Contemporary Issues and Discrepancies of Higher Education Institutions Governance System
with references to Community
Campuses of Nepal
BY
KHEM RAJ SUBEDI
NATHU RAM CHAUDHARY
MIN BAHADUR SHAHI
DAMODER KANDEL
This mini research Report is submitted to Research and Coordination
Sub-Committee of the Tikapur Multiple Campus
Tikapur Multiple Campus
Research and Coordination Sub-Committee
Tikapur, Kailali
Abstract
This paper portrays on contemporary issues and discrepancies in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) with References to Community Campuses of Nepal focusing on their existing governance system and legitimacy. Government need to have strong and explicit legislation to regulate almost all academic and administrative affairs of community campuses. This is essential ingredient to open the door for quality assurance of higher education system of Nepal. This study paper has taken into consideration these very aspects of community campuses. The specific objectives of the study were; to assess the existing governing system of community campuses, and to identify issues and discrepancies of community campuses. This study is based on survey of selected community campuses of provinces seven and five of Federal Republic of Nepal. The main objective of this study is to explore the scope of existing governing system and identify the issues and discrepancies of community campuses of Nepal. There is found great variation and discrepancies in campus management committee formation process and its components, campus chief selection process and its tenure. Likewise, perception of teachers towards their career development was found to be gloomy. There is found substantial variation on workload of teacher and their recruitment process. The transparency and accountability, the hallmark of good governance are found to be poor amongst the respondent campus. The campuses have suffered a lot due to lack of financial sustainability. If this situation recurs for long in higher education arena, it would be catastrophic for nation as whole. Thus, existing scenario paves way to make inference that it is a high time for government and need to prepare strong legislation framework to regulate and address issues and discrepancies of overall governance of community campuses of Nepal.
Key Words: Higher education, Public goods, corporate governance, community campus, legislation
JEL Classifications: D61, H11, H75, I 23, J71
Introduction
1.1 Background
Education imparted after the higher secondary level or the 12th standard or Proficiency Certificate Level (PCL) is considered as Higher education in Nepal. At present, there are nine universities viz. Tribhuvan University (TU), Nepal Sanskrita University (NSU), Kathmandu University (KU), Purbanchal University(PU), Pokhara University (PoKU), Lumbini Buddha University (LBU), Farwest University (FWU), Mid West University (MWU) and Agriculture and Forestry University (AFU) and four autonomous academic institutions viz. National Academy of Medical Science (NAMS), B P Koirala Institution of Health Science (BPKIHS), Patan Academy of Health Science (PAHS) and Karnali Academy of Health Science (KAHS) that offer higher education in Nepal (University Grants Commission [UGC], 2016). Thus, in Nepal there are nine universities and four universities like degree granting medical academies as the apex higher education institutions. The corporate governance in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) predominantly refers to the internal structure, organization and management of autonomous institutions that includes governing board with a team of administrative chief and teaching and non teaching staff, faculty members, department head, and usually some form of organization for student representation. Several scholars (Kezar and Eckel 2004; Lapworth 2004) pointed out that the due to the influences of public sector reforms, concept of shared and participative governance a new form of governance has emerged, i.e. the notion of corporate governance of institutions, that has increasingly become a more dominant approach to tertiary level of education management.
The universities have two types of campuses: constituent campuses; campuses directly managed and administered including financial management by the concerned university; and affiliated campuses; campuses whose academic programs are affiliated to a university, but managed and administered including financing either by private individual/organization (private campuses) or by local community stakeholders (community campuses). The academic activities of both types of campuses are governed by the rules and regulations of the concerned university. But, in fact there is lacking precise legal provision to form governing body of affiliated campuses. The university act of Nepal does not have any clear and precise provision for their registration too. Nepal is lagging behind in the context of development of the framework of corporate governance for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). In the year 2015/16, there are altogether 1407 higher education campuses, 98 constituents (6.97 percent) campuses, 777 private (55.22 percent) and 532 community (37.81 percent) campuses (UGC, 2017, p.7). Among the types of campuses, share of student enrollment in the community campuses is 30.71 percent, share of constituent campuses is 33.72 percent, and share of private campuses is 35.56 percent. Furthermore, there are altogether, with 361077 students enrolled in different academic programs in higher education (UGC, 2017, p.17). The affiliated campuses are managed by Campus Management Committee (CMC) that is either private or community based, accordingly they are called private campus or community campus. The Community campuses are Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) that begin to be establishment in Nepal especially since 2037 B S to meet increasing demand of higher education aspirants' Nepalese youth.
