Rethinking the financing of post-compulsory education

Abstract

Throughout the world, the .financing of education is in a state of crisis, a condition made even more acute by the simultaneous appearance of a doctrinal crisis with regard to the ends and the utility of education. For European higher education, the situation calls for the diversification of funding mechanisms. The public authorities, which up until now have borne most of the burden of higher education financing, must transfer a goodly portion of the burden to users, i.e., students and parents, and to the private sector. Various methods for financial diversification are explored as well as different formulae for user-financing.

Towards a public policy for the research university in Portugal

“…The assumptions are intended to explain the fundamentals on which a funding methodology should be based, by stating a series of armations supported by references that represent widespread consensus. Some references are made to the Portuguese law, but these are also present in virtually all the laws that govern the educational systems over the world (Eicher & Chevalier, 1993). The guiding principles result from speci®c options that lead to the methodology presented.…”

“…The principle of dual funding (Eicher & Chevalier, 1993). Public funding of universities is made up of two components: the ®rst is core funding, associated with objective criteria and publicly transparent mechanisms; the provision of the second component is dependent on the presentation by the universities of speci®c proposals or on principles associated with political priorities (such as the decentralization of the universities or regional), being embodied in contracts which, after negotiation between the State and the university, are made public.…”

“…in general terms, the State is to assure the necessary funding for the proper functioning of the public universities; . the need to expand and/or sustain the national university system requires a widening of the funding base, which calls for incentives to diversify sources (Eicher & Chevalier, 1993);…”

“…Investing in closer links with the community, the University sets itself the task of examining the quantitative and qualitative needs of its activities and new ways to exploit its scienti®c and technological potential. Despite the increasing diversity of funding sources, in most university systems the State remains the main or sole funding source (Eicher & Chevalier, 1993). The growing pressure to reduce public spending, the emergence of demands arising from other social policies, and the rethinking of the relationship between State and public bodies in general, all put considerable pressure on public funding of universities.…”

Whose curriculum is it anyway? Stakeholder salience in the context of Degree Apprenticeships

“…Although undertaken in a context of financial constraint, this shift has not been taken purely for pragmatic reasons—there is an underlying commitment to a market ideology which is reflected in the assumptions embedded in the policies. Some (such as Eicher & Chevaillier, ; Kupper, ; Ziderman & Albrecht, ) believe that ‘in countries where public powers have a strong control over the institutions, fees increase their autonomy and their capacity for innovation’ (Eicher, , p. 36) thereby increasing the financial independence of universities. They feel that private contributions more effectively coordinate demand and supply, act to motivate students and perform the role of price in highlighting the perceived value of degree programmes (Nkrumah‐Young & Powell, , p. 6).…”