xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c20009999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00150
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 8, no. 6 (January 11, 2000).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c January 11, 2000
Higher education finance reform in the Czech Republic : transitions in thought and practive / Matthew S. McMullen.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 8issue 6series Year mods:caption 20002000Month January1Day 1111mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 2000-01-11
1 of 16 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 8 Number 6January 11, 2000ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 2000, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Higher Education Finance Reform in the Czech Republ ic: Transitions in Thought and Practice Matthew S. McMullen University of PittsburghAbstractThroughout Europe and especially the former communi st countries of Central and Eastern Europe, universities and govern ments are evaluating ways to finance higher education other than the cur rent dominant model of almost total government support. With government pressure to use limited funds in other areas (e.g., health care, en vironment, and the like) higher education institutions are being encouraged to become more economically self-sufficient. Some of these reforms have included establishing closer ties with regional businesses a nd introducing tuition and user fees to offset some of the costs of univer sity operations. The particular focus of this report is on the new metho ds of financing higher education in the Czech Republic.Introduction In addition to the economic and politic al changes that began in 1989, Czechoslovakia peacefully separated in 1993 into th e Czech and Slovak Republics. Their higher education system and society in genera l had to adapt to the initial political and economic transition in 1989 and then yet anothe r transition in 1993 when it split into two countries. For this report, the term Czechoslov akia will sometimes be used in describing and analyzing the country for historical events prior to 1993, after it will be
2 of 16referred to as the Czech Republic.Background: Higher education during the communist r egime When World War II ended, the Soviet hig her education model was imposed as the dominant model for Central and Eastern Europe. The Soviet model (communism) of political and economic development had some distinc tly negative effects: The central economic planning model was inefficient and inflexi ble and was unable to adapt to changes in the world economy; the bureaucratic cont rol of human rights and freedoms; the presence of internal security forces and the us e of informants; the constant attempts to suppress dissident thinking and activity; the us e of groups and organizations in service to the state (e.g., universities and mass media); a nd the use of Marxism/Leninism as a justification for all actions (Mauch & Fogel, 1992) The negative features of communism that affected both government and the eco nomy also affected higher education. For example, government run science ac ademies did most of the research. The academies and universities were under strict go vernment (Communist Party) control. Communist officials were afraid of politic ally unreliable faculty members who might influence students and often these faculty wo uld work at the academies where they would not have contact with students (Kallen, 1991, Koucky, 1990). The government rigidly centralized and politicized higher education in terms of access, curriculum, staffing, resource allocation a nd planning. Each successive five year plan was designed to provide the planned state economy with personnel to meet the needs of the state. State planning limited the univ ersity's role in intellectual development and left little room for the inclusion of new scien tific developments. It reduced universities to manpower training institutions and even this was not successful as realistic data were lacking on the national needs f or skilled manpower. In time, the fulfillment of the five year plans for higher edu cation and individual institutions became goals in and of themselves and such plans we re fulfilled whether or not they were appropriate. Thus, each successive five year plan discouraged any assumption of responsibility on the part of university personnel. Also, higher education deteriorated as a result of political interference which often led to massive dismissal of many of the most competent staff (Kallen, 1991). Despite the many negative features, the legacy of communism has had some positive effects: The state offered free public edu cation from early childhood through the university level; eradicated widespread illiteracy; the educational level of the adult population in much of the region was raised to a le vel comparable to that of Western Europe; educators had designed innovative approache s to adult training; and there was a substantial increase in female participation in edu cation. In addition to these positive features, the educational infrastructure (buildings some equipment, etc.) was adequately developed and, as a result, future reforms can proc eed with more of a focus on the content of the system (Kallen, 1991, Von Kopp, 1992 ). The following is a basic description of the functions of higher education under communism. The functions listed were the ideology a nd not necessarily what was put into practice. Five functions of higher education under communism Socio-political, economic, and cultural needs are f illed. 1. Knowledge is created in association with individual and social consciousness--Attitudes, views, ideas, values, and aspirations. 2. Individual needs and experiences of academic staff members are developed and valued. 4) The training is used for modern and huma nistic educational concerns 3.
