Presentation on theme: "1 Equity and HE funding in Slovenia Dušan Lesjak, ISSBS Duša Marjetič, MHEST Rijeka, 15. 3. 2011 TEMPUS ACCESS."— Presentation transcript:
1 Equity and HE funding in Slovenia Dušan Lesjak, ISSBS Duša Marjetič, MHEST Rijeka, 15. 3. 2011 TEMPUS ACCESS
2 Public funding of HE Students are considered to be financially dependent on their parents. No tuition fee for full-time students at 1. and 2. cycle. Full time students and part time students, who are not employed or registered as unemployed also benefit from health insurance, subsidised nutrition, subsidised rent in student dormitories / private accomodation and travel subsidies. Scholarships (2009): materially deprived students (56%), talented and gifted students (28%), company scholarships (15%). Indirectly additional benefits are guaranteed for parents and students through tax benefits and tax relief on student’ work.
3 Transfers and payment to households include all scholarships and child benefits. Transfers to other private entities include subsidies to transport enterprises, subsides for textbooks, professional literature, etc. Total expenditure of TE
Scholarships in TE 4 23% of enrolled students received a scholarship (26.913 out of 114.873) in 2009.
55 Student aid (cont.) Subsides for rent of student husing – a case of Student dormitory in Ljubljana: average noneconomic rent per month: 66.21 EUR average economic rent per month: 148.33 EUR (Students pay noneconomic rent, public contribution is a bit more than 15 EUR or aprox. 30 – 40 EUR, if it is a private accommodation.) Travel subsides is form 17% – 70% price of transportation, depending on economic status of parents and the distance from the HEIs. Subsided nutrition – student lunch is 2,62 EUR; per day a student can use maxium 2 subsidies (at least 4 hours in between).
7 health insurance, subsidised nutrition, subsidised rent in student dormitories, travel subsidies, scholarships HEIsStudent support MHEST Slovenian Research Agency MLFSA TeachingResearch Slovenian Human Resource Development and Scholarship Fund Other (SUO SWC …) Other (SUO SWC …) Other Financing of HE SUO - student union organisation SWC - social walefare centre
88 Public funds for education (2007) ISCED 0: preschool, ISCED 1: basic, ISCED 2-4: upper secondary, ISCED 5-6: TE
10 % of public expenditure for TE students aid (2007)
11 Public expenditure per TE student in EUR PPS (2007)
12 OECD recommendation We have recently got the answer from the OECD to the question of whether Slovenia allocates sufficient (public) funds to HE. They highlighted the: low efficiency of spending funds in primary education and the need to introduce tuition fees (in combination with student loans) in higher education. Source: OECD Economic Survey, Slovenia, Overview, February 2011.
13 Budget for HE in 2010 (289 mio EUR) Source: MHEST – first figures for 2010
15 HE students and funds Year20032004200520062007200820092010 Academic year2002/32003/42004/52005/62006/72007/82008/92009/10 Students (1. cycle) 49.81850.56851.87352.46253.22953.84852.67952.803 Students (2. cycle) ----1126751.6853.635 Students (all)49.81850.56851.87352.46253.34154.52354.36456.438 Graduates7.4607.7897.5857.8458.0488.1508.1058.098 EUR/students3.2283.4453.5743.7253.7814.0584.6704.455 Source: MHEST
16 Funds for teaching Source: MHEST year Fixed funds Var. funds Deve- lop. etc. 2. cycle Addit. funds All funds Ann. incr. (in %) GDP real growth (in %) GDP nom. growth (in %) Infla- tion (in %) 2003 160,8 2004 138,734,40,4- 0,7174,2 8,3 4,3 5,43,6 2005 143,839,12,6--185,5 6,5 4,5 6,02,5 2006 146,845,33,3--195,4 5,4 5,8 8,02,5 2007 131,067,83,5 0,3-202,5 3,6 6,811,33,6 2008 129,183,92,4 1,7 4,2221,3 9,6 3,5 7,45,7 2009 144,887,91,2 4,816,4255,1 15,3-7,8-6,00,9 2010 155,384,30,010,2 1,4251,4-1,4 1,2 1,90,7 2011 259,5 3,2
21 Why change HE funding? Weaknesses of the previous system (up to 2003): The way funds were distributed to HEIs. Funds were not (always) spent rationally. Governmental controls were focused on the way money was spent and not on the realization of goals and quality assurance in HE. Slow responsiveness of HEIs to changes (example: demographic, HRM policy, labour market needs, etc.).
22 Desirable qualities of the new funding model were: Flexibility: it should recognise differences between HEIs and allow their flexibility to maximise autonomy (academic and financial) so that they can achieve their mission. Choice: HEIs should not be limited in offering a selection of study programmes. Quality: funding should reward and promote excellence of results in education. Simplicity/efficiency: it should be simple for governing by the state and comprehensible for HEIs and students. It should assure the best results for invested funds. Predictability: it should enable planning with a certain level of predictability both, for the state and HEIs. Desired qualities
23 LS = OLS + NLS : (Annual Funds = Fixed AF + Normative AF) LS (AF) - OLS (FAF) = NLS (NAF) LIV = (LS – Σ OLS) / Σ ((Š + D * Ud ) * f(s)) The annual initial value (LIV) represents the standard annual funds per student in the first study group and is calculated as the quotient of the difference of annual budget funds (LS) and the basic annual funds of all HEIs ( OLS) and the total number of students (Š) and the number of graduates (D) multiplied by the weighting (Ud) and the factor f(s) of the study group to which the HEIs. Formula (2004-2010)
24 New decree (2011-) In comparison with the previous financing system, the new lump sum represents 100% of value from 2010 (fixed part), which can be increased or decreased by 3% each year. This variable part is calculated through three indicators which measure the improvement of value compared to the previous year in: completion rate of current generation of students, progress of students from first into second year of studies, international incoming and outgoing mobility of students. The main limitation at setting the indictors was the availability of data on the level of student. The data exists on HEIs, but not on national level. It is expected that the new information system on HE will solve this problem within next two years.
25 Reasons for the new decree Demographic trends Development phase of the HE Fixed part (100%) gives the HEIs needed stability and protects public HEIs Development funds have to be provided by the budget …
26 Strengths: Autonomy of universities Financial autonomy of universities HRM (policies) of universities Weaknesses: Decentralized universities Inefficiency in spending of (public) funds Low efficiency of HE: drop out, long duration of study Low effectiveness of HE: unemployment or inappropriate employment of graduates Strengths / Weaknesses
27 Challenges Limited resources in national budget – Efficiency in spending of resources Equity – “Free” higher education – Full time / part time studies Accountability (vs. autonomy) – Professional management at universities – Transparent management – Responsiveness and reporting to society Quality
28 Increase of total funds available to HE and scientific and research work. By means of multi-annual financing mechanisms that will reward successful HEIs to create a system of financing with a basic and a developmental pillar. Ensure stability of financing of scientific and research activities of universities through the introduction of comprehensive financing of research (i.e. research “lump-sum”). Central HE information system (students, staff in HE, HEIs, study programmes). Master plan for HE 2020
29 Public (and private) funds spent in HE for: HEIs for teaching and students for aid have to serve the same purpose – “3 e”: equitable access efficient study (quick and quality study) effective study (quick and good employability) therefore the proper, jointly developed and balanced mechanism and instruments of theirs’ distribution among the HE participants have to be developed and implemented. nstead of conclusion Instead of conclusion