Table 1 Trend and Growth of Higher Education and HEIs Indicator
Indicators | 2009/ 10 | 2010/ 11 | 2011/ 12 | 2012/ 13 | 2013/ 14 | 2014/ 15 | 2015/ 16 |
Total Student enrollment | 376869 | 407934 | 444994 | 560110 | 458621 | 395365 | 361077 |
Total Number of Campuses | 967 | 1087 | 1134 | 1276 | 1369 | 1369 | 1407 |
Constituent Campuses | 88 | 90 | 90 | 96 | 98 | 98 | 98 |
Affiliated Campuses | 895 | 1012 | 1044 | 1180 | 1271 | 1271 | 1309 |
Total Number of Teachers | 14528 | 15365 | 16042 | 9157 | 9157 | 9157 | 9142 |
Number of Graduates | 76045 | 65382 | 62115 | 61553 | 58802 | 72579 | 90428 |
(UGC Nepal, 2017)
Tribhuvan University is the first university of Nepal and was established in 2016 BS (1959 AD) in order to fulfill the demand for higher education in the country. After its inception, many constituent campuses were established across the country and 60 constituent campuses were established till 2050 B S. The constituent campuses could not accommodate the increasing demand of higher education. As a result, there was begun to be established affiliated campuses to meet the increasing demand of higher education from 2037 B S. Since then, there is seen upsurge in the number community campuses across the country. There is significant rate of growth of higher education in terms of student enrollment, number of campus (constituent and affiliated), number teachers and number of graduates. Therefore, it is necessary prepare strong legal framework for ensuring justice, uniformity and integrity in HEI governance system of Nepal.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Governance in higher education institutions (HEIs) refers to the structure and processes of decision making and the establishment of policies to guide the overall activities of the HEIs. The existing laws, by-laws and regulations of various universities of Nepal are not clear regarding nature and formation system of governing body of community campuses. The nature and formation system of governing body are not uniform in all community campuses across the nation. Universities of Nepal have not made separate division for affiliation, monitoring and regulation of community campuses. The community campuses are suffering from legitimacy problem as their registration agency is unclear. There is issue in the recognition of hierarchy of designation of teaching and nonteaching staffs of community campuses. It has given rise to several types of anomalies in the higher education institutions (HEI). It leads to severe undermining of intellectual and technical contribution made by teaching and nonteaching staff of community campuses thereby degrading academic performance. Likewise, the community campuses are using substantial community as well as government resources for their operation and management. The sole umbrella organization to coordinate HEI in Nepal, University Grants Commission of Nepal has been disbursing huge fund to community campuses across the nation in order to upgrade quality of education. To ensure its efficient utilization, there should be strong and legally recognized governing body of community campuses. Academia and scholars have shown their serious concern on these issues and are commonly agreed to have concrete provision for governance system. To ensure this, precise and clear legal provision is necessary.
1.3 Research Questions
The pertinent questions to be answered are as follows:
a) How is the existing status of governing system of community campus of Nepal?
b) What should be the governing body of community campuses?
c) Where to be registered the community campuses for its legitimacy?
d) What should be regulation body for the recognition of hierarchy of designation of teaching and non- teaching staff of community campuses?
e) What should be sustainability provision of community campuses?
1.4 Objectives of the Study
The general objective of this study is to explore the scope and identify the existing governing system of community campuses of Nepal to upgrade quality of education and efficient utilization of community and government resources. The specific objectives are as follows:
i) To assess the existing governing system of community campuses of Nepal.
ii) To identify model for sustainability of community campuses of Nepal.
iii) To explore better governing body of community campus of Nepal.
iv) To identify issues and problems associated with community campuses.
1.5 Rationale /Justification of the Study
Good governance is a key to holistic and sustainable growth and development of any institutions. According to United Nation Development Programme (UNDP), transparency, law based, responsive, accountability, participatory, effective and efficient, equity and inclusive and consensus oriented are the essential elements for good governance of any organization. HEI is complex in terms of people, processes, structures and systems. HEIs are now regarded as enterprises that produce and distribute a public goods which is knowledge (Basheka, 2014). It is a matter of fact that for better performance in higher education, the institutions have to balance their academic mission and executive capacity, and the government needs to maintain the equilibrium between excellence and equity (OECD, 2003). In Nepal, the governance system of HEIs is not precise and clear. Even, their legal existence is at risk. The precise and clear governance system is a key to ensure rule of law, efficient and effective utilization of resources and upgrade quality of higher education as well.
1.6 Limitations of the Study
This proposed research work has focused to get the answer of the above mentioned research questions. The research is mainly limited to community campuses affiliated to Tribhuvan University located in current provinces number 5 and 7 particularly Dang, Banke, Bardiya, Kailali and Kanchanpur district of Nepal.
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
Academia and Scholars have forecasted that an unprecedented and powerful confluence of forces political, economic, public policy, regulatory, technological, and consumer choice will drastically reshape the landscape of higher education governance in coming years. These forces will cause a seismic shift in governance and accountability for Nepalese colleges and universities. Board members will need additional skills and competencies for leading their institutions through the more treacherous terrain of a new governance world.
