Reforming Higher Education in Romania
_________________________
LUMINITA NICOLESCU
Introduction
Modern societies, which are deeply affected by globalisation, need lifelong learning to progress in the context of worldwide changes such as the technologicalisation of knowledge and communication and regional economic integration. Therefore, most developed societies became learning and knowledge societies in which education plays an important role by being transformed into a mass process at initial stages and by emphasising lifelong education (Green, 1997). Central and Eastern European countries, and amongst them Romania, have an even greater need to have educational systems that can help their transition to market economies. Education systems in these countries must transform old, egalitarian and passive working mentalities into active, competition-based and responsibility-taking mentalities, which are the basis of market-driven societies. This can only be attained in the long term and implies extensive reforms in their educational systems. Romania, as a country that freed itself from Communism at the end of 1989, is in this situation.
Prior to 1989, Romanian higher education was highly politicised, centralised, and planned. Its political character was reflected in the fact that, as a rule, all academics had to be members of the Communist Party. There were very few exceptions and the consequences were that universities acquired genuine academics, but also highly politically-oriented people. At the same time, those in political positions (Secretary of the Communist Party at different levels) had more power than those in academic managerial positions (dean, rector). In many instances, the two overlapped. The system’s centralisation was reflected in the fact that all decisions were taken at ministry level: from major decisions such as curricula, financing of education to detailed decisions (e.g. hiring and firing personnel, acquisition of books, equipment). Initiative had no place in such a system and people at all levels were used to follow instructions and pre-set rules. The better you followed the rules, the better academic you were.
The planned character of the system was reflected in the unique curricula at national level for the same specialisation, unique admission procedures and criteria, pre-established number of places (according to the planned demand from the labour market) and the planned distribution of graduates to vacant jobs at national level. The role of the higher education system was to develop élites to run the country at different levels, as it was traditionally the case in other European societies.
Evolution of Higher Education since the Collapse of Communism
Higher education in Romania witnessed a huge expansion after 1990. The number of students increased 2.5 times between 1990 and 1999 (Statistical Yearbook of Romania, 2000) and the number of institutions increased from 42 in the 1970s (OECD, 2000) to 111 in 1999 (Statistical Yearbook of Romania, 2000) because of the creation of new state higher education institutions in non-traditional towns after 1990 and of a large number of private higher institutions. The number of academic staff also increased by 101% (Miroiu, 1998) as a result of greater activity in higher education nation-wide. In 1999-2000, their total number in both state and private higher education was 54,474 (Edinvest, 2000). A shift from technical to economic and juridical specialisations was due to the oversized technical education prior to 1990 and to greater demand after 1990 as a result of the needs of the labour market. The financial resources allocated to education in general were between 3% and 4% of the GDP (see table I), usually not sufficient for the growing sector of higher education.
The reform of the higher education system was launched immediately after 1989. It started with the discontinuation of political indoctrination and personal and political police control, as well as hiring staff (for 15 years before 1990, no hiring and very few promotions had taken place). According to Birzea (1997), modernisation, structural and systemic reforms were also needed. He considers that, in 1997, modernisation reforms (changes in curricula, textbooks, teaching methods), as well as structural reforms (legal and managerial issues) were beginning, while the systemic reforms meant to change the inner logic of the system were not pursued at all.
The reform comprised the enactment of a number of laws:
- the Law on the Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and the Recognition of Diplomas (Law no. 88/1993)
- the Law on Education (Law no. 84/1995)
- the Statute of Academic Staff (Law no. 128 /1997)
The Accreditation Law was passed to regulate the establishment and functioning of private higher education institutions that began to be created in 1990 with no legal framework.
The Education Law of 1995 introduced new elements such as the suppression of the state monopoly in the organisation of education (by allowing private schools to function, even though they were already functioning), the guarantee of education in minority languages and for pupils with special needs, and the allocation of a minimum share (4%) of the GDP (Daun, Sapatoru & Nicolescu, forthcoming 2002). It also stated that academic institutional autonomy was a major principle. But the provisions of the law were somewhat contradictory and could not support the reform which was and is necessary (Korka, 2000). Institutional autonomy could not be implemented because the tools were lacking: no other legal regulations stated what universities were allowed to do, while the main issue of university autonomy, namely the curricula, was still designed by the Ministry. Public universities did not have complete freedom over public funds. Universities were allocated public funds by the Ministry of Education on request (funds allocated had more to do with faculty costs than students’ costs).
