Hans Pechar and Thomas Pfeffer The Accreditation of Fachhochschul Programmes in Austria (Paper presented at the international conference Accreditation of Higher Education: Comparative Policies in Europe Vienna, 27 th April 2001) 1. The Fachhochschul Rat as a result of policy transfer We refer to the FHR as the 1 st accreditation agency in Austria. Our focus is on accreditation as a result of policy transfer from the UK. What are the characteristic/specific features of accreditation as compared with other kinds of quality assurance? Why was this new element introduced in Austria when the Fachhochschul-sector was established? In what sense can we speak about policy transfer? a) Let us refer to a definition of accreditation: "Accreditation refers to a process of quality control and assurance in higher education, whereby - as a result of inspection or assessment, or both, an institution or ist programs recognised as meeting minimum acceptable standards." (Adelman, in Clark/Neave, 1992, p.1313) Under what conditions is it important to guarantee minimum standards? When higher education instituions enjoy a high degree of autonomy with respect to the design of the curriculum. Previous to the establishment of Fachhochschulen this was not the case in Austria. Clarks triangle; position of Austria up to early 1990s - 1 -
Let us briefly look back to the traditional regulation of the curriculum at universities, which comprised four steps, two of which have been laws passed by the Parliament, a third one was a ministerial decree and only the fourth step was the "fine-tuning" of these general legal regulations by the study commissions of each university. The aim of this quite awkward procedure was to make the curriculum uniform throughout the country. Under such conditions there is no need for accreditation, because the governmental regulation secure homogenous quality at all national institutions. As soon as the state regulation is loosened: more diversity (also with respect to quality), minimum standards become unavoidable. b) The establishment of a Fachhochschul-sector was not only the introduction of short-term and more vocationally oriented higher education, it was also a big step in the direction of more institutional autonomy. Clarks triangle: position of Fachhochschulen. By comparing some basic features of universities (in the early 1990s) and Fachhochschulen one can get a first impression of the significance of that change: Maintenance and governance of the institution: all universities are owned by the federal government and run by the ministry. Fachhochschulen are not federal state institutions, they are owned by "quasi-private" associations or corporations and are governed by a professional management. Academic staff: the university faculty is employed by the federal state; faculty members are civil servants; professors are appointed by the minister. The faculty of Fachhochschulen is employed and appointed by the institution. Admission of students: at the university sector, admission is regulated by federal law. Graduates of the Gymnasium (about one third of the age group) are entitled to enrol at any Austrian university. There is open access regardless of resources. In the Fachhochschulsector students are admitted by the institution in accordance with available study places. Funding: universities depend entirely on the federal government; they receive money in form of earmarked grants. Fachhochschulen too depend on public funds, but their income comes from different public sources, from the federal government, from regional governments and from municipalities. Income from federal sources is a lump sum which is based on student numbers (cf. Pechar 1997). Why were Fachhochschulen organised in such a different manner? One important factor is the time, the late establishment of Fachhochschulen in Austria. In the early 1990s everywhere - 2 -
in the OECD world there was a move away from the regulatory state, towards "steering at a distance". However, it was extremely controversial to realise this break with well established traditions, to introduce and implement a new paradigm. This is now almost 10 years ago. Those who were involved in the process remember the heavy conflicts between defenders of the traditional model (the university as a role model) and advocates of the "accreditation model". c) The design of the accreditation model was strongly influenced by the British CNAA (better: the perception and understanding of the CNAA by the Austrian reformers). Why did not Germany serve as a role model (like in previous reforms)? A first obstacle was the similarity to Austrian traditions: in both countries, there is a tradition of strong state regulation of higher education. For those, who wanted to continue this tradition, the German role model was convincing. Those who wanted to break with that tradition looked for different examples. Since there was a general dissatisfaction with the centralised and legalistic regulation in Austrian higher education, British higher education appeared attractive to reformers and critics of the status quo. Secondly, the rectors conference received warnings from their German colleagues: the German model would seduce Fachhochschulen to academic drift. (irony: at the same time, when the British polytechnics indeed became universities, one motive of some Austrian reformers to advocate the British model was to prevent academic drift. There were many misunderstandings: the British model, Austrian reformers referred to, was often an idealised version of the past, which was at the time (at the early 1990s) had recently been abolished by the British government. In