15 novembre 2011

La France bonne dernière pour l'Academic autonomy et le Staffing autonomy dans "l'Autonomy Scorecard" de l'EUA

EUA launches “Autonomy Scorecard”: new report compares and benchmarks levels of university autonomy in 26 European countries
The European University Association has today (15 November) launched a major new report which compares university autonomy across 26 European countries. In addition to an in-depth analysis of the current state of institutional autonomy in Europe, the study includes four scorecards which rank and rate higher education systems in four autonomy areas: organisational, financial, staffing and academic autonomy.
The new EUA “Autonomy Scorecard” will be launched today (15 November) at a stakeholder event in Brussels. In each scorecard (published as a table), national or federal state systems are ranked according to a percentage score, with 0% being the lowest and 100% the highest possible level of autonomy in a given area. The system with the highest percentage is considered to grant the most autonomy to universities in a specific dimension. In each scorecard, each system has also been assigned to one of four groups – high, medium high, medium low and low – depending on their score. The report, “University Autonomy in Europe II-The Scorecard”, can be downloaded here.
La France dans le rapport: dernière position pour l'Academic autonomy et le Staffing autonomy
3.4 Academic autonomy
France and Greece are included in the “low” group, which includes countries scoring below 41%. First, universities in both systems lack flexibility in setting overall student numbers: in Greece, they are negotiated with the government, while France uses a system of free admission. Heavy constraints also relate to the introduction of degree programmes: all must be submitted to prior accreditation. Quality assurance processes and providers are prescribed, and institutions’ ability to choose the language of instruction is curtailed in both systems: all Bachelor and a set proportion of Master’s programmes must be taught in the national languages... In France, only an external authority is entitled to dismiss the executive leader. p.54
In Cyprus, France and Iceland, they are appointed partly by the university, partly by an outside body. Finally, in the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Sweden, the ministry selects external members upon proposal by the institution. p.55
The third (“medium low”) cluster, which includes systems scoring between 41% and 60%, consists of Austria, Brandenburg, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, North Rhine-Westphalia, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Turkey. p.57
In Austria, Finland, France, Iceland, North Rhine-Westphalia and Spain, universities may keep and spend their surplus freely... The situation is markedly different for bottom-tier systems, which include Brandenburg, the Czech Republic, France, Iceland and Norway. p.58
3.3 Staffing autonomy
The third (“medium low”) cluster, which includes systems scoring between 41% and 60%, consists of Brandenburg, Cyprus, France, Italy, Slovakia, Spain and Turkey. Institutional independence in these systems is strongly curtailed. In France, promotions are governed by annual quotas, while Italy carries out a national competition... Both France and Spain practice a system of preselection: in Spain, candidates for academic and administrative posts must be personally accredited by the national accreditation agency before being hired by universities. French institutions can only recruit academic staff out of a national list drawn up by peers who were partly nominated by the ministry. The number of academic posts is limited by an external authority in France and Turkey. An external authority confirms some academic staff appointments in Slovakia, and even carries out the recruitment (of senior administrators) in France. p.61
3.4 Academic autonomy
France and Greece are included in the “low” group, which includes countries scoring below 41%. First, universities in both systems lack flexibility in setting overall student numbers: in Greece, they are negotiated with the government, while France uses a system of free admission. Heavy constraints also relate to the introduction of degree programmes: all must be submitted to prior accreditation. Quality assurance processes and providers are prescribed, and institutions’ ability to choose the language of instruction is curtailed in both systems: all Bachelor and a set proportion of Master’s programmes must be taught in the national languages. p.64
Autres passages
In France and Turkey, dismissal procedures are laid down in the law and conducted by an external authority. p.23
A board- or council-type body exists in Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal and Sweden. (Higher education institutions in Brandenburg in fact share a common board, which provides strategic advice to the university leadership and puts forward candidates for the university presidency). p.26
External members of governing bodies are usually fully integrated into the decision-making process. There are only some restrictions in this respect: in France, for instance, external members cannot participate in the election of the rector. In dual systems, external members are typically included in the board-type or council-type body. Of the unitary systems with a senate-type governing body, only Estonia and Ireland include external members. p.27
In France, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and Sweden, the block grant is divided into broad categories, such as teaching and research (Iceland, Sweden), teaching, research and infrastructure (Latvia, Lithuania), salaries and operational costs (Portugal), or investments, salaries and operational costs (France). As a rule, universities are unable to move funds between these categories. In France, funds can be transferred into operations and investments, but not into salaries; in Iceland, shifting funds is possible in theory, but rarely done in practice... Universities in the following 15 systems are entirely
free to keep a surplus on their public funding: Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hesse, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, North Rhine-Westphalia, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. p.31