3 of 16(Holmberg & Wojtowicz, 1990, p. 10). The communist system's goals and object ives for higher education were dictated by government officials concerned with creating the "communist man," someone for whom the good of the collective was more important than individual achievements. The Socialist Countries Conference for Ministers of Hig her Education held in Prague in 1986, provided examples of how socialist education was directed by the ideology of the Party. The conference concluded by demanding that n ew strategic guidelines should be aimed at the full utilization of a new social syste m requiring good professional training and political and ideological maturity; code words for conformity to Party goals (Fischer-Galati, 1990). The principles, ideals, and functions of the higher education system were organized and controlled by the federal government and or the Communist Party officials.Communism in Czechoslovakia The Communist Party spent 40 years tryi ng to remold Czechoslovak higher education into the image of the Soviet Union's syst em and the principles of international communism. The Party not only controlled all levels of higher education it also used institutions as instruments for controlling and edu cating students' minds to create the "communist man." National committees, which reporte d to the Ministry of the Interior, administered the system. All senior appointments in the Ministry of Education and in the National Committees were to Party members. The auth ority of the Ministry was minimal and confined to the administration of grants to uni versities and to the production of curricula and related textbooks. Membership in the Party was an important criterion for the highest academic posts. How closely an institut ion conformed to the planned system was the paramount means for evaluating the effectiv eness of each institution no matter its output (Koucky, 1990, Kotasek, 1991, Yazdgerdi, 1990). Summary of higher education under the communist sys tem in Czechoslovakia The aims, tasks and resources in teaching and resea rch were defined by the Communist Party and implemented by the state. Planning was comprehensive and an instrument of pol itical control. Higher education institutions were accountable to the Comm unist Party and there was very limited institutional autonomy. There was almost no strategic planning at the insti tutional or sub-unit levels. The incentive system was based on the achievement o f goals set by the Party. Higher education institutions were totally dependen t on the state for financing and followed a rigid line-item budgeting process. The state set manpower planning with projections in the labor market. (Holmberg and Wojtowicz, 1990; Bok, 1991; Cerych, 1 993; Daniel, 1991; Mitter, 1990; Rupnik, 1992).Changes in University Financing in Czechoslovakia After an initial surge in student enrol lments after WWII, growth in higher education slowed in the 1960s and the system of sta te funding reflected this trend. The financial decisionmaking process in higher educat ion institutions started to change in
4 of 16the following ways: The influence of technocrats on labor distribution planning in the national economy was growing, which meant their influence on the number of students admitted to each higher education institution was g rowing as well. 1. The participation of academics in the management of the higher education system was increasing. 2. The influence of political leadership was being rep laced by the influence of technocrats. 3. During this transition period following the 1960s, the funding for higher education institutions took the form of incremental budgeting. For example, in a given year higher education institutions received the sam e funding as in the previous year plus a certain bonus based on their demands and the mean s available. The amount was based on constant negotiations between the state administ ration and the individual institutions of higher education. The increments depended to a l arge extent on each higher education officials' ability to negotiate an increase in fina ncing (Holda, Cermakova, & Urbanek, 1994). Problems in the methods used for fundin g higher education focused on the following areas: Ineffectiveness: The traditional scheme of budgetar y base plus increment meant that institutions were expected to spend all of the entire current year's budget, thus preparing the highest possible budget for the follo wing year. This often meant a waste of resources since they would have been more efficiently used if they were allowed to be transferred to the next year. The neg otiations on increments often took the form of political and personal arguments, rather than educational needs