1 / 17

Funding of Higher Education System in Romania

Funding of Higher Education System in Romania. Prof. Radu Mircea DAMIAN. Public (State) universities. Pre sident of NHEFC. Funding system of the state universities in Romania. University’s own revenues. State budget allocations Other funding resources.

tylerkim
Download Presentation

Funding of Higher Education System in Romania

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Funding of Higher Education System in Romania Prof. Radu MirceaDAMIAN Public (State) universities President of NHEFC

  2. Funding system of the state universities in Romania University’s own revenues • State budget allocations • Other funding resources The State budget allocations are divided in : - core funding (allocated for staff expenditures and current material expenditures) - complementary funding (allocated to other expense categories, specific for university activities) • Other funding resources may include: • studentsfees • participation in various projects (research and other national and international project) etc.

  3. Student acomodation Fees and activities Scientific research External projects Micro production University funding system Core Funding (CF) 45% Complementary Funding (CmF) 19% University Other sources Own Funds 36%

  4. Core funding(budget allocations) • Teaching and non-teaching staff payroll expenditures; • Travel expenditures (domestic and international) Personnel expenditures: • Expenditures for maintenance and administration; • Expenditures for functional materials and services; • Inventory goods; • Recurrent repairs; • Books and publications; • Staff training, protocol, labor protection etc. Material expenditures:

  5. Complementary funding(budget allocations) • Social expenditures for students (scholarships, accommodation subsidies, travel expenditures etc.); • Funds allocated for capital expenditures, other investment expenditures and capital repair works; • University research funds allocated on competitive bases.

  6. Stages in the core funding distribution method (1) (for the public higher education system) The principle “resources follow the student” 1999 2000 2001 physical student  equivalance coefficient (educational forms ) Quantitative approach equivalent student  cost coefficient (domains) unitary equivalent student The principle “resources follow the student” The first quality elements The principle of improving quality in the educational process unitary equivalent student  aggregate qualitative indicator (with impact only on personal expenditures – 80% from CF) 2002 4 quality indicators (with complementary and corrective role) IC1 – The weight of filled teaching positions IC2 – The weight of filled positions of professors and lecturers in the total number of filled teaching positions IC3 – The weight of teaching staff under 35 years in the total number of teaching staff IC4 – The weight of teaching staff with Ph.D title in the total number of teaching staff

  7. Thegeneraldiagram of the indicators system Educational system Academical and Administrative Management ( M ) • Resources – inputs • Human resources (academic staff and researchers, students, auxiliary and administrative staff) • Material resources • Informational resources • Financial resources • Results – outputs • Students performances at graduation • Institutional resources • Other specific performances of the university Teaching Process (D) D-M D - CS D-AS Other activities of educational system and specific servicies of university (AS) Scientific Research (CS) Quality indicators

  8. Stages in the core funding distribution method (2) (for the public higher education system) The principle “resources follow the student” + The principle of improving quality in the educational process 2003 2004 2005 Quality of the teaching process (academic staff and endowments’ expenditures) unitary equivalent student Quality of institutional performances that influence the teaching process + 13 quality indicators (structured in 3 groups) (academic and administrative management, scientific research, students services) (12,7% from CF) (87,3% from CF) Quality of processes that influence directly the teaching activity (financial management)

  9. Stages in the core funding distribution method (3) (for the public higher education system) The principle “resources follow the student” + The principle of improving quality in the educational process unitary equivalent student Academic staff + 13 quality indicators (structured in 4 groups) 2006 2007 (quality of the academic staff and its developement potetial) The impact of scientific research on teaching process (20% from CF) (80% from CF) (the level of scientific research and the ways to generate value out of it) Resources and facilities (the quality of the available resources and facilities, and the documentation means) unitary equivalent student + 12 quality indicators (structured in 4 groups) Academic management (the quality of academic and administrative management, the quality of students services) (25% from CF) (75% from CF)

  10. Stages in the core funding distribution method (4) (for the public higher education system) The principle “resources follow the student” 2 0 0 8 + The principle of improving quality in the educational process unitary equivalent student + 13 quality indicators (structured in 4 groups) (30% from CF) (70% from CF) * 1,5% from CF are not allocated and represent the reserve (buffer) fund, as in previous years

  11. The indicators classification for the budgetary allocation A. Quantitative indicators Equivalent Student Number Cost Coefficients 70% B. Qualitative indicators 30% 1. Quality indicators of the teaching process (IC1, IC3,IC4, IC5) 8,5% 2. Quality indicators of the research processes influence (IC6, IC8) 8,0% 3. Quality indicators of the resources development (IC9,IC10, IC11) 3,5% 4. Quality indicators of the academic and administrative management (IC13,IC14, IC15, IC16) 10,0%

  12. Quality indicators (1) Quality indicators for the didactical process IC1 - The ratio of the number of full-time teaching staff to the total number of unitary equivalent students 4,00% IC3 - The ratio of the number of full-timelecturers, to the total number of unitary equivalent students 1,00% IC4 - The ratio of the number of full-time teaching staff, with doctoral academic title, to the total number of unitary equivalent students 1,50% IC5 - The ratio of the number of full-time teaching staff, under 35 years, to the total number of unitary equivalent students 2,00% Quality indicators for the scientific research impact IC6 - The level of the scientific research performances 7,00% 1,00% IC8 - The ratio of the reseach contracts to the total incomes of the univesity

  13. Quality indicators (2) Quality indicators for infrastructure IC9 – The ratio of the expenditures for development to the total number of students 1,50% 1,00% IC10 – The ratio of the material expenditures to the total number of students IC11 – The ratio of the expenditures for books and publications to the total number of students 1,00% Quality indicators for university management IC13 - The quality of the academic and administrative management 3,00% IC14 - The ratio of the extra budgetary incomes to the total incomes 2,00% IC15 - The ratio of the expenditures from extra bugetary incomes for development to the total incomes 3,00% IC16 - The quality of the social and administrative services for students 2,00%

  14. Evolution of the budgetary allocations between 2006-2008 (1) (for the public (state) higher education system) The evolution of the influence of quality indicators on the universities’ core funding The percentage of 100% correspond to a distribution of the budgetary allocation on student numbers’ only. Notes: *The results are based on the statistical data available at January 1st, 2008.

  15. Quality indicators (3) Total quality of academic and administrative management indicator into a mean of synchronizing the efforts made by the Ministry of Education, Research and Youth, NCHEF and Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ARACIS) to increase the quality of higher education. The role of the quality in higher education system became of utmost importance in the last years and takes the first place on the current agenda of European policies in higher education, and in the same time at national level.

  16. Quality indicators (4) The external quality evaluation of institutions and programs remain the responsibility of ARACIS, the results of this evaluation will be made public, one important outcome being the “label” indicating the quality level of the educational structure and process. The results of the external evaluation for each institution will be also used by CNFIS for the qualitative component of the core funding and for the implementation of funding strategies and principles for complementary funding. The level of research performance in higher education (evaluated by CNCSIS in partnership with CNFIS) will be used by ARACIS in their research evaluation and accreditation component and by CNFIS in the formulation and implementation of funding strategies for higher education.

  17. Synergy In the context of the increasing role of quality policies and strategies for higher education, the results of external quality assessment will have more impact on the funding strategies and it will be necessary to underline the role of the partnership between the main institutions involved: ARACIS, CNFIS and CNCSIS.

More Related