In Cyprus, France, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Spain, institutions can borrow money with the approval of an external authority, while in Sweden and Brandenburg they can only use specific, stateowned banks. In Brandenburg, Ireland, Italy, North Rhine-Westphalia and Slovakia, the law prescribes that universities may only borrow up to a maximum percentage. p.32
Feature 5 - Legal vs. actual ownership of university buildings (Denmark, Austria & France)
Universities’ legal or formal ability to own buildings, and the extent to which they actually do so, may diverge widely. Universities in Austria and Denmark, for instance, are theoretically able to own real estate. However, in both countries, universities actually own only a minority of the buildings they occupy... French universities can only own their buildings if they have the technical competencies and resources to do so. Following the implementation of the autonomy reform in 2007, universities are now able to request the ‘dévolution’, i.e. the handing over of all university buildings owned by the state to the institution. Universities have to fulfil certain conditions to qualify for this scheme, which was voluntarily piloted by three universities in 2011. However, despite obtaining full ownership of their real estate, universities still need to secure the approval of a state authority to sell their assets. p.33-34
Finally, universities in some systems have at least formally increased their financial autonomy by gaining ownership of the buildings they occupy. In France, a new university law is gradually giving universities the option of acquiring their buildings. In 2011, three universities, which fulfilled the necessary technical requirements, were granted ownership of their buildings in a pilot project. p.37
In France, Greece and Turkey, the number of posts for some or all senior academic staff is regulated by an external authority. In Turkey, for instance, the council for higher education allocates a specific number of vacancies to universities, which may then carry out the recruitment process on their own. p.39
Feature 6 - Recruitment practices for senior academic staff (Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, France & Italy)
Although there is of course some variation with regard to recruitment practices for senior academic personnel, most systems follow fairly similar procedures. It is common practice to specify selection criteria at faculty level and to set up a selection committee to evaluate candidates. The successful applicant is subsequently appointed at faculty level or, alternatively, by a decision-making body at university level. The selection committee either recommends one candidate or provides the decision-making body with a shortlist of preferred candidates in order of priority... In France, academic staff is recruited from a list of candidates drawn up by a national committee of academic peers. This committee, whose membership is partly decided by the academics themselves and partly nominated by the ministry, decides on applications of scientists who wish to be included in the list. Universities then fill open positions with candidates from this list. Following the autonomy reform, universities have also been given the opportunity to hire non-permanent, non-civil servant staff freely, although these represent only a minority of university personnel. P.39-40
In France, the ability to recruit administrative staff varies by category. The recruitment of personnel working in libraries and central administration is carried out by an external authority in a national competition. On the other hand, universities are free to recruit heads of administration and other staff categories, such as ‘ingénieurs de recherche’. p.40
Salary bands are prescribed for all or some staff in France, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Poland and Turkey... In Denmark, France, Ireland, Poland and Turkey, salary bands are fixed by an external authority. p.41
Dismissal is strictly regulated for all academic and administrative staff in France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Norway and Slovakia. In Brandenburg, Hesse and North Rhine-Westphalia, academic and administrative staff members are either civil servants or public sector employees and therefore enjoy special protection from dismissal. p.42
In France, promotion quotas are imposed by the state. For senior academic staff, half of all promotions granted are determined at the national level. The same group of academic peers that sets up the national recruitment list decides on these. The remaining promotions are allocated to individual institutions, which are then free to decide whom they wish to promote. For senior administrative staff, promotions are not usually decided by the universities, but rather by other administrative staff who have been elected into a committee. For noncivil servant staff, promotions are freely decided by the university. However, these cases currently make up only a minority. p.43
Even in free admission systems, such as France, the Netherlands or Switzerland, a numerus clausus may apply for these (and similar) fields. In the case of France, the principle of free admissions only applies to first-cycle students in their first year of study. p.45
In France, the Netherlands and Spain, programmes must be accredited in order to receive public funding. In the Netherlands, privately funded study programmes are also commonly submitted to voluntary accreditation, since this is seen as a quality label. p.48
By contrast, in some systems, the requirements for programmes beyond Bachelor level, particularly doctoral ones, are more stringent. In France and Spain, all doctoral programmes must be accredited before introduction, whereas at Bachelor and Master’s level, accreditation is only necessary if programmes are to be publicly funded... In the remaining seven countries, some restrictions may apply to all or some degree levels. In Cyprus, France and Greece, universities may only offer undergraduate degrees in the national language. There is some more flexibility regarding Master’s programmes: Greece and France may offer certain Master’s programmes in other languages, while Cyprus may use other languages as long as the courses in question are also available in Greek. p.49
Annex 1 – Contributors to the study: Alain Abécassis, Secretary General & Harald Schraeder, Policy Adviser, Conférence des Présidents d’Université (CPU).
The report, “University Autonomy in Europe II-The Scorecard”, can be downloaded here.