Hence, the reform also stagnated due to the lack of initiative and entrepreneurial abilities of the universities’ management.
In December 1997, a new Minister of Education was appointed and he initiated the re-launch of the educational reform.
A distinctive issue of the transformation of higher education in Romania is the rise of private higher education. The first institutions appeared in 1990, based on decree no. 54/1990 that allowed for entrepreneurial activities. There was no specific law on education until 1993, when the accreditation law was enacted and no action was taken to implement the law before 1996 when the Accreditation Council was formed as a body under the direct responsibility of Parliament. Only in 1996 did the implementation of the accreditation law begin (OECD, 2000).
The number of private higher education institutions increased from 0 in 1989 to 54 in 1999, with a high concentration in Bucharest (40%) (OECD, 2000). They mainly taught economic and juridical sciences, seen as a response to higher demand for such qualifications in the labour market at the beginning of 1990s. For instance, in 1997-1998, of the total number of students enrolled in private higher education institutions, 36% were enrolled in economics faculties and 38.5% in law schools (Novak, et al. 1998).
Private universities largely relied on the staff of state universities, as, in 1996, they only employed between 5% and 10% of the staff (Mihailescu, 1996), the rest being professors from state universities that used the private ones as an extra source of income. Because of that duplication, the organisation, the curricula, and the teaching methods of state universities were transferred to the private universities, leaving no place for innovation, initiative, and better quality education. Moreover, the fact that these universities attracted students who were unsuccessful at the examination of the state universities (Sapatoru, 2001) and, contrary to expectations, students from low-income families (Ionita, 1998) make us doubt about the quality of their education.
These are some of the reasons why it is generally believed that private higher education is not a real alternative (Mihailescu, 1996; Miroiu, 1998; Horobet & Chiritoiu, 1999). But the high demand for higher education could not be satisfied by the State. The popular belief that private higher education is lower in quality than state higher education is also found among high-school graduates (Sapatoru, 2001) and employers (Nicolescu, 2001). Yet the fact that demand is still high raises the question of how justified is it? Is it because higher education offers a high status in society, regardless of the type of education? Is it because graduates of private higher education find jobs, since many already have a guaranteed work place (family business, jobs obtained through connections) and do not give importance to the quality of the diploma they obtain? Research conducted with the business community in Romania showed that private employers have common policies and practices towards graduates of both state and private universities and make no formal differences between the two, although they do consider state university graduates as being more knowledgeable and more serious than private university graduates (Nicolescu, forthcoming, 2002).
Private universities have financial autonomy, as they generally depend on tuition fees and other taxes from the students. So far, they only offer Bachelor and Diploma programmes, but no Master or Advanced Studies programmes, or programmes that are part of continuing education. There are also private programmes or programmes of state universities elaborated in collaboration with Western universities (ASEBUSS, the Romanian-Canadian MBA programme at Bucharest) that charge high tuition fees, but are in great demand because of their high quality. They can also be seen as successful examples of private higher education, since they use the know-how of Western universities, generally offer a double certificate, are usually post-graduate programmes and enjoy recognition in the labour market.
When he became Minister of Education, Professor Andrei Marga, described the characteristics of Romanian higher education at the time (Marga, 1998):
- it transmits knowledge, but does not encourage creativity
- it is mostly repetitive
- it is based on the separation into rigid subjects, while there is no real interdisciplinarity
- it is an equalitarian system of a collectivist type where individual performance is not really recognised
- it is centralised, since for any decision the approval of the ministry is required
- it stresses general qualification at graduate level, with less attention paid to postgraduate studies
- it functions under the pressure of corruption (concerning grading, competitions, job offers, examinations), when competition, transparency, accountability are really needed.
Public higher education was therefore state controlled, under-financed and equalitarian, while private higher education was quantitative-oriented, due to its dependence on tuition fees (the number of students enrolled is of crucial importance in order to cover costs).
The first wave of reforms failed because universities remained focused on the needs of the provider rather than on the demands of student ‘customers’; the disciplines, the geographical distribution, the number of places at universities, and funding were all based on the available workforce, rather than on students’ and society’s needs (Miroiu, 1998; Horobet & Chiritoiu, 1999).