Austria too the CNAA was sometimes seen as a "buffer institution". Another misunderstanding: the CNAA served as a control agency which limited the autonomy of the Polytechnics (compared with universities); in Austria the FHR was meant to strengthen the autonomy of Fachhochschulen (compared to universities). More important than such misunderstandings, is the fact that reference to the CNAA served to legitimise the establishment of an institution - the FHR - which was totally alien to the Austrian political and legal tradition. Traditionally, comparable institutions are either subordinated to the ministerial bureaucracy, or they serve merely an advisory function. The FHR, however, is an independent body of experts which has nevertheless decision making competencies. The important lesson which was to learn by looking to the UK was the totally different relation - 3 -
between the government and higher education institutions. The critics of the accreditation model were very sceptical about the feasibility of such a policy transfer: elsewhere, they argued, such a model might work, but in Austria it would collapse. 2. How did the Fachhochschul Rat stand the test? To answer the question, how the Fachhochschul Rat as an accreditation agency for higher education did stand the test in the Austrian context, I want to pick up some main characteristics of the Fachhochschul Rat to describe this institution in its organizational design, in its tasks and in the way it acted. The Fachhochschul Rat can be characterized as: Expert body Independent agency Decision making body The Fachhochschul Rat as a body of experts The Fachhochschul Rat is composed out of sixteen members, which were appointed by the ministry of science in agreement with the ministry of education. Four of them were suggested by the social partners. But the majority of twelve members had to be high ranking individuals, either coming from an academic of from a professional background. The main rational of this composition was the attempt to design the Fachhochschul Rat as a body of experts and not as an assembly of representatives from various political interest groups. Naturally, the members of the Fachhochschul Rat have different loyalties, dependent from their personal background, their identity, their home region, their profession, their political orientation. But the most important thing, which made the Fachhochschul Rat serve its function so well was the fact, that the members refused to act as representatives of anybody else. In execution of their duty, the dominant behaviour of the members became that of experts, devoted to the goals of the Fachhochschul sector only. After a while, the Fachhochschul Rat had developed its own identity as an expert body and successfully resisted attempts to corrupt its integrity. - 4 -
The only problem turned out to be the nomination mechanism to this body. Members are nominated for three years, with the option to be re-nominated for one consecutive period, which means, that the responsible minister has to decide about the entire body every three years. In practice, this decision became a topic for political conflicts inside the government, which caused serious delays and endangered the work and continuity of the Fachhochschul Rat. Possibilities to avoid this danger would be either to continually exchange only a minority of the members, or to give the power to nominate its successors to the Fachhochschul Rat itself. The Fachhochschul Rat as an independent agency Unlike most other public agencies in Austria, the FHR is organized independently both from federal and from regional governments. It is an independent agency that is clearly not subordinated to any governmental bureaucracy. The Fachhochschul Study Act guarantees the independence of all members of the Fachhochschul Rat in the execution of their duties. They do not have to obey any orders from outside, not even by the ministry. With respect to the decisions of the FHR, the ministry only has supervisory function. It controls, if the FHR fulfils its tasks and acts in line with the legal framework. The ministry only can reject decisions of the FHR, if they contradict any legal requirements, but it cannot actively prescribe the outcome of a decision. Being set up apart from governmental bureaucracies did not avoid interventions. Several attempts to put pressure on the Fachhochschul Rat have been reported, coming both from federal and even stronger from regional politicians. Therefore it took much personal courage of the members and especially of Mr. Schelling, the former president to successfully build up a public reputation of independence for the Fachhochschul Rat. Maybe, it was of additional help to sustain independence, that decisions were taken collectively by the entire body, not by single individuals. However, the reputation of independence became strong enough, that even federal ministers could hide behind the decisions of the Fachhochschul Rat. - 5 -
