2 septembre 2011

By David Jobbins. A study of the conditions that enable universities in Europe to develop successful lifelong learning strategies has revealed that the vital supporting legislation is present in only two-thirds of the countries surveyed. Download Report charts growth of lifelong learning.
Engaging in Lifelong Learning: Shaping inclusive and responsive university strategies (SIRUS) is based on the outcomes of a two-year European Commission-supported project involving 29 universities from 18 different European countries. Its findings were presented at a two-day conference at the University of Southampton on Wednesday.
The study looked at the framework needed for the successful development of lifelong learning. According to the participating universities, the two most important conditions were funding and legislation. Only 12 of the 18 countries represented by universities in the project believed such 'supporting legislation' was in place.
Just as crucially, only four countries reported that specific funding for the development of lifelong learning activities was available. Many universities approached for the study said that their respective governments had been slow to respond to the commitments in the 2008 European University Association Lifelong Learning Charter.
Irrespective of the framework conditions in place, the report identifies four common elements when universities develop and implement strategies. These involve diversifying student populations, and diversifying services to learners, educational provision and external partnerships.
Both support from the university leadership and the proactive engagement of staff was critical. Partnerships and cooperation with other universities and also with non-university partners, including the private sector, were identified as another strategic priority.
Hanne Smidt, co-author of the report and a senior adviser at the EUA, said: "The project results indicate that, while national legal and financial frameworks play an important role for universities, the single most important push factor for developing successful lifelong learning has been the active engagement of university leadership in creating inclusive and responsive university strategies".
The SIRUS project was carried out by a consortium, led by the European University Association, including the European Association of Distance Teaching Universities, the European Access Network and the European University Continuing Education Network. The report is available here.

By Kevin Carey (Policy Director of Education Sector, independent think tank in Washington). For the past three months, The Chronicle's reporters have been writing a series of articles collectively titled Measuring Stick, describing the consequences of a higher-education system that refuses to consistently measure how much students learn. From maddening credit-transfer policies and barely regulated for-profit colleges to a widespread neglect of teaching, the articles show that without information about learning, many of the most intractable problems facing higher education today will go unsolved. The Chronicle's Measuring Stick series collected original reporting and expert commentary on the subjects.

Failing to fill the learning-information deficit will have many consequences:

* The currency of exchange in higher education will continue to suffer from abrupt and unpredictable devaluation. Students trying to assemble course credits from multiple institutions into a single degree—that is, most students—frequently have their credits discounted for no good reason. That occurs not only when students transfer between the two- and four-year sectors, or when the institutions involved have divergent educational philosophies. A student trying to transfer credits from an introductory technical-math course at Bronx Community College to other colleges within the City University of New York system, for example, would be flatly denied by five institutions and given only elective credit by three others. John Jay College of Criminal Justice, by contrast, would award the student credit for an introductory modern-math course acceptable for transfer by every CUNY campus, including Bronx Community College—except that BCC would translate that course into trigonometry and college algebra, not technical math. Students who emerge from this bureaucratic labyrinth should be awarded credit in Kafka studies for their trouble. Credit devaluation, which wastes enormous amounts of time, money, and credentialed learning every year, is rooted in mistrust. Because colleges don't know what students in other colleges learned, they're reluctant to give foreign courses their imprimaturs.
* Taxpayers have few defenses against those who would exploit the federal financial-aid system for profit. Last year the U.S. Department of Education rightly criticized the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools for accrediting American InterContinental University, despite AIU's "egregious" policy of awarding nine credits for five-week courses. But the department's follow-up proposal to solidify the traditional, time-based definition of credits as signifying one hour spent within the classroom and two without was also criticized, and for good reason. Nearly a third of all college students took online courses last year. Why would anyone define credits in terms of seat time when, increasingly, there are no seats and no fixed learning time? Because they have no other basis for doing so. Lacking objective information about student learning, the crumbling quality-control triad of accreditors, states, and the federal government is faced with an unwelcome choice: Reinforce a time-based measuring stick that was already flawed when it was developed, in the late 19th century, or allow unscrupulous operators to write checks to themselves, all to be paid by the U.S. Treasury.