Dépenses de formation, la fuite en avant

Paul Santelmann, Responsable de la Prospective à l’AFPA. La DARES a publié en novembre (bulletin Analyses n°082) une synthèse de la « dépense»  nationale pour la formation continue et l’apprentissage en 2009. Dépense est bien le mot qui convient puisque cette étude de 17 pages ne permet d’établir aucune corrélation entre ce budget qui atteint  31,3 milliards d’euros et des performances sociales, économiques ou technologiques tangibles. Année après année ces bilans qui rendent compte des dépenses des entreprises et des pouvoirs publics et des entrées en formation par dispositifs ne sont étayés d’aucune évaluation de leur impact réel sur l’économie ou le pacte social de lutte contre les inégalités.

Certes, personne ne doute qu’une partie de ces investissements a des conséquences sur l’employabilité des actifs,  la performance des entreprises ou les innovations technologiques… Le problème est que personne ne sait véritablement quelle est la part de cette dimension vertueuse par rapport au poids des stages-parking, des formations-bidons et des prestations redondantes avec les processus d’auto-formation des adultes les plus qualifiés.
Bien pire on n’a toujours aucune idée de la clef de répartition de ce budget de plus de 31 milliards d’euros par catégorie socioprofessionnelle puisque les orientations et les ambitions affichées du système d’acteurs de la formation sont de s’adresser prioritairement  aux publics les moins qualifiés et les moins scolarisés ! Cette occultation est d’autant plus surprenante que la France dispose de données quantitatives particulièrement sophistiquées sur la formation comparativement aux autres pays. Ainsi les différentes sources statistiques permettent d’établir des volumes d’heures de formation assez précis pouvant être complétés par des données tarifaires publiques et des objectifs de formation facilement catégorisables par objectifs et publics cibles ! De plus la segmentation de l’offre de formation par publics qui fait que les prestataires de formation dédiés aux cadres n’occupent guère les marchés de la formation des moins qualifiés, facilite cette approche de l’investissement formation par catégorie socioprofessionnelle non plus sous l’angle de la consommation d’ heures de formation mais sous celui des budgets !
Contrairement à des représentations courantes et erronées la formation professionnelle des actifs les moins qualifiés nécessitent des investissements financiers  plus lourds en contenus, en ingénierie, en logistique  et en pratiques que la formation continue des cadres qui bénéficient des échanges, des ressources et des processus permis par la société de la connaissance et des réseaux sociaux et professionnels. La formation des moins qualifiés comporte des objectifs sociaux et professionnels complexes à combiner y compris en termes de formateurs qui doivent à la fois être référents sur le plan technique et professionnel et efficace sur le plan de la pédagogie et des pratiques de formation. Or un survol des tarifications en matière de formation permet de constater que le financement des formations des moins qualifiés est à des taux horaires bien en deçà de ceux des formations destinées à l’élite. Cela serait moins gênant si les prélèvements obligatoires liés au système français de formation continue n’étaient pas organisés de telle façon à subventionner les deux types de prestations dont les finalités sont, pour le moins, socialement éloignées… La France est le seul pays qui mobilise autant de prélèvements obligatoires (de dizaines de milliards d’euros !) pour former non pas sa future élite mais celle qui est en place tout en défendant l’idée que la formation continue est un marché ! Un paradoxe qui ressemble à une fuite en avant…

Santelmann Paul, Head of Forecasting at the AFPA. The DARES published in November (Analysis Bulletin No. 082) a summary of the "expense" for national training and learning in 2009. Spending is the right word because this 17-page study is no evidence any correlation between the budget reaching 31.3 billion euros, and performance of social, economic or technological tangible. Year after year these assessments that reflect the costs of businesses and public authorities and came into training devices are not supported in any assessment of their impact on the economy or the social pact to fight against inequality. More...

