By György Germán, Goethe-Institut Budapest
Arguments and counter-arguments, confidence and concern, explanations from circles of specialist policy and politics clashed in the past month: in a not without emotion, debate on the restructuring of the Hungarian higher education system. Experts and laypeople, teachers and students, politicians and citizens felt it was important to express their opinion – in the media primarily their counter-opinion. Technical discussions, however, received less public attention.
Our contribution is dedicated to the task of presenting the positions of the government and non-governmental circles – without claiming to be exhaustive. By January 29, 2021, i.e. before this article was published, the decisions of the senates of all universities addressed by the government had been made: for the model change.
THE GOVERNMENT’S ARGUMENTS FOR THE MODEL CHANGE
According to the government’s argument, the need for an alternative sponsorship model is supported by domestic and international research. In fact, the model change is not a Hungarian specialty; Measures for restructuring in higher education can be observed globally. The growing role of external participants, the transformation of administrative forms and the strengthening of the performance principle according to various indicators and institutional rankings are also an international trend. The Hungarian government takes the position that the institutions in the planned new form of sponsorship react more flexibly and more quickly to economic needs can and that the operational environment that is more predictable in this way will contribute to increasing the competitiveness of higher education, so that Hungarian young people will be among the winners of the future.
One of the goals set with the model change is to make the universities the engine of Hungarian social life, academic education and economic development, thus – as a basis for the economic competitiveness of both the respective region and the country – a service background in education , Research, innovation, art, sport and culture can arise.
For all this and state guarantee prospect was made: The financial bases are to be laid down in a long-term master agreements to be concluded from 2022 with the universities to provide guaranteed-a stable and secure future planning to . In addition, the government hopes that as a result of the model change, the institutions will have an increased ability to generate their own financial income.
How is all of this supposed to happen?
The universities will continue to perform public tasks in the future, while their legal status and their operational model will be transformed: They will then no longer be subordinate to the state budget, but will operate according to a set of rules outside the state budget, under the responsibility of state-established asset management foundations. Thus, the universities are removed from the group of institutions in direct state sponsorship, and the infrastructure immediately necessary for the performance of their tasks becomes their property. The founding rights of the asset management foundations currently remain with the government, but from January 1, 2022, the government has the option of transferring the founder’s rights to the Board of Trustees.
According to the current plan, the state would not withdraw from financing the basic tasks of the institutions facing restructuring (with the exception of the Corvinus University in Budapest); it provides for a permanent presence as a client . According to the Austrian model, depending on their specific field of activity, based on previously defined performance indicators, the institutions would operate within the framework of medium-term financing, and they could – by facilitating their participation in public tenders – cooperate more flexibly with market participants. The possibility was given as a positive argument to be able to set up performance-oriented, differentiated remuneration as a motivational factor in the new model . To underline this, the news was launched that the state budget has provided the funds for the personal allowance increase of twice 15% (2021, 2022) for each institution that is under the responsibility of the state – which was promised during the restructuring process or in an asset management foundation established by the state. The higher education institutions concerned were even informed about the sums of money from the EU aid fund for the institutions involved in the model change. could be made available to eradicate the damage caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
WHAT HAS BEEN DONE SO FAR
Z to 1 August 2020 were Stifter and administrative rights of Veterinary Medicine, University of Budapest, the University of Miskolc, the Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design, the John von Neumann University, the University of Sopron and the Széchenyi István University transferred to asset management foundations. This was followed by the University of Theater and Film Arts, which was also converted into a private university on September 1, 2020 under the auspices of an asset management foundation. In January 2021, the senates of another five institutions (University of Debrecen, University of Dunaújváros, University of Pécs, University of Szeged, Semmelweis University of Budapest) were given discretion and a decision was made to change models without exception.
If the model change described above brings so many positive changes with it, where do the resistance and doubts of those directly and indirectly affected come from? In the following part of this letter, we show a selection of the counter-arguments voiced in university forums and in the media.