* Upward mobility in higher education will remain limited to institutions that happen to be located in the cities favored by Richard Florida's "creative class." If your campus is in Greenwich Village or Foggy Bottom, the sky's the limit. If all you have to offer is unusually good teaching, you're out of luck. How can you prove it? How would anyone know? So aspiring colleges are forced to compete for students by means of marketing campaigns, recreation centers, and other expensive things that continually drive up tuition until there are no students left to pay full freight and subsidize all the rest. And then the whole rickety system comes crashing down. It's not a question of whether this will happen to many mid-tier institutions—it's when.
* The public definition of institutional quality is left to think-tank entrepreneurs and journalists with agendas to push and magazines to sell. Those who are terrified by the notion of Congress's using such information to create an accountability system for higher education should consider that, in fact, we've had such a system in this country since 1983. It's run by U.S. News & World Report.
* Most important, without information about learning, there is less learning. Faculty cultures and incentive regimes that systematically devalue teaching in favor of research are allowed to persist because there is no basis for fixing them and no irrefutable evidence of how much students are being shortchanged.
Reasonable higher-education leaders acknowledge all of those points. Yet the prevailing attitude toward information about learning still ranges from infinite caution to outright hostility. Assessing student learning is difficult, particularly learning at the elevated levels to which colleges ought to aspire. Still, possible instruments of assessment are seen as either gross violations of institutional autonomy or as so crude and imperfect that they require further refinement and study, lasting approximately forever. "The perfect is the enemy of the good" has become a rhetorical strategy to be deployed, rather than a problem to be avoided, when outsiders ask uncomfortable questions about teaching and learning.
American universities grant 50,000 research doctorates per year. Even if we consider only full-time staff in Ph.D. programs, there are upward of 170,000 people working in colleges today who have been rigorously trained to find meaning in chaos. They explore the furthest theoretical reaches of time and space; ponder the nature of justice, beauty, and truth; develop new ways of understanding the human condition; and contribute countless innovations that make the world a more vibrant, humane place to be. Are we to understand that it is beyond their intellectual means to produce a reasonably accurate estimate of how much chemistry majors learn at Institution A compared with Institution B? That a student's relative capacity to think analytically and write clearly is a mystery that no mortal can hope to reveal?
Nonsense. Comparable learning information doesn't exist because many groups have a strong interest in its not existing. Institutions that thrive on centuries-old reputations, despite their present-day failure to challenge students in the classroom. Companies looking to exploit the federal financial-aid system. Faculty who hate teaching and love research. Colleges that profit from forcing students to take the same course twice.
Institutional autonomy is important, and so is the academic freedom that allows faculty to shape the content and character of their courses. But there are reasonable limits to most things, including these. When the autonomy of CUNY math departments produces a Mad Hatter credit-transfer system, it's time to draw the line.
There are, of course, many people in higher education with enlightened motives and views. Public institutions are beginning to publish results from the Collegiate Learning Assessment and other assessments of critical-thinking skills. Seventy-one presidents, many from liberal-arts colleges that specialize in teaching, have formed the Presidents' Alliance for Excellence in Student Learning and Accountability. The better accreditors are using their limited leverage to prod institutions toward more assessment and transparency.
But the question remains: Will those efforts come fast enough or go far enough?
The "gainful employment" regulations that the Department of Education is working to impose on for-profit colleges are nothing less than a wholesale repudiation of traditional higher-education quality control. All of the institutions in question are accredited to do business. Yet the federal government still doesn't trust that their students are learning enough for what they're paying. So the department has chosen to define learning in purely economic terms, comparing students' postgraduate earnings with their debt.
That makes sense for vocational programs. But how long will it be before politicians who see higher education as nothing more than a way to train future workers simply cross out the "for profit" limitation on the gainful-employment measures?
