HIGHER EDUCATION VOUCHERS

MPhil. Elona Mehmeti Institution: Albanian University

Email: [email protected]/[email protected]

HIGHER EDUCATION VOUCHERS IN ALBANIA

Abstract

After being supported for so many years by the state, “used”,

reformed, changed, and politicized it seems that higher education

in Albania now is changing face again. From a public good, higher

education is being transformed into a private good, for the sake

of being more manageable, with the aim of offering a better

quality and a more egalitarian higher education. As a consequence

“quality” and “equity” have become the main points of the

Albanian government’s reform which is trying to implement its

program, among others, through a voucher system.

The paper, discuses the “pros” and “cons” of using a voucher

system in higher education in Albania.

This analysis is important policy wise and culturally interesting

since vouchers in higher education are a controversial concept

and absolutely new to Albania’s cultural, economic and social

background.

The aim of this analysis will be to offer a perspective to the

“working group of voucher system” offering a comparative study of



voucher systems implemented abroad especially in ex communist

countries.

The paper will conclude with a general analyses referring to the

changing role of the higher education system in the 21th century.

1.An overview of the Higher Education System in Albania

The beginning of the 1990s followed a relatively peaceful

change in the Albanian economic and political system. Albania

started a process of reform from one of the most Stalinist and

totalitarian communist regimes towards a more democratic form of

government. The road towards the type of society that Albanians

would like to have, with material goods, human rights and

development possibilities for the individual, has not been easy.

Economic development started out with impressive results, but

unfortunately it later emerged that these good results were not



really based on any thorough reform of the economic system

(Hagelund 2001, 4).

Higher education, as one of the main institutions which

experienced important transformations during the beginning of

90s, is one of the examples of an institution that is still in

the middle of important changes.

However, we have to admit that higher education in Albania

is quite new. The first institutions were opened after the Second

World War. The pioneer of higher education was the pedagogical

institute which was a two year institution and its aim was to

prepare high school teachers. Later, more higher education

institutions were opened; however, it was only in September 1957

that the first University was established. As the University was

established during the period when the socialist party was

ruling, the main stakeholder of this institution was the state,

and higher education in general was an invention of the socialist

party. There was not a higher education system before the Second

World War. In the past students studied at foreign universities,

mainly in Eastern Europe. Higher education in Albania was

established not only to prepare future students in different

disciplines, but also to spread the philosophy of the ruling



party, and in some way to serve as a tool, by preparing the

coming generation with socialist philosophy.

1.2 Important Changes in Higher Education System

The change of the political system in 1992 after the

students strike in 1990 was followed by radical changes in all

institutions in Albania. Higher educations institutions, as one

of the important sources for the diffusion of the socialist

philosophy to the new generation, was undergoing important

transformations. According to Hagelund, the government and the

donor community place a very high priority on education. However,

many problems remain to be solved. The major problem concerns

traditional teaching methods with rote learning and rigid state

curricula which stand in the way of innovation and initiative.

The lack of modern teaching materials and acceptable physical

framework also plague educational institutions (ibid, 8).

1.2.1 University Management



The first University Act entered into force in 1994 and in

1999 was replaced by a new Act which, was developed following the

recommendations of foreign experts.

The Act defines the institutional landscape with the

Ministry of Education, state and private educational

institutions, the Rectors’ Conference and the National

Accreditation and Quality Assurance Institute. There are rules

concerning the election of leaders (Rector, Deputy Rector, Deans,

Heads of Department), about governing bodies, budgets, personnel,

students and studies and the division of competence between the

Ministry of Education and the local leaders and bodies. Academic

freedom and the autonomy of the institutions in certain areas

receive explicit mention.

In 2007, after signing the Bologna Agreement (the Bologna

Agreement was signed in 2003 in Berlin meeting) the Act of Higher

Education was replaced with a more advanced one, which was

debated for many months with different actors.

The new things about the new act were the improvement of the

university autonomy and the financial autonomy of universities.



In the same act it was stated for the first time the

financing of higher education institution will allocated in a

form of a “grant” as other European universities do.

In the act it is affirmed that universities can use the money

they gain from the student’s fees, and the unused money can be

used in the next academic year.

However, the state takes in consideration the money the

universities has gained from students fees when it is time to

allocate the budget to universities, moreover the Council of the

Prime Minister as well as the public opinion has the right to ask

for transparency of university fiancées.

What was the “hot” topic for the public opinion and the

academics at that time was that the election for university

rectors was decided by the President; consequently the rector was

a president competency (Valmora, 2007).

One of the other concerns regarding the act was the short time

the act would be in practice, it was only for 3 years, and after

three years it was a another act that will substitute the last

one (ibid)



Besides the pro and cons of the act, the act in itself for the

first time included the private higher education institutions

(especially in the subsequent articles that enriched the new act)

that were emerging in the last 4 years in Albania.

