Competitive-TE-Financing-Chile-Brief 160915
-
Upload
ricardo-reich -
Category
Documents
-
view
61 -
download
0
Transcript of Competitive-TE-Financing-Chile-Brief 160915
PERFORMANCE-BASEDFINANCING IN CHILE: RELEVANT RESULTS
Ricardo Reich, Consultant Division of Higher EducationMinistry of Education of Chile
Santiago, Chile, September 2015
2
TERTIARY EDUCATION PRESENTATION
• 1.215.413 students in tertiary education• 162 institutions
o 25 universities in CRUCH; 16 State y 9 private o 35 private universities, since 1980o 44 professional institutes (non-degree granting)o 58 vocational centers (CFT)
• 1.168.607 undergraduate students, 46.806 graduates (4%)o 58% universitieso 57% 1st year enrolment in vocational centers
• Public financing in TE: 1 % GDP (2013); 0.45% (2005)• Student coverage in TE (18-24 years): 39% net; 66% of student
enrolment• Public financing in R&D: 0,4% GDP!! • Tuition and fees (> US$ 3.800/year). National student-aid system:
scholarships and loansSource: SIES (Higher Education Information System, Ministry of Education), 2014
3
FINANCING OF HIGHER EDUCATION AND INSTRUMENTS
GASTO PUBLICO EN EDUCACION SUPERIOR COMO PROPORCION DEL PIB
4
• El gasto en Educación Superior que realizará Chile en proporción al PIB el 2013 es superior a la proporción del PIB que países como Estados Unidos, México y Portugal destinaban a este ítem el 2009.
STATE EXPENDITURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION AS % OF GDP (2009)
2013
In the last decade, the State has more than doubled its support to Tertiary Education, as % of GDP
Gobierno de Chile | Ministerio de Educación 5
0,45%
1,04%
2005 2013
HIGHER EDUCATION BUDGET. 2013
• Total Investment: 2,5% GDP. (1,6% is Average OECD)• State Support: 1,04% (1,1% is Average OECD)
6
HIGHER EDUCATION FINANCING
2013: MM$ 1.052.803
TE FINANCING IN CHILE2000-2014
Research ResearchCONICYT2000-2015
Supply-side:
Basal funding to institutions
Demand-side:
Student Aid (MORE
scholarships and loans)
National Accreditation System, CNA
historical distributionby law
no accountability
MECESUP AIF
2000-2014PAgreement
Pilot2007-2010
PA Scale-up2012-2016
competitiveresults-oriented
increased accountability May change to partial
or total gratuity!
Basal by Basal by LawLaw
Formula Formula with with
PerformancPerformancee
AIF and AIF and Performance Performance Agreements Agreements
1. Direct State Support 95%. 1. Direct State Support 95%. CRUCH CRUCH 3. Indirect State Support. CRUCH3. Indirect State Support. CRUCH4. Special Support U. de Chile4. Special Support U. de Chile
1. Direct State Support 5%. 1. Direct State Support 5%. CRUCHCRUCH2. Academic Remedials. Q1&Q22. Academic Remedials. Q1&Q23. Strengthening CRUCH. Q1&Q23. Strengthening CRUCH. Q1&Q24. Basal Funding. CRUCH 4. Basal Funding. CRUCH
1. PA Humanities&Social Sciences1. PA Humanities&Social Sciences2. PA New Teacher Training2. PA New Teacher Training3. PA Undergraduate Curricula 3. PA Undergraduate Curricula 4. PA Internationalisation of Ph.D.4. PA Internationalisation of Ph.D.5. PA Vocational Education5. PA Vocational Education6. PA Regional Institutions6. PA Regional Institutions7. PA Innovation (from R&D)7. PA Innovation (from R&D)8. Small Projects AIF28. Small Projects AIF2
MANAGEMENT BY RESULTS
9
FINANCING OF HIGHER EDUCATION
TRANSFORMATION OF FINANCING MECHANISMS IN CHILE
PBA AIF2
11
PROGRAM MECESUPACADEMIC INNOVATION FUND PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS
supportive regulatory framework
autonomy academic freedom
leadership team strategic vision
culture of excellence
public budget resources endowment revenues
tuition fees research grants
donations
students teaching staff researchers
graduates research output
technology transfer& innovation
WCU
FAVORABLEGOVERNANCE
ABUNDANT RESOURCES
CONCENTRATION OF TALENT
Source: Salmi 2009Note WCU= Word-class University
International Quality
MECESUP PROGRAM2000-2016
INTERNATIONALIZATION
13
THE MECESUP PROGRAM1999-2016
• Phase I. Recovery of academic infrastructure and capacity building• Competitive Fund (CF). 1999-2004
• Phase II. Academic innovation and results • Academic Innovation Fund (AIF). 2006-2010• Performance Agreement (PA) Pilot. 2007-2010• Performance Agreements in the Humanities, Social
Sciences and Arts. 2010-2016• Phase III. Institutional change management
• Performance Agreement Scale-Up. 2012-2016• Upgraded AIF2. 2012-2016
Pilot
1999 – 2000 – 2001 – 2002 – 2003 – 2004 – 2005 – 2006 – 2007 – 2008 – 2009 – 2010 – 2011 – 2012
Phase I. MECESUP 1(Loan 4404 – CH)
Phase II. MECESUP 2(Loan 7317 – CH)
Academic Innovation
Fund(AIF)
CompetitiveFund
Performance Agreement
Pilot
Performance Agreements in
Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences
Academic Innovation and Results
MECESUP1&2 PROGRAMS
Academic Infrastructure and Capacity Building
Competitive Academic Innovation Fund
1999-2008 CompetitionsPROPOSAL ALLOCATION
• 9 calls. US$ 450 millions• 1821 proposals presented• 33 universities. 28 CFT & 2 IP • 769 proyects allocated; approval