College rankings, meanwhile, are proliferating as private companies compete to sate the growing appetite for comparative information among prospective students at home and abroad. As much as colleges complain that their unique essence can't be distilled into a single number, students choosing a college (or, increasingly, a course) can choose only one. Yet, rather than produce alternative rankings that reflect the core values of higher learning, many people in higher education seem to believe that the rankings genie can be put back in the bottle through a campaign of frequent, uncoordinated complaining, accompanied by the hope that U.S. News, which doesn't even publish an actual newsmagazine anymore, will somehow see the error of its ways.
Meanwhile, a few of those 170,000 smart people are actually interested in how much students learn in college, and are using new psychometric instruments to find out. When their results become public, the myth that everyone with a college degree actually learned something will be definitively punctured, and along with it any justification for keeping information on learning hidden.
The real debate shouldn't be about whether we need a measuring stick for higher education. We need a debate about who gets to design the stick, who owns it, and who decides how it will be used. If higher education has the courage to take responsibility for honestly assessing student learning and for publishing the results, the measuring stick will be a tool. If it doesn't, the stick could easily become a weapon. The time for making that choice is drawing to a close.

By Ian Wilhelm. In view of the debate about paying agents commissions for recruiting international students, it may be useful to give a perspective from Australian universities, which have long paid agents a commission for each student they recruit.
One of the reasons Australian institutions are comfortable with commission-based agents is because they established one of the biggest, IDP, in 1969. Originally known as the International Development Program, most Australian universities have been closely involved in its development.
But while commission-based agents aren’t contentious in Australia, they aren’t necessarily problem free. Here are five lessons Australia has learned from its experience with agents over the years–lessons that universities and government officials in the United States can use to help them decide their own approach to agents.
Make institutions explicitly responsible for their agents. A college is legally liable for its agents’ actions within their apparent authority so most potential problems with agents may be avoided by regulating colleges well. Colleges’ responsibilities should be made explicit by establishing a framework or guidelines for managing their education agents. The framework should include criteria for selecting agents, a standard agency agreement, induction and training for agents and their staff, and guidelines for monitoring agents. The certification standards of the American International Recruitment Council are a good start.
Require public disclosure of key information about agents. One important lesson for Australia was to require both public and private colleges to disclose key information about their recruiting agents. Minimally colleges should be required to publish the names of their agents on their Web site so that prospective students may check that an agent is authorized to represent their preferred institution.
Monitor continuously, not periodically. An agent’s contract renewal is the usual time to review an agent’s work for a college. But an agent’s performance needs constant monitoring and support. Likewise international education develops and changes so fast that the relevant authorities need to monitor colleges’ maintenance of appropriate quality and standards continuously. Reviewing performance as part of an accreditation every five years is not sufficient to identify and remedy issues before they become problems.
Regulate according to risk. While regulation is important, too much burden can be imposed on colleges and regulators by monitoring every college the same. Colleges and universities have different levels of risk in managing their agents and this should be reflected in different levels of regulation. The colleges that seem to have most difficulty managing and disciplining their agents are small, less prestigious, and rely too heavily on one agent. They don’t have as many resources and as much authority as established universities, which have staff members dedicated to managing the agents in their region. They need to be monitored more closely than bigger universities with a reputation to protect.
Consider an independent international student ombudsman. Some students, especially those from countries without a strong tradition of internal administrative remedies, are not confident of college review processes. They doubt that internal reviews can be independent and may fear that they or their grades would be in trouble if they complain to their college about an agent or other concerns. An independent office for international students is an important protection of their rights. The overseas student ombudsman established by the Australian federal government gives current and prospective international students confidence that their complaints are investigated thoroughly and fairly, helps institutions manage internal complaints effectively, and reports on problems and broader issues that it identifies from its investigations. The office includes a former international student of a private college.