The Fachhochschul Rat as a decision making body The Fachhochschul Rat does not only have advisory function, but decision making power as well. The main task of the Fachhochschul Rat lies in the accreditation of Fachhochschul study programmes. Every single study programme has to apply for allowance, which can be awarded for a maximum duration of five years. To re-apply for renewal, every study programme has to be evaluated. To find an accrediting decision, the Fachhochschul Rat considers the academic quality, the socio-economic relevance and the business plan of a proposed study programme. In a transparent, formalised procedure, applicants have to deliver a detailed list of materials on these topics. With respect to the academic quality, study programmes have to show a clear vocational orientation, focused on a professional field. Curricula have to reflect the variety of scientific opinions and methods. Training has to be based on a pedagogical concept and should be delivered by qualified staff. To demonstrate the socio-economic relevance of a proposed study programme, every applicant has to provide studies on the labour market demand in a targeted professional field, as well as investigations on the acceptance among potential students. This requirement of the accreditation procedure fosters the interaction between the study programme and its target groups. As part of their business plan, applicants have to demonstrate, that all staff, buildings and facilities to run their study programme are available. This is the basis for calculations of costs per study place. Additionally, applicants have to explain, from which sources they expect to fund their programme. In practice, about 90% of the costs for Fachhochschul study programmes are covered by federal funds, therefore applicants need a funding agreement from the federal government. With respect to decision making responsibilities, the main rational for the creation of an accreditation agency is a functional differentiation between two different types of decision: accreditation vs. funding. Accrediting study programmes, the Fachhochschul Rat takes the responsibility for the assessment of quality. Funding is a serious political decision of the - 6 -
federal government, with the need to set up priorities and with implications for the entire education system. Both types of decision are supposed to complement each other in a balanced interaction between the Fachhochschul Rat and the federal ministry. We got the impression, that this interaction has not always been balanced properly. The Fachhochschul Rat often had to substitute political decisions. (E.g. question of location) Outcomes (until 1999/2000) 1999, five years after the foundation of the Fachhochschul sector, 9.970 students were enrolled at Fachhochschul study programmes, 4,2% of the total enrolment in higher education. This percentage is misleading, since enrolment numbers at universities include a big proportion of paper students. Therefore, the number of entrants into the higher education system are more reliable. In 1999, 12% (3.518) of all entrants enrolled at Fachhochschul study programmes. Federal government has the ambitious goal to raise this percentage to 33% until 2004. Until 1999, the Fachhochschul Rat already has accredited 55 study programmes. These programmes are highly specialised and focus on a big variety of specific professional fields. but, comparing the more generalised subject areas of these programmes, the variety of subjects is quite limited. 32 programmes are for engineering, 16 for economics, 4 programmes are for media, 2 for tourism, 1 is for military management. This limitation results from the funding preferences of the federal government only, since the Fachhochschul Rat would be willing to accredit for other subject areas as well. These study programmes are organised by 20 providing institutions, which are located in all Austrian regions. Their size ranges from providers with one single study programme with 70 students only to providers with a maximum of 9 study programmes or 1.339 students. The most interesting thing about these institutions is the fact, that they are funded mainly by public funds (90% federal funds, the rest normally comes from the region or a municipality), but organised as private associations or private enterprises mainly. Given these characteristics, providers in the Fachhochschul sector are the first higher education institutions, which are organised apart from governmental bureaucracies. This marks an important difference to universities, which are still organised as subordinated units to the ministry. The conclusion is, that the introduction - 7 -
of the accreditation model facilitated the establishment of autonomous, independent higher education institutions in Austria. 3. Lessons to be learnt from the Fachhochschul-experience We have now discussed the design of a new model of quality assurance (strongly influenced by foreign examples) and it s successful implementation. Was this just an historical note or are there some relevant aspects of this whole experience for present higher education policy? We think there are two main aspects. Austrian universities face similar challenges Organisational reform of universities: departure form the regulatory state at universities; this has many aspects (new types of management, of funding). We focus on the curriculum, here it is obvious that the governmental regulation was dramatically reduced (UniStG); this in consequence requires other types of quality assurance. This has many analogies to the Fachhochschul-experience. Universities have lost their former monopoly in the "market" for higher education. Even form a domestic perspective, there is competition from Fachhochschulen and from private universities. At the same time: the Humboldtian tradition (laissez faire model) is challenged by emphasising the need for more service orientation (tuition fees). New understanding/concepts of quality, which is not exclusively based on traditional academic values. Finally we want to point to the Bologna process and the creation of an European higher education space. National governments and national traditions do not cease, but they lose importance. The consequence are unprecedented opportunities for mutual learning and exchange and transfer of policies. - 8 -