Modalités de recensement des enseignants-chercheurs optant pour la procédure spécifique d'avancement de grade

Arrêté du 24 octobre 2011 fixant les modalités de recensement des enseignants-chercheurs optant pour la procédure spécifique d'avancement de grade
JORF n°0264 du 15 novembre 2011, texte n° 48. NOR: ESRH1129351A
Le ministre de l'enseignement supérieur et de la recherche,
Vu le décret n° 84-431 du 6 juin 1984 modifié fixant les dispositions statutaires communes applicables aux enseignants-chercheurs et portant statut particulier du corps des professeurs des universités et du corps des maîtres de conférences, notamment ses articles 40 et 56 ;
Vu l'arrêté du 31 octobre 2001 modifié définissant les fonctions autres que d'enseignement et de recherche prévues aux articles 40 et 56 du décret n° 84-431 du 6 juin 1984 modifié fixant les dispositions statutaires communes applicables aux enseignants-chercheurs et portant statut particulier du corps des professeurs des universités et du corps des maîtres de conférences,
Arrête :
Article 1
Les maîtres de conférences et les professeurs des universités remplissant les conditions fixées aux articles 40-1, 56 et 57 du décret du 6 juin 1984 modifié, pour accéder au grade supérieur et exerçant l'une des fonctions énumérées par l'arrêté du 31 octobre 2001 susvisé, peuvent choisir, au titre de la campagne d'avancement de grade 2012, de voir leur dossier examiné par l'instance nationale et selon la procédure spécifique d'avancement de grade définie aux articles 40 et 56 du décret n° 84-431 du 6 juin 1984 modifié.
Article 2
Les maîtres de conférences et les professeurs des universités visés à l'article 1er ci-dessus expriment leur choix en retournant la fiche de candidature (1) dûment complétée, par voie électronique à l'adresse suivante: avancement.specifique@education.gouv.fr.
Les rubriques concernant l'identification du candidat (nom, prénom, date de naissance, établissement d'affectation, signature obligatoire) et les fonctions ouvrant droit à la procédure spécifique d'avancement de grade doivent être obligatoirement renseignées. A défaut, la déclaration de l'intéressé(e) sera considérée comme nulle et sans objet.
Article 3
Les maîtres de conférences et les professeurs des universités visés à l'article 1er ci-dessus expriment leur choix chaque année dans un délai d'un mois à compter de la date de publication sur GALAXIE du calendrier des opérations de la procédure spécifique d'avancement de grade, le cachet de la poste faisant foi.
Les enseignants-chercheurs qui adresseront leur choix après le délai fixé à l'alinéa précédent seront considérés comme n'ayant pas choisi la procédure spécifique d'avancement de grade. Leur dossier sera alors examiné dans le cadre de la voie d'avancement de droit commun ou, le cas échéant, dans celui de la voie réservée aux enseignants-chercheurs affectés dans un établissement à effectif restreint.
Article 4
Le calendrier des opérations ainsi que la fiche de candidature (1) font l'objet d'une publication annuelle sur GALAXIE.
Article 5
La directrice générale des ressources humaines est chargée de l'exécution du présent arrêté, qui sera publié au Journal officiel de la république française.
Fait le 24 octobre 2011. Pour le ministre et par délégation: La directrice générale des ressources humaines, J. Théophile.
(1) La fiche de candidature, la notice explicative et la fiche de présentation du dossier de candidature seront consultables et téléchargeables sur: www.enseignementsup-recherche.gouv.fr, portail GALAXIE, rubrique: avancement de grade des enseignants-chercheurs, informations concernant l'avancement spécifique, fiche de candidature et notice explicative. Toutes ces informations seront également consultables et téléchargeables sur le site intranet i-dgrh. 

Zamówienie z 24 października 2011 r. ustanawiające procedury identyfikacji członków wydziału wybierają procedury postępującej klasy
Dziennik Ustaw Nr 0264 z dnia 15 listopada 2011 r., tekst 48. NOR: ESRH1129351A
Minister Szkolnictwa Wyższego i Badań Naukowych. Więcej...

Salon Emploi Séniors: rendez-vous à Paris et Strasbourg !