Yokoyama (2018) argues that uncertainty, anxiety and distrust following the 2008 financial crisis did not reshape the risk management mechanisms in England and underscores the adaptive reactions of these university systems against the crisis and also suggests that the uncertain environment may thrust the universities into a reflexive mode.
Vedanatham & Saraswathi (2016) asserted that higher education is beacon that guides a society to a better future and the aims of higher education can be achieved through good governance in higher education institutions. Therefore good governance features like accountability, transparency, participation, equity and inclusiveness, efficiency and effectiveness, responsiveness and law based should essentially be existed in HEIs.
Zaman (2015) studied on 'Quality guidelines for good governance in higher education across the globe' and revealed that governance indicators act as a strong contributor for increasing educational effects, which further assist in formulating the policies towards the internationalization of universities. It is concluded that greater Voice and Accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law and control of corruption enhance educational outcomes, which ultimately benefit the major regions of the world that have internationalized their universities.
Berger et. al., (2014) study explored models of educational management used in the post secondary educational institutions in the five Northeast provinces of the People's Republic of China. The study explores the complexity and diversity that characterized Chinese higher education with important implication for ongoing education reform within China.
National University of Singapore (2013) underscored that policies related to the reform of higher education systems worldwide are increasingly being driven by ambitions to facilitate and strengthen knowledge economies and societies. Two aspects of this broad development agenda are the emergence of supra-national, regional-scale higher education visions, policies, programs (which generate distinctive mobility patterns), and new forms of experimental inter-regional relationship building.
McLendon & Ness (2009) has revealed an important insight about reform activity: Large-scale redesign of a state's higher education governance system and underscore the role of intersection of legislative institutions, state higher education agencies, electoral cycles, and campus politics to ensure effective governance of higher education institutions.
Eurydice (2008) studied on 'Higher Education Governance in Europe' and stated that the role of higher education in the society of knowledge is recognized both at European and Member State levels. This level of education is called upon to make a significant contribution to achieving the Lisbon objectives in terms of growth, prosperity and social cohesion. The study highlights the process of modernization at work in higher education in Europe and analyses in particular the structures of governance, the methods used to fund higher education institutions and their responsibilities vis-à-vis academic staff. It also draws attention to the wide variety of models of governance, for example as regards private fund-raising, or decision-making bodies inside institutions. It further emphasizes that important national debates are under way concerning the strategic policies of higher education, which involve a wide range of stakeholders. The study thus enhances the existing knowledge of the processes of governance in higher education and is original in terms of its geographical coverage, through surveying 30 European countries in the Eurydice Network.
The aforementioned brief overviews of the literature are from abroad and mostly developed countries on the issue of governance of higher education institutions. Their findings and recommendations on various aspects are neither applicable nor functional in the context of HEIs of Nepal nor do they provide strong empirical insight for formulating viable policy measures. In other words, there is dearth of literature on this issue in Nepalese context. Keeping these key aspects in view, this study was conducted and explored some key issues and discrepancies of the community campuses of Nepal as a proxy of governance system of HEIs of Nepal. Therefore, this study has contributed fulfill this gap.
Chapter Three
Research Methodology
3.1 Research Design
This proposed study is exploratory in terms of study design as there is acute dearth of literature in this context in Nepal. In other words, there has not been traced out this type of study in the Nepalese context so far. The study has focused on the existing corporate governance status of Community campuses affiliated to TU as a representative of HEIs in Nepal based on the findings. The study has assessed the perception of stakeholders on current provision, issue relating to it and necessary reform for better practices.
3.2 Study population and Samples
The study population of this proposed study is the Community Campuses affiliated to TU where as the samples are fourteen community campuses located in province number 5 and 7 of Federal Republic of Nepal.
3.3 Nature and Sources of Data
This study is qualitative in nature. The source of data and information of this study are selected community campuses of provinces 5 and 7 of Nepal. The key informants are chairperson of campus management committee, Campus chief, chairperson of public campus teachers association, chairperson of public campus non-teaching staff association and chairperson of free students union. This study was based on qualitative as well as quantitative data. The relevant primary data were collected from selected community campuses of the study area and the relevant secondary data were collected from concerned institutions and their publication such as UGC of Nepal, Ministry of Education, TU, Ministry of Finance, publication of Nepal Public Campus Association, publication of concerned campuses.
3.4 Tools and Method of Data Collection
The relevant data were collected using tools like structured questionnaire that consisted with close ended and open ended both category of question to fulfill the objectives of research. Like-wise, check list, e-mail, telephone inquiry also were adopted wherever required. The procedures of data collection were field visit, direct personal interview with key informants, indirect oral interview, schedule fill up through e-mail.
3.5 Method of Data Analysis
The quantitative data were processed by editing and tabulating by entering them into EXCEL package for their further analysis. This study is mostly qualitative in nature. Therefore, the qualitative information was analyzed adopting content analysis for qualitative nature of data. There were adopted narrative analyses also if necessary.
