Figure 2 in comparison shows that a relatively high number of private higher education institutions (with mostly non-university professional programmes) comprises only a small fraction of the whole system, and seems to have stabilized in recent years. This picture also illustrates the rapid expansion of the student population in the 2000s, pushed by both public and private sectors. Compared with the relatively slower growth of the number of teachers (in full-time equivalent), this has resulted in a continual increase in the student/teacher ratio in the public sector—from 10 in 1989 to 21 in 2013. A substantial change in the overall capacity of the higher education system (students, teachers, research, etc.) has resulted in major changes in the characteristics of both students and faculty. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the net entry rate (in Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes) increased from 25 % to 60 % in the first decade of the millennium38, which was the fastest growth among OECD countries. Consequently, the student population has considerably diversified in terms of regional, social, economic, and cultural features. On the other hand, this trend created a large demand for teaching assistants and thus widened opportunities for early-stage academics, but also put great pressure on the quick advancement of their careers. This trend reversed in 2010–2011, with declining numbers of both students and teachers, which was caused largely by a demographic decline with lower numbers of students in relevant age cohorts, and a consequent shift in policy goals. We will analyse these recent trends in one of the following sections.
38 According to the OECD the net entry rate is defined as “the proportion of people of a synthetic age-cohort who enter the tertiary level of education, irrespective of changes in the population sizes and of differences between OECD countries in the typical entry age.” Similar growth probably took place in Slovenia, but there is no comparable data for the first part of the 2000s. See OECD 2014.
96
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS242484
Figure 2: Number of public and private HEIs and public faculties Number of HEIs
Number of faculties
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
0 2003
0 2002
20 2001
10 2000
40
1999
60
20
1998
30
1997
80
1996
40
1995
100
1994
120
50
1993
60
1992
140
1991
70
1990
160
1989
80
Public HEIs Private HEIs Public faculties Source: Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports
For the purpose of mapping the higher education policy arena we will identify main stakeholders (both group and individual, internal and external) and their specific position in the complex network of actors in Czech higher education. Based on Jongbloed, Enders, Salerno (2008) we focus on main actors and their position in terms of power, legitimacy, and urgency: their power to influence the policy process, the perceived appropriateness of their actions within the given normative framework (i.e. their legitimacy), and the urgency of their claims towards the policy (i.e. the degree to which stakeholder claims call for immediate action). There are traditionally three groups of actors who are expected to have a strong position in each of the three mentioned aspects: students, professors, and administrators. However, their positioning is complex, differentiated, and diverse. The most concentrated power, legitimacy, and urgency for change rests in the hands of rectors who have high authority on the outside of higher education institutions. Internally, their leadership is supported by an advisory collegium of vice-rectors. Their executive roles are implemented by the rector’s office with the important traditional 97
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS242484
position of bursar and only-recently established managerial position of secretary or chancellor. Their apparatus represents the administrative and expert capacities at the rector’s disposal. However, within the university the rector’s power and legitimacy are based on a process of election by a senate composed of teachers and students. This representative body of a broad academic community maintains relatively high authority in financial and strategic matters. The proportion of students in these senates differs among higher education institutions, but ranges between one-third and half of the senate body. In this respect the senate’s position in university governance is relatively strong. High legitimacy as well as power (but a low level of the urgency of their claims, as noted above) is attributed to the scientific board, which consists of senior professors. The scientific board’s crucial role regarding academic career paths comes from its substantial role in the process of habilitation and the procedure of gaining a professorship. Both procedures lead to academic qualifications—docent which corresponds generally to the US and UK level of associate professor, and profesor as an equivalent of full professor, which are not directly related to an academic position. The procedure involves presenting habilitation and professorship academic work, an academic track record and relevant teaching experience. This is evaluated by an ad hoc academic panel and then confirmed by the scientific board, the dean and the rector. This mechanism is heavily dependent on the consensus of members of the scientific board because only minimum criteria are usually set at the institutional level and the decision is made by secret vote after the applicant orally presents a lecture in his/her specific field.39 According to the law on higher education, Czech higher education institutions also establish a board of trustees as a body that should represent external stakeholders of the organization; its authority is based on 39 For further discussion, see the Conclusion.
98
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS242484