Kõrgkoolide tulemuslepingutest ja

profileerimisest Soome näitel

Heli Aru

26.02.07

Teema valiku põhjused Traditsiooniline näide õppimiseks. 3.-a. tulemus-

lepingute süsteem funktsioneerinud ca 10 aastat. 2007.a. kevadel valimiste järgselt koostatakse uus

hariduse arenguprogramm. The Science and Technology Policy Council, New Policy Report 2006 annab soovitused arengukava koostamiseks. Rõhutatakse – kvaliteeti, rahvusvahelistumist, võistlusvõimet,

struktuursete muudatuste elluviimise vajalikkust, vajadust valmistuda õppurite arvu languseks.

Haridus- ja Teadusministeeriumi delegatsiooni õppevisiit Helsingisse 1-2. veebruar, 2007.a.

Üldine raamistik Soome valitsuse poolt kinnitatud määruses

loetletakse ülikoolid nimeliselt märkides– Õppesuunad;– Õppeastmed: Mag, PhD.

Õppekavade registreerimist ministeeriumis ei toimu. Ülikooli autonoomne õigus on otsustada õppekavade sisu, struktuuri ja arvu üle.

20 ülikooli, 180 000 üliõpilast; 29 polütehnikumi 150 üliõpilast.

Tulemuslepingud (1) Läbirääkimised ministeeriumi ja kõrgkoolide

vahel – Eesmärgid, ressursid, eelnevalt kokkulepitud

eesmärkide täitmise hindamine. Eesmärgid püstitatakse 3-aastaks

– sisulised eesmärgid – “the most important targets on societal impact set for all universities operational targets”

– Kvantitatiivsed eesmärgid (lõpetajate arvud eri astmetel).

Tulemuslepingud (2)Seire ja aruandlus Aastaaruandlus üldiste

Rahandusministeeriumi nõuete kohaselt; KOTA andmebaas (alust. 1981)

– sisaldab statistikat, HM poolt rahastatavate projekti taotlusi ja aruandlust, võimaldab vahetada infot ministeeriumi ja kõrgkoolide vahel;

Kokkulepitud eesmärkide saavutuse hindamine haridusministeeriumi poolt.

2007 –2009 perioodi eesmärgid kõikidele ülikoolidele

Strateegiate ajakohastamine Profileerimine ja mõistliku suuruse

saavutamine üksuste tasemel; Võrgustumine (ing networking); Finants- ja personalikorralduse

parendus; IKT laiem kasutus.

Rahastamismudel 2007 - 2009 Tegevuskulude kate riigieelarvest; Täiendav rahastamine tegevustele, mille

osas ülikoolidel on vastutus (main management responsibility), 35% ülikoolide eelarvest, konkurentsi põhiselt.

Tegevuskulude jaotus– Põhirahastamine ca 70%, – Projektirahastamine ca 6.5%– Preemia (tulemuste saavutamine) ca 23.5%

CORE FUNDING 2007-2009

- National tasks - Other societal tasks - Open university education - Innovation and regional activities

- Master's degree targets (335 M€)

- Research activity(50 M€) - Graduate schools (40 M€) - Doctoral degree targets (173 M€) - Artistic activity (3 M€)

- Extent factor for funding period 04-06

Societal service

mission (87 M€, 10%)

Education (335 M€, 37%)

Research, researcher

education and artictic activity

(266 M€, 30%)

Extent factor

(208 M€, 23%)

CORE FUNDING (896 M€)

Kriteeriumid tulemuslepingutes Societal impact and quality

– centres of excellence in research – scientific publications – centres of excellence in education – centres of excellence in adult education – centres of excellence in artistic activity– internationalisation– innovations and regional impact

Operational efficiency, study processes– Bachelor's degrees – Master's degrees– Doctoral degrees– open university education

Human resources

Projektide rahastamine Changes in project funding

– more strategic approach to project funding – focussed on projects supporting national

development policies and equipping the new buildings

– the number of projects funded will be cut down – broader and more diversified joint projects

between universities will be constructed – project funding requires significant own funding

from the university

Rahastatavate projektide teemad

Regional and societal impact Biotechnology Nano-programme Internationalisation Quality assurance Development of the study process Business knowldge and entrepreneurship National health project Teacher training Structural development Information society Joint projects between universities (incl. networks) Projects for developing and equipping premises

