Yi

Hu Dabai

Professor and President of Hubei CorrespondenceUniversity,Deputy Executive-Director of Chinese Civilian-RunHigher Education Commission of P.R.C.

Professor and Vice-President of Beijing HaidianUniversity, Vice-Director of Private HigherEducation Commission of P.R.C.

Associate Professor and President of Nanhna Business College,Vice-Director of Private Higher EducationCommission of P.R.C.

Professor and President of Private Guang ZhouHualian University,Vice-Director of Private Higher EducationCommission of P.R.C.

Associate Professor and Director of the ResearchOffice for Adult Higher Education of HubeiCorrespondence University,Deputy Secretary-General of Chinese Civilian-RunHigher Education Commission of P.R.C.

Professor, Fudan University, Director ofInstitute of Higher Education Research.

Professor and Academic Vice President,International Studies College, Beijing UnionUniversity.

President of Private Song Hua Jiang University.

Professor of Xinhua Sciences and TechnologiesCollege in Sichuan Province.

Professor and President of Jiangxi Hualian ForeignTrade College.

Chief of General Division, Department of HigherEducation, State Education Commission of P.R.C.

Professor and President, Wu Han Chengcai University.

Director of Rights-Protection Section,Council of People-Run Higher Education of China

Chief-editor, “People-Run Education”

Vice-Director, Research Centre for People-RunSchool Education of the National Institute ofEducation Science.

Vice-President of Yellow-River College of Scienceand Technology.

139


Annex 3

LIST OF PAPERS DISTRIBUTED AT THE SEMINAR

COUNTRY PAPERS

INDIAJandhyala B G Tilak A Note on Private Higher Education in India

INDONESIAJoetata Hadihardaja Private Higher Education in Indonesia:

Current Developments and Existing Problems

JAPANMasahiro Arimatsu Current Status and Issues Involved with

Private Higher Education in Japan

KOREA (Republic of)Hyun Chong Lee Country Periodical Report: Korea

MALAYSIADato Nuraizah Abdul Hamid Private Higher Education in Malaysia:

Current Development and Future Direction

MONGOLIAB. Erdenesuren Mongolia: Private Higher Institutions:

An Introduction to Their Contributions and ProblematicIssues Requiring Urgent Rectification

PHILIPPINESMona D. Valisno Private Higher Education in the Philippines:

Performance and Challenges in the 21st Century

THAILANDThanu Kulachol Private Higher Education in Thailand

Chantavit Sujatanond Higher Education in Thailand

Chantavit Sujatanond Mechanisms in the Supervision of Private HigherEducation Institution in Thailand

WET NAMLam Quang Thiep The Private Sector of Higher Education

in Viet Nam

CHINAWei Yitong and Zhang Guocai A Historical Perspective on non-governmental

Higher Education in China

Niu Xianmin Nanhua: A Private College in Guangzhou

Qin Guo-Zhu and Yang Rui Private Higher Education in the People’s Republic ofChina : A Silent Resurgence

140


Dai Yiren

China National Institute

Zhou Nanzhou

Chen Baoyu

Qiang Lianqing and Yuan Ji

Hou De-Fu

Hou Defu and zhu Jihu

GuoYong

Anonymous

OPENING STATEMENT

Wang Yibing

KEY-NOTE SPEECHES

Pan Maoyuan and Wei Yitong

Hun Chong Lee

Jandhyala B G Tilak

Thanu Kulachol

Promoting Teaching Quality for Improving, PracticingConcrete Skills for Developing

A Study on NGO-sponsored and Private HigherEducational Research Education in China

Conclusions and Policy Recommendation Derived fromthe Study on NGO-Sponsored Higher Education in China

A Type of Collective Run and Government SupportUniversity and the Experience in the Practice

The Prospects of China’s Private Higher Education :A Case Study of Sanda University

The Private Hua Lian College: An Introduction

The Road for China’s Running of Private Colleges andUniversities: Practical Knowledge Gained in RunningGuagndong Private Hualian University

A Shallow Argument on the Leading System of HIRLPs

To Establish the Socialist Local-People-Run CollegeCharacterized by Distmotive Chines Features

Statement at the Regional Seminar on Private HigherEducation in Asia and Pacific

Legislation--Guarantee for the Development of PrivateHigher Education

Government Policies and Private Higher Education:The Korea Case

Financing Private Higher Education: Patternsand Trends

Quality Control in Private Higher Education


For more information, contactDr. Tong-In Wongsothorn,

DirectorSEAMEO RIHED

5th Floor, Ministry of University Affairs Building,328 Sri-Ayutthaya Road, Phaya Thai, Rajthevee,

Bangkok 10400, Thailand.Tel: (662) 644-5418,644-5591, 644-9856-63

Fax: (662) 644-5421Email: [email protected]


regional seminar on private higher education in asia and...

Documents