and concerns. In sum, the system did not reward sup erior performance. Lack of Transparency: Although the final budget of an institution was very strict and closely monitored, there were essentially no ge neral rules for the funding of higher education institutions. Financial allocation was the result of a great number of private and opaque negotiations. Because of uncl ear rules, there were many subjective decisions. Lack of flexibility: As the budget was based on the previous years allotment, it could not respond to developments both inside and o utside the institution (e.g., labor market, changing needs of the economy, etc.). Most important, the budget was not based on the number of students enrolled an d thus did not reflect changes in these totals. (Heyneman, 1994, Holda, et al., 19 94). The transition to democracy and a marke t economy in Czechoslovakia (beginning in 1989) has had a pronounced influence on higher education. These changes have shown a movement away from political control o f institutions and a change of thought as to the methods used to fund higher educa tion operations (at least in the Czech Republic).Higher Education in Transition The sluggish economy and the growing fr ustration with the inefficient system eventually led to pressure for radical changes in u niversity operations. Pressure to reform
5 of 16higher education came from academics, students and social groups. This pressure built up throughout the 1980s and came to a breaking poin t in 1989. Shortly after the student demonstrations of November 1989, which helped to fo cus and mobilize opposition to the old regime, individual groups of educators, stu dents and members of the intelligentsia began to meet and discuss how the ed ucation and research system could be democratized and modernized. These meetings eventua lly culminated in the passage of the University Act of May 1990 which replaced the H igher Education Act of 1980 (Daniel, 1991).The Czechoslovak Higher Education Act of 1990 The Higher Education Act of 1990 set ou t a democratic structure for the guidance of higher education and allowed academic f reedom in many areas. State control and administration had been minimized and t he authority of academic bodies increased. Unlike the previous system of decision m aking, academic institutions have the power to discuss and create policy. The Act rev ived the academic senate, which was abolished under the communist system, as an importa nt governing body within universities. The revived senates (representing fac ulty, students and staff) were provided a large measure of control over their curriculum ch oices, hiring practices and research goals. Under the 1990 Act, universities had th e freedom to make their own economic decisions. For example, in 1991 higher education in stitutions received financial allocations from the state, as in previous years, b y the system of 'basis and increment'. The difference was that the money was not earmarked for a specific function. In assigning funds, the Ministry of Education, advised by the university councils, assign funds to universities according to estimated annual capital and other expenditures. It became the responsibility of the individual univers ities (e.g., rectors, academic and faculty senates) to decide the specific distributio n of these funds (Daniel, 1991). The only limits were the total amount of wages and gene ral operating funds (e.g., buildings, etc.). In addition to these fiscal freedoms, the st ate allocated money to institutions without specifying how many students they should ed ucate (Holda, et al., 1994). The importance of the law on colleges a nd universities passed on May 4, 1990 can not be overstated. It put substantial decision making power back into the hands of the university and its faculty and students. The la w emphasized academic rights and freedoms as important principles of democracy and e nvisioned democracy in terms of self government and autonomous decision making with in the higher education community. Through the 1990 Act and subsequent legi slation, the post communist model of higher education is being developed.Summary of the developing post-communist model in t he Czech Republic Increasing importance of academic freedom, competit ion for students and funding and representation of academics in decision making bodies. Less direct central state control. Institutions accountable to constituencies such as students, government, business etc. and autonomy and academic freedom are determin ed by this accountability. Need to find multiple sources of financing and budg eting. Limited line-item budgeting process with a move to a formula method based upon the number of students enrolled.
