Contact|
Ø Education in regional or minority languages Ø Reform of higher education in the former SFRY, Kosovo and Macedonia Ø Development of a new Law on Higher Education – towards SEEU Ø SEEU: from planning to implementation Ø SEEU – the first year 2001/2002 Ø SEEU – the second year 2002/2003 Ø SEEU – the third year 2003/2004 Ø SEEU – the fourth year 2004/2005 Ø Envoi
Introduction Although SEEU is a new institution, the problem it seeks to address is not new and is universal: how to ensure access to quality higher education by under-represented groups in society. In many countries there are financial obstacles, in some poor schooling is to blame, in others parental pressure to earn money is an issue. In the Republic of Macedonia, as in other South East European countries, while all those obstacles undoubtedly exist, the main obstacle to open access is none of these: it is perceived discrimination against national minorities, despite undertakings given and commitments made by governments over many years. SEEU was established to help to redress this, within the context of a multi-ethnic setting. If it works in Macedonia, it can work elsewhere. SEEU is a model for other countries with similar problems. This introductory section describes the foundation of SEEU and how its policies have developed over the first four years of its existence, to the point where the first full cohort of graduates emerges into the wider world of employment or further study. Education in regional or minority languages SEEU set out to help to solve the problem of under-representation of Albanian-language students in higher education in Macedonia while being open to students from all ethnic groups. Some background to Macedonia’s international obligations is needed, since it was on the basis of these that the OSCE and the Council of Europe successfully argued for a change in state policy which allowed SEEU to open. In 1988, prior to the independence of Macedonia, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted Recommendation 1353(1988) on access of minorities to higher education. This says that education is a fundamental human right and therefore (sic) access to all levels, including higher education, should be equally available to all permanent residents of the states signatory to the European Cultural Convention (ECC). Macedonia acceded to the ECC in 1995, ratifying the separate European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) in 1997. The 1988 Recommendation says that member states with minorities should avoid prescribing the exclusive use of the official language. It also recognises the fundamental liberty to engage in higher education activities and to establish institutions for that purpose. Such institutions, it says, should be officially supported once their satisfactory quality has been established – on a non-discriminatory and fair basis – and a genuine demand has been demonstrated; language should not be a criterion for recognising institutions or qualifications. Albanian fits the definition of a regional or minority language in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (ECRML) (1992), which entered into force in 1998. ECRML was signed by Macedonia in 1996 but by 2005 had not been ratified so the state is at the time of writing not obliged by the Charter’s terms to promote and protect the use of Albanian in education. However, Macedonia ratified in 1998 the more comprehensive Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM) (1995), which obliges Parties to promote equal opportunities for access to education at all levels for persons belonging to national minorities. Parties are obliged, within the framework of their education system, to recognise that persons belonging to national minorities have the right to set up and manage their own private educational and training establishments, not in itself entailing any financial obligation for the state. The concept of a ‘flexible approach’ to language use, adopted by SEEU during 2002-2003 [1] , as the policy of ‘flexible use of languages’ dates back to Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Recommendation R(98)6 concerning modern languages. The Recommendation encourages teaching programmes at all levels that use a flexible approach, taking into account the ECRML and the FCPNM. The Recommendation promotes the genuine intercultural outlook encouraged by bilingual and bicultural education, and points to the need for adequate numbers of suitably trained language teachers. The ‘flexible language policies’ are also mentioned in Article 5.3 of Council of Ministers Recommendation R (98)3 on access to higher education. SEEU has faced questions about its policy to develop flexible language use in a cost-effective way, which is in line with these two Recommendations, although it became apparent over the first four years that some members of the local European diplomatic community were unaware of their contents. Reform of higher education in the former SFRY, Kosovo and Macedonia The need for assistance to the states emerging from the collapse of Soviet communism and Yugoslav socialism was recognised by the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in Recommendation 1123(1990) on practical educational assistance to Central and Eastern Europe, which gave birth to the Legislative Reform Programme for Higher Education and Research (LRP). Language teaching, provision of research material, assistance with new teaching methodologies and assistance with publications were all issues mentioned in the Recommendation. In SFR Yugoslavia, higher education was organised in the constituent Republics by the Law on Directed Education of 1985 (amended in Macedonia eight times to 1995) and the Law on Expert Titles and Academic Degrees of 1963 (amended twice to 1985). The disintegration of the SFRY into constituent republics, some seceding relatively peacefully, others with notorious and on-going violence, was accompanied by a decision of the rump FRY (Serbia and Montenegro), after revoking the quasi-autonomy of Kosovo within Serbia, to turn the previously bilingual (Serbian and Albanian) University of Prishtina into a monolingual (Serbian) institution. Higher education in their mother tongue for those of Albanian ethnicity in both Kosovo and Macedonia became an extremely hot political issue as Albanian speakers could no longer attend the University of Prishtina and movement to other successor republics became much more difficult. In Kosovo, as part of the campaign of peaceful resistance to the Serbian authorities, the Albanian University of Prishtina went ‘underground’ when the campus of the University of Prishtina was taken over by Serbs [2] . Finally at the beginning of academic year 1991/1992 nearly 30,000 Albanian students were denied access and 863 Albanian staff were dismissed for refusing to co-operate with the ‘emergency’ authorities. The self-proclaimed Republic of Kosovo passed its own Decree- Law, establishing special curricula and study programmes in the Albanian University of Prishtina [3] : the ‘underground university’ re-hired many of the displaced staff. In 1994 in Tetovo, the unofficial capital of the Albanian community in Macedonia, an initiative was launched in conjunction with staff of the underground, and technically illegal, Albanian University of Prishtina to create a new institution, the self-styled ‘Tetovo University’ (hereafter UT), a ‘citizen’s initiative’ with the ambition of becoming Macedonia’s third state university, but teaching in the Albanian language, then forbidden by the law. There is good reason to believe that at that time the type and quality of education in UT was at least on a par with that in the University of Prishtina, based on principles applicable across the former SFRY and to a large extent still present in the state sectors today. [4] However, it is also clear that the initiative was developed spontaneously as a political response to a particular situation arising in the early stages of transition of Macedonia from communism to a pluralist democracy. It remained illegal and unrecognised not only because it was developed in an unplanned way outside mainstream higher education but there were major concerns about the way it was managed. [5] The government of Macedonia determined that the establishment of UT was illegal and inciting unrest – and of course potentially destabilising the country as a strong link was made with Kosovo - and in 1994 attempted to close the initiative down by force, resulting in fatalities. [6] In the same year, when UT began to take shape, a multilateral international delegation including Council of Europe, OSCE, UNESCO and other UN agencies warned the Macedonian government of the danger posed by the increasing radicalisation of the issue of higher education. Having failed to achieve the closure of UT by force, the government and its successors to 2003 took the position that it would allow the activity to continue but would not recognise the ‘University’, its teachers, its students or its diplomas (thus leaving several hundred young people with technically worthless qualifications by the time the issue was resolved in 2004/5). Not only was the view taken that higher education should be available only in the state language (Macedonian), as indeed provided by the Constitution – apparently even after signing the FCPNM - but also that the education offered was of low quality and unlikely to be recognised internationally. As a result, before SEEU opened its doors in late 2001, the age participation rate for access by those of Albanian ethnicity to recognised higher education compared to that expected on the basis of population was, as reported by OECD, extremely low by comparison to those of Macedonian ethnicity. [7] Redressing the limited opportunities for access to higher education for the