Ranking distribution and formula funding of Ukrainian Universities: the problem of subjectivism and mistrust

Domestic practice of University ranking in 2006-2020 and formula funding of higher education institutions in 2019-2020 was analysed in the article taking into account the objectivity, validity, reliability, accuracy, precision, transparency and clarity of the applied mechanisms. It was considered rankings: Compass , National system of ranking assessment of higher education institutions, Top-200 Ukraine, Scopus, External Evaluation Score for contract learning, External Evaluation Score for budget funding of learning, Consolidated ranking, and Ranking of national higher education institutions according to the Government’ criteria, as well as the formula mechanism for public funds distribution between institutions. Taking into account the world ranking experience and using a large array of factual data, it is proved that all past and current Ukrainian rankings, as well as the current funding formula, are affected by the excessive subjectivity, high discrimination of institutions and are not credible. Therefore, these mechanisms disorient stakeholders, citizens, employers, society as a whole regarding the actual state of higher education. The origins of the lack of objectivity, validity, reliability, transparency, clarity and other important characteristics of ranking and formula mechanisms have been identified. The main reason is the dominance of double subjectivism – the subjective selection of subjective criteria and indicators, which leads to manipulative results, inadequate perception and ultimately to distrust. Conceptual principles of overcoming the current crisis situation are proposed. It is argued that ranking and formula criteria and indicators according to their list and weight should primarily meet the best world practice / methodology of objective ranking and the key components of the three-part University mission – 1) education, 2) research, 3) innovation / creativity or service. At the same time, research serves to education modernizing, and innovation / creativity or service – according to its focus on ensuring long-term development or the current complicated functioning. In addition, ranking and formula developments should be tested by experimental exploitation, verified by testing on benchmarks of excellence, and appropriately adjusted to ensure an objective, valid, and reliable diagnosis of the essential characteristics of higher education, its institutions, and its network in Ukraine before their large-scale application. The article calls for attention and caution with the proposed rankings, in particular Ukrainian ones, and at the same time calls for the creation of an adequate national ranking of higher education institutions, which is important for the formation of an effective strategy for higher education development.

Characteristics of Learning Frameworks Courses in Texas Public Community Colleges

In this qualitative study, the authors extend the previous research and present findings from a study investigating post- secondary theoretically-based study strategy courses. In Texas, these courses are known as learning frameworks courses, offered for college credit, and derive full-formula funding from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating 􏰩oard. Research- ers focused on learning frameworks courses offered at Texas public community colleges in the Fall 201􏰞 and Spring 201􏰔 semesters. A total of 􏰌􏰌 course coordinators or their designees were interviewed via phone or email. Using content analysis, researchers coded data into content categories and thematic units. Findings provide historical, administrative and curricula perspectives including primary distinctions among course topics􏰜 theoretical perspectives (or lack thereof)􏰜 textbooks, resources, and assessment selections􏰜 and instructor training. The authors recommended the development of statewide resources to assist institutions in meeting statewide curricula requirements.

UNIVERSITY FINANCIAL AUTONOMY: EXPERIENCE OF LATVIA

The analysis of legislative support of higher education of Latvia was carried out. It was defined, that institutions of higher education are autonomous institutions of education and science with the right to self-government. The autonomy of higher education institutions is characterised by the division of power and responsibility between the State authorities and the management of the institution of higher education, as well as between the management and the academic staff. The sources of funding of higher education institutions from state sources were found out. They include the financial resources of the state budget for education; income from tuition fees; targeted financial resources. The types of economic activity of higher education institutions were determined. The components of the system of state funding of higher education institutions were highlighted: formula funding (basic funding of studies), which is related to the number of study places; performance agreements for preparation of a certain number of specialists and for development of scientific activity; 3) formula funding (basic funding of science) for institutions of higher education, scientific institutions, and scientific institutes established by institutions of higher education; 4) funding to scientific activities through competitions. The allocation methods of state financial resources for higher education institutions were determined. The first one includes direct allocations from the state budget to higher education institutions. The second one involves indirect subsidies through state-guaranteed loans. The components of new three-pillar model of state higher education funding were presented. They are: basic (base) funding, performance funding, and innovation- and profile-oriented financing. The analysis of financial autonomy indicators of universities was carried out.