Which students use agents? - British Council

By Yojana Sharma. There are big differences around the world in the reasons why students turn to education agents for university and student visa applications, with use of agents highest in regions and countries where there is less familiarity with the target education system. Language issues are also important, a new study by the British Council has found.
Analysis of 131,000 student responses, or 30,000 responses each year since 2007 gathered by the British Council for its just-released Student Insight report Why Students use Agents, found students in Europe were the least likely to use an education agent for assistance in applying for a university place while students in East Asia are most likely to commission their services. In Latin America and Africa, use of education agents varies more broadly from country to country.
"Prospective students and their parents view agents differently, depending on where in the world they live," said Elizabeth Shepherd, research manager for the British Council's education intelligence unit in Hong Kong.
However, in all countries they sought an agent only once they were seriously considering overseas study. "They see it as a final stage of the process," Shepherd said.
"A big part of it is confidence. Study abroad is such a complicated issue and the perception is that it's an in-depth process to go through with a number of hurdles to cross," Shepherd told University World News.
"There will always be, especially for students entering an education system for the first time, a lot of them who have never been outside their own country."
Above all they want a time-saving and trustworthy source of guidance. "Students may seek an agent if they or their parents have never studied overseas before, or if they intend to study a newly popular subject and do not have an easily accessible reference point, or for many practical reasons, including needing someone to submit an application on their behalf or identify suitable accommodation," the study said.
"Agents have got a bad reputation. There are many awful stories. The purpose of our study was to look at students perception to gain an insight into how they have been treated," said Shepherd.
African students and students in China turn to agents to get information about universities themselves, while in South Asia the most sought after service is assistance in obtaining a student visa - possibly because there is already some familiarity with education systems in countries like Britain and the US.
"Visa application would always be high on students' need for assistance. The visa system has always been one that required time, including the need for referencing and other documentation that applies to academic study and credibility that visa regimes now call for," Shepherd said. Among the largest groups of students going abroad, Indian students were less likely than Chinese students to use an agent, while Indian students who have previously studied overseas are less likely to use agents for subsequent applications. European Union students wanting to study in another European country are least likely to have visa issues and as EU citizens they are entitled to pay the same tuition fees as home students.
"A large number of European organisations and associations provide information on obtaining financial aid in a student's home country for study in another EU country, they also provide advice on students rights as EU citizens and possible scholarship opportunities," the study said.
German students were the least likely to use an agent, with three-quarters of them responding negatively, followed by Belgium at 65%. Of the French students surveyed, three out of five said they would not go to an agent. Like non-Europeans, European students sought assistance or reassurance that they are choosing the right institutions and help with accessing additional information on the institutions, the study noted. Accommodation advice is another important service.
East Asia and China
The East Asian region was the most inclined to use education agents. More than half of students in China, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam said they were likely to use and agent's services although many in Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines and Thailand appeared unsure about the value of agents. In East Asia the most popular service was the provision of information relating to institutions, followed by advice on which institutions to apply to.
The most likely to use such services were students in China. "They really do feel it is such a well-established trend in the industry and a common-place practice to engage an education agent. What comes across most is the language barrier for the parent and the need to assist the child with an English language process and the time frame," Shepherd said.
In Guangzhou province in southern China, students were more likely to say they did not see the internet as a resource, referring to internet censorship issues. In Hong Kong, where internet censorship is not a problem, language was cited one of the biggest obstacles to using online resources and print materials. Students in China with the US as their first choice destination were most likely to seek advice from an agent about institution choice. Chinese students were also most likely to use an agent when they wanted to study subjects such as business administration.
"A possible explanation of this could be the huge and daunting number of possible course options which vary in cost and quality across all possible hosting countries. For any prospective student this would be a daunting prospect and one that would almost certainly justify the expense of consulting and education agent," the study said.
Africa
In African countries, internet connectivity and reliability are much more prominent factors in whether students turn to education agents or not. But the issue of agent reputation has had an impact in this region, with much controversy surrounding the high number of fraudulent applications from education agents acting on behalf of students from African countries, who have been seen as trying to gain access to loans and benefits or gain residency through the back door.
"The reputation of education agents has suffered as a result of this controversy and institutions and students are reportedly wary of having applications denied as a result of being suspected as fraudulent," the report said.
A slightly higher proportion of Kenyan, Nigerian and Ugandan respondents indicated they were more likely than not to use an agent. However for Zimbabwean and Ghanaian students a slightly higher proportion said they would not.
But in Nigeria, a high proportion - almost two-thirds - of students wanting to study Veterinary Science said they would use an agent, much higher than the 40-50% of students applying for other subjects.