Dimensiones corporal, psicológica y espiritual del orgullo

National councils or commissions for higher education (as well as university grants commissions) are often called buffer bodies because they occupy the middle ground in the hierarchy between the ministry of education and the individual universities.38 _{In this position, they can mediate between government and the universities,}

and also deflect some criticism from either party away from the other, thereby reducing the possibility that the dissatisfaction of one side with the other will escalate into a political standoff. This arrangement also gives the ministry the option to remain above the dispute and play the role of arbitrator of last resort.

The normal division of labor between the ministry and the buffer body is for the ministry to handle strategic planning, the policy framework, and public budgeting; and for the buffer body to play a more operational role, carrying out quality assurance, institutional budget allocation, monitoring policy compliance, and generating system-wide statistics to inform policy and planning. In most cases, buffer bodies are linked to the ministry but function as legal entities with an autonomous governing board and independent members drawn from both higher education and industry or commerce. Funding for the buffer body is either by a grant from the ministry, university subscriptions, income generated from services provided, or some combination of these sources. For buffer bodies to perform their functions effectively, their governance and staffing arrangements must inspire respect and confidence on all sides.

38 _{Some countries create separate ministries of higher education to carry out many of the same responsibilities as those of buffer bodies, but}

without being able to play the “buffering” function.

64

Inno

vative Strategies in Higher Education for Accelerated Human Resource De

The main advantage of having a buffer body is that it removes all the detailed operational issues from the ministry of education.39 _{This is a particular advantage in large higher education systems. A major benefit is that}

it protects the government from charges of intervention in academic affairs. Also, it generally encourages greater institutional autonomy. Furthermore, it saves the parliament from constant lobbying and helps the buffer body to develop an in-depth understanding of the sector. This allows the ministry to concentrate on policy issues and avoid involvement in the daily management of institutions. For its part, instead of relying on career civil servants, the semiautonomous buffer body can recruit specialist staff with a good understanding of higher education. These staff can operate within an independent career structure created by the buffer body in order to attract competent professionals.

The main risk from the government perspective is that the buffer body may fail to follow government policy in making its decisions and in managing the sector. There have been cases where ministers of education have felt that the buffer body stood in the way of reform and that the ministry no longer had control of the sector. The key to overcoming this is for the chair and chief executive of the buffer body to have regular close liaison with senior ministry staff on policy matters, and also to ensure that the buffer body obliges universities to incorporate national policy guidelines into their own strategic plans.

The main risk from the buffer body’s point of view is that the ministry will still intervene in the funding and management of institutions in response to direct lobbying by vice-chancellors and others in the sector. Should this happen, the buffer body will become marginalized and institutions will no longer consider themselves bound by its decisions. This situation can easily arise if the ministry loses confidence in the ability of the buffer body to perform its functions. This risk can also be avoided by regular contact between senior staff of the ministry and buffer body to ensure mutual consistency in their actions. In addition, the ministry should exercise self-discipline so that it acts only though the buffer body in any dealings with individual institutions.

Some of the most common responsibilities given to buffer bodies are listed below. However, virtually no buffer body is given authority to carry all of these.

• Strategic planning. Government policy goals are translated into a strategic plan for the higher

education system. This plan serves to guide the strategic planning of individual institutions.

• Policy analysis. Although they do not set policy, buffer bodies often analyze policies to determine

their impact, the source of problems, and appropriate remedies, which are recommended to government.

• Quality assurance and academic program review. Where quality assurance is not undertaken by an

independent agency, buffer bodies often house quality assurance units.

• Budget development and funding allocation. The buffer body receives the funding for higher

education from the ministry and determines the criteria for its allocation, manages disbursements, and ensures accountability in spending. To do this, it may employ formula funding or competitive funding as incentives for improvement.

• monitoring and accountability for policy compliance. The body develops performance indicators

for assessing institutional progress toward the attainment of government’s policy goals and requires institutions to submit regular statistical reports on these indicators.

• deciding the total number of student admissions. Some bodies set admission numbers in line with

government policy goals and may even administer a nationwide university entrance examination. As in the case of university boards, the key questions are: Whose interests are represented? How are members chosen? Are members perceived to be objective and technically competent in their decision making? The answers

39 _{The following four paragraphs draw upon Fielden 2008.}

65

Steering Higher Education Systems and Institutions: Go

ver

to these questions vary among selected countries of Asia. Of 10 countries chosen for review, 3 do not have a buffer body, preferring to have a government ministry supervise higher education. Among the seven countries with buffer bodies, membership in the university grants commission or commission on higher education varies from a low of 5 persons in the Philippines to a high of 28 in Pakistan. However, five of these buffer bodies, including that of India, have a board membership of 12 or fewer.

In Asia, board membership in the buffer bodies is generally under firm government control. In six of the seven bodies, board members are appointed by the central government, usually the head of state or the prime minister. In the seventh, half the members are appointed by the council of ministers. In most cases the buffer body’s accountability is to central government, rather than to the minister of education.

The interests and talents of board members are more diverse in some countries than in others. In the three focus countries, members are drawn largely from the academic community, complemented by a minority of government representatives (usually from the ministry of education, the ministry of finance, and the national planning commission). India broadens this group by incorporating several specialists in important national sectors such as agriculture, health, and technology. Pakistan goes further and includes some provincial government representatives as well. Thailand does much the same, but adds professional association representation. These latter practices are quite consistent with international trends toward greater external representation from beyond government and the university community, in buffer bodies as well as in university councils, in the effort to strengthen links between higher education policy making, the labor market, and the economy.

The main functions assigned to buffer bodies, however, are remarkably consistent. In general, they are charged to (i) assess the funding needs of universities and recommend budget allocations, (ii) monitor and maintain educational quality, (iii) regulate private higher education, (iv) advise the government on higher education issues, and (v) coordinate the development of the overall system. In a few cases, such as Sri Lanka, these bodies may also regulate student admission to the universities.