6 of 16 Higher education's relation to the labor market is significant, but often indirect, primarily the result of meeting market demands not dictated directly by the government, but by the market. Strategic planning by governing bodies within insti tutions seen as essential for the development of the institution. University financing after 1989 Budget Allocations. In 1990, higher education consumed 17% of the tota l education budget. This is 1.7% of total education e xpenditures and .8% of the country's GDP. Of this amount, 40% were costs attributable to personnel, 30% to goods and facilities, 11% to research and 19% for students we lfare and fellowships (Harbison, 1991a, 1991b). In 1991, budget resources were alloc ated as in the past (incremental) but government officials in the Czech Republic insisted that 10% of the overall higher education budget was to be distributed according to a new method of financial allocation. This new method was based on the number of students and a cost per student comparison across disciplines (a formula method). I n 1992, universities implemented the new method. The budget was divided into three parts : Normative (the general costs of operating the institution such salaries, building c osts, etc.); above normative (additional costs such as research, new projects etc.); and res erves. Thus, for the first time, the major part of the budget (normative) was to be allo cated on a formula based on the number of students times the average costs of educa ting each student depending on their discipline (Mauch & Fogel, 1993). This was implemen ted, in part, to address the significant differences in the per student annual c osts which range from a low of 16,000 Kcs per student of Economics to 79,000 Kcs for stud ents in the Fine Arts. This difference in cost is because there is a higher tea cher/student ratio in Economics (30/1) and a very low and not cost efficient ratio in fiel ds such as the Arts (8/1) (Mokosin, 1995). In 1992, the formula as applied yielded a great variation in the budgets of individual institutions. Some were cut in the extre me and others increased in comparison to 1991. The government decided to add a supplement to the funding provided by the state so that no institution would suffer too great a difference in one year. For example, in 1992 the University of South Bohemia had a total of 2,196 students in various disciplines. The normative amount determined by the Ministry in 1992 was 16,921 Kcs. This was roughly the average instructional cost per student in higher education. Multiplying that times 3,352 (an adjusted figure, o nly in part including the number of students) gave the university 56,722,000 Kcs as a 1 992 budget, a 22.2% cut in the normative budget from the year before (see Table 1) .Table 1 Application Of The 1992 Budget For The University o f South Bohemia(In 1992, There Were Nine Study Fields) SocSciEducTechAgrMedNatSciChemVetArtsTotalUniv. of South Bohemia 831,257 7476742 2,196
7 of 16 Ratios by Faculty 1.001.251.651.902.552.552.553.003.50 University of South Bohemia Operational Expenditure s for 1992 (thousands of Kcs.)NormativeAbove Normative'91 Budget Applicationof Ratios Applic.%Adjust.%'92 Budget Room/BoardForeig. Lect. Foreign Stud. SportTotal72,90156,722-22.2%-8.5%66,6938,32842001075,451 Source: Budget documents from the Czech Ministry of Education and Sport 1992. In Mauch and Fogel (1993). Normative in Kcs = 16,921. As a result of the application of the r atios, some of the 23 institutions in the Czech Republic received severe cuts and others great incr eases. The Ministry was forced to apply a correction factor in order that no institution woul d receive a cut or increase of more than 10%. For the University of South Bohemia the decrease tu rned out to be 8.5% which gave a normative budget of 66,693,000 Kcs. Adding in the a bove normative amount, the total budget for 1992 was 75,451,000 a severe cut from 1991 (Mau ch & Fogel, 1993). As stated earlier, the above normative budget was designated for activities above basic instructional costs, (e.g. student room and board, stipends for foreign students, sports, and special programs). The proportion of the budget der ived from normative and above normative varies greatly by institution. It was suspected tha t one reason the budget is separated into these two categories is to enable the state increasingly to restrict the above normal budget by asking the users to pay ever increasing amounts until thes e activities are self-sufficient. Given restrictive budgets, it could be argued that univer sities may find it necessary to admit more students, release unnecessary or incompetent facult y, and attend to social demand (Daniel, 1991). This scenario has only partially developed.Government's new role in the financial development of academic institutions The government, through the Higher Educ ation Act of 1990, has provided higher education institutions with additional opportunitie s to obtain non-governmental funding. Universities have been freed by the state to earn m oney through conferences, tourism, consulting, publishing, research, university enterp rises, bookstores, lecture notes, exams, student fees, franchises and licensing arrangements Universities may keep additional income in their own institutional accounts and the 1990 law e xempts university enterprises from taxation (OECD, 1992). New laws have also allowed universiti es to seek donations and bequests and they can set up foundations to continue the work of the university in perpetuity. Contributions from the private sector A plan developed by the Ministry of Fin ance and implemented as part of the new tax system established on January 1, 1993, called for t ax relief for private sector enterprises who donate funds to organizations or institutions with activities deemed to be in the public interest.