3.6 Variables and their Measurements
The main variables of the study are related with corporate governance framework of community campuses. They include transparency of campus activities, legal status of campus and its management committee, responsiveness to the stakeholders, accountability framework of campus activities, participatory approach in campus activities, effectiveness and efficiency of resource utilization, equity approach in the service delivery and inclusive and consensus in the formation of management committee. Likewise, the study also focused on financial disciplines which include annual budget formulation and its adherence, auditing and report publication.
3.7 Expected Outcomes of the Study
In Nepal, an umbrella organization for regulating, funding and policy making of University and HEIs is UGC. The UGC has recently initiated development and implementation of performance based public funding in higher education, it has become imperative to have the data reliable and verifiable. Likewise, the government of Nepal (GoN) has recently endorsed and started to implement the national higher education policy that has emphasized on its need for the development of better higher education management information system (HEMIS). In addressing the needs of GoN, UGC has launched the Higher Education Reform Project (HERP 2015-2020), a national priority project for supporting implementation of the higher education policy aims to build a comprehensive and coordinated HEMIS extending from UGC to the universities and to their respective campuses that is open and accessible to all stakeholders including educational planers, researchers, critiques, faculties, and students. This proposed study will be a corner stone to support the aforementioned task.
Chapter IV
Result and Discussion
Mostly all the respondents accepted that Governance System of the community campuses are according to the laws and by-laws of TU. The Governance System of the selected community campuses are analyzed by cross tabulation which are as follows.
4.1 Demographic Status of the Teaching Staff
Among the fourteen community campuses located in province number 5 and 7 of Federal Republic of Nepal were selected for the study. The number of currently working teaching staffs can be tabulated as follows:
Table 2 Status of Teaching Staff of Respondent Campus
S.N. | Designation | Female | Male | Total | |||
Temp | Permanent | Temp | Permanent | Temp | Permanent | ||
1 | Professor | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
2 | Associate Prof. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 11 | 0 | 11 |
3 | Lecturer | 3 | 4 | 21 | 104 | 24 | 125 |
4 | Assistant Lecturer | 1 | 4 | 42 | 1 | 43 | 5 |
5 | Part Time | 6 | 0 | 24 | 3 | 30 | 3 |
6 | Trainer | 0 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 8 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
Aforementioned table shows that the numbers of permanent teaching staffs are more than the temporary ones. Among them the male lecturers are 104 and female lecturers are only 4.
4.2 Demographic Status of the Non Teaching Staffs
Among the fourteen community campuses located in province number 5 and 7 of Federal Republic of Nepal were selected for the study. The number of Non teaching staffs can be tabulated as follows:
Table 3 Status of Non Teaching Staffs of Respondent Campus
S.N. | Designation | Female | Male | Total | |||
Temporary | Permanent | Temporary | Permanent | Temporary | Permanent | ||
1 | Administrator | 1 | 1 | ||||
2 | Co Admin. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
3 | Ass. Admin | ||||||
4 | Assistant admin. | 11 | 11 | ||||
5 | Head Assistant | 4 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 10 | |
6 | Office Assistant | 1 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 8 |
7 | Office Helper | 2 | 1 | 9 | 15 | 11 | 16 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
The above table shows that the male non teaching staffs are found more than the female ones. There is no provision of the assistant administrator in any community campuses.
4.3 Governing Body of Higher Education Institutions
There is observed wide range of variation regarding the provision of Campus Assembly (CA) or General Assembly (GA) in order to formulate governing body or campus management committee. That has given rise to several problems in the management activities.
Table 4 Provision of Campus Assembly / General Assembly in Respondents
Response Category | Yes | No |
Provision of Campus / General Assembly (Percent) | 78.57% | 21.43% |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
The aforementioned table shows that the 78.57% community campuses have the provision of the CA/GA and 21.43% campuses have no provision of the CA/GA.
4.4 Participation of Stakeholders in the Campus
Proportional participation of all the stakeholder of concerned institutions is globally accepted approach to ensure good governance of each and every institution. In this regard, there is found relatively less participatory in the sample observations. In more than 35 percent campus guardians are excluded, in more than 28 percent campus donors are excluded and so on. This is clearly visualized in Table 5 below.
Table 5 Participation of Stake holders in CA or GA
S.N. | Participation | Response category in Percent | |
Yes | No | ||
1 | Guardians | 64.28 | 35.72 |
2 | Donors | 71.42 | 28.53 |
3 | Educators | 64.28 | 35.72 |
4 | Social Leaders | 64.28 | 35.72 |
5 | Local organization | 57.15 | 42.86 |
6 | Teachers | 64.28 | 35.72 |
7 | Non-teaching staffs | 57.15 | 42.86 |
8 | Students | 57.15 | 42.86 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
Fig.1 : Participation of Stake holders in CA or GA
The above figure shows that the Participation of Stake holders in CA or GA of the community campuses. The participation of the donors is the highest i.e. 71.42% whereas guardians, social leaders and teachers percentage is 64.28.