Undoubtedly commission-based agents may cause problems. But most agents serve their students and colleges well. The correct response to potential problems with agents is not to ban them outright, but to implement processes that protect students while allowing them to benefit from the services offered by reputable agents.

This Eurobarometer survey sets out to gauge the opinion of European citizens about vocational education and training in 2011 to help inform the work of the European Commission and Member States as they begin to implement the new VET strategy.
It sets out to assess the image of vocational education and training, and people’s impression of VET’s potential benefits within the EU. It evaluates the impact of VET on society and on the economy, and looks at the factors that influence young people as they choose between VET and other forms of education. 26,840 European citizens aged 15 and above were interviewed across all the Member States. Attitudes towards vocational education and training - Full report. Attitudes towards vocational education and training - Summary. Press Release.
CONCLUSION
The European Union is seeking to modernise vocational education and training in order to help young people into work and give adults the chance to build upon their existing skills, and the findings of this report provide a useful guide that should inform this undertaking.
First, it is encouraging to observe that there is generally no kind of stigma attached to vocational training as an alternative to academic studies, with 71% of all European respondents saying that VET has a positive image in their country. However, the significant difference between the image of VET in different Member States – only 50% of people in both the Netherlands and Slovenia, for example, say that VET is viewed positively – highlights the fact that making VET a universally attractive option within the next decade will be more challenging in some countries than in others.
Many of the metrics in this report suggest that some of the important messages about VET – that it teaches skills that employers require, that it offers high-quality learning – have already got through to most parts of European society. But in some cases, there is a lack of confidence in VET in certain geographies: in Lithuania and Latvia, for example, only 61% and 63% of people respectively (far lower than the EU average) regard VET as offering high-quality learning. In Lithuania, uniquely among the 27 EU countries, more people also say that having a VET qualification actually makes a person less likely to find a job than someone who has completed their general secondary or higher education, suggesting specific issues in that country either with the information that the public receives about VET or structural problems within the VET system itself.
In other cases, there is a lack of confidence in VET in certain socio-demographic groups. For example, people who see themselves as being low down on the social scale have less belief that VET can improve their job prospects than people higher up the scale. This represents a major challenge: one of the EU’s main objectives is to open up opportunities to disadvantaged groups, but these results show that these very groups, which have the lowest aspirations in general, have the least faith in the ability of vocational training to change and improve their circumstances. Informing and educating these underprivileged groups about the potential that VET can unlock is therefore an obvious priority.
With VET’s ability to guide and influence society in line with the EU’s wider policy goals in mind, it is disconcerting to find that less than a half (48%) of all respondents think VET encourages environmentally friendly attitudes, with 30% saying it fails to do this. At least one-third of respondents agree that VET does not promote environmentally friendly attitudes in 11 countries. This outcome poses a challenge for VET’s potential in supporting the green agenda and in assisting Europe’s transition to a low-carbon economy.
VET’s ability to boost the economy by stimulating the creation of small companies is also less proven, with around half of all respondents saying that VET does not stimulate small companies (only 36% of people think that it does). This is a disappointing result in the context of the slow economic growth that most of Europe is currently experiencing. Also somewhat mixed are the findings on VET’s capacity to improve the geographical mobility of students by enabling VET learners to study in another country. Though 43% of people think that VET does give people this opportunity, 35% do not think it enables them to study abroad. While it is encouraging to see that a relative majority regard VET as a route to educational mobility, more work is clearly needed to ensure that an absolute majority comes to view it in this positive light.
Europeans are slightly more positive when it comes to the possibility of practising a vocational occupation abroad, with 49% of respondents thinking that it is easy for people who received VET to practise their profession in another EU Member State (and 32% finding it difficult).
The fact that students selecting vocational education and training take much the same factors into consideration as students selecting general secondary or higher education suggests that there is no great social divide separating the young people who choose the two different educational pathways. The struggle may instead be to reach those parts of society which do not seriously consider taking either educational route. A fifth (21%) of all EU respondents currently believe that VET does not offer good career opportunities, and this is one of the key statistics that the EU initiative needs to improve by 2020, both through enhancements in the VET system and through the education of young people and of the adult workforce. Unlike purely academic studies, vocational courses are very much tied to careers and job prospects, and as such the 21% of European society who currently do not see VET as a route to a good career have no reason to take VET themselves or advise others to do so.

