In Portugal, recent law proposals, as Proposta nº 79/IX, made by the former governments (XV Constitutional Government and resubmitted by the XVI Constitutional Government) described in their justifying texts the need to produce changes in governance and in institutional attitude. However, the attempts made focused on questions of power equilibria, of compromise between public and private initiative and on questions of organization limited to structures. This is very well summarized by a paragraph in the page 5 of this document:"O processo de autonomia das instituições não tem sido isento de contradições. Uma leitura do conceito de gestão democrática das escolas conduziu a um sistema de organização e de funcionamento assente num peso desproporcionado de estudantes e de funcionários nos órgãos de decisão estratégico das escolas e em modelos administrativos rígidos e pouco flexíveis, dificultando a tomada de decisões estratégicas essenciais para o futuro das instituições. (…) Assim, é necessário que a legislação a aprovar contemple esta vertente indispensável ao bom funcionamento de todo o sistema de ensino superior: a responsabilidade das instituições e dos seus dirigentes, dos seus docentes e dos seus estudantes, pelas decisões que tomam."*The items under proposal, as it is perceived by the accurate responsibilization of students, collegial organization and rigidity of the decision process, were mainly the number and nature of members of boards, the election of the rector, a deviation of powers from the scientific boards to the directive organ and the extinction of assemblies or their fusion into a single consultive senate, always under the theoretical unproved principle that students participation and collegiality are the causes of the supposed strategic deficiencies.Here, some incoherencies can be identified. Although accountability is referred as an objective of this proposal, there