4.5 Campus Management Committee Formation
There is found wide range of variations regarding inclusion of stakeholders in CMC. The significant numbers of campuses are lacking participation of key stake holders of HEI like president of professor union, chairperson of student union and chairperson of non-teaching staff in the campus management committee formation process (Table 6).
Table 6 CMC Formation Process of Respondent Campus
S.N. | Participation | Response Category in percent | |
Yes | No | ||
1 | Chairperson | 85.71 | 14.29 |
2 | General Members | 85.71 | 14.29 |
3 | President of Professor Union | 78.57 | 21.43 |
4 | Chairperson of Free Student Union | 78.57 | 21.43 |
5 | Chairperson of Staffs | 35.71 | 64.29 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
Fig.2 : CMC Formation Process of Respondent Campus
4.6 Process of Campus Chief Selection
There is found wide scale of variation in the process of campus chief selection amongst the respondent campuses. This gives rise to instability and ad-hoc in campus management and adversely affects imparting of quality education in HEIs. The process of Campus Chief selection in respondent campus is shown in table 7.
Table 7 Process of Campus Chief Selection in Respondent Campus
S.N. | Participation | Yes (percent) | No(percent) |
1 | Recommendation of Chairperson of CMC | 57.14 | 42.86 |
2 | Recommendation of Teacher Union | 14.30 | 85.70 |
3 | Undecided | 35.70 | 64.30 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
57.14 percent campus chairperson recommends appointing campus chief, in more than 14.30 percent campus chairperson of teacher union recommends for the same and more than 35.70 percent don't have clear provision in this regard.
4.7 Tenure of Campus Chief
There is found wide range of variation regarding tenure of campus chief that reflects serious discrepancy in campus governance system of community campuses of Nepal.
Table 8 Tenure of Campus Chief of Respondent Campus Chief
S.N. | Tenure of Campus Chief (year) | Response Percent |
1 | 3 years | 28.57 |
2 | 4 years | 50 |
3 | 5 years | 14.29 |
4 | undecided | 7.14 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
The data reveals the fact that in 50 percent campuses 4 years tenure followed by 3 years in 28.57 percent and 2 years 14.29 percent. At the same time, 7.14 percent don't have any clear provision. This data is shown in the following diagram also.
Fig.3 : CMC Formation Process of Respondent Campus
4.8 Provision of Administrative Designation and Tenure
The data reveals that there is wide range of variation regarding provision and tenure of assistant campus chief, department head, chairperson of subject committee, Head of Practice Teaching, and Head of Examination section that reflects serious discrepancy in campus governance system of community campuses of Nepal (Table 9).
Table 9 Provision of Administrative Designation and Tenure
S.N. | Administrative Designation | Response in Percent | |
Yes | No | ||
1 | Assistant Campus Chief | 92.86 | 7.14 |
2 | Department Head | 78.57 | 21.43 |
3 | Head of Practice Teaching | 85.71 | 14.28 |
4 | Chairperson of Subject Committee | 7.14 | 92.85 |
5 | Head of Examination Section | 7.14 | 92.85 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
4.9 Campus Legislation System
Campus governing system is best reflected by community campus legislation system which is proxy of rule based institutional management. There should be provision of constitution, rules, by-laws and regulation to ensure law based activities. The data reveals the fact that substantial proportion campuses are lacking this very important aspect that makes the environment of lawlessness and promotes uncertainty (Table 10).
Table 10 Provision of Campus Constitution of Respondent of Campus Chief
S.N. | Contents | Response in Percent | |
Yes | No | ||
1 | Provision of Campus by-laws(BIDHAN) | 100 | 00 |
2 | Regulation(NIYAMAWALI) | 42.86 | 57.14 |
3 | Directives (NIRDESIKA) | 7.14 | 92.86 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
Aforementioned table shows that the provision of campus by-laws is 100% whereas 42.86% campuses have regulations and there is no directives formed by the 92.86% campuses.
4.10 Human Resource Recruitment Process
Human resource recruitment system reflects equity and level of transparency in the community campuses. The data reveals the fact that still there is acute discrepancy in this regard (Table 11).
Table 11 Recruitment Process of Teaching and Non- teaching Staffs
S.N. | Recruitment Process | Response Category | |
Yes | No | ||
1 | Advertisement | 92.86 | 7.14 |
2 | Written Test | 92.86 | 7.14 |
3 | Oral Test | 92.86 | 7.14 |
4 | Others | 7.14 | 92.86 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
Most of the community campuses (92.86%) have followed the advertisement for the recruitment process of teaching and non teaching staffs. 7.14% of campuses have no clear system for the selection process of the staffs.