IMHE General Conference 2012, "Attaining and Sustaining Mass Higher Education", 17-19 September 2012, Paris. www.oecd.org/edu/imhe/generalconference.
Call for Contributions
The biennial IMHE General Conference attracts around 500 policy-makers, institutional leaders and academic experts active in higher education. The 2012 conference will be held on 17-19 September in Paris.
Throughout the world, local, national and regional development policies emphasise the importance of higher education. There is considerable variation in the extent of participation, access and resourcing (financial and human), and different choices are being made about a wide range of issues, such as:
* selectivity
* regulation and quality assurance
* system diversity
* public/private investment
* the balance of education and research
In much of the developed world, the issue of sustaining public funding for mass higher education system is reaching a critical point, as is the issue of replacing an ageing academic population. At the same time, in many rapidly growing economies, notably in Asia, investments in research and education are growing rapidly. Even for these countries, however, as for much of the rest of the developing world, major questions loom about quality, breadth of access, and the retention of academic capital.
Higher education institutions are expected to provide education and training relevant to labour market demands, conduct research activities that will build a knowledge-based economy, as well as contribute to social cohesion, regional development and global well-being. They must also strive constantly to fulfil their multiple missions, improve the quality of the education provided, increase their efficiency and demonstrate their contribution to society. The 2012 Conference will focus on the  challenges of attaining and sustaining mass higher education, in an increasingly competitive and international context. The Conference will seek to identify longer-term trends and will include analyses of national policy, institutional case studies and research carried out within the OECD and beyond.
This call for contributions invites proposals from policy-makers, institutional leaders and managers, as well as researchers, on topics relevant to the conference. Proposals may consider issues at the international, national, institutional, or sub-institutional level.
Themes covered may include:
* The Globalisation of Higher Education
* Funding & Financing
* Quality & Accountability
* System Management & Institutional Diversity
* Exploiting Technology for Learning
* The Academic Workforce
Submitting a proposal for this Conference represents a valuable opportunity, as the chosen papers are presented to a high level audience in the prestigious setting of the OECD headquarters in Paris. The most outstanding proposals will be considered for presentations in plenary sessions. A selection of papers will also be published in the IMHE journal, which is distributed widely through the OECD’s dissemination channels.
General Information
The General Conference will comprise plenary sessions, including keynote speeches and round tables, as well as parallel sessions and a research forum. Proposals will be reviewed by the General Conference organising committee. Selected papers will be presented during plenary panel sessions, parallel group sessions or the research forum.
The Conference can accommodate up to 500 participants. Registration fees are, per person, 350€ for IMHE members and 900€ for IMHE non-members. The fee includes lunches, refreshments and all conference materials. Everyone wishing to take part in the Conference must register.
Submitting a proposal
We kindly ask that you follow the instructions carefully.
An abstract (150-250 words) with the completed online submission form should be submitted for review by the Organising Committee by 1 December 2011. Entries should be accompanied by a short biography. Abstracts and papers must be submitted in English or in French. The General Conference Organising Committee is responsible for selecting papers for presentation and for allocating them to a programme session. Authors will receive notification of acceptance of their abstracts by 15 January 2012. Completed papers must be submitted to the IMHE Secretariat (imhe@oecd.org) by 31 March 2012.

Attaining and Sustaining Mass Higher Education
Around the world, local, national and regional development policies are emphasising the importance of higher education. Yet the level of participation and access, as well as human and financial resourcing, varies widely.
Different choices are being made about a wide range of issues, such as selectivity, regulation and quality assurance, system diversity, public/private investment, and combinations of education and research. In much of the developed world, sustaining public funding for the mass higher education system and replacing an ageing academic population are reaching a critical point. While at the very same time, investments in research and education are booming in many rapidly growing economies, notably in Asia. However, even for these countries, as for much of the rest of the developing world, major questions loom about quality, accessibility and retaining academic capital.
The conference will seek to identify longer-term trends and will include analyses of national and institutional policies, case studies and the latest research from the OECD and elsewhere. The IMHE biennial General Conference is IMHE's standout event, attracting around 500 participants comprised of higher education policy makers, institutional leaders and academic experts. Notable speakers and stimulating sessions provide an opportunity for members and non-members to share their views and ideas, discuss relevant topics and forthcoming trends, as well as network.

Previous IMHE General Conferences / Conférences précédentes (French)
Visit the websites of previous Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE) General Conferences:
Higher Education in a World Changed Utterly: Doing More with Less. 13-15 September 2010
The Quality, Relevance and Impact of Higher Education. 8-10 September 2008
Values and Ethics: Managing Challenges and Realities in Higher Education. 11-13 September 2006
Choices and Responsibilities: Higher Education in the Knowledge Society. 13-15 September 2004
Visit the websites of all the previous conferences organised by Institutional Management in Higher Education (IMHE).

2ème COLLOQUE IFFRES "Perspectives du mécénat pour la recherche et l’enseignement supérieur en France", 6 et 7 octobre 2011 à Paris, Centre de Conférence Les Cordeliers de l’Université Pierre et Marie Curie, au cœur du Quartier Latin. Conférence plénière inaugurale présidée par Michel Rocard.
Le 1er colloque de l’IFFRES, organisé les 2 & 3 novembre 2010, premier colloque français sur la philanthropie et le mécénat des entreprises et des particuliers à destination de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur, nous a confirmé l’intérêt d’actions d’animation, de communication et d’échange dans ce domaine.
Les Actes "Les fondations, nouvel espace pour de nouvelles synergies entre les entreprises et les acteurs de la Recherche et de l'Enseignement Supérieur" sont disponible. Pour le télécharger, cliquez ICI. Voir le programme.
Nous avons décidé de renouveler l’expérience en octobre 2011, fort de notre expérience acquise et d’une compréhension plus complète des enjeux et des besoins.
L’ambition demeure : d'une part de conduire une réflexion de fond sur le sujet, et d'autre part de favoriser des rencontres entre entreprises, fondations et mécènes avec le monde de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur.
Pour l’entreprise, ce colloque est une tribune pour présenter sa stratégie, son objectif, ses méthodes, son organisation et ses résultats dans le domaine de la R&D et/ou de la formation permanente. C’est l’occasion pour des entreprises dynamiques et innovantes de promouvoir leur modèle, de contribuer à l’identification des « Meilleures Pratiques », de construire les bases de leurs succès au cours de rencontres avec leurs homologues et avec leurs partenaires.
Pour le monde de la Recherche et l’Enseignement Supérieur, le colloque offre l’opportunité de dialoguer en direct avec le monde économique, de montrer comment des acteurs représentatifs répondent aux défis de la mutation en cours et  comment ils mettent en place de nouvelles approches et de nouvelles stratégies,
Pour les Fondations et les associations actives pour la Recherche et l’Enseignement Supérieur, le colloque permet d’échanger sur des expériences innovantes de partenariat Public/Privé, de témoigner de l’ambition, de valoriser des projets soutenus par du mécénat … et de trouver de nouveaux partenaires pour de nouveaux défis.
Pour le monde des Institutions Nationales, Régionales, Locales et de leurs Administrations de tutelle, le colloque est l’occasion de mieux faire comprendre leurs objectifs en matière d’incitation à la coopération entre Monde Académique  et Entreprises et d’identifier les leviers d’action les plus efficaces.
Sur la base des témoignages concrets nous poursuivrons les échanges engagés en 2010 et débattrons des perspectives du mécénat pour la Recherche et l’Enseignement Supérieur en France.
