The higher education system is incapable of absorbing more students but depends on public financing and annually asks for increased funding. On top of that, it’s reluctant to cooperate with the business sector.
This situation, according to Petr Matějů, director of the analysis and strategy department in the Ministry of Education (MŠMT), will face a heated public debate starting in September.
The Czech higher education system needs deep reforms if it wants to keep pace with global developments, Matějů said. In September, the MŠMT will start negotiations with major stakeholders of the tertiary system in order to update educational structures and bridge the gap between schools and businesses.
Matějů, who was former deputy minister for research and higher education in the last half of 2006, is one of the strongest voices for reform. He said that the time lag between development of universities and the business environment has to be closed rapidly if the education system is to remain competitive globally. In order to do so, the higher education system needs more private funding and radical reforms of its management system. While universities in the technical or industrial sectors have already shown signs of positively embracing reforms, more traditional universities prefer to stay with the current system. But the current system leaves limited room for development; this is why a countrywide debate on education reforms is urgent, Matějů said.
Q: What are the major problems of the Czech higher education system?
A: Unlike Czech business and industry, which has become a part of the global market, the Czech education system has remained pretty closed. Now, businesses, firms and industry are struggling to be an integral part of the global market by adapting to challenges, while the educational system isn’t adapting enough. That’s why there is a gap between the Czech educational system and the business environment.
The educational system isn’t responding adequately to challenges from students or from industry. Businesses ask us to create a much larger segment of professionally oriented tertiary education. Most firms operating here would probably appreciate more well-trained professionals who aren’t necessarily doctorate or master’s degree graduates, but well trained bachelor’s degree holders. Another issue is the demand [for universities] to open up much more to cooperation with businesses to create ‘spins’—firms where business and education can cooperate on projects and generate profit that can be used by both sides.
Q: What are the roots of these problems?
A: The major problem is that in 1991 all universities got full autonomy under the law. The MŠMT doesn’t currently have enough power or authority to push universities to address these challenges. The only instrument the MŠMT has is financing, but even this is pretty much predetermined. All [financing study] coefficients are pretty much fixed. The MŠMT isn’t free to push schools to accept variation. Doing this would require changing [the Higher Education Act], and first of all the law should probably change the functioning of the governing structure of universities.
Q: What is the problem with the present management structure of universities?
A: Currently, rectors and deans are elected by academic senates that are made up of student and teacher representatives. Of course, you have the boards of trustees, but these boards can’t say anything about the criteria for electing a particular rector. The current governance creates conditions for being closed.
I believe that the boards of trustees should be involved in the election and decision-making processes about who’s going to be elected rector or dean.
Second, rectors—after being elected according to the new system—should get much higher power to decide about strategic goals and the means of achieving them, even [if] against deans. Schools should be managed … similar to corporations.
Q: How could the system open more to students?
A: Among the OECD [the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development] countries, the Czech Republic has the lowest proportion of private resources [to tertiary education]. At a public level we are almost average, so no one can blame the MŠMT that it doesn’t invest enough … but having only one-third of the school’s budget coming from private funding doesn’t make much sense. It’s clear that universities should do more to get more money from the private sector.
The MŠMT is increasing university budgets every year. But this can’t compensate for the low [educational] dynamics compared to dynamics in other advanced countries. The only way to compensate is in the private sector: from students themselves through cost sharing and through cooperation with business and innovation.
Q: If private financing increased, would the MŠMT maintain the current level of public financing?
A: Sure, it must be the same. But they [universities] will receive extra money. Many rectors say that introducing tuition fees is risky because if they get money from students, they aren’t sure that the state wouldn’t reduce public financing. Of course, this isn’t the case. The part of the agreement must be that the current normative financing will remain, eventually every year universities will receive more money because inflation and developments must be taken into account. Even the OECD recommended maintaining the system of allocating public money because it’s very progressive. But the financing system must also focus more on private financing.
Q: What should universities do with this extra money?
A: Whatever they want. They have autonomy. If I were a rector, I would use it to be able to compete with other universities, to increase salaries. … The best teachers should be paid much better. That’s how you will attract the best teachers and eventually more students. That’s up to the school and rectors to decide what strategy to be chosen and what way to go.
Q: What are the reactions from the business community to the idea of increasing private financing of tertiary education?
A: Quite rational. When we try to get a response from businesses on why they don’t cooperate more with schools, they say that schools don’t have anything to offer. … Basically, the response from business is that if a school doesn’t already have common research programs with businesses, then there is nothing they can expect.
Q: How should businesses intervene to better support the private financing of universities?
A: They should have their representatives on the boards of trustees. If they have an influence on the design of the study programs—and have confidence that the study programs are designed to provide degree holders for their own business—then they should even financially support universities and students in these programs. If we create tax incentives, then business could invest money in universities in general.
Q: Why can’t universities become more competitive within the current framework?
A: You can’t do any significant reform without implementing the model of cost sharing. Individual universities can do some reforms, but can’t compete globally. If we keep financing at the current level, we will continue admitting every year only 60 percent of those who apply for tertiary education, which is revolting. … We must increase that and we can’t increase participation unless we have more money. There’s no chance, if you look at the current state budget, to invest more into the university system simply because we can’t. How could one relocate money from health care to higher education? There is still some room for universities to operate within the current system, but there is very limited space for very significant change.