4.11 Scope of Career Development for Teaching and non-teaching staff
Educational institutions provide career development to assist teaching and non-teaching staff with their educational development. Career development is the process that forms a person's work identity. It is a significant part of human development and spans over the individual's entire lifetime. Career development refers to the lifelong process of managing learning, work, leisure, and transitions in order to move toward a personally determined and evolving preferred future. In educational development, career development provides a person, focus for selecting a career or subject(s) to undertake in the future. In this study, there is found severe discrepancies' in career development opportunity.
Table 12 Scope of Career Development in Respondent Campus
S.N. | Provision of Campus | Response Category | |
Yes | No | ||
1 | Promotion | 64.29 | 35.71 |
2 | Grading | 64.29 | 35.71 |
3 | Training programme | 64.29 | 35.71 |
4 | Reward | 64.29 | 35.71 |
5 | Provident Fund | 14.29 | 85.71 |
6 | Study Leave | 28.57 | 71.43 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
The data shows that 35.71 percent campus has no promotion, grading, training and reward, 85.71 percent have no provident fund provision and 71.43 percent have no study leave provision (Table 12). This is a matter of serious concern with a view to upgrade higher education quality.
4.12 Opportunity of Fellowship for Career Development
Globally, Higher Education Institutions are regarded as knowledge producing industry. In this regard, community campuses are also important ingredient of HEIs. But, in Nepal, faculties of Community campuses have extremely rare incentive and opportunity for research activities and thereby barred the career growth and development.
Table 13 Provision of Fellowship for Career Development
S.N. | Provision of Campus | Response Category Percent | |
Yes | No | ||
1 | According to Tribhuvan University Legacy | 7.14 | 92.86 |
2 | According to By-Laws and Regulations of Campus | 57.14 | 42.86 |
3 | Unclear | 35.72 | 64.28 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
The data shows that 92.86 percent campus has no provision of fellowship for career development according to Tribhuvan University Legacy and 42.86 percent have no provision according to By-Laws and Regulations of Campus and 35.72 percent are unclear about the provision of fellowship for career development.
4.13 Establishment of Integrity of Protocol and Hierarchy
Establishment of integrity of protocol and hierarchy of teaching and non- teaching staffs is an important ingredient of social justice and equity that is also regarded as an indicator of good governance. Almost all respondents feel that there are serious discrepancies in this regard in the HEIs. The faculties and non-teaching staff are suffered a lot due to such bias. It can be visualized with the help of following data (Table 14).
Table 14 Agency for Establishing Integrity of Protocol and Hierarchy
S.N. | Provision of Campus | Response in Percent | |
Yes | No | ||
1 | According to TU | 64.29 | 64.29 |
2 | According to UGC | 7.14 | 92.86 |
3 | Unclear | 28.57 | 71.43 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
4.14 Work Load of Faculties
There should be uniformity in terms of work load of faculty members of HEIs. It is an important indicator of equity and justice. The data reveals the fact that there is serious discrepancy in this regard in the community campuses that running across the country (Table 15).
Table 15 Provision of Work load of Teaching Staffs (Weekly)
S.N. | Work load | Response in Percent |
1 | Weekly15 Period | 14.28 |
2 | Wekly18 Periods | 64.86 |
3 | Weekly 24 periods | 7.14 |
4 | unclear | 14.28 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
4.15 Financial Sustainability Positions
There is found serious problem in terms of financial sustainability in the community campuses.
Table 16 Financial Sustainability Positions of Respondent Campuses
S.N. | Financial Provision | Multiple Response (Percent)s | |
1. | Corpse Fund | 64.28 | |
2. | Income From Land and Building Rent | 42.85 | |
3. | Monthly Fee of Student | 100 | |
4. | Subsidy | Local Body | 64.28 |
DDC | 71.48 | ||
UGC | 92.85 | ||
CF | 50 | ||
Others | 50 | ||
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
The data reveals that only 64.28 percent campuses have somehow managed corpse fund. Likewise, 92.85 percent campuses are receiving some grants from UGC Nepal and almost all campuses are dependent on tuition fee from students to manage operating expenses of campus. Other sources are Community forestry (CF), District Development Committee (DDC), local bodies and income from land and building (Table 16).
4.16 Public Hearing of Community Campuses
Public hearing procedure reflects that transparency and social accountability aspect of community campuses. In other words, there should be excellent public hearing procedure to ensure transparency and accountability. The data also reveals fact that there is extremely poor public hearing procedure (Table17).
Table 17 Procedure of Public Hearing of Annual Financial Report of Campus
S.N. | Particular | Response in Percent |
1 | Annual Financial Publication | 49.98 |
2 | Social Auditing | 35.85 |
3 | Others(General Assembly, News paper, website, Annual Programme) | 21.42 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
4.17 Legality of Community Campuses of Nepal
Community campuses began to be established rapidly since 2037 B S across the country in order to meet the higher education demand in Nepal. Community campuses were established taking affiliation from concerned universities in conventional basis. But, such campuses are lacking strong legislation base. That created several discrepancies in various aspects of institutional management. In this regard, the stakeholders have different view regarding registration of community campuses (Table 18).