A la date du colloque, nous aurons une vision plus précise des effets réels tant du « plan Campus » que du programme «Investissements d’Avenir », source de nouvelle opportunités mais alimentant l’impression du grand public et des donateurs industriels « que la Recherche et l’Enseignement Supérieur Français sont riches… »
Ainsi, nous attendons des principaux débats et tables rondes:
- Que les entreprises présentent les axes d’évolution de leurs relations avec la Recherche et l’Enseignement Supérieur, précisent quelle y est (ou sera) la place du mécénat et sous quelles conditions;
- Que le monde de la Recherche et de l’Enseignement Supérieur décrive son objectif concernant ses relations avec les entreprises et nous précise ce qu’il est prêt à mettre en face des opportunités de mécénat.
Le colloque s’adresse aux décideurs des entreprises, des pouvoirs publics nationaux et territoriaux, de la recherche, de l’enseignement supérieur et des fondations qui y sont dédiées ainsi qu’aux opérationnels, directeurs de la communication et de la recherche & développement des entreprises, aux responsables de fondations et autres structures d’intérêt général, aux chercheurs et universitaires, et aux élus et agents des ministères et des collectivités locales.
Nous aurons plaisir à vous rencontrer et échanger avec vous.
Très cordialement, Max Anghilante, Président IFFRES, Jean-Louis Lacombe, Vice Président IFFRES. CONTACT: Max Anghilante, email: m.anghilante@iffres.com et max.anghilante@fondadev.com. Tél : 06 63 47 06 26.

La rémunération au mérite des fonctionnaires franchit une nouvelle étape avec la publication, aujourd'hui, au « Journal officiel », du décret instaurant l'intéressement collectif pour les agents de l'Etat, un dossier en chantier depuis 2008. Le décret charge les ministères d'affiner leur propre dispositif mais dresse les grandes lignes de cette nouvelle forme de rémunération, vouée à compléter les primes individuelles au mérite (PFR) déjà en place.
L'intéressement sera calculé et versé « par services », précise-t-il. Chaque agent du service, y compris les contractuels, devra toucher le même montant, quel que soit son poste. Tous les services seront éligibles mais, afin de ne pas dénaturer le dispositif par un effet « saupoudrage », l'exécutif invite à ne récompenser vraiment que les plus méritants. Les « quatre ou cinq » critères de performance retenus seront basés sur « la qualité du service rendu » (rapidité, clarté, etc.), « la gestion des RH » (absentéisme, etc.), « la maîtrise des coûts » et « le développement durable ».

« Usine à gaz »
« L'intéressement est un outil d'avenir, qui valorisera l'implication des agents, favorisera les réflexions sur les objectifs d'une fonction publique moderne et leur appropriation par chacun », commente François Sauvadet, ministre de la Fonction publique.
Le processus est donc lancé mais les agents devront encore patienter : alors que des ministères sont réticents à se lancer dans cette « usine à gaz », les premières primes ne devraient être versées qu'en 2013, sur les objectifs fixés pour 2012. Aucun montant minimal n'est fixé mais il devra être « significatif et mobilisateur », précise le décret. Des proches du dossier évoquent des primes annuelles de 150 à 500 euros. Ce n'est pas négligeable mais on sera loin des 2.000 euros perçus en moyenne par les 8 millions de salariés du privé touchant de l'intéressement ou de la participation.
Reste à savoir si l'effet motivant escompté sera au rendez-vous. C'est d'autant moins sûr que l'intéressement ne devrait pas constituer une vraie rémunération supplémentaire : faute de rallonge budgétaire, les ministères piocheront essentiellement dans les économies liées aux baisses d'effectifs... dont une grosse moitié est déjà reversée chaque année aux agents. L'intéressement risque donc de se financer au détriment d'autres primes, dénoncent les syndicats. La CGT et FO pointent, en outre, les « risques de dérives » liés à l'instauration d'objectifs chiffrés dans le service public.