1.2.2 Latest developments in Albanian Higher Education

The landscape of higher education has completely changed in

Albanian due to the incensement in numbers of private higher

education institutions. In this academic year in all the country

there are fifteen public universities, and twenty nine private

universities, in which are enrolled 80.696 students in public

universities, and 22.238 students in private universities

(Instant, 2009).

The system of education, and higher education

Private versus public universities

Cons and pros

1.2.3 Quality assurance and Evaluation



2.Vouchers System in Higher Education

The idea of vouchers according to McEwan, Patrick J were

proposed by Thomas Paine in The Rights of Man west 1967 (McEwan,

2000) and previously in France towards the end of the ninetieth

century.

However the first voucher model was released by Milton Friedman

(1955: 1962) and again during the War and Poverty, there were

other authors that gave “voice” to the policy debate like Chubb&

Moe 1990, Cookson, 1994 up to Peterson & Hassel in 1998, beside

the developments in the late nineteen’s there were other

personalities who concentrated on vouchers like Vicky Lee &

Elyssa Wang, Bahram Bekhradnia & William Massy, meanwhile

concrete policies of vouchers, specially in higher education,

have started to practice in Europe.

From literature review there is a common point regarding

vouchers, that there is not a single voucher policy, but many,

referring to Bekhradnia and Massy there are 4000 scenarios of

vouchers in education.

But what is a voucher in higher education?



According to the report of University State of New York “The

Vouchers System and Higher Education in New York State” (New

York, 1970) a voucher system in higher education would provide

education grants (vouchers) directly to student rather that

grants to public institution of higher education. On the other

hand it is supposed that the institutions would then retain their

present level of income by raising tuition to approximate the

full cost of the instruction. Subsequently, it is never stated in

the literature that the state by introducing vouchers would cover

the full cost of higher education in private and public

institutions.

Nevertheless, the reasons for proposing vouchers in higher

education are not entirely ideological (Bekhradnia & Massy,

2009), it is assumed that the support for vouchers goes hand –in

–hand with the free market economic models, and the arguments

proposed in their favor are common to other such liberal

positions.

According to Bekhradnia & Massy it is argued from the proponents

of vouchers that:



- Increasing the power of the consumer and reducing that of

the supplier will increase the competition and consequently

will improve the quality and efficiency;

- Putting vouchers in the had of the students candidates will

empower them by increasing their choice;

- Providing vouchers to students candidates as a “privilege”

will have a psychological effect by making them aware of the

value of education, consequently the vouchers will widen

participation and increase demand;

- If the vouchers are introduced will increase the amount of

private funding in higher education, as individuals are

required to top up the voucher to mach the fees that

universities charge;

- Because the government no longer need to fund universities

directly the amount of bureaucratic controls will be

reduced.

2.1 Vouchers in ex dictatorial countries

Although the literature on the vouchers in education is quite

vast, full of examples and literature review, in the case of

higher education there are only some examples that refer to



vouchers in American higher education1, Australia2 in Chile,

Georgia and Hungary.

However, the examples of Chile, Georgia and Hungary are only

introduced for those students with the highest entry scores

(Bekhradnia & Massy, 2009).

Nevertheless, there is an interesting experiment in Russia

which started in 2002 “About Experiment on the Transition of

Several Higher Education Institutions to Financing by using State

Personified Financial Certificates” which regulates the course of

the vouchers experiment (Kleshchukova, 2005).

The main principles of the experiment (referred as GIFO) mean

an obligation of the state to finance the course of the study of

the school-leaver in university. As mentioned by the author

every academic year the value of the financial obligations is

determined for every category of students by the Ministry of

Education of the Russian Federation, divided by 5 categories

where each category had its price (ibid, 33).

1 In Colorado, where vouchers have been applied in the earnest andcomprehensively as the Government’s mechanism for channeling public funds tohigher education institutions. 2 In Australia there were two committees gathered in 10 years (in 1987, 1997)and the review of the two committees did not recommend the introduction ofan education voucher system in higher education.



Higher education institutions in this case are allowed to set

their own prices for each educational program, each higher

education institution that takes part in the experiment is

obligated to determine and declares prices for each specialty,

education program and form of education.

Students, who have received GIFO of the first category study

for free, no matter what price is determined by the institution.

It is important to mention that GIFO depends only on the results

of Standardized State Examination and does not depend on the

students’ achievements during their study at the higher education institution.

The reason why I choose Russian voucher experimental model in

higher education to take as an example for comparing the future

model of vouchers in Albanian higher education, derives from some

reasons listed below:

1. Although the great difference in the population and culture,

the two countries were under the same political system for

nearly 50 years, consequently the same political system

influenced very much higher education institutions, politic

and educational culture;



2. Higher education institutions charged no fees, and higher

education was expected to be a public good;

3. The transition period, after the dictatorial system ended,

was very common in reference to higher education

institutions, like masification, the emerging of private

higher education system, etc;

4. The rationale in building the voucher scheme, based on the

results of the Standardized State Examination.