Albanian-speaking national minority (until 2001 only 56% of Albanian-speaking school-leavers applied for university places in recognised institutions as opposed to 94% of the Macedonian-speaking majority) was the primary motive for the foundation of SEEU. Indeed it was also the motivation for the establishment of UT. The crucial difference between the two is that UT actively sought to be an almost exclusively ‘Albanian language’ university offering traditional courses taught in traditional ways at relatively low cost, redressing to some extent the disparity between the percentages quoted. By contrast as we shall see, SEEU was planned to be open to all, offering courses taught according to Western models, with a high quality infrastructure and with flexible use of languages, a more expensive option sustainable only through relatively high tuition fees backed by transitional donor support. The state’s response to the obvious Albanian complaints of under-representation prior to the development of the SEEU concept was to try some positive discrimination by introducing a quota system for entry of students of Albanian ethnicity to the Faculties in Skopje, to be taught of course in the Macedonian language and to establish a small programme in training primary school teachers in the Albanian language by a Law on Languages of Instruction at the Pedagogical Faculty of the University of Skopje (1998). [8] Development of a new Law on Higher Education – towards SEEU From 1996 to 1998 the government presented a series of drafts of a new higher education law to replace the old SFRY law, but maintained the position that all higher education should be conducted in the Macedonian language and all higher education, publicly funded or not, had to be approved by the government and the Parliament. Finally, in 1999, a draft law was presented which met most best practice principles in higher education, but still failed to address the language of instruction, apparently ignoring the FCPNM in specifying that only instruction in Macedonian and one of the ‘world languages’ would be allowed in either public or private institutions. Albanian did not qualify as a ‘world language’ but the government maintained that regardless of the international obligations of the state, constitutional constraints prevented Albanian from being used in public institutions, with the minor exceptions already mentioned. The then OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, HE Max van der Stoel, put forward a compromise proposal in which Albanian would be authorised to be used in ‘private’ institutions, that is, those not directly funded by the state, in pursuance, inter alia, of Recommendation 1353(1988) and the FCPNM [9] and, apparently, as permitted by the Constitution of the Republic of Macedonia, although some local experts disputed this. Having done so, early in 2000, the HCNM together with experts from the Council of Europe led by Mr James Wimberley and other international experts and consultants met the Macedonian authorities to pave the way for a non-state higher education to be opened and accredited according to internationally-recognised criteria of fair recognition of non-public higher education. [10] The HCNM invited the international experts to develop a descriptive and financial business plan for such a University which would meet the political expectations of the ethnic Albanian leadership and conform to generally accepted standards in higher education in Europe. The compromise formula supported by the coalition government of the day, with the strong personal support of Mr Arben Xhaferi, leader of the Democratic Party of Albanians (DPA), was embedded in the text of the draft law with some changes to reflect the concerns of the international community which would be expected to fund the start-up costs of the new University. These included the nature of the financial guarantees to be given, the appointment of staff by international experts as well as local experts and a measure to allow students currently enrolled in UT to present their credentials for evaluation to enter the new institution with advanced standing, a concept which of course would place great strain on the new University and was intended to lead to the disappearance of the old one in an orderly manner. Eventually, within a period of four years or so, it was hoped that the new University would take its place as a predominantly Albanian but nevertheless multi-ethnic and multi-lingual institution as part of a reformed Macedonian state higher education system. Its successes would ‘rub off’ on the other universities. Unsurprisingly, the leadership of UT were not satisfied with the compromise moderated by the OSCE and Council of Europe and insisted that the law should recognise its institution as an Albanian language State University on a par with the two existing Macedonian language State Universities. In the context of the politics of the time, this was simply not going to happen, nor was it a logical conclusion that the UT initiative which had unclear financing, un-audited enrolments and uncertain quality should simply be converted into a state-funded institution. The law was passed in July 2000 and the draft business plan for the new University was completed in September 2000. The working, and eventually confirmed, title was South East European University, now generally referred to in English as ‘SEE University at Tetovo’. So it was that SEEU as a great experiment not only in resolving an old Balkan quarrel but also introducing new ideas and methods of higher education was planned, initially at least, to operate under Macedonian law as a private university in the public interest, for academic and social imperatives rather than for economic ones. [11] However, as we shall see, the planned orderly transition did not happen. The continued reluctance of successive governments to help to secure access to quality higher education by adopting the orderly transition from an old, fragmented, system to a new, streamlined and coordinated one, seems to the outside observer unfamiliar with the complexities of Macedonian state politics, somewhat misguided. Instead of helping to resolve the issue the governments of successive different political persuasions and coalitions arguably made it worse. Firstly they failed to resolve the difficult problem of the UT citizen’s initiative over a ten year period. [12] Secondly they placed obstacles in the path of the internationally-moderated solution, illustrated by the long delayed recognition of SEEU as a university. [13] Finally, after a change of regime, there was a political decision in early 2004 to transform the previously illegal UT, which had struggled on with amazing tenacity, into a new State University of Tetovo (SUT), with obviously inadequate resources. SEEU meanwhile continued to make great strides towards a high quality institution of regional importance, a fact recognised by the government and all political parties in Macedonia. SEEU: from planning to implementation With some difficulty, the draft business plan for the new ‘private’ university set out to reconcile the prescriptive provisions of the Law on Higher Education with modern, flexible, European higher education practice, becoming more important following the rapidly developing interest, in the countries signatory to the ECC, of the Bologna Declaration signed in 1999. It was quite clear that if Macedonia wished to become involved in that process [14] then over time the rigid provisions of the Law would have to be adapted. SEEU would follow many modern practices from the start, including credit accumulation and eventual transfer, modern interactive teaching methods, teaching in Albanian, Macedonian and English languages and offering students campus facilities, both academic and non-academic that were easy to use and helpful in promoting a multi-cultural, multilingual environment. The new University would struggle to meet the licensing requirements of the new Law for high staffing levels on opening [15] even though enrolment in the first year would be modest. It would be a non-profit institution with recurrent income almost entirely from tuition fees apart from, in addition to the first two phases of capital provision, some transitional international recurrent funding to enable it to break even in about four to five years with 2800 students and an academic staff/student ratio of about 1:22. [16] In fact, as we shall see, the University’s growth was very much larger than anticipated, reaching 5300 students in 2004/5, while the large projected transfers from UT did not materialise, as political pressure grew from 2001 leading eventually to changes in the constitution and the Law on Higher Education to allow public institutions to teach in Albanian. The subject spread of the new University was deliberately restricted to the ‘socio-economic sciences’ based not only on financial constraints – it was considered far too expensive to start with hard science, engineering or medicine for example – but also on criteria worked out by international experts as follows:
The new university would be a unitary institution rather than the traditional Yugoslav loose collection of Faculties. A transitional governance system was put in place, essentially centrally managed while the University developed a structure reflecting contemporary European ‘new public management’ models combining institutional autonomy and academic freedom with a strong but accountable management structure. It took about a year from opening for the University to adopt its first Statute, which was again revised in late 2004. However, from the beginning the University was committed to the objects and aims which are set out at the beginning of the Statute: The SEE University (‘the University’) will (i) pursue excellence in teaching and research; (ii) be open to all on the basis of equity and merit regardless of ethnicity; (iii) actively seek co-operation with other universities, both in the Republic of Macedonia and in South East Europe as a whole and will have as its main aims: (i) to contribute to the solution of the problem of Albanian language higher education; (ii) to promote inter-ethnic understanding; (iii) to ensure a multilingual and multicultural approach to teaching and research; and (iv) to develop its teaching programme in a broad international and European perspective. Once the business plan had been adopted, it was presented in late 2000 to potential donor representatives who supported the idea of setting up a foundation in Western Europe to collect funding and provide management support. [17] The leadership of the project would be set up in Macedonia with a subsidiary legal structure. The HCNM appointed the governing board of the foundation (the SEEU Foundation Switzerland) from higher education personalities with experience in SEE countries. A final meeting to agree the detail of the business plan was held in November 2000 and the broad outline of the academic structure was agreed, to include five Faculties and two ‘Higher Schools.’ [18] Some differences of view arose between local experts and external experts particularly on the nature of the ‘Communications’ Faculty; it was agreed that computer sciences would not stand alone but be considered part of an internationally-oriented communications studies in a renamed Faculty of Communications Sciences and Technologies. [19] The Board of the SEEU Foundation Switzerland held its constitutive meeting in late November 2000. [20] The local Foundation created by the Swiss foundation held its first meeting in January 2001. [21] A two day planning meeting was held in February 2001 in Ohrid of local and international experts to focus on the details of the curriculum, [22] followed by a ceremony at the site [23] at which the Prime Minister of Macedonia, the HCNM and others spoke. A General Project Report, required for accreditation, was prepared following this weekend. Meanwhile the architectural concept had been approved by the SEEU Foundation Switzerland, independently reviewed and in March the contracts were awarded. [24] Work started on site on 3 April 2001 with a target completion date of September using prefabricated construction. Developments in 2001 The local foundation met for the second time on April 1, at a time of rising tensions and outbreak of hostilities in the region. The local foundation proposed to increase curricular offerings with art, music and physical education. The following day the international foundation Board decided to examine the proposals for art and music but to postpone discussion on physical education. A second donors meeting took place on 10 April, the donors noting progress to date and expressing support for alerting the government to the need to expedite administrative procedures, including the issuance of a final construction permit and a waiver of duties and value-added tax on imported goods and services under the project. Funding was received from a number of sources, by far the largest individual contribution being that of the United States, which gave a total of USD 17m, at a time when the dollar was fairly strong against the Euro in which other donations were expressed. Some conditions were attached, all of which were complied with over time. A total of €36.1m funding was sought of which about €20.5 m was for infrastructure and inventory, €2.6m for start up costs and €13m for capital investment. This was not all achieved and some donors preferred to give donations in kind, or for scholarships, rather than for buildings, equipment or staff, requiring some reductions in the construction budget. [25] In effect, the donations were used almost entirely for buildings, equipment, covering start-up deficits and costs, and paying international staff salaries during the first three years. The original plan for an endowment was unworkable due to the University’s rapid expansion and the deficit on planned budget. A main staffing commission chaired by Dr Dennis Farrington, a member of the International Foundation, consisting of experts from Macedonia, Croatia, Portugal and the United States, handled the applications for employment arising from advertisements placed in the international and local press in March/April 2001. About 500 applications were received, and some 80 candidates invited for interview, in Tetovo, Prishtina, New York and Zurich in July and August, at the height of the civil disturbances in Macedonia. The report of the main commission formed part of the general project report to be submitted to the Accreditation Board once that body had been constituted and defined its rules of procedure. SEEU was the first institution to submit an application to the Accreditation Board. The report contained details of the proposed curriculum. After some research and testing in Tetovo, a decision on a form of placement test for English, which would be the sole ‘entrance test’ administered in 2001 and 2002, was taken in June 2001. The general report was then submitted to the Accreditation Board on 26 June, with a hearing on 23 July – final approval was given on 2 October. A positive reception by the Accreditation Board allowed the University to register applications, which had been coming in since June. The figures for school-leavers were almost exactly in line with predictions. Part of the planning for the new University was the expectation that it would accept a large number of transfers from UT under a provision in the Law of Higher Education allowing students from that initiative to be considered for transfer to a recognised institution by 31 December 2001. This was a bold step for the new University, since it implied that once the students’ level of achievement had been assessed, courses would be provided at second, third or even fourth year level to enable such transferees to graduate early. At one stage it was anticipated that up to 1400 students would transfer. In fact only about 150 did so in the first year, and a handful thereafter, being outnumbered later by transfers from other recognised institutions. There were several reasons for this: firstly that the number of students attending UT was always overstated, secondly there had been displacement and emigration during hostilities, thirdly many of the students were in fact ‘overspill’ from the strained higher education systems of Kosovo and Albania, hoping to return with advanced standing to their own countries, and last but by no means least, political loyalties. It took at least two years for SEEU to be accepted as a permanent, high quality institution: during this time a regular barrage of invective was directed at the University and its staff and students from the nearby UT and amplified in the local media. [26] During the summer hostilities in 2001, construction had to be suspended for a short while [27] and other preparatory work shifted to Zurich, at additional expense. A Catalogue setting out the curriculum and the transitional rules and regulations of the University was prepared and approved, along with a financial report, when the International Foundation Board met again after the cessation of hostilities in September 2001. The then President of the Board had played a key role in the negotiation of the ‘Ohrid’ Framework Agreement which brought the hostilities to an end and set in train changes in the constitution and laws of Macedonia which would in due course radically change the background to the University’s creation. [28] The first phase of transition from the International Foundation structure to a fully autonomous university with its own Statute came with the signature of an Agreement between the two Foundations creating an entity called the ‘Joint Boards’ which governed the University until the first Statute was adopted in September 2002, with an understanding, subsequently honoured, that this would be reviewed within two years. While reserving some functions to the International Foundation, the Agreement provided the framework for the eventual settlement of the perplexing legal question of the status of the University in Macedonia, as the government, the University’s own legal advisers and the Accreditation Board all realised that its legal personality was sui generis in Macedonian law. [29] In the summer of 2001, USAID offered to sponsor a $3m US-Macedonia Linkage Programme with the University in addition to the US contribution of $17m. As there were technically no members of staff of the University, only representatives of the International Foundation took part in drafting the requirements for the programme and in the selection process, which was carried out in the United States. The award was made to Indiana University (IU), which committed to providing assistance in the areas of curriculum and IT development, as well as pedagogical training for teachers of English as a second language. [30] Staff appointed by IU started on site as soon as the US government lifted its travel ban to Tetovo, in November 2001. A full description of IU’s involvement appears in the Appendices. Once the Accreditation Board had granted accreditation on 2 October 2001, the University could begin to register students. While the law also required that the Minister of Education register the University officially before students could be enrolled, a temporary permission to operate was given; inexplicably, final registration was not granted until mid-2003. [31] SEEU – the first year 2001/2002 Classes opened on 29 October 2001, but the on-site management of the University, the IT facilities and the residences did not operate until early the following year, as there was delay in connecting telephones, in