8 of 16Higher education institutions fit into this categor y (OECD, 1992). In this way the government is encouraging private sector enterprises to donate a portion of their earnings to higher education. While the potential is great, there are limitations First, in the near future, funds from this source will be small because in the current stage o f the country's economic transition, firms are still struggling and profits are small. Donations f rom multi-nationals are not yet significant. Also, higher education institutions will have to co mpete with other institutions (e.g., museums, theaters, social service organizations, etc.). To s ecure this income, universities will have to find ways to make their programs attractive to donor gro ups unaccustomed to philanthropy. When Czechoslovakia split into the Czec h and Slovak Republics in 1993, initially there was little change in the higher education system. H owever, weaknesses in the 1990 Act especially within the area of financial decision ma king and academic management needed to be addressed if reform was to continue. There required specific plans and needs for each system and as such the Czech Republic developed its own hi gher education act in 1998. Higher Education Act of 1998 A new Higher Education Act was approved by the Czech parliament in April 1998 which was designed to address many of the issues in management and financing that had developed since the implementation of the 1990 Act. The 1998 Act differed from the law passed in 1990 in that it allowed for the further c reation of new programs, institutional diversification and a basic change of property righ ts. The 1998 Act is a continuation of legis lation on economic management of state property. The ownership of the property will be tra nsferred from the state to the institutions of higher education, thus fundamentally altering their financial management concerning property and budgeting. The change in property rights transf orms state higher education institutions into public legal entities. As a result there is a chang e in internal management, making institutions more self-determined by having self government righ ts in the use of their property (e.g., the right to collect fees for use of the property). Thr ough this new method of management and ownership came the establishment of a new body in p ublic higher education institutions, the Board of Trustees, consisting of academic and busin ess leaders (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, 1998). Through this and other measures, the government further promotes the concept of multi-source financing by making institu tions more self-reliant and decentralized. The method for government funds to be d istributed to higher education institutions will also change. Continuing with the method started in the early 1990s, funding will be focused on a formula funding method based on the number of stu dents enrolled although it will affect significantly more than the 10% of the overall high er education budget that was indicated in 1992 (the exact amount was still not finalized duri ng the writing of this report). It is believed that this will make the process more effective and transparent as it will depend on the institutions to develop programs to attract student s and thus increase their funding from the government and fees imposed on the students. This m ethod of funding will also be a means of competition among institutions for students. Creati ng programs in demand and improving existing programs will be important to attracting m ore students. This flexibility of operations will prove important to drawing in more funding fro m government and business. The 1998 Act also introduces the concep t of study fees for students of public higher education institutions. Before this Act, there were no tuition fees and students' families received an allowance, tax relief and stipends. Educational materials, housing and meals were also subsidized. In most cases these subsidies or stipen ds have been drastically reduced or eliminated slowly throughout the 1990s. Because of the 1998 Act, public higher education institutions can set the entrance fees (e.g., exams ), but a maximum level is determined by the Act. As far as further fees for study (e.g., tuitio n, etc.), the minimum lower limit is prescribed
9 of 16by the Act and the maximum amount is left to the di scretion of higher education institutions. Students who stay a year longer than is determined by the study program will be required to pay additional study fees. These funds will be used as a scholarship endowment to be expended within the institution. For private institutions, w hose development is made possible through the 1998 Act, the study fees are not adjusted by the Ac t. The determination of their amount is completely at their discretion (Ministry of Educati on, Youth and Sport, 1998).The diversification of higher education financing With the implementation of the Higher E ducation Acts of 1990 and 1998, the democratization of society and further collaboratio n with the West, some necessary reforms are gradually being implemented to make higher educatio n institutions more financially self-sufficient. These reforms have come in the for m of a diversification in higher education institutions and programs. This diversification is an attempt to make the funding of institutions more flexible and adaptive to the needs of the econ omy by tying them more closely with business and government in their region. This in re turn is designed to provide them with additional revenue