The vouchers schemes as was pointed out in the paragraphs

above are different, but one of the points that is common in the

philosophy of vouchers is the aim the voucher system has.

From the beginning vouchers aimed in bringing equity, improving

quality and efficiency in higher education, however the hidden

objective of the vouchers especially in the countries that it is

introduce; is to optimize state budget expenditures for

education; to distinguish the “good” higher education

institutions from the “bad” ones, so prestigious universities

will flourish and unpopular would disappear (ibid, 36).

Beginning from the main and obvious objectives of the voucher

system equity, improving quality and efficiency in the Russian experiment. The



author concluded that although there was an improvement regarding

equity in reducing the number of wasted years of study, because of

GIFO there is a trend that students will attend most popular programs of study, and in

10 -15 years those who will take pure science education will to a large extend come

from rural background, and as professionals receive limited pay

for their skills.

This effect happens mainly because pure science programs are

not very popular among students. This means that students with

the GIFO of third category and lower are admitted to free of

charge places, in this case higher education institutions will

survive by expanding admission to popular programs, while pure

science will suffer a decline.

In regard to the quality and efficiency, the evaluation is

more difficult because the quality the efficiency of teaching and

research can not be easy measured, however the example

Kleshchukova brought in referring to an interview made with the

Rector of Mari State Technical University3 G. Oshchepkov was very

interesting. The rector pointed out that a higher education

institution can not function without constant minimal financial

guarantees. In his opinion GIFO creates a situation of3 Mari State Technical University was one of the universities in which the experiment of vouchers began



instability. If such a voucher model will be implemented the

participating institution will have changing faculty staff and

unstable salary level . In other words, a voucher system can

negatively affect the possibility of long term strategic

planning, which is needed for improving performance in the

institution (ibid, 65).

2.1.1 Pro and con of voucher system in Albanian Higher Education

In 2005 the Albanian government gave to education and

especially to higher education a higher priority, placing

education in the top of the government agenda for the coming 4

years.

One of the most important reforms that occurred in higher

education in the years that followed was the increase of

student’s number in higher education system in general. Compared

with the number of students in 2005, the increase is nearly three

times (Musai, 2010).

As a consequence of the “mass higher education” the

government and the society in general has to face, beside the

inappropriate university infrastructure, lack of university



personal (especially high qualified academics) also a great

difficulty in financing and supporting higher education.

Having a different structure of higher education, which is

no more considered to be a public good, but also a private one,

having a great emerge of private higher education, it is

necessary to think of a new models of financing higher education.

Besides different ways of financing higher education, one of the

most “attractive” is the voucher model, which according to the

specialists has 5 objectives 1. The contribution in the financial

growth 2. Efficiency 3. Equity 4. Better governance and 5.

Financial stability (ibid)

Thinking of Jongbloed scheme “pro and cons of vouchers”

(Jongbloed, 2004) and bringing his analyses of vouchers in the

Albanian reality we will have:

Pros

1. Introducing the vouchers in higher education will strength

the student choice, and consequently will strength the



responsibility of such students in choosing a more

“realistic” and profitable education (study program ) 4 ;

2. Increase the efficacy of provision, in a way that higher

education institutions will respond better to the society

and the markets needs;

3. Increase the quality of provision, will force higher

education institutions (private and public, without

neglecting public higher education institutions ) to work

harder on quality issues, and as a consequence offer a

better quality in education;

4. Increase the private contribution to cost of education

(topping up the vouchers). Coming from a “socialist”

philosophy, although the last trends with private higher

education institutions, most of the parents and student

candidates still think that higher education is a still a

public good, and the state has to take care of their

education. Nevertheless, with the mass philosophy in higher

education the state can not support higher education,

4 It is a tread in the last ten years in Albania that students prefer toattend programs in social sciences, especially in law, political science,international relations, and economics with the aim to have high paid jobs.Nevertheless, there is a great number of unemployed people in the market thatfinish the “fancy” study programs without any prospective in finding aqualified job.



therefore other stakeholders (like student fees, in topping

up the vouchers) will be a great support for the system.

Although the advantages of vouchers in Albanian higher

education there is the other face of vouchers that specialist

has to consider before implementing the system. Referring

again to Jongbloed scheme and to the experience of the Russian

voucher model, in regards to equity, improving quality and efficiency the

prospective disadvantages might be.

Cons

1. Need for government regulations to protect subjects,

individuals, quality and equity. Referring also to the

Russian model of vouchers, there is always a threat in

regards to pure science study programs, in the experiment

mentioned above in Russian universities there was a trend

where higher education institutions were planning to expand

admission to popular programs, because in this way they will

get more students and consequently more money.