rate, 42%:• 439 undergraduate, 57%• 181 graduate, Ph.Ds, 23%• 104 technitians, 14%• 45 management, 6%
• Average project size: US$ 590,000• Implementation: 1-3 years
15
16
ADJUDICACIONES DEL FIACDISTRIBUCION GEOGRAFICA
30<=MECE<3930<=MECE<39
30<=MECE<39
AIF 1999-2008 70% of projects allocated in regions, outside the
capital
MECESUP AIF SUSTAINED $ ALLOCATIONS GRANT CALLS 1999-2008
17
PBA pilot2007-2010
US$ 20 million, 3 years
AIF2 &PA scale-up2012-2016
to US$, multiply x2/1,000,000
18
PRESIDENT
Academic VP Research&PG
Finances Outreachto Society
International Relations
Teaching-Learning Units
Institutional Research Units
Staff DevelopmentInformation&Kowledge
Remedial ProgramsCurricula Innovation
Tecnology IntegrationInfrastructure Improvement
Student MobilityECTS-Chile
Valorization of Research
Results Unit
Strategic Planning
Educational Model Towards InnovationDevelopment Plan
Support to Local Ph.D. Programs
ScholarshipsInstrumentation
International-ization
Outreach
M&E Actions&ResultsSupport Governance,
Planning andDecission Making
Performance Indicator Management and
Benchmarking
Quality-Teaching Efficiency-Mobility-Employability
Quality. Act 20.129 Equity in
Access to Quality
Sustainability. 1999-Today
AIF
19
THE CHILEAN PH.D. PROGRAMSAN OUTSTANTING OUTCOME
20
2000 2010 2013
N° Programs 62 195 233
Full-time faculty 7.400 11.005 14.880
Full-time faculty with a Ph.D.
2.200 4.040 5.609
Student enrolment 1.053 4.055 4.653
Student graduation 157 433 602
Graduation/million inhabitants
10 25.5 34
AVAILABLE TALENTSIN CHILEAN PH.D. PROGRAMS
3.409155%
21
THE CHILEAN PH.D. PROGRAMSRESEARCH OUTPUT
22
THE CHILEAN PH.D. PROGRAMSOUTPUT IN TOP10% OF USA
23
THE CHILEAN PH.D. PROGRAMSRESEARCH CITATION IMPACT
24
THE CHILEAN PH.D. PROGRAMSINTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
25
RESEARCH AND DOCTORAL STUDIES AT UNIVERSIDAD DE LA FRONTERA
AN OUTSTANTING OUTCOME
26
RESEARCH OUTCOME OF UNIVERSIDAD DE LA FRONTERA
27
PH.Ds IN NATURAL AND MOLECULAR BIO-SCIENCES
QUALITY OF OUTPUT
28
PH.Ds IN NATURAL AND MOLECULAR BIO-SCIENCES
QUALITY OF OUTPUT
29
Phase III2008-2016
Performance agreement scale-up Academic Innovation Fund upgrade (AIF2)
New Teacher Training Undergraduate Curricula Reform
Internationalization of PhD´s Support to Vocational Training
Support to Regional HE Innovation in Higher Education
2012 – 2013 – 2014 – 2015 – 2016
Performance Agreement Scale-up
2012-2016
MECESUP 3(Loan 8126-CL)
Management by Results
AIF2Small Projects
(upgraded)
AIF and PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTSCompetition, Pre-Selection and Negotiation
31
EXPECTED RESULTS OF NEGOTIATION
33
EXPECTED OUTSTANDING OUTCOMESBASE VALUES AND TARGETS
(EXAMPLES)
• Professors with PhD and researchers: head count & % full time
• First year student retention• Low income student retention and graduation• Undergraduate graduation and time-to-graduation • Enrollment and graduation of Chilean and foreign
students in PhD programs• Student and professor proficiency in English • Teaching and research publications & citations• Valorization of academic results for innovation;
Ministerio de Educación - DIVESUP
34
IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIESRELEVANT RESULTS
35
COMPETITIVE FUNDING IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
• Generate equal opportunities in access to funding• Introduce strategic planning and management by results• Induce changes with (competitive) incentives:
• World Bank Loans 4404-CH, 7317-CH, and 8126-CL combined with
• Incremental state budget• Trust institutions, their capabilities, ideas, strategies• Assure transparency and generate credibility• Act pro-actively and facilitate change• Invite institutional shared funding for greater impact• Increase M&E requirements towards useful results,
outcomes and accountability • Implement changes gradually! Pilot and replicate!
36
AIFACADEMIC OUTCOME SUMMARY
• Mecesup’S AIF has been a succesfull instrument and implementation story
• It has been very useful and flexible for many types of institutional quality improvement changes that can be generated by academia bottom-up
• Not so useful for the solution of complex or strategical institutional problems that require top- bottom design, determined decission making, successful negotiation with funding agency and academia, and good and effective leadership
• MECESUP was implemented step—by-step, starting with pilots and then scaled-up
• Main agency efforts were placed on student learning and institutional project facilitation
37
AIFMANAGEMENT INTERVENTION SUMMARY
• Incremental financing• Competitive and performance-based funding• As eligibility requirements:
• Quality assurance: accreditation• Institutional strategic planning• Educational model definition
• Management by results• M&E based on project progress and relevant
performance indicators• Teaching-Learning Units• Institutional Research Offices
Division of Higher EducationContact:Dr. Ricardo ReichTeatinos 20, Piso 2Santiago, Chile
Phone: 56-2-22406-6815E-mail: [email protected]