for their development. These ref orms are occurring through a focus on regional higher education, bachelors studies and pr ivate higher education institutions among other areas.Regional higher education institutions After 1989, new universities and facult ies were established that had a considerable influence on the regional structure of higher educa tion. Since 1989, the share of the total number of students in the traditional university ce nters of Prague and Brno dropped by about 4%, as regional educational centers increased enrol lments. Under 40% of students studied in Prague (the capital) in 1998, compared with 43% in 1989, and in Brno (the second largest city), 19% compared to 23% (Ministry of Education, Youth a nd Sport, 1998). Some universities have become actively engaged with their regions and municipalities and have attempted to merge academic activities wit h local concerns. For example, in Liberec and Olomouc the universities have developed trainin g and re-training programs in teaching, local administration and architecture, in close col laboration with their municipalities (Mokosin, 1995). Some regional universities have attempted to adapt to their reduced funding (in relation to inflation) from the government by developing tie s with industry. Currently, the principal involvement of the universities in industrial reo rganization is in the area of re-training managers and workers. In the future, the active eng agement of university research and teaching on issues of regional concern is likely to flow fro m structured and regular consultations between scientists and teachers on one hand, and re presentatives of economic and social organizations and local government on the other. As new laws have been passed in the are a of tax exemption for non-profit organizations, it is expected that collaboration between higher ed ucation and industry will increase throughout the country which will further regionalize higher e ducation and its ties with local business. This is designed to aid in the development of the region al economy. If innovative enterprises grow in numbers and the financial capability of these compa nies expands, this sort of collaboration could increase and be mutually beneficial to these businesses and the higher education institutions.Bachelors Studies
10 of 16 Higher education institutions in the Cz ech Republic are attempting to meet changing skill level needs in the economy by offering more i ntensive courses that can be completed in a shorter period of time. One of the programs designe d to do this is the bachelors studies program created in 1992. The bachelors study program usuall y lasts three years, but occasionally four. The degree of magister or engineer, the first and o nly level of undergraduate study prior to 1992, usually lasts five years (Mokosin, 1995, Wink ler, 1993). The bachelors program does not replace the established method of study, but rather provides students with a more condensed, specialized option. Many bachelors study programs a re designed to anticipate the future demand for high quality professionals in fields who se relevance to the economy has changed dramatically. These fields include; economics, engi neering, business, mathematics, physics, law, public administration, and the like. (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, 1998). According to the 1998 Act, the bachelor s study program can lead to the awarding of the degree as a basic unit of higher education studies (Bachelors of Art, BcA) and there is now a bachelors degree offered at most institutions. bach elors courses are now offered at over 50 faculties in 18 higher education institutions. Ther e are over 160 specializations within the faculties, many of which are offered with a part-ti me option (Prucha and Halberstat, 1993). Not surprisingly, most of the programs are located in t he small provincial higher education institutions whereas the large well-established uni versities in Prague or Brno are somewhat resistant to this non-traditional method of study. Of the over 160 specializations, only about 30 are in the two largest universities; Charles Univer sity in Prague and Masaryk University in Brno. A common thread among the different bachelors programs is the concept of a self-contained cycle leading to specific qualificat ions not previously offered in any of the existing institutions. These programs are often est ablished to meet local needs at the request of regional authorities. Regional sites have established separat e fields of study such as the Textile and Engineering school in Liberec (technical school) wh ich is developing a bachelors program in technical engineering in co-operation with Skoda wo rks and its parent company, Volkswagon, in the neighboring town of Mlada Boleslav. The Libe rec/Skoda bachelors program also has the support of the Ministry of Industry and is one of t he few cases of close inter-ministerial collaboration in the sphere of higher education. Th e Faculty of Law in the University of Olomouc has a bachelors study program in the field of Public Administration, and several schools of Education have a bachelors cycle in stud ies qualifying engineers or other specialists to teach in professional secondary schools (Prucha and Halberstat, 1993). The number of fields of study offered a s well as the number of students taking bachelors degree programs is growing steadily. In the 1997/19 98 academic year, the proportion of students taking bachelors degrees of the total numb er of undergraduates was 24.3% compared with only 11.1% in 1992/1993. The number of applica nts for the bachelors programs continues to grow and enrollments have tripled in six years. (See Table 2.)Table 2 Development of the number of students taking bachelors programs and their share in the total number of undergraduates in the Czech Republi c (1992-1998)Academic year Students of bachelors programs Undergrad.as a whole Students taking bachelors programs
