Ugsc brochure

The University Governance Screening Card A Tool for Benchmarking University Governance

University Governance addresses how universities and higher education systems define and implement their goals, manage their academic programs, student life, and physical, Financial, and human resources; and monitor their achievements and results, such as whether programs match market needs and graduate students with needed skills.

The key role that university governance plays in the improvement of education quality is now a broad consensus, especially in MENA, where higher education representatives have expressed a specific need for a benchmarking tool.

On December 2009, higher education ministers and policymakers from MENA countries attended a seminar held at the Marseille based Center for Mediterranean Integration (CMI) and expressed their specific need for benchmarking university governance. In response to this call, the World Bank’s regional program on higher education developed a Screening Card to assess to what extent MENA universities follow good governance practices aligned with their institutional goals.

The University Governance Screening Card was then endorsed as a regional Arab League Initiative during the biannual Conference of Arab World Ministers of Higher Education held in Abu Dhabi in December 2011, and which had governance as its central topic for discussion.

The first benchmarking results were published in a report in March 2012 “Universities Through the Looking Glass” and it involved 41 universities from four countries. Since then, the number of participating universities increased to 100 university across seven countries: Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Morocco, West Bank & Gaza, and Tunisia.

Key Characteristics The UGSC takes into consideraion the multidimensional nature of governance and it does not reveal an ideal or even a “good” governance model; its purpose is to identify trends. The UGSC uses an institution-based approach that focuses on universities and higher education institutions as opposed to national systems or country ratings. The UGSC has the capacity to: • Identify strengths and weaknesses at individual institutions; • Identify trends at the national level; • Identify trends and practices by type of institution; • Generate interest to initiate reforms at the institutional, national and regional levels.

is a ard C g in igher UGSC c r e e n sities and h nce S e a univer rnanc overn G o v e ocuses on model of g different y t i rs n hf he U n i v e tool whic identifies t titutions i follow g s The ities d n in i s n r k a r e f a s iv o and n m n bench n institutio ent types t extent u tional goals . It io e r u a t e educa d by diff ses to wh h their instit ss over tim ith e w it r e s follow s. It asse s aligned w their prog hemselves t s e e r ir e o count nce practic and monit to compar na s s gover ional trend universitie t s a w intern l that allo he world. t o is a to ies around it s r e univ

Methodology The UGSC uses five dimensions: (1) Overall Context, Mission, & Goals; (2) Management Orientation; (3) Autonomy; (4) Accountability; (5) Participation. For each dimension, the related international trend was highlighted to position the institutions relative to those trends.

A set of indicators for each dimension were indentified and a detailed questionnaire was built from which governance indicators can be scored. then a weighting system was dveloped to aggregate those indicators and transform the questionnaire onto a scoring instrument in order to record the results per institution. In order to present the results, we used a spider chart that provides a visual representation of the university’s position on each of the five dimensions. The score in each dimension is conceived as an indication of the universities’ situation vis-à-vis one of the global trends in governance practices.

Each dimension has a set of questions and a scoring methodology, and each question was designed to ensure that the response would help determine how closely the institution behaved relative to the global trend represented by the dimension. Most of the questions required “yes” or “no” answers to facilitate the scoring. Each dimension was scored on a scale of 1 to 5.

In addition to the questionnaire, the Screening Card includes a self-perception tool to assess the extent to which universities were aware of the governance model and practices they follow. This was on a single question per dimension that respondents rated on a scale of 1 to 5. Thus each institution has a self-perception report for the five dimensions of governance and a scored result based on the answeres provided to the questionnaire (scored by an independent observer trained to conduct the interview and score the questions).

UGSC Dimensions 1. Overall Context, Mission, & Goals: A key element in evaluating university governance is the overall framework of the higher education system and the interaction between an institution and the state. Part of governance is securing the resources required to carry out the goals and missions of the universities, as well as monitoring and holding accountable the performance of the institutional managers at the highest level.

2. Management Orientation: Management refers to the day-to-day (but no less critical) decisions of operating the institution: the admission, registration, and certification of degrees for students; the appointment, remuneration, and promotion of the academic and other staff; and the construction and maintenance of the facilities.

This means the head of the university and the available governing bodies, their composition, the process for the selection or appointment of its members, their roles and responsibilities, their reporting lines, the accountability measures in place, and the

This figure illustrates a hypothetical spider chart created using the results of a University Governance Screening Card.

time of their assignment.

3. Autonomy: Respecting the important practical differences between financial and academic autonomy, this analytical dimension tackles both. Financial autonomy is the ability of universities to set tuition fees, accumulate reserves and carryover surplus state funding, borrow money, invest money in assets whether financial or physical, and own and sell the land and buildings they occupy and to deliver contractual services. Academic autonomy takes into account the extent to which the universities are autonomous to design or redesign curricula, introduce or cancel degree programs, determine academic structures, decide the overall number of students, and determine admission criteria, admissions per discipline, evaluation of programs, evaluation of learning outcomes, and teaching methodologies.

4. Accountability: Accountability as a dimension of governance refers to different levels: academic staff, managerial staff, administrative staff, and governing bodies. It pertains to the process for evaluating the completion of institutional goals; the dissemination of information (including institutional goals, student achievements, alumni insertion in the labor market, institutional evaluations (internal and external), and accreditation); methods used for evaluating the performance of students, teaching staff, administrative staff, and managerial staff; financial auditing; and the process for risk management and dealing with misconduct.

5. Participation: The final dimension will analyze to what extent stakeholders and their interests are considered and what role stakeholders play in the decision-making process. Although there is a wide range of stakeholders in university matters, depending on the type of institution as well as on the overall framework of the system, common stakeholders included in the decision-making are students, academic staff, government, industry representatives, donors, community associations, unions, and alumni.

Characteristics of the University Sample Description of the university sample by country & status: Public Algeria Egypt Iraq Lebanon Morocco Palestine Tunisia Grand Total

22 7 14 8 12 65

Private for Profit 3 2 1 1 3 10

Private not for Profit 3 2 14 8 24

Total 22 13 16 16 9 9 15 100

UGSC average scores: Public-Private differences Group 1: Public Universities Group 2: Private Universities

For more information visit our program’s website: www.cmimarseille.org/highereducation