The Romanian education system remained centred around the Ministry of Education and slow decision-making that relied only on limited but CERTAIN financial resources. Given this situation, the main challenges of the re-launched reform were:
- to harmonise the content and management of education with the principles of market economy
- to transform universities (as well as schools and high-schools) into conveyers of moral, cognitive and technological progress
- to harmonise the organisation, functioning and assessment of universities with the standards of the Euro-Atlantic space.
According to the counsellor of the Minister of Education, Professor Korka, the new reform was meant to be systemic, rapid and comprehensive (Korka, 2000). The systemic character requires on the one hand the correlation of the educational legal framework to the new principles of education (autonomy, accountability) and on the other to the development of a strategic component that comprises implementation programmes (for curriculum, knowledge assessment, evaluation of study programmes, recognition of diplomas, etc) at all levels and in each field.
The reform must be rapid, as the first 7 years, up to 1997, were lost in reforming education in general and higher education in particular. It must also be comprehensive in the sense that it must correspond to the major options taken by the Romanian government, such as Euro-Atlantic integration.
The new reform is seen (Korka, 2000) as having two phases: the transition phase that implies immediate and urgent transformations and the advanced structural phase that implies a higher compatibility with the international requirements and standards.
The main objectives of the new transition reform are:
- gradually enhancing access to academic studies
- qualitative improvement of higher education and scientific research
- decentralisation of academic and financial management of higher education by increasing academic autonomy and institutional accountability
- strengthening the partnership between universities from different countries and between them and the business community.
The core element is switching from a centrally managed system with a budget granted on request (and constantly open to pressures) to a decentralised system, based on academic and financial autonomy, as well as accountability. University autonomy is also supposed to induce qualitative improvements in teaching and research and strengthen the links of universities with the communities of which they are part, thus contributing to the fulfilment of the other objectives of the reform.
In order to pursue the new reform, the legislative framework was modified and updated.
The Education Law of 1995, modified in 1999, introduces a shift towards multiple sources of financing, whereby universities can manifest their autonomy. Universities can use state funds (from the budget) and extra-budgetary funds. State funds are allocated on the basis of ‘global financing’. By law, the allocation of state funds shifted from the allocation based on request (as previously) to allocation based on two mechanisms: 1) core funding, i.e. a lump sum given to universities according to the number of student equivalents (the costs implied by the number of students enrolled) and 2) complementary funding, i.e. based on project competition (these funds are designated especially for research, but also for investments). Extra-budgetary funds can be own funds of universities (fees and income from other activities) or drawn funds (sponsorships, donations).
The Accreditation Law of 1993 that introduces two phases of the accreditation began to be applied. The two phases of the accreditation process are: the authorisation phase (in which existing universities are checked against criteria such as ratio between theoretical and practical activities, the teaching plan, ratio between senior and junior academic staff, ratio between fully employed and part-time staff, owned material base) and subsequently the accreditation phase that adds new conditions (such as publications of the fully employed staff, minimum ratio of students’ exam promotion, forms of students’ examination). In the three years following both authorisation and accreditation, universities are subject to evaluation by an academic audit. A special commission was established to pursue this activity.
The Statute of Academic Staff of 1997 is also currently being modified. An impressive number of new regulations such as Government ordinances and decisions (for the establishment or discontinuation of higher education units financed by the public budget, student financial support and student social protection) and orders of the Minister of Education (promoting decentralisation, strengthening institutional independence) were promoted in 1998, 1999 and 2000 in order to speed up the reform.
Together with the updating of the legal framework, a number of specialised institutional bodies (committees, councils) were created either within or independent of the Ministry of Education to advise and assist the Ministry in the implementation of the reform. For instance, the National Commission for Academic Authorization, Accreditation and Evaluation that is subordinated to Parliament and deals with the authorisation/accreditation of higher education institutions; the National Council for Financing Higher Education, the National Council for Scientific Research, the National Council of Rectors, the National Council for Libraries. These structures are formed with academics and function as force tasks or as expert bodies.