DOUBT ABOUT THE MODEL CHANGE IN UNIVERSITY
Most of the counter-arguments were voiced in connection with the definition of the area of competence of the board of trustees that were practically non-deductible and not primarily appointed on the basis of technical and scientific aspects. According to the plans, the statutes of private higher education institutions can also provide that it is incumbent on the executing agency (i.e. the foundation established by the state) to adopt the budget and budget as well as the statutes of the institution, to accept the annual report and to purchase or the To agree to the establishment of a business entity. According to the statutes, responsibility for the tendering process for the post of rector can also lie with the board of trustees. This would abolish the centuries-old institutional autonomy of the universities; Decision-making powers of the university committees and senates, which concern essential questions, would practically be transferred to the board of trustees. If, from then on, the adoption of the rules of procedure of universities falls within the remit of the board of trustees, this opens the door to interference in scientific and pedagogical questions – which raises serious doubts (see, for example, the right to appoint the leading teachers for the individual classes of the To appoint University of Theater and Film Arts)
UNCERTAIN OWNERSHIP RELATING TO UNIVERSITY ASSETS
The supervisory and property rights of the state universities are transferred to foundations under public law, whose chairmen and members simultaneously exercise the rights of ownership. The universities should receive the assets, and the resources necessary for their work should continue to come from the state budget. Those who guarantee, ask those who doubt that the universities will continue to receive these resources in the future, that the assets will not be transferred to the board of trustees and that the universities will not be forced to sell their assets in response to offers “which they cannot refuse” ?
WHAT DOES THE REDUCTION OF LEGAL OBLIGATIONS IN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT EFFECT?
It is true that the government assesses it positively that the universities in the province that are carrying out the model change are exempted from the restrictions that apply to the state budget and that domestic and foreign development funds are more easily accessible to them through the reduction in public procurement obligations; Nevertheless, many interpret this differently: If the boards of trustees play a decisive role in selecting the winners of tenders in the areas of investment, IT development and the procurement of necessary work materials, this can pave the way for corruption and abuse. Some say that changes should have been made to the legal environment – which is economically paralyzing higher education – instead of changing the model of administration and sponsorship.
“UNPRODUCTIVE” SCIENCES
Many worry about the “unproductive” areas – for example, philosophical subjects or the arts – and fear that these could be pushed into the background if the universities are to strive for financial success and are measured against it. Even the allusion to a phrase intended as “consolation” is rather unhappy and formulated in a degrading way, namely: It is a natural endeavor that one should “stretch to the hem of one’s own ceiling”; however, if necessary, it could be made possible, out of solidarity, that the university concerned may “sew on” a few more centimeters.
Professor Mihály Szajbély emphasized in his recently published speech at the meeting of the University of Szeged on January 29, 2021: “ It is an unfortunate educational policy that does not assume that the financing of education is a state responsibility and that the universities instead Self-preservation, directs into competition with market participants. This constraint is a factor in reducing autonomy from the start. He does not measure educational and research activities by their own value, but by their direct economic return. This forces the institutions to sideline their academic mandate.
SOCIAL IMPACT
There are also many concerns about the long-term social impact of the model change. The state plans to conclude 20 to 22-year framework agreements with the institutions and then update them in short-term financing agreements. Many believe that this would inevitably lead to a reduction in the number of government-funded study places or an increase in the number of fee-based study places as well as the tuition fees themselves. József Pálinkás, former president of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, writes in his contribution The change of model of the universities is just a question of power for Fidesz in the weekly magazine HVG (issue of January 13, 2021): “ In principle, these institutions (…) will already function as private institutions. Why is this bad for the country? This is because the most important subjects in higher education can be pushed more and more in the direction of fee-based training through such a restructuring of the institutions. The vast majority of families will not be able to raise the financial means to enable their gifted children to gain social advancement through learning so that they can fill good positions in the judiciary, administration or health sector, including positions at universities. “
The short deadline for a decision by the Senate for or against the model change, the lack of broader information and the lack of coordination with all parties involved create a bad mood and a lot of tension. The factual and technical argumentation is overshadowed by aversions towards the government, which makes it difficult to develop objective opinions and positions. The restructuring of higher education is accompanied by plans, visions, a great many unanswered questions and the search for guarantees.
It is to be feared that answers cannot be expected in the next few weeks. And in the long term, warning voices – “Look there, I predicted it!” – will be forgotten in most cases.
Source: UME