completing some building work and in obtaining operating permission for some facilities. The first semester was therefore somewhat of a ‘hand to mouth’ operation, with English classes taking up the bulk of the timetable. [32] Finally, during early February 2002, the offices transferred to the site, the systems were operational and the first semester ended in a more organised way. Unsurprisingly, given the difficult conditions, very few non-Albanian speakers joined the first year. Until later in 2002, travel between Skopje and Tetovo was along a dangerous, half-completed motorway, frequently interrupted by roadblocks, accidents or other incidents and it is a credit to all that teaching took place in a relatively calm, pioneering spirit atmosphere. Meanwhile on 20 November 2001, following the first formal meeting of the Joint Boards on the previous day, the University was formally inaugurated; the date, or one close to it, remains the official University day. At the Joint Boards meeting Mr van der Stoel reported that following the ‘Ohrid’ agreement, 15 constitutional changes had been adopted by the Parliament but there remained considerable internal tensions. In return for securing the support of one of the Albanian parties for the required 2/3 majority in Parliament, it had been agreed that discussions would take place towards solving the problem of UT, in particular the position of the students. It had been agreed that consultations with representatives of UT would take place led by the Ambassador of the EU and Mr van der Stoel on behalf of OSCE. Among other proposals was a further expansion of SEEU and the resulting transfer of more students. It had also been suggested that the state should assist with the financing of trainee teachers who would be employed in publicly-funded schools. The speakers at the Opening Ceremony included representatives of the President of the Republic, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe and IU, the new High Commissioner for National Minorities of OSCE (HE Ambassador Rolf Ekeus), the Mayor of Tetovo, the Rector, Ms Yllza Mustafa representing the students, and of course HE Max van der Stoel, who gave the main address. After some problems organising the local administration, Dr Dennis Farrington was appointed Secretary-General, a post he held at a distance until taking up full-time appointment on 1 February 2002. [33] Almost at once SEEU had to decide what to do about recruiting the next year of students, in the continuing uncertainty about what would happen at UT. Initial plans for advertising, an Open Day – an unusual event in the region - and admissions procedures were drawn up in early February. In parallel was a review of the first year curriculum based on experience with the first students and the projected large increase in October 2002. The review occupied much time between March and June, and the revised curriculum, with a common first semester except in teacher training, was approved in time for the new academic year. Among other things the review recognised the needs, based on experience, (i) to increase and integrate ‘approaches and methods’ training into the curriculum and to increase provision of this training in local languages, (ii) to reduce contact hours in year 1 accompanied by an increase in student-centred learning using the new University Intranet and (iii) to address a missing broad educational base for student learning, in particular basic knowledge of law, economics, human rights, computing science and human communication useful to all graduates. The new curriculum was planned as a transition to the eventual adoption of the Bologna Process goals in Macedonia. At the same time SEEU faced a new challenge which would in the event occupy many hours of time and effort, and a great deal of money: the so-called Feasibility [and Implementation] Study. The objective formulated by the SEEU Foundation Switzerland in April 2002 [34] was to have a relatively speedy, independent review of the initial achievements of, and future policy options for, the university so that donors, in particular the EU, could determine whether, how and for what purpose to allocate new funding. Many discussions had taken place about whether the University should move into the ‘hard’ science area, or concentrate on developing socio-economic sciences and humanities. The Study was planned in the spring of 2002 and formally commissioned later that year with a view to completion within a few months. It was proposed that the Study would formulate an action programme which would contribute to the fulfilment of the mission statement of the University, assess the costs of this programme and in general assess its operational (that is the institutional, academic and financial) feasibility. Assessing financial feasibility should concentrate on ensuring sustainability and include solicitation of preliminary quotes in line with that focus. [35] There is reference to the outcome of the Study later in this introduction. The first academic year ended a few weeks later than planned due to the late start the previous October and all the site problems. SEEU – the second year 2002/2003 About 1400 students were admitted to the University in October 2002, again without taking entrance examinations beyond an English placement test. The continued uncertainty about UT led the University to admit more students than originally planned, which caused severe scheduling problems. However the new first year and the start of semester 3 went ahead as quickly as possible. The success of the first year and the huge interest in admissions in the second gave rise to a series of discussions and debates ending with SEEU’s first attempt at a strategic plan, presented to the University Board in May 2003. This advised the Board that there would be an urgent need for short-term action to deal with the expected demand for new student entry in October 2003. The Rectorate took the view that the University had had a successful start and was already making its impact on higher education in Macedonia and the region. Initial resistance to the project from some sections of the community had been overcome through a process of constructive, patient dialogue and a step-by-step, carefully considered, approach to a multi-ethnic programme of teaching and flexible use of languages: in short, a complete U-turn in public opinion with media coverage of the University at its most positive level ever. The European focus of the University’s programmes was being strengthened and would continue to be the core of the University’s efforts. Major developments were planned in academic linkage programmes with a number of European universities. It had been hoped that the outcome of the Feasibility Study would play a major role in planning at that stage. However, since the Study was commissioned in April 2002, a number of important changes had occurred, notably the election of a new Government, the formal acceptance of the University, and the much-increased collaboration with European universities. Nevertheless the application of a fresh set of minds to the issues remained a valuable initiative. However by the time the Study was expected to present its formal report in June/July 2003 it would be too late to influence decision-making for the coming year [36] and decisions would in any event be taken by the University itself. Access to higher education for disadvantaged groups was being encouraged through a scholarship programme based on donations from Norway, Austria, the UK and the US and the establishment of a separate scholarship fund by The Netherlands and the Open Society Institute. Some smaller scholarship funds had already been provided by France, Canada and Germany. The reforms in curriculum led to a more gradual introduction to higher education through flexible first year studies and remedial work. As Macedonia built up its secondary level education with international assistance, and the transition between secondary, vocational and higher education took place in a more seamless way, a gradual, properly-resourced and quality-led expansion to a regional University of ca. 5,000 students by 2005 and 10,000 by 2010 was considered possible within a co-ordinated policy for higher education. The following main principles governed SEEU’s planning and underpinned reforms in the higher education system in the Republic of Macedonia: playing a part in improving access to higher education for all citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, particularly groups under-represented in the system; delivering higher education to international quality standards through a programme of curriculum development and reform, staff development and international links; helping to devise a modern, transparent and manageable system of financing higher education through a mixture of public and private funding; and collaborating with other institutions nationally and regionally to achieve these aims. The University was by this time an integral part of the higher education system of the Republic of Macedonia, although funded entirely through fees and donations and thus still attracting the description (or pejorative epithet) ‘private.’ [37] All its courses were nationally accredited and it had finally been registered as a university under the provisions of the Law on Higher Education. [38] It was actively engaged in collaborative projects and planning with the two existing public Universities (Skopje and Bitola), with other regional institutions in Kosovo, Bulgaria, Albania and Greece and was extending its network of contacts outside the region. Formal collaboration agreements had been signed with the Universities of Nantes and Angers (France) and planning was at an advanced stage to complete agreements with universities in other European countries. It remained the Rectorate’s opinion that provided there was government commitment to resolve the future of higher education in an integrated way, SEEU should declare itself ready to become the nucleus of a ‘state’ or ‘mixed-enterprise’ university, funded by a mixture of private (mainly student fees) and public monies. However it should be a pre-condition that all universities adopted reforms consistent with full acceptance into the European Higher Education Area, the adoption of the ECTS, internationally-moderated quality assurance systems and cost-effective governance structures (the most important reform being a redefinition of the respective roles of universities and faculties consistent with the advice offered on several occasions by the Council of Europe). There should also be a clear understanding of how different ethnic groups in Macedonia would secure access on merit to the full range of academic subjects and how the transition between school and different forms of tertiary education was managed. How the UT initiative could be co-opted to this system was obviously a matter of great sensitivity but not impossible to resolve given political backing. Following the conclusion of the ‘Ohrid’ agreement, constitutional changes and the general election, the new government was technically in a position to consolidate the higher education system through a systematic plan for its future development, as was being undertaken for example in Kosovo and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Such a plan would first identify the needs of the Macedonian economy and society for personnel trained to tertiary education level, then evaluate how those needs could be accomplished and, crucially, funded within a timeframe of, say, seven years, consistent with Macedonia’s accession to the EHEA and possibly to the EU. This would certainly involve amendments to the Law on Higher Education, involve some restructuring and reconfiguring of existing provision, would require a fresh approach to higher education funding, including further requests for transitional aid. It would also require a solution to be found for UT. The open admission policy pursued by SEEU so far was not without its critics and its disadvantages. In 2003 the higher education system of Macedonia sought to meet domestic demands for post-secondary education (both academic and vocational) for approximately half of the school-leaving population. In addition it received a small number of students from outside its borders. It was clear from the experiences of all higher education institutions in Macedonia, including now SEEU, that a significant number of students was under-qualified for university education on entry, resulting both in a high attrition rate or an extended period attending university. [39] The purpose of changing the first year curriculum in 2002 was to make a first step at easing the transition but further steps would be needed, including the possibility of introducing a transitional year or at the very least an active summer school. As it was, the level of attrition would be rather higher than is the norm in ‘selective’ higher education systems in the West, although not high for the former Yugoslavia. It was considered essential that any plan for higher education also consider the implications for secondary education. It was time to give some further detailed consideration to the question of languages of teaching and learning. As pointed out earlier, in Macedonia, teaching in the state universities is largely conducted in Macedonian, with some limited provision in Albanian and, naturally, in international languages. There is no doubt that this placed a question-mark around the quality of courses, since there is relatively little textual material in Macedonian (Serbian having been a lingua franca until the early 1990’s) and not much more in Albanian. Some English language training takes place but not in any way comparable with the intensive courses offered to all SEEU students who do not already possess the skills. SEEU set out from the start to make it possible for its graduates to be more employable within Europe and more widely by offering academic skills training in a modern international language, starting with English as one of the official languages of the EU. The purpose of the language programme was to assist students to acquire language skills for the purpose of easing access to international texts, online resources and teaching by visiting speakers, or enhanced international faculty, from Semester 5. It emphasised, through progression from basic skills to special purpose language training, the importance of acquiring a high level of oral and written competence of the relevant language for those wishing to enter internationally oriented fields of employment. However, there is a crucial difference between this arrangement and one in which teaching is conducted exclusively or mainly in English, as in some other non-state institutions in Central and Eastern Europe. When SEEU first opened, it was a focus of criticism locally that almost all teaching was EFL given by the Language Centre, ignoring the majority Albanian language and indeed Macedonian as the then official state language. SEEU had worked hard to dispel that impression, while giving due prominence to the importance of students developing useful language skills. While EFL would be available, either through the core curriculum or through elective courses, to all students throughout their University studies, it would not be at the expense of professional courses required by students to satisfy the requirements for accredited diplomas, nor would it be at the expense of developing academic skills in the local languages. Further discussion of this complex issue was put aside for a year. Local staff benefited from faculty development and curricula advice given by EFL professional staff, with the expectation of UK-trained staff joining the existing IU team, and would build up skills from projects organised in co-operation with the British Council. A programme would be maintained in which all students except those already possessing a relatively high level of competence undertook 4 hours per week core time English instruction, with a graduated increase, without further credit being awarded, for those requiring remedial instruction. Students who had already demonstrated competence in English would have the option, within available resources, of learning French, German or Italian. From 2003-2004, as the linkage programmes with France and other European countries built up, it was the intention to offer all students who wish to specialise in a modern international language other than English the alternative approach to reach an equivalent standard in French, German or possibly Italian. This would be made possible through a range of programmes being finalised with the respective governments and universities 2003, after only one full year of operation of the University, was a difficult time to be making any long-term decisions about the future development of the University. That it was being discussed at all was a tribute to the skill and commitment of the senior staff. The issue of UT continued to dominate the political agenda. Some solution had to be found in which best use could be made of limited funding to produce a system of fair open access to higher education acceptable to all parties. There was a range of possibilities. The plan included for the first time an outline budget for the following three years based on actual income and expenditure to date and some review of the original assumptions. It showed a continuing deficit on operation which stabilised at about the amount which would have been generated if the SEEU Foundation Switzerland had received the total international support requested. Although of course it was calculated on the basis of experience, regardless of detail it demonstrated the accuracy of the original planning carried out by May Group Public Project Ltd. It was hoped that a combination of state funding and/or donations would eliminate the planned deficits. However the University could not wait for the finalisation of any radical plan of restructuring to prepare itself for an anticipated 1200-1400 new admissions from an application base expected to exceed 2000 in academic year 2003/4, based on some form of entrance testing backed by a scholarship fund. Operating on an extended teaching period of 0800 to 1800 (which met resistance from students and staff), its buildings would still be inadequate to cope with the numbers, given the more concentrated emphasis on small group teaching to address deficiencies in academic skills presented on entry. Building work using more traditional (and therefore less expensive) methods of construction had therefore commenced in March 2003, using up most of the remaining donated funds. A further extension of facilities would be required in October 2004 but it was hoped that the outcome of the restructuring plan would be known well in advance of that date. In broad outline, the University had to construct twenty new classrooms in five four-classroom blocks or equivalent, with a longer-term plan to construct a new Computer Centre to provide secure accommodation for the main computer servers and ancillary equipment. As discussion progressed, the Rectorate developed the original concept into four blocks, one providing the essential facilities for a Language Centre (the first of the two required ‘Higher Schools’) concentrating teaching, staff and resources in one area, and three multi-use blocks for small group work. The University would also at some point over the next two years have to construct more social space by extending or replacing and recycling the existing multi-purpose hall and at least four more student houses, probably two at a time. The student