11 of 16 as a % of total undergraduates 1992/93 12,628 114,18511.1% 1993/94 15,624 122,45612.8% 1994/95 28,147 129,45321.7% 1995/96 34,821 139,77424.9% 1996/97 36,668 156,86823.5% 1997/98 39,410 162,37324.3%Source: Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport, 199 8. With the addition of tuition and other user fees, these programs represent a growing source of additional income.Private education Private higher education did not exist in Czechoslovakia under communism. The 1990 law, while not forbidding the introduction of an alternative or binary system of higher education (both private and public instituti ons), did not authorize the establishment of private institutions. Legislation stated that: "It shall be the exclusive right of institutions of higher education to provid e academic-scientific degrees to graduates and organize post-graduate studies" (Moko sin, 1995). As a result of the very restricted levels of privatization within Czech soc iety prior to 1989, along with limiting legislation within the 1990 Higher Education Act, p rivate higher education institutions had not been established to any significant extent since 1989. As a means of diversification, coincidi ng with the increasing privatization of government owned industry, government and academic policy makers through the 1998 Higher Education Act attempted to address the need for private higher education by making it significantly easier for the creation of these institutions. Institutions dealing with educational, scientific, research, development or other creative activity can be founded after acquiring state permission. They are responsible for establishing their own fees for study (Ministry of Education, Youth and Sp ort, 1998). In sum, higher education policy makers, in collaboration with government officials are seeking to diversify their financial sources and operations through the development of bachelors programs, private institut ions and closer ties with the regions in which they are located. Through these methods, i nstitutions are attempting to become more economically selfsufficient, either through the addition of fees for study or collaboration with business. Each of these programs increases academic decision making and creates opportunities for the development of fi nancial resources outside of government funds, thus increasing their autonomy.
12 of 16Conclusion Higher education in the Czech Republic is going through an important transition, both politically and economically. New methods of f inancing university operations are necessary during the transition to a market economy as government funds are increasingly being drawn to other areas. Government and academic officials have worked together in the development of the Higher Education Acts of 199 0 and 1998, both of which provide more academic freedom and opportunities for higher education institutions to develop programs that will meet their economic needs. Some of the key elements of change and diversification in higher education were: The regionalization of higher education through the tying of regional institutions to some financing from the region's industry and incre asing the role of local government support The creation of bachelors programs and their expans ion of enrollments in which is expected to account for at least 20% of the flow of higher education graduates by the year 2000. A shift in student financial support from the gover nment to students and families (e.g., tuition fees and private education). Because of the similar political and ec onomic structures in all former post-communist countries, policy makers and educati onal researchers in transitional countries around the world may find the Czech trans ition useful in finding alternative methods of financing higher education. As the proce ss is still developing, further research in this area after a longer period of implementatio n should lead to an evaluation of the alternative methods currently being undertaken in t he Czech Republic and other countries in the region. As the countries of Central and East ern Europe continue to move toward democracy and capitalism, higher education must mov e with it and create opportunities for itself now and in the future.ReferencesBok, D. (1991). Universities in transition: Observations and recomm endations for Hungary and Czechoslovakia (CDC Report) Washington, DC: Citizens Democracy Corp.Cerych, L. (1993). Particular context of present da y East and Central Europe (editorial). European Journal of Education, 28 (4), 377-379. Daniel, D. (1991). National higher education and re search systems of central Europe. Bratislava, Slovakia: Slovak Academic Information A gency. Fischer-Galati, S. (1990). The impact of modernizat ion in the education system: A comparative survey. East European Quarterly, 25 (2), 275-282. Harbison, R. W. (1991a). Education and training in Czechoslovakia. Unpublished report to the Czechoslovak government. Durham, England: Bi cks, Sinclair and Associates, Inc. Harbison, R. W. (1991b). Education and training in Czechoslovakia. Unpublished report to the Czechoslovak government. Durham, England: Bi cks, Sinclair and Associates, Inc.
