The NCHE will strengthen autonomy

University of Malta (UoM) academics are to be assured that the National Commission for Higher Education (NCHE) is not intended to be a regulator but an advisor to the government. The autonomy of the University is guaranteed by law and will not change, meaning that the UoM retains its current responsibilities and autonomous status. This was unambiguously stated to University of Malta Academic Staff Association (UMASA) representatives both in their first meeting with the minister on November 7 just a week after the Prime Minister tabled the relative document in Parliament, as well as during the public consultation seminar held on December 10.

However a prerequisite of autonomy is transparency and accountability. This is what the NCHE aims to do. By asking pertinent questions to all institutions and by conducting proper analysis of the prevailing situation, the government, through the Commission, would be in a better informed position to base its financial planning decisions and other reforms it might consider introducing within the sector. This dialogue is necessary and the present framework is simply not enough.

With respect to the reactions sent by UMASA, the process is generally positive and leading to a better understanding of expectations from all stakeholders involved.

The plan of government to expand and improve the post-secondary and tertiary sectors in Malta is ambitious and all-encompassing. It is categorically not based solely on a financial and utilitarian approach, and indeed the autonomy of the UoM should ensure that this does not occur. Adequate funding for sustainable and rapid development is one of the key concerns that the government has and needs to plan for. The NCHE will have, among other things, the expertise to advise the government on such crucial matters and this could only be to the benefit of those who like the UoM continue to stress the need for more resources.

If UMASA believe that the government, through the Education Minister and the Finance Minister, should fund the expansion of this sector, they would surely agree that for them to accomplish their role, the ministers too require advice, and that such advice should be acquired and given through independent sources. One cannot understand why this is not feasible or indeed that it is "extremely worrying" that the members sitting on the NCHE are appointed by the minister and would be answerable to the minister.

UMASA's major reaction was to a number of questions that the NCHE document raises as a preamble to the terms of reference of the NCHE itself. UMASA concludes that by asking questions and requiring adequate justification the government would be "impinging directly on the institution's autonomy". In fact what will determine the outcome is the mindset and spirit with which such discussions are held. The ministry's objective is to ask many more questions to indeed have a more solid plan for future funding requirements. For this to happen, questions such as those about gaps in the disciplines and training provided and overlaps and redundancies, including contact hour requirements, should be answered for more transparent and relevant planning.

The Minister of Education already has the right, given to him by the present Education Act to ask such questions. In no way does this mean that the NCHE will dictate the academic and practical content of the UoM's programmes.

On the question of funding programmes rather than institutions, once again the departure point is a question of who finances such decisions and whether such financing is forthcoming. The latter depends on the strength of the case made against all other claims for public financing. In this sense, a dialogue which shifts financing discussions from institutional finance to programme finance, through a well-brokered formula-funding mechanism, should strengthen and make more communicable the case for increases in funds.

The minister assures that the issue of funding is indeed one of the three key priorities of this government. Increased funding for growth and better quality will be made available however gradually and only after a better interface for dialogue, planning and adequate appraisal of the underlying institutional framework.

With respect to reforms in maintenance grants, the changes set the pace for more sustainable growth, and contrary to UMASA's views, the government did indeed look at the bigger picture and deems it necessary and equally important in this current stage of national development to continue sustaining higher rates of participation through maintenance grants.