houses and probably the hall extension could be funded through borrowing, as both would be income-generating, although there was much greater risk in funding the housing this way as the loan period would be much longer. The essential expansion of the University facilities had to be considered as a key early potential outcome of the Feasibility Study. In addition there remained the difficult question of hard sciences. The University Boards had always taken the view that SEEU could not sustain even minor programmes in traditional hard science disciplines without massive capital funding for well-found laboratories for teaching, let alone any meaningful research. Even commencing studies within the PMT Faculty would require funding well beyond anticipated resources. It is in this area that particular care had to be taken within the overall plan for higher education in Macedonia. The laboratories in the state universities were not well-equipped. The existence of any viable facilities at UT was scarcely credible. One possibility might be to concentrate activity, and funding, on the development of biotechnology teaching and research on the boundary between aquatic biology and computing, possibly in conjunction with one or more Albanian universities, pursuant to the EU strategy for developing this field on a regional basis. Both Macedonia and Albania have some potential for developing commercial activities from their natural resources in Lake Ohrid and elsewhere: there is worldwide experience developed from the UK in improving access to fish as a cheap source of protein. There is also a vital need for developing environmental studies. The facilities could also be used to train teachers in chemistry and biology for the classroom. The difficulty of recruiting and retaining suitable academic staff in any discipline was not to be under-estimated. It would be some years before SEEU’s first students were able to graduate to the ranks of university teachers. A ‘brain-drain’ from Kosovo, Albania or other parts of Macedonia would not be in anyone’s interests. The University’s strategy was to develop the skills of existing younger staff so that they would be able to form the nucleus of the future senior staff. As a transitional measure, the University was trying to increase the number of European academic staff willing to spend an extended period in Tetovo, while continuing the policy of inviting lecturers for shorter visits. Budgetary provision for this was very limited, so efforts were being made to increase donations for this purpose. It was also taking advantage of funds made available to send a small number of younger staff to the United States of America for postgraduate training, and hoped to be able to arrange similar programmes with European countries. Advantage would also be taken of the continuing faculty development elements of the SEEU-IU linkage programme which entered its third and final year, and of which the US training of junior staff formed part. The University had also to seek somehow to stimulate and promote research and to start postgraduate courses, probably in collaboration with other institutions. Another lengthy discussion concerned quality assurance. One of the key expressed intentions of the University was to deliver higher education to European-wide recognised standards. There are various aspects to this including institutional and course evaluation, accreditation, faculty development and training and applying appropriate sanctions to students. A first step was taken to institutional self-evaluation by the formation of a Working Group of the Senate charged with making recommendations on the process. A rolling programme of course evaluation would be a part of this, and new on-line student evaluations would be an important input. [40] Faculty development has already been mentioned. Students whose cumulative grade point average [41] failed to meet the SEE University standard for academic progress were be placed on ‘academic probation,’ a temporary status lasting no longer than one semester. At that time, 303 of 2253 students were on academic probation. [42] The University had embarked on a progressive programme of collaboration with other universities, starting in the immediate area with the Universities of Prishtina, Skopje and Bitola and then gradually widening the circle to include universities in Albania, Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria and Turkey. It had also started work on collaboration with universities in a range of European countries, adding to the agreements with the Universities of Nantes and Angers in France, expecting to conclude further agreements with Universities in Austria, Switzerland, The Netherlands and the UK. Discussions were also in train with institutions in Denmark, Norway and Sweden and initial steps had been taken to invite collaboration with institutions in Italy. Discussions had been held with the German Rectors’ Conference and some co-operation had started including provision of texts and participation of students in training programmes in Germany. By the end of the session many of these would have been finalised and would be operative from the next session. Four TEMPUS projects had been submitted in the then current round and at least three were planned for the next round. Considerable work had been going on in the region to develop and modernise curricula and to reform higher education provision in the context of adoption of ECTS and accession to the Bologna process. The World Bank/UNMIK project in Kosovo had produced a range of reforms including modernising of the Law curriculum (which was broadly in line with that of SEEU), introducing a more cost-effective management structure and promoting quality assurance systems. A number of Council of Europe and/or EUA projects were under way in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. Representatives of the University were engaged in discussions with the Council of Europe and individual Ministries of Education in the region about hosting a regional (Balkans) conference on co-ordinating a number of aspects of higher education provision. This would include comparative work on curriculum development, quality assurance, recognition of qualifications, staff and student exchanges. [43] Further afield, SEEU continued its fruitful link with Indiana University and would explore further possibilities for links with Universities globally. A key but extremely delicate issue was how SEEU would select students for entry in 2003/2004 from what was expected to be a massively increased demand from all sectors of the population and before either there was a state level Matura examination or there was any clear understanding of the future development of higher education in Macedonia. Work was well in hand on a computer-based aptitude test to be held in June. In principle initial selection would be made on merit according to a broad indication of the resources available to teach in each Faculty (although not tied to this, most students have a good idea what they want to study when they enrol) and according to the priority set out in the original catalogue, that is all other things being equal, to groups under-represented in higher education as shown in the official statistics. In order to try to ensure equality of treatment between those of Albanian ethnicity (most but not all of whom have some understanding of Macedonian) and those of Macedonian ethnicity (few of whom have knowledge of Albanian) SEEU would aim to take the first 1200 students on the basis of an application which took account of their performance at school leaving and their performance in an aptitude test which requires different levels of ability in languages depending on initial subject choice. A further 200-300 places would then be filled by students successfully completing special programmes over the summer, to address deficiencies in language or mathematics. In practice this limited the number of students of Macedonian ethnicity, reflecting the imbalance in admission figures quoted earlier but it would not be appropriate, nor in compliance with the University’s declared policies, to establish any formal quota beyond a broad statement that it would not anticipate students of non-Albanian ethnicity being in a majority. The availability of scholarship funding would then be linked to admission and a programme for doing this effectively was being developed with the Open Society Institute and the Embassy of The Netherlands. [44] The University Senate adopted a target for admission of 1400-1500 students, with nominal quotas as follows:
All students offered admission would also be offered the opportunity to apply for scholarships. This somewhat complex procedure was likely to result in most offers being confirmed and students registering towards the end of September. The report for the year, presented to the University Board in summer 2003, indicated slow progress with the Feasibility Study originally conceived in April 2002 as providing an analysis for the SEEU Foundation Switzerland of the possibility of expanding into the Life Sciences. This had been reconfigured into an analysis of how the University could contribute further to increasing access for under-represented groups in Macedonia in the context of regional co-operation and to adapt the University's business plan accordingly. It served the dual purpose of advising the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) to release its earmarked €2m for the University's endowment and for advising the University on future developments. The selected consultants (OECD/IMHE) had commenced work in Macedonia in February and March 2003, almost a year behind the original schedule; the final report being anticipated at the end of October 2003. [45] Unfortunately the timescale for the Study was so far extended from the original plan that many of the issues on which it was expected to give advice were overtaken by events, either political developments, or the University pressing on with its agenda in a much more active way than was possible earlier. The University could not wait to extend the campus, could not put off finalising collaborations with other universities in Europe and could not fail to react to the proposals of the Government as they developed towards higher education in general and the future of UT in particular. [46] The UT issue had come on to centre stage again with the announcement by the Government that steps would be taken to legalise it and bring it within the framework of recognised higher education. During the Feasibility Study, further details emerged of the estimated number of students and staff and the academic facilities. The main Albanian political party in the new coalition government (the Democratic Union for Integration – DUI) had stated that SEEU was not sufficient to provide an adequate number of places in higher education for Albanians. That was probably true, although the tendency to phrase comments negatively and not to explain what was really meant by ‘higher education’ (i.e. did it include vocational higher education) was not particularly helpful. The leadership of UT had expressed the view that SEEU was ‘not serious’ which was unnecessarily confrontational, apart from being untrue. SEEU had consistently maintained the position that it supported the legalisation of UT and recognition of higher education offered by it on condition that it operated to the same standards as were required of SEEU and the state universities by the Ministry of Education and Science and the Licensing and Accreditation Board. [47] As pointed out above, discussions aimed at resolving the unrecognised status of UT had continued unsuccessfully over the years since 1994 and it was only in mid-2003 that a positive move had been made to bring it into the mainstream higher education system. In July 2003 the Parliament of Macedonia adopted amendments to the Law on Higher Education of 2000 which as noted above had opened the possibility of higher education in the Albanian language, provided it was offered in non-state institutions. The amendments, which in part reflected the terms of the Ohrid Agreement of 2001, [48] opened the possibility of recognition and accreditation of UT as a state university (SUT). A proposal for legalisation of the institution, leading to a recommendation to the Parliament to create a third state university, would be followed by a detailed analysis of the conditions which might lead to accreditation and recognition, including the extent to which the proposed academic programmes might overlap with those at existing universities. It was anticipated in the autumn of 2003 that this process would take several months, involving inspection of buildings and facilities, investigation of finances, verification of staff qualifications and approval of curricula. As at the end of September 2003, the proposal for the future SUT, stated in a draft Law, involved four Faculties: 1. Law 2. Economics 3. Human Sciences and Art with four study programmes: Philosophy and Sociology, History and Geography, Music and Art, Languages and Literature (English, Albanian, Macedonian); it was anticipated that this would in fact aim to prepare school teachers in these subjects 4. Natural Sciences with three study programmes: Biology and Chemistry, Mathematics Physics and Informatics, Pharmacy and one ‘polytechnic centre’ (i.e. sub-degree level) with three study programmes: Civil Engineering, Biotechnics in Agriculture and Food, Tourism and Regional Development. The law founding SUT was finally passed in early 2004 after lengthy Parliamentary and public debate, much of it hostile to the proposal. The future of SUT, scheduled to open in October 2004, would naturally be affected by the continuing expansion of SEEU, and vice-versa. SEEU would have about 4000 regular, i.e. full-time, students in 2003/2004 and an enrolment of over 5000 was anticipated in 2004/2005. SUT might have about the same number or less. This duality was seen, at least by SEEU, more in terms of collaboration than direct competition. SEEU offered novel, European-oriented subjects such as Communications Sciences and Public Administration, in which SUT would not be a competitor. Likewise, Business Administration offered by SEEU was an international subject quite different to the classic Economics to be offered by SUT. The only areas in which direct competition for SUT might arise were Law and Teacher Training, which offered opportunities for collaboration not just between the two universities, but also with other universities in the region. In terms of SEEU’s future development, the opening by SEEU of ‘niche’ and cross-disciplinary subjects within existing faculties, such as software engineering, communications technologies, Web-based learning and a gradual expansion into modern life science and engineering technologies, were unaffected by the SUT proposals. Other SEEU plans to introduce add-on or graduated studies in interpreting and translation, training of public servants, graduated studies in the different Faculties, would not be impeded by the development of SUT. The projected foundation of SUT would also open the possibility of state funding for SEEU, according to Article 6.2 of the Ohrid Agreement of 2001 and the now revised Article 83 of the Law on Higher Education 2000. Without introducing direct competition, SEEU looked to the government to provide funding for its activities in areas contributing to the national interest and economy including public administration, business administration and teacher training for secondary schools. The real, although not well articulated, risk was that given the very small number of qualified staff in the region, some might be persuaded to leave SEEU and teach at SUT, or take part-time positions at both universities. The thinking was that students who could pay less at SUT to receive teaching from the same professors as at the more expensive SEEU would either transfer to SUT or never apply to SEEU. This thinking of course illustrated the tendency to categorise ‘higher education’ as a process of ‘taking exams’ based on learning material given in lectures by professors and to ignore the wider picture. SEEU – the third year 2003/2004 October 2003 saw the admission of the first cohort of students through an entrance examination. The third year started in a more organised way, although there were still considerable scheduling problems. Early in 2004 SEEU accepted an invitation from the German Rectors’ Conference and the Open Society Institute Macedonia to fund an Institutional Review by the EUA. Similar reviews were being funded for the two state universities. SEEU prepared a self-evaluation, submitted in January 2004 following approval by the Council and Senate. In the self-evaluation report, SEEU pointed out that it had worked hard to develop from a small highly managed project with relatively little sense of collegiality into an academic community which practised institutional autonomy and individual academic freedom. Of course there had been many problems, ranging from the continuing uncertainty about the final solution to the UT issue, and the effect that might have on staff and students, to defining the precise roles of the heads of the University's faculties and centres. The main problems which still faced it at that stage were
Finally in mid- 2004 SEEU, as successor to the International Foundation, received the report of the Feasibility Study. As noted earlier, the Study was not commissioned by SEEU itself, but by the Foundation. There was virtually no consultation on the proposal with the academic staff; as a result of this and the long drawn-out process of the Study itself, many issues had been resolved and many changes had occurred before the final Report, which had to be redrafted several times, was published. Appendix 2 deals with the Study itself. In practice, almost all the recommendations of the Study tied in with SEEU’s own strategic plan elaborated by the Council and Senate. In November 2004 the University awarded its first honorary doctorate to HE Max van der Stoel, and at the same time named its library the ‘Max van der Stoel Library’ in honour of its recognised founder. At the same ceremony, the first three graduates of the University, all of whom had transferred from UT, were awarded their diplomas. SEEU now proceeded to adopt a new Strategic Plan for the period to 2010. SEEU – the Strategic Plan The summary of the Strategic Plan developed over the session 2003-2004 by the Rectorate, Council and Senate and approved by the University Board in May 2004, stated that the University needed to define its future strategy in the light of developments in higher education in the Republic of Macedonia and the region, including changes in the structure of the university system in the Republic of Macedonia. In the past, mainly for political reasons, the debates on SEEU policies had tended to be superficial, particularly in questions of financial sustainability, the language issue and ‘product relevance.’ The new Strategic Plan set out to address the impact of local, regional and European developments in higher education in a more sophisticated way, taking fully into account the Bologna process and its further refinement over the following few years. Some changes in organisational structure and clear lines of development of academic strategy were proposed to adapt SEEU to the rapidly changing environment. SEEU had by this point also reached fully operational stage, so that certain changes could be made in the governance structure to align it with that found in autonomous universities but with some continued ‘international’ input. The common key element in all university strategic plans is the development of a ‘quality culture’ which underpins all academic work and is designed to ensure that the university’s offerings are fit for their intended purpose, whether that is to prepare graduates for the local, regional or global labour market or for further study. This was an important element of the new Plan. Its outline was presented to a meeting of all staff in March 2004 and all comments and observations taken into consideration. Once adopted, an edited version was produced in Albanian, Macedonian and English for distribution to the University’s donors, other stakeholders and the general public. The Plan took as read that all the four aims set out in the Statute had been realised: (i) SEEU had already more than doubled the age participation rate (APR) of members of the Albanian ethnic group in recognized higher education in Macedonia. If SEEU maintained its intake at the levels proposed in the plan, by the summer of 2005, taking into account the establishment of a third state, Albanian-language university in Tetova in 2004, there would have been a very significant narrowing of the gap in APR between the different population groups. (ii) SEEU’s contribution to inter-ethnic understanding had been based on a steady increase in the number of students from ethnic groups other than Albanian, so that the overall student population from these groups made up about 20% of the total, which was the appropriate figure taking account of the trend towards equalising the APR. SEEU had also hosted a number of conferences and debates on this topic and continued to develop academic work in the area. (iii) By a process of flexible use of languages, students had been encouraged to learn how to communicate effectively in both local languages of the region as well as in English and/or other international languages. A significant proportion of students would be able to use print and other media in the English language and receive some teaching and undertake much of their learning in English from year 3 of their studies, some before that. To be able to communicate in one or more modern international languages is a vital tool for success in the international socio-economic sciences, such as business and management, communications sciences and technologies and in the law relevant to international trade, human rights and transition to membership of the EU. This policy of language use, which should not be confused with exclusive language of instruction, was seen as a core asset of SEEU and a key issue for future development but carried major budgetary implications and needed more precisely regulation at SEEU. (iv) The number of international links was growing, from the first link with Indiana University in the United States, to a total of ten formal links at institutional level (Indiana, Tirana, Prishtina, Gazi, Nantes, Rennes I, Angers, St Gallen, Vienna, Pittsburgh), several links to individual faculties at the two Macedonian state universities and others (e.g. Tirana), and a number of other links being finalised e.g. with Maastricht School of Management. These links covered a range of issues including curriculum development, staff development and exchanges. As is very often the case, not all were adequately funded and some national and international financial support would be needed for them to operate effectively. Discussions were taking place with USAID on possible further financial assistance for links with US universities. [49] In return, in due course, SEEU hoped to be able to reciprocate by offering research opportunities and teaching exchange. (v) SEEU had also built up its own international faculty members from one in 2001 to ten in 2003 [50] and had embarked on a staff development programme for younger staff in the United States and Europe; these staff would be available to strengthen the staffing cohort in most cases in October 2004 and the remainder in October 2005. SEEU wished to retain and increase the number of international staff, in large part through enhancement of co-operation agreements with partners in Europe, the United States and other regions. SEEU recognised that the trend in teaching is away from the concept of a ‘sage on the stage’ to the ‘guide on the side’ so that teaching using one language of instruction is neither essential nor practical, in that it excludes many highly qualified and experienced professional staff who are not linguistically gifted. Nevertheless during the transition from old to new forms of learning, the input from staff trained in the new forms is a valuable asset.
As the Summary of the OECD/IMHE Feasibility Study Report states: Specifically, SEEU has met, indeed exceeded, its stated aims of contributing significantly to the solution of the problem of Albanian language higher education, providing a carefully chosen range of teaching programmes in a broad international and European perspective and ensuring a multi-cultural approach to teaching. The University has already shown national and regional leadership in its design of curricula, adoption of small group teaching and active learning modes and in the rapid creation of an attractive greenfield campus with highly functional teaching spaces appropriate to its preferred modes of teaching and learning. (our emphasis) In fact, the SEEU mission did not specifically address the ‘regional’ dimension, in part because the ‘region’ is difficult to define with any precision. Is it the Polog region of Macedonia, the Republic of Macedonia, the Albanian-speaking bordering regions and territories, the Western Balkans or the SEE region in EU terminology? Most European studies of the regional impact of universities are concerned with immediate national regions, or transnational borderless regions, as in Scandinavia, France/Germany, etc. By contrast, Macedonia is a landlocked country with national land borders, passport and customs controls and in one instance (Greece) very strict visa control. It is not the easiest place in which to undertake regional academic activity within the mobility frameworks underlying the Bologna process. For the purposes of this Plan, SEEU defined the ‘region’ as the Republic of Macedonia and its immediate neighbouring states. As discussed in the OECD/IMHE Report and elsewhere, SEEU had two broad options for future strategy: (i) To maintain its original mission as above, to continue as in 2003/2004, keeping costs and therefore fees down to a reasonable level. (ii) To develop further into a high quality, relatively high cost ‘regional’ institution specialising in modern socio-economic sciences including Business Administration, Communications and Computing Science backed up by a relevant programme of legal studies, training managers and administrators for both public and private sectors, and teachers for secondary schools in the main disciplines of our faculties. These missions were not mutually exclusive: there was a broad strategy which could be developed addressing both. SEEU had never intended to be the only source for solving the very great disparity of APR in higher education between the Macedonian, Albanian and other ethnic groups in Macedonia. Other sources included a medium-long term solution to the issue of ‘UT,’ opening of more courses taught in the Albanian language at the existing state universities, and possibly other initiatives. As already stated, SEEU had on its own more than doubled the APR for the Albanian ethnic group. By admitting a significant proportion of members of other groups, SEEU had certainly promoted inter-ethnic understanding. By flexible use of languages it had adopted multilingual and multicultural approaches to teaching and research and by collaborating with other universities in Europe and the US it had developed its teaching programme in a broad international perspective. Continuing with this mission with continued development of first and second cycle degrees in socio-economic sciences, was certainly one way forward. SEEU could stabilise as a relatively small, specialised, high quality institution offering a good alternative to the three state institutions. By admitting more students from outside the borders of Macedonia, particularly Albanian speakers from Kosova and Albania, and any students wishing to pursue second cycle degrees in English, the University could maintain and develop its original ‘internationalised’ mission on a regional basis: in current parlance ‘glocalised’. Developing regional activity beyond that probably required some element of inter-governmental co-operation, but there is a varying political commitment in the wider SEE region to address issues of regional disparities and incorporate an extra- territorial dimension to higher education policy. The policy of wider regionalisation required the development of a common understanding of the mutual interests of universities and regions but this appeared to be difficult even within the state borders of the Republic of Macedonia. There was little attempt outside SEEU to communicate to regional ‘stakeholders’ (businesses, professions etc) what higher education is about. SEEU could not by itself afford to enhance institutional capacity to respond to regional needs and to shape the trajectory of territorial development. The E-BIZ initiative promoted by USAID is an example of something that could be done on a small scale to promote links with the ‘region’ but in this case the region was Polog. Discussions on the Plan recognised that SEEU would face competition or at least be operating in a revised environment, not only due to the foundation of SUT. The existing state universities were improving the quality of their offerings following on the EUA institutional evaluations and Macedonia’s accession to the Bologna process (B |
History