The main aspects envisaged by the re-launched reform were the following:
A. greater access to higher education
B. better teaching (curriculum; transfer credits, examination, evaluation)
C. the re-launch of research activities
D. the development of institutional autonomy and university management (academic and financial autonomy and accountability)
A. Romania is one of the European countries with the lowest number of students per 100,000 inhabitants. In 1995, there were 1,483 students per 100,000 inhabitants, as compared to 1,946 in Poland, 1,514 in Hungary, 2,942 in Bulgaria, 3,126 in the UK, 3,617 in France and 4,009 in Norway (UNESCO, 1998). Hence, the increase in the number of students is a strategic priority for the Ministry of Education. The strategy requires an increase in the enrolment capacity of universities, which is difficult to obtain with the restricted funds for education in Romania. Therefore, in 1998, through a governmental ordinance, fee-paying education was allowed in public universities. This was in contradiction with the constitutional provisions that says that ‘state education is free, according to law’ (Romanian Constitution, article 32, heading 4), but it seems that, as long as it responds to a high and unsatisfied demand for higher education, its ‘illegal’ character is excused. The situation is tolerated because on the one hand the Constitution of Romania was enacted in 1991 when mentalities were closer to the past than to an unknown future and on the other the decision was welcomed by consumers, as in the academic year 2000-2001 there was a total of 77,050 fee-paying students at state universities (in full-time, part time and distance learning) (Ministry of Education, 2000). It is up to each state university to establish the number of places for fee-paying education and the annual fee according to its material and human capacities and the cost of such programmes.
Minorities have access to higher education through university programmes organised in their languages at different universities and more recently (1999) the establishment of a multi-lingual university in the languages of minorities. Given their academic autonomy, universities can organise their own programmes, including in minorities languages, as access of minorities is guaranteed by law.
Another way of increasing the enrolment capacity and the supply of education is by accrediting private tertiary institutions that meet the educational standards required by law. Private higher establishments are generally seen as a way to increase enrolments without using public funds (Peano, 1998).
B. The reform of the teaching activity includes curriculum improvement, introduction of the transferable credit system, changing the admission examination.
As compared to the past (before 1995) when educational programmes and teaching plans were set at national level by the Ministry of Education, at present, all teaching plans, university programmes, textbooks are set at institutional level. The individual teacher can decide on teaching approaches, textbooks and other instructional materials (OECD, 2000). Universities started to design new fee-paying programmes, especially at postgraduate level. These did not exist in Romania prior to 1990. They are congruent with the continuous education system that the Romanian higher education system wants to become.
The academic curricula were considered to be overloaded compared with European curricula (Marga, 1998) and needed adjustment. The Ministry of Education’s objectives to reform the academic curricula envisaged the creation of a more generalist education, based on interdisciplinarity and binary specialisation, able to open opportunities for poli-qualifications (Korka, 2000; Marga, 2000).
Other ways of reforming teaching are:
- the introduction of transferable credits starting in the academic year 1998-1999, a system that wants to be compatible with the European credit system.
- the transformation of the admission exam into a decision at institutional level. Therefore, in 2000, admission exams differed greatly from university to university, with the introduction in the admission criteria of the results at the baccalaureate exams.
- the introduction of a foreign language in the final exam of graduation.
- a number of national standards, such as the total number of class hours per week (24-28); the number of general disciplines should account for 15%-18% of all disciplines, whilst specialisations should account for 50%-60% of the total number of disciplines.
C. The re-launch of research activities is another priority of the new reform. Research was forgotten for many years in Romanian universities. In its efforts to encourage research, the Education Law of 1995, modified in 1999, stipulates for the first time that the mission of universities is to provide learning and research. At the same time, new regulations adopted in 1999 give universities the right to establish, alone or in collaboration, research centres that can bid for national and international research funds. Modest funds for university research are allocated by the State. The structural basis for the ‘transparent’ distribution of resources (Korka, 2000) was set up through the creation of the National Council for Scientific Research in Higher Education. It is made up of senior members of the academic community and uses the peer-review selection procedure to distribute state research funds and other extra sources of international organisations (World Bank) that prefer to allocate their funds through the Ministry of Education. Even though the selection is meant to be fair and transparent, two issues could endanger the process: 1) senior academics vote for projects of other senior academics, thus discouraging young academics and 2) preferential allocation of funds is customary in Romania and is probable to take place in this case. However, important legal and structural steps have been taken to re-launch research in academic institutions.
The reform envisages both general aspects of the higher education system and very concrete aspects at institutional level. The relationship between the Ministry of Education and the institution is changing. The role of the Ministry will be to facilitate and regulate, to coordinate the development of the education system (including tertiary education), to set a framework for the evaluation of institutional competence, and to provide information to universities, employers and students.
There is no doubt that the Romanian higher education system has undergone changes since 1990. The greater number of students and the diversification of institutions providing higher education are a good proof of this. Even though the start of the reforms was timid, with no effects on the inner logic and functioning of the educational system, the second wave of reforms seems more promising.
Radical reforms only began in 1998, supported by the updated legislative framework and the formation of institutional structures to support the implementation of the reform. The process of change is still in progress and greatly depends on actions taken by individual universities (due to the autonomy they enjoy) and on the monitorisation of the change process. The pace of changes does and will differ from institution to institution, depending on its entrepreneurial spirit and faculty management. So far, changes in the academic field (such as the introduction of new programmes, new teaching methods, new staff promotion criteria) are still based on recommendations top-down from Ministry to senates and to faculties.
It is too early to appreciate the results of the re-launched reform, but it is clear that universities will have to learn to compete and take initiatives in both academic and financial activities. Whether they are going to do this on their own or with advice and guidance is another issue that needs to be examined. People are not going to change their old ways of thinking overnight. So far, university autonomy has not resulted in the improvements expected, but it may need longer.
Romania’s wish to catch up with global phenomena such as economic integration, globalisation, and technological progress requires the achievement of a knowledge society supported by lifelong learning. Such a new learning culture is emerging with a new generation of academics and it will be generalised when decision-making will be transferred in their hands, as usually new jobs, new mentalities require new people.
REFERENCES
the infusion of innovation, or cultural decommunization?, Higher Education in
DAUN, H. & SAPATORU, D. (forthcoming 2002) Educational reforms in Eastern Europe: shifts, innovation, restoration, in: DAUN, H. (Ed) Educational Restructuring in the Context of Globalization and National Policies (New York, Garlands); Nicolescu L (contribution to section on Romania).
EDINVEST (2000) Investment Opportunities in Private Education in Romania, Investment Opportunities in Private Education in Developing Countries, vol. 3: country profiles, Report to the Finance Corporation, presented by University of Manchester, North Anglia Polytechnic and the Institute of Economic Affairs, U.K.
GREEN, M. (1997) Transforming Higher Education: Views from Leaders Around the
HOROBET, A. & CHIRITOIU, B. (1999) Euro-Shape and Local Content: The Bottom Line on Romanian Higher Education Reform, Civic Education Project, Discussion Series, Budapest ,vol. 1, no. 1.
KORKA, M (2000) Strategy and Action in the Education Reform in Romania, (Bucharest, Paideia).
IONITA, S (1998) Against the Current: Arguments for Introducing Tuition Fees in Romanian Public Universities (in Romanian). Reports on Public Policies no.6 (Bucharest, Center for Institutional Reform, Romanian Academic Society).
MARGA, A. (2000) Education in Transition, Programul Phare Universitas (Bucharest, Paideia).
MIHAILESCU, I. (1996) The System of Higher Education in Romania, Agentia Nationala Socrates (Bucharest Alternative).
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION (2000) Higher Education, internal document.
MIROIU, A. et. al (1998) Invatamantul romanesc azi (Open Society Foundation, Bucharest).
MIROIU, A & BRATIANU C. (2000) The Quality Assurance Policy in Higher Education, Programul Phare, Universitas, (Bucharest, Paideia).
NICOLESCU, L. (2001) The Romanian Higher Education and the Integration in the European Union, Jurnalul Economic, May 2001, Bucharest.
NICOLESCU, L. (forthcoming 2002) Contribution of Higher Education to the Transition towards the Market Economy: the case of Romania in LIUHTO, K & JUMPPONEN J. (Eds) Ten Years of Economic Transformation (Finland).
NOVAK, C., JIGAU M., BRANCOVEANU R., IOSIFESCU, S & BADESCU M. (1998) Cartea Alba a Reformei Invatamantului in Romania (Bucharest, Ministry of Education).
PEANO, S. (1998) The financing of education systems, in PEANO, S. (Ed.) Education for the 21st Century: Issues and Prospects (UNESCO Publishing).
SAPATORU, D. (2001) Higher Education Choices in Romania: Public or Private? Ph.D. Thesis, Stanford University, School of Education.
Statistical Yearbook of Romania (2000) (Bucharest, National Commission of Statistics).
Table I. Public funds allocated to education in Romania
|
Years |
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
|
% of GDP |
3.2 |
3.1 |
3.5 |
3.6 |
3.7 |
3.6 |
Source: OECD, 2000, p. 29.