13 of 16Heyneman, S. (1994). Education in the Europe and Ce ntral Asian Region: Policies of Adjustment and Excellence. Unpublished Report to th e World Bank. Holda, D., Cermakova, Z., & Urbanek, V. (1994). Cha nges in the funding of higher education in the Czech Republic. European Journal of Education, 29 (1), 75-82. Holmberg, C., & Wojtowicz, W. (Eds.). (1990). The P olish school system: Some social and historical aspects. Linkoping University, Swede n, Department of Education and Psychology.Kallen, P. (1991). Academic exchange in Europe: Tow ard a new era of co-operation. The open door: Pan European cooperation. Bucharest, Rom ania: UNESCO European Center for Higher Education.Kotasek, J. (1991). Czechoslovakia. Pp. 643-650 in P.G. Altbach & B. Johnstone (Eds.), International higher education: An encyclopedia New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc.Koucky, J. (1990). Czechoslovak higher education at the crossroads. European Journal of Education, 25 (4), 361-377. Mauch, J., & Fogel, D. (1992). Academic administrat ors in Hungary and Czechoslovakia: New roles and responsibilities. Paper presented at the Comparative Education Conference, Prague, Czechoslovakia.Mauch, J., & Fogel, D. (1993). Issues in funding hi gher education in Eastern Europe: The case of Czechoslovakia. Pp. 207-237 in P.G. Altbach & B. Johnstone (Eds.), The funding of higher education: International perspectives New York and London: Garland Publishing Inc.Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport an the Cente r for Higher Education Studies. (1998). Higher Education in the Czech Republic. Pra gue, Czech. Republic. Mitter, W. (1990). Education in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union in a period of revolutionary change: An approach to comparative an alysis. Unpublished manuscript. Mokosin, V. (Ed.). (1995). Higher education in the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic: The Center for Higher Education Studies.OECD Report. (1992). Higher education policy review in the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic. Unpublished Manuscript.Prucha, J. & Halberstat, L. (1993). The development and diversification of the higher education system: bachelors study. In OECD Report: Higher Education in the Czech Republic 1992-1993. Prague, Czech Republic: The Cen ter for Higher Education Studies. Rupnik, J. (1992). Higher education reform process in Central and Eastern Europe. European Journal of Education, 27 (), 145-153. Von Kopp, B. (1992). The Eastern European revolutio n and education in Czechoslovakia. Comparative Education Review, 36 101-113.
14 of 16 Winkler, J. (1993). Can one stop the pendulum? Mana ging change at Czech University. Unpublished manuscript.Yazdegerdi, T. (1990). Changes in the educational s ystem. Report on Eastern Europe 1 14-18.About the AuthorMatthew S. McMullen802 William Pitt UnionUniversity of PittsburghPittsburgh, PA 15260Voice: (412) 648-7421Fax: (412) 383-7166 Email: Mcmullenemail@example.com Matthew McMullen is a Research Associate of the Cen ter for Russian and East European Studies and Visiting Faculty member at the Institut e for International Studies in Education, University of Pittsburgh. His PhD (1996) is from the University of Pittsburgh, in Administrative and Policy Studies (International Development Education Program). He holds a Graduate Studies Certificate from the Ce nter for Russian and East European Studies at Pitt and and from Charles University, Pr ague, Czech Republic, (1994) in the area of Economics and Political Science. His public ations include McMullen, M., Donnorummo, R. and Mauch, J. (Eds.) (2000). Higher Education and Emerging Markets: Development and Sustainability (Garland Publishing: New York) and McMullen, M. a nd Prucha, J. (2000). The Czech Republic: A Country in Transition....Again" in Higher Education and Emerging Markets: Development and Sus tainability .Copyright 2000 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 8 5287-0211. (602-965-9644). The Commentary Editor is Casey D. C obb: email@example.com .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing
15 of 16 Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas Mauhs-Pugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisÂ—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education David D. Williams Brigham Young UniversityEPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico email@example.com Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.firstname.lastname@example.org Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es
16 of 16 Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativa-DIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx email@example.com Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sul-UFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica firstname.lastname@example.org Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu