Seminar at the University of the Western Cape
1000 hrs., 20 February 2004

The Quality Reform

Honourable Minister Asmal, Mr. Vice-Chancellor, Mr. Ambassador, Ladies and gentlemen,

Since our topic today and the topic of the SANTED programme is system change, I should like to present a few remarks on the most radical process of change in our higher education system for a long time. The name – The Quality Reform – focuses on the most significant objective of the process: Improving the quality of our higher education.

My presentation will start with a few words on the term quality itself. Then I shall describe the main elements of the reform process, including a few observations on the effect of it all on the Norwegian institutions of higher learning. I must make it clear, however, that the limited time available does not allow me to give a full account of the quality reform. I have with me a few copies of a more comprehensive leaflet that will be useful to those who want more details. Finally, I’d like to comment on formative research and the opportunity for sharing experiences through activities like SANTED.

The term ‘quality’ is of course open to a wide range of interpretations. For some, quality will be linked to the unique and outstanding, for example in the awarding of the Nobel prizes. For others it has more to do with the ability to meet requirements. Yet other meanings are the ability to utilize resources in the best way possible, the ability to improve results in relation to a given level, or the ability to adapt products or services to new conditions.

All these notions are relevant to higher education. We do want our students to benefit from the excellence of outstanding research environments, guided by first-class scholars. Nobel prizes and other prestigious awards are important indicators of the achievement of quality. But a quality higher education depends also on the capacity to transform that excellence into an inspiring and productive experience for students. And it has to happen within limited resources – sometimes we must look for improved quality despite shrinking funds, calling for constant flexibility and willingness to change.

I should mention also that the attention to quality and quality control is in itself a mark of quality. It is now widely understood that issues of quality assurance are essential to the future of higher education. Many countries – including South Africa – take this very seriously, and there are many examples of extensive international co-operation in this field.

One of the main driving impulses behind the quality reform was a widespread feeling of inefficiency. Given the level of spending, we did not see the kind of student success one should expect from excellent institutions.

Another powerful force had to do with international trends and processes. After the ministerial Bologna declaration in 1999 the so-called Bologna process has influenced higher education all over Europe. As an active participant Norway was obliged to adapt its structures to fit in with the common European framework. We also saw that the international aptitude of our institutions and our ability to relate to international trends and systems were at the heart of quality itself.

The major components of the reform were:

• a new degree system, bringing us in line with the 3+2+2 structure that is going to dominate Europe as the Bologna process moves on;
• new study programmes, with a more flexible, modular structure, but also with clearer contract obligations between students and institutions;
• new approaches to teaching, with closer follow-up of individual students, more student collaboration and updated forms of evaluation and exams;
• a comprehensive system of quality assurance, directed by a new, independent national agency;
• a revised system of financial support to students;
• a clearer mandate, in fact an obligation, for every institution to internationalize and to enable every Norwegian student to include a period of study-abroad in a Norwegian degree.

As you can understand, the reform was not only a change of structures, but also an attempt to transform the way professors teach, the way students study and the learning environment of institutions.

Some elements are mainly incentive schemes: The new budget allocation system is set up to allocate more funds to institutions that successfully produce more and better students, and the changes in student financing reward those who finish on time. The amounts available as student grants and loans have been adjusted to allow more students to study full time without having to work part-time.

But other changes have required legal adjustment, particularly the accreditation and quality assurance aspects. The responsibility for academic standards and the integrity of institutions has been separated from public policy functions, funding and ownership. This in itself is a major change and brings us in line with developments in the rest of Europe and the world.

Given the scope of the reform it is perhaps surprising that it took only four years from the appointment of a Royal Commission in 1998 until the major changes to legislation were passed in the Storting – our Parliament – in 2002. The whole reform was fully implemented at all institutions last autumn.

So, what have been the main implications for universities and colleges?

Mainly they were given more freedom and greater responsibility under a new quality assurance regime with external evaluations. Apart from strict rules on the composition of the Board, they are free to choose their organizational structure. They can choose which subjects, courses and disciplines they want to offer as long as they comply with the requirements of the new independent national quality assessment agency.

Changes in the way the institutions are funded point in the same direction. They dispose of their budget allocations with considerable freedom, but the amount is decided partly on the basis of past performance on a number of indicators – production of credits and degrees, research output, international activities, publications etc. In other words they are encouraged to allocate funds internally for activities that will boost production and lead to increased budgets in the future.

The most visible changes have been a massive transformation in the way degrees and study programmes are structured and taught. Every university and college has had to throw away existing course catalogues, and develop from scratch a new portfolio. And the professors have had to examine and change all their course plans and curricula. Representatives of the institutions tell me that their resources have been stretched to the limit. But they also tell me that the need for renewal has given an extra boost and an extra chance to the younger academic staff, whose new ideas and approaches are now in demand. I find that interesting because it illustrates my earlier point that changing conditions make our institutions adapt and change – usually for the better!

A very important aspect of the new and refurbished higher education sector is the increased emphasis on internationalization. Universities and colleges are obliged to internationalize their activities. All students are entitled to spend a study period abroad as part of their Norwegian degree, and institutions are encouraged financially to admit foreign students. The degree structure has been changed in order to make it easier to take your degree abroad with you and to combine studies in more than one country into one degree. To assist institutions in their international efforts a new national agency has been established – the Norwegian Centre for International Cooperation in Higher Education (SIU).

The new legislation obliges the institutions to " …collaborate with the community and with commercial life." Higher education institutions are more central to the welfare of the country than ever. This has been an important justification for increased budget allocations. In return it is reasonable to expect our universities and colleges to account for themselves in terms of services to the community. A sign of this obligation is that the board of every institution must have more than one third community representation.

The participation of students in the governance of public and private institutions has been strengthened. There must now be at least 20% student representation or a minimum of 2 seats in all executive bodies.

In other words, Norwegian higher education institutions have been exposed to a more demanding environment, but also given the tools and the opportunity to foster their own growth. They have not been allowed, however, to opt for business as usual. For some institutions and their staff and leadership the reorientation has been a challenge. But overall, the reform has been carried out with significant success and very little disruption.

That is not to say there has been no opposition, but rather that the ability of our structures to handle such friction has been exemplary. In my opinion, the resilience of institutions in the face of such massive changes over a relatively brief period is an important and positive experience in a continuous learning process.

At the moment we are considering new legislation which may bring further changes in the institutional status and operating environment of universities and colleges. A common Higher Education Act, covering both private and public institutions is a likely result. With that and other changes, the ability of higher education institutions to learn and adapt will be tested again – with success, I am confident!

Processes of change are essential to public management today. A government ministry or a public sector is normally in the middle of at least one massive restructuring at any given time. In fact it seems that most structural development in the public sector happens through such concentrated efforts. Understanding the processes should be a high priority and formative research – the analysis of transformation while it happens – gives us the x-ray vision we need in order to adjust and aim our tools in the right direction.

It has been the policy of my ministry since the early nineties – long before I became a minister, in fact – to initiate formative research alongside major reforms. For my part I have confirmed this policy because I feel that any strategy, particularly in our sector, must be based on facts, knowledge and understanding. We must be institutions of learning, meaning also "Institutions that learn".

I believe that all higher education systems are faced with similar needs to develop continuously in today’s climate. Although the impulses for change may be different, it is interesting to know that South African institutions of higher learning are going through processes that pose similar challenges. It is even more exciting to find that there can be a valuable sharing of experiences which provides new insights to both of us. I see great promise in this meeting of minds and look forward to your results.

I wish the South African institutions every success in the very demanding restructuring taking place now.

Thank you!