NEW ACCOUNTABILITY OF UNIVERSITY

YECHAN SEO, EDUCATION UNIT

Abstract:

Nowadays, there are many changes in university sector in the era of new competition which
derive from global economy. Therefore, this paper will give an information to understand more
effectively what is the world trend and how is it going in terms of University accountability and
autonomy. Most of University in the world require new accountability mechanism for better
competition. They argue deregulation is the nub of new accountability and also they can achieve
new accountability through deregulation. This paper also will explain and reflect kinds of
deregulation, cases, and its own logic.

Introduction
This paper reflects several articles, journals, papers to construct own logic. All of those
says about new university accountability and suggest some approaches to reach a better condition
of higher education. Because of development of technology, global economic or else caused
increasing needs of higher education. And it accelerate faster and faster day by day. Therefore,
universities is required new accountability and require new authority and autonomy. University in
nowadays is undeniable actor in global economy which has huge influence and thats why there
should be accompany a lot of studies and verification.

The nub of new university accountability can be said deregulation. This term means
simply free from governmental regulation such as limitation, pre-audit, interference, inspection or
else. Reason of why university require deregulation can be explained by following some sequences.
Firstly, it is undeniable that we are living in the era of global economy. According to growth of
global economy, demand of higher education is increased. So many countries adapted
massification policy which means produce something as much as possible in terms of higher
education. Thus, in situation of increased demand in limited public support, government can
provide less public support per student and it causes increasing competition between universities,
especially, public universities. Existing policies are required to be redesigned for guarantee more
authority of universities through universities manage themselves by delegating autonomy on a
level of institution; Deregulation from government.

Deregulation of Procedural and Substantive

Traditional distinction between procedural and substantive regulation is being altered by
the rapid changes in the environment of universities. The emergence of increased competitive

Page: 1
rivalry among universities in all countries has revealed the importance of universitys possessing
authority and control over their governance structures, academic degrees, and administrative
processes. From now on, this part will give an information of kinds of deregulation.

Procedural Deregulation:
Procedural deregulation means simply free from setting of budget such as contracting for
goods and services, capital construction or else. Let see in more detail, procedural deregulation
has 5 dimension. Lump-sum appropriations which can be allocated and flexibly managed
according to institutionally defined needs. Deregulation of purchasing and contracting means the
ability of universities to purchase necessary supplies and equipment efficiently and for research
support and grants. Deregulation of tuition and fees means to generate revenues through their
research, teaching and services if not constrained by state regulation. But setting of tuition fees is
a controversial area of procedural autonomy Because of its possible effect on university access.
Free from personnel classification and benefits is universitys capacity to recruit effectively is
often shaped by the relevance and flexibility of its personnel system.

Substantive Deregulation:

Substantive deregulation means university can set the fundamental programmatic mission
by its own interest, need and pursuing. For examples, all about research university, construction
of academic calendar and programs, poly technic, parameters on its size and location. Although
many universities in the world argue free from substantive regulation, till now, the public sector
of higher educations mission is shape by government policy; especially, government efforts to
limit program duplication for increase the efficient use of public resource.

New Accountability Mechanism

University is required that new accountability mechanism which regards more appropriate
in nowadays and this kind of requirement can be categorized by 3 sectors, information provision,
capacity building, performance funding.

At the first one, information provision can be divided by 2 methods. As no one disagree
that university is informative institution, but it can be distinguished by how university provide the
information to public. Indirect information provision is institution provide data and information,
knowledge to the public in place of government. That means, university becomes representative
of government in terms of education. The other one is government gathers information and data to
disseminate to the public directly, by itself. However, in nowadays, the matter of how university
provide information to the public is less important than before. Because, the matter of provide
information to the public through directly or indirectly has less relevance to universitys funding
and thats why university tend to fan it.

Page: 2
 The second new accountability mechanism is capacity building which focuses on the
improving core organizational process. For example, academic quality assurance mechanisms,
planning and budgeting system, accounting procedures or else.

Lastly, performance funding, it is the most controversial sector of new accountability of

university. Universities usually have 4 kinds of performance funding measure, such as input
measure, outcome measure, out-put measure and process measure. Lets explain each of those,
Input measure: means performance fundings resources are supported by university programs;
(traditionally measured by numbers of faculty members), Outcome measure focuses on impacts
upon student, activities and services of a university such as graduate job placements, pass rates.
Output measure is measure of the volume of activity plausibly related to desirable outcomes.
However, in nowadays, process measure is emerging as an world trend which suggest how
resources are allocated by a university, rather than how things are produced (output) or what is the
social value of outputs (outcome).