Table 18 Response on Registration Authority of Community Campus for their legality
S.N. | Particular | Response in Percent |
1 | Concerned University | 14.28 |
2 | University Grants Commission of Nepal | 21.42 |
3 | Separate Authority | 7.14 |
4 | Undecided | 57.12 |
(Source: Field Survey, 2017)
4.18 Funding From University Grant Commission of Nepal
UGC of Nepal is single source of government finance for Nepalese community campuses. In this study, 93 percent campuses found to be received from UGC Nepal in average fund received is NPR 9.6 Lakhs annually (fig.4).
Fig.4: Funding From University Grant Commission of Nepal
4.19 Pattern of UGC Fund utilization
The fund provided by UGC is mostly used for salary and allowance payment and Infrastructure Development (ID). Thereafter, it is used for Performance enhancement (PE) Student Teaching and Learning (STL) (Table 19).
Table 19 Pattern of UGC Fund utilization by the Campus
S.N. | Particular | Response in (Percent) |
1 | Infrastructure Development(ID) | 14.28 |
2 | Salary and Allowance(SA) | 14.28 |
3 | Performance enhancement(PE) | 7.14 |
4 | Student Teaching and Learning(STL) | 14.28 |
5 | ID and SA | 14.28 |
6 | ID+PE+STL | 7.14 |
7 | ID+STL | 7.14 |
8 | SA+STL | 21.42 |
The fund provided by UGC is mostly used for salary and allowance payment and Infrastructure Development (ID) i.e. 14.28% whereas in Performance enhancement (PE) and Student Teaching and Learning (STL) is 7.14% only.
Fig. 5: Pattern of UGC Fund utilization by the Campus
4.20 Reform Measures of Community Campuses
Based on the view of stakeholders of community campuses, necessary steps to be taken to ensure uniformity in the formation of Campus governing laws are as follows:
· Concerned University Authority must formulate and implement strictly Campus Governing laws.
· Public Campus Association must formulate and implement strictly Campus Governing laws.
· Conducting seminar, workshop for carrying out discussion on modality of Campus Governing laws.
· Conducting discussion between Public Campus Association and Public Campus professors Union to formulate and implement strictly Campus Governing laws.
· Concerned University Authority must designate Public Campus Association in order to formulate and implement compulsory Campus Governing laws.
· Initiation of UGC is necessary to set up the criteria for uniformity.
· Holding discussion among Chairpersons of campus, campus chief, and professors Union to bring uniformity.
4.21 Reform Perspective of TU towards Community Campus
· Equal treatment to constituent and community campus
· UGC must carry out for Stratification and grading of community campuses based on their performance
· Necessary steps to be taken to uplift quality education and reduce the drop out ratio.
· Emphasis should be given to allocate sufficient fund to community campuses from national budget
· Equivalence of designation of teaching and non teaching staffs of constituent and community campus
· Equal opportunity of participation in training, seminar, symposium and educational activities as concerned university.
4.22 Contemporary Issues and Problems of Community Campuses
Community campuses of Nepal are facing several anomalies and discrepancies. Based on the response of sample community campuses, the problems and issues of community campuses are as follows:
· Problems in the regular payments of salary to teaching and non-teaching staffs
· Lack of adequate budget for monthly payment of salary.
· Lack of sustainable income sources of campuses.
· Fluctuation in the student enrollment rate.
· Due to lack of adequate fund inability to pay increased salary.
· Less number of students to make up regular class running expenditure.
· Due to lack of regular source of income inability to pay salary and remuneration timely.
· Students enrollment is decreasing in general subjects thereby fall in the income from monthly fee collection.
Chapter V
Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Findings of the Study
The major findings of the study are follows:
· The numbers of permanent teaching staffs are more than the temporary ones. Among them the male lecturers are 104 and female lecturers are only 4.
· The male non teaching staffs are found more than the female ones. There is no provision of the assistant administrator in any community campuses.
· 78.57% community campuses have the provision of the CA/GA and 21.43% campuses have no provision of the CA/GA.
· The participation of the donors is the highest i.e. 71.42% whereas guardians, social leaders and teachers percentage is 64.28.
· The significant numbers of campuses are lacking participation of key stake holders of HEI like president of professor union, chairperson of student union and chairperson of non-teaching staff in the campus management committee formation process.
· 57.14 percent campus chairperson recommends to appoint campus chief, in 14.30 percent campus chairperson of teacher union recommends for the same and 35.70 percent don't have clear provision in this regard.
· 50 percent campuses 4 years tenure of campus chief followed by 3 years in 28.57 percent and 2 years 14.29 percent. At the same time, 7.14 percent don't have any clear provision.