Rahvuslikud eesmärgid strukturaalseks arendamiseks Strengthened quality, efficiency and

effectiveness of activities and increased level of knowledge

Enhanced functioning of the public research system

Strengthened internationalisation and competitiveness

Appropriate size of the education system Appropriate resource allocation

Strukturaalse arendamise põhimõtted Regional HE system will be secured in the future

– the volume of the HE system does not grow anymore The unit and institutional structures will be

remodelled Diversified and multidisciplinary HEIs form a basis

for future innovations The structures of the HE system may vary

regionally

Strukturaalse arendamise põhimõtted The HE system based on a dual structure

– both sectors have their own mission and profiles The HE system will be developed as an entity

consisting of universities, polytechnics and new consortia/combinations based on cooperation agreements between them

Overlapping educational provision of universities and poytechnics will be cut down/pruned back while taking care of the educational needs of the society – e.g. utilising the possibilities of the new degree

structures

Strukturaalse arendamise põhimõtted The knowledge structures and management of

HEIs will be developed– universities: target of 5-10 professors/ department,

with the body of researchers large enough and of high quality, modern infrastructure and necessary services

– polytechnics: combining programmes and responsibilities as to provide education in degree programmes for groups of min. 40 beginning students

– developing professional management – strengthening the financial autonomy of universities

Strukturaalse arendamise põhimõtted University centres will be establised as

agreement-based consortia, consisting of local polytechnics and participating universities

University continuing education structures will be re-organised primarily as corporations

Open university education will be a nationally coordinated entity

Joint structures between HEIs and other actors will be developed to strengthen the impact of education and research services

Strukturaalse arendamise põhimõtted Units will be reassembled into larger

entities Existing structures will be dissambled

to avoid overlaps Diversified and multidisciplinarity HEIs

form a basis for future innovations In R&D the profiles and focus areas of

HEIs will be strengthened.

Strukturaalse arendamise põhimõtted Distribution of work between universities and

polytechnics to raise quality and avoid overlap– reviews: economics and business administration, fine

arts

– other fields: health care and social services, tourism

– polytechnic Master's degrees - university Master's programmes

– recognition of prior learning - working group 15.12.2006

Eesmärkidelt tegudele: polütehnikumid Objective: reassembling the unit structure into

larger and more effective units Polytechnic merger projects

– Haaga-Helia, Stadia-EVTEK-Laurea, Svenska Yrkeshögskolan-Yrkeshöskolan Sydväst

Changes in unit structures– degree education for youth will be ending in 13 units

in 11 localities Swedish education will concentrate

– Turku polytechnic and Central Ostrobothnia polytechnic have given up Swedish programmes

Ajaraamistik 2006.a. Kevadistel läbirääkimistel

strukturaalsed arengusuunad läbirääkimiste teema;

Augustiks 2006 paluti ülikoolidelt nende initsiatiive ümberkorraldusteks;

Oktoobris 2006.a. alustati esimeste projektide rahastamisega;

Teema on jätkuvalt päevakorras, 2007.a. läbirääkimistel.

Kuopio Ülikool ja Joensuu Ülikool

UKu and UJo proposed to establish a joint university federation

Objective: far-reaching shared operating structure (based on current educational responsibilities) with implementation plan and schedule

The planning group chaired by Professor Reijo Vihko

DL 16.2.2007

Turu Ülikool ja Turu School of Economics and Business Administration

Objective: developing a shared university consortium

cooperation while retaining the profiles and autonomy of each univesity

The planning group chaired by former MinEdu Permanent Secretary Markku Linna

DL 16.2.2007

OECD hinnang Soome arengutele OECD “Review on Tertiary Education”, Soome visiit 12-20.12.05; Regarding accountability ... “there seemed to be general

satisfaction (on behalf of universities) with lump-sum budgeting, the rights of concluding agreements, appointing personnel and managing the academic profile and activities...”

“... The historical configuration of tertiary education into basically to alternative organisational forms – the universities and the polytechnics – is likely to be simplistic, potentially inflexible and restrictive in terms of what might be needed in the way of instititional responses and contributions .... International experience points to diversification which is extensive, flexible, effective and efficient, and the Ministry would therefore need togive attention to what systems of incentives and steering would facilitate this”.