Case Study: U.K and U.S

As mentioned it in abstract, two conflicting cases UK and US can be nutritious to your

understand. Lets see the case of UK at first. UK universities have the authority to set and retain
all tuition income from overseas students. It can be said that UK guarantees universitys financing
as far as it goes. And also UK statuses university as; has the authority to develop or plan new
academic programs and award ward degrees.
Most of UK universities have an Academic Audit processes which assess the
mechanisms that universities assure itself the quality of student learning so they try to get
organizational improvement. Adjust the allocations of university research funds according to
institutional scores on measure of outputs and Government gather and disseminate relevant
information to the public by itself. It is very sensitive and controversial area as we can see the case
of university of California. In California, court or state government went to the mat for university
of California when university has been beset by conflict. Especially the matter of confidentiality
of its own recruitment process. University of California usually was protected their confidentiality
of assessment of their employee by in the level of state. Through California case, it is easy to find
that U.Ss treatment about university. A number of U.S states public universities are governed by
a statewide board of trustee. Not institutional level. These public universities are often subject to
a pre-audit by a state agency about their performances or activities.

Nowadays, interference of university is regarded old-fashion not only world trend even
also U.S. A recent survey of US universities by the National Association of College and University

Page: 3
Business officers (NACUBO) about how they feel degree of deregulation1, 70% of the surveyed
states public policies were moving in the direction of greater management flexibility. This
responses take possession of over half of the US states which implement governmental educational
policy. And also, in U.S, there is Increasing arguing for Redesign of institutional governance in
states, creating Boards of Trustees at the institution level and delegating to those boards the
necessary authority and fiduciary responsibility.

In a nutshell, a number of state systems of higher education in the U.S (regarded as stick
to centralized management of education) are experimenting with the deregulation of degree
approval powers to selected universities.

Conclusion
Before make conclusion, lets summarize this paper. According to growth of global
economy, demand of higher education is increased. So almost of countries adapted massification
policy and demand of higher education is increased in same public resource (supports). So on,
universities entered new completion era and many universities request free from limitations.

When someone urges on a person the need of changes, it might be based on conviction that
changes will make better result. In the point of new university accountability, its conviction can
be said that role of new accountability mechanism will be a bridging device between information-
oriented accountability practices and even more assertive practices for better competition.
However, it also has some dilemmas. When we see the University of California case, we can see
so many disputes about its scope. State government of California tried to maximize their benefits
through guarantee confidentiality (deregulation) of University of California whether directly or
indirectly. It can be seemed that university is one of major institution of state rather than academic
institution. What we should consider is, how we see the university. Understandably and ultimately,
university is academic institution. But, competition or confidentiality is hard to say that is
academic terms.

And next, we also have to see not only future but also precedent. Although deregulation is
going to be mainstream of university sector, government has a duty about prevent corruption.
Especially, tuition or fee, even scholarship, anything related money should be supervised by
government. Even if can be seems to violate universitys sector, university should approve that
kinds of supervision to stick to free from regulation on the name of new accountability of
university.

1
NACUBO has developed a website, Accountability and Regulation in Public Higher Education which includes the results
of the survey as well as case studies and related material on the issue of procedural deregulation.(http:www.nacubo.org=website=
accountable=index.html)

Page: 4
Reference

Dill, David D. 2001. The Regulation of Public Research Universities: Changes in Academic Competition
and Implications for University Autonomy and Accountability. University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, Abernethy Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3435, USA Higher Education 14: 2135.
Dill, David D. Accountability and University Adaptation: The Architecture of an Academic Learning
Organization. Springer, Changes in Higher Education and Its Societal Context as a Challenge for
Future Research (II), Vol. 38 (September 1999): 12754.

Carroll, David M. Developing Joint Accountability in University School Teacher Education Partnerships.
Western Washington University, 2006.

Scully, Caitlin M. Autonomy and Accountability: The University of California and the State Constitution.
THE HASTINGS LAW JOURNAL 38 (n.d.): 92755.

Page: 5