2. Considering quality and equity, the Albanian government

before implementing any voucher model, has to offer a clear

perspective to students and parents of higher education

quality in regards to programs and institutions.

Only after making a transparent evaluation of each program

and institution, the government has to take in

consideration also how to secure equity, where each student

has the possibility (although the geographic position) to

study in the program he/she chooses, having a voucher

support.

3. Large variations in enrolment and funding may lead to under

–utilization of capital and insecure jobs for teachers. In

reference again to the experiment in Mari State Technical

University, and to his rector G. Oshchepkov who pointed out

that a higher education institution can not function without

constant minimal financial guarantees. Policy makers in

designing the voucher scheme have to take in consideration

that higher education institutions need a minimum budget, to

guarantee their every day activity.

4. According to Bekhradnia & Massy there is also a risk with

the present arrangements in funding higher education, that



universities may feel to admit more students and have lower

standards, and there is concern too that universities and

their staff may feel increasing pressure to award more

favorable degree results in order to remain attractive to

students.

5. Bekhradnia & Massy also pointed out a very interesting

disadvantage that refers to a wide voucher implementation

scheme, which according to the authors the Government loses

its most powerful tool for steering the higher education

system in the national interest.

In the case of the Albanian “fragile”5 higher education

system, the immediate shift of steering from the government

to the student (from public to private stakeholder) will

bring a great confusion in regards to the future of the

system.

Conclusions

Although vouches remain a serious alternative approach for

funding higher education, before implementing a large scheme

5 Fragile it is used in the context that Albanian higher education, asanalyzed in this paper also, is quite young and has been for these 20 years inthe middle of strong and difficult political and economical changes



of vouchers the Albanian Government in my opinion has to first

1. Evaluate the quality of higher education programs and

institutions; 2. Increase the quality of secondary education

in order to build a solid ground in respect to equity; 3.

Secure information to students for higher education

institutions, in regards to quality and programs they offer;

4. Secure a financial guarantee for teaching and research to

higher education institutions in order to support their

existence; 5. Guarantee equity in the system for students

coming from more disadvantage social classes;

Beside the need for initiating a different scheme of

financing higher education (like vouchers) the policy makers

have to consider that a full implementation of vouchers will

differ the landscape of Albanian higher education, where the

state is not any more a stakeholder but a spectator.

Before implementing a large scale of vouchers the policy

makers have to consider ( like Jongbloed & Koelman pointed out

) that the choice of intervention mechanisms will not be a

matter of economic theory, but also a matter of social and

political arguments. Consequently any change in funding higher

education mechanism will influence in political and social

clime of the country.



REFERENCES

Barr, N (2002), Funding Higher education Policies for Access andQuality, House of Commons Education and Skills Committee. SixthReport of Session 2001-2002 ss. 1-31

Bekhradnia & Massy (2009), Vouchers as a mechanism for funding

higher education, Higher Education Policy Institute.

Bureau of Research in Higher Education and Professional EducationAlbany (1970) Voucher System and Higher Education in New York State, TheUniversity of the State of New York

Carnoy, M (1998), National Voucher Plan in Chile and Sweden: Didprivatization reforms Make for Better Education?, ComparativeEducation Review, Vol . 42, nr 3.

Clark, B ( 1998), Entrepreneurial Pathways of UniversityTransformation & Ch. 7: The Problem of UniversityTransformation, Pergamon Press pp 127-148 .



Gogo, V ( 2007), “Ballë për Ballë për arsimine lartë” “Face to Face for highereducation”, “Koha Jone”, available athttp://www.kohajone.com/html/artikull_4930.html

Hagelund, B (2001), Higher Education in Albania, University ofCopenhagen. Faculty of Social Sciences. p. 1-24.

Instant (2009), “Instituti i Statistikes në Shqipëri” “Statistic Institute in Albania”

Jongbloed, B (2004), Funding higher education: options, trade-offs anddilemmas, CHEPS

Jongbloed, B & Koelman, J (2000), Vouchers for higher education? ,CHEPS Kleshchukova, M (2005) , Merit Based vouchers for higher education in Russia,Hedda Program McEwan, Patric J (2000), The Potential Impact of Large-Scale Voucherprograms, Teachers College, Columbia University

Musai, B (2010), “Arsimi i lartë përballë sfidës së financimit”“Higher Education facing financial challenge”

Teixeira, P.N & Johnstone, D.B. & Rosa, M.J & Vossensteyn, H,Cost – sharing and accessibility in Higher Education: A Fairer Deal?

http://www.kohajone.com/html/artikull_4930.html

HIGHER EDUCATION VOUCHERS

Documents

Transcript of HIGHER EDUCATION VOUCHERS