· The provision of campus by-laws is 100% whereas 42.86% campuses have regulations and there is no directives formed by the 92.86% campuses.
· Most of the community campuses (92.86%) have followed the advertisement for the recruitment process of teaching and non teaching staffs. 7.14% of campuses have no clear system for the selection process of the staffs.
· 35.71 percent campus has no promotion, grading, training and reward, 85.71 percent have no provident fund provision and 71.43 percent have no study leave provision.
· 92.86 percent campus has no provision of fellowship for career development according to Tribhuvan University Legacy and 42.86 percent have no provision according to By-Laws and Regulations of Campus and 35.72 percent are unclear about the provision of fellowship for career development.
· There is serious discrepancy in work load of faculties in the community campuses that running across the country.
· 64.28 percent campuses have somehow managed corpse fund. Likewise, 92.85 percent campuses are receiving some grants from UGC Nepal and almost all campuses are dependent on tuition fee from students to manage operating expenses of campus. Other sources are Community forestry (CF), District Development Committee (DDC), local bodies and income from land and building.
· There is extremely poor public hearing procedure
· 93 percent campuses found to be received from UGC Nepal in average fund received is NPR 9.6 Lakhs annually.
· The fund provided by UGC is mostly used for salary and allowance payment and Infrastructure Development (ID) i.e. 14.28% whereas in Performance enhancement (PE) and Student Teaching and Learning (STL) is 7.14% only.
5.2 Conclusions
Governance systems of Community Campuses are globally agreed proxy for ensuring their quality. There are several issues and discrepancies in the existing governance system of Community Campuses of Nepal. Government need to have strong and explicit legislation to regulate all most all academic and administrative affairs of community campuses. This is essential to open the door for quality assurance of higher education system of Federal Republic of Nepal. These types of discrepancies should not go for long in higher education arena, and otherwise would be catastrophic for nation as whole. Therefore, it is a high time for government for appropriate policy shift in this regard. In other words, it is desirable to prepare strong legislation framework to regulate and address ongoing issues and discrepancies of overall governance system of community campuses of Nepal.
5.3 Recommendations for Reform Measures of Community Campuses
Based on the opinions, views and perceptions of stakeholders of community campuses, necessary steps to be taken to ensure uniformity in the formation of Campus governing laws are as follows:
· Concerned University Authority must formulate and implement strictly Campus Governing laws.
· Public Campus Association must facilitate to formulate and implement strictly Campus Governing laws.
· Conducting seminar, workshop for carrying out discussion on modality of Campus Governing laws and by-laws.
· Conducting discussion between Public Campus Association and Public Campus professors Union to formulate and implement strictly Campus Governing laws.
· Concerned University Authority must designate Public Campus Association in order to formulate and implement compulsory Campus Governing laws.
· Initiation of UGC is necessary to set up the criteria for uniformity.
· Holding discussion among Chairpersons of campus, campus chief, and professors Union to bring uniformity.
REFERENCES
Basheka, B.C. (2014). Best Practice on Corporate Governance of Higher Education Institutions. Uganda Technology and Management University, Uganda.
Berger, J. B., Hudson, K.E., Blanco, Ramírez, G. (2013). How universities work: Understanding higher education organization in northwest China. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(64). (http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1350.)
Eurodice (2008). Higher Education Governance in Europe, Policies, Structure, Funding and Academic Staff. European Commission.
Kezar, A.; Eckel, P. D. (2004). Meeting Today's Governance Challenges. The Journal of Higher Education. 75 (4): 371–398.
Lapworth, S. (2004). Arresting Decline in Shared Governance: Towards a Flexible Model for Academic Participation. Higher Education Quarterly. 58 (4): 299–314.
Vedanathan, V.M & Saraswathi, J.D.(2016). Good Governance in Higher Education. International Journal of Management Volume7, Issue2, (2016). ISSN 0976-6510. Government Degree College for Women. Hydrabad.
Mclendon, M.K., & Ness, E.C., (2009). The Politics of State Higher Education Governance Reform, Pages 66-88 | published online: 18 Nov 2009.
National University of Singapore (2013). Global Regionalisms, Governance and Higher Education.Singapore World Universities Network.
Organization of Economic Cooperation and development (2003). Changing Pattern of Governance in Higher Education. Education Policy Analysis OECD, 2003.
Uiversity Grants Commission of Nepal (2017). Education management information System. Report on Higher Education (2017).
Yokoyama, K.,( 2018). The rise of risk management in the universities: a new way to understand quality in university management, Pages 1-16, published online: 15 Jan 2018.
Zaman, K.(2015). Quality guidelines for good governance in higher education across the Globe. Pacific Science Review B: Humanities and Social Sciences. Volume 1, Issue 1, January 2015, Pages 1–7.
file:///E:/A%20Study%20on%20Community%20Campus/Higher%20Education%20Board%20Governance%20_%20University%20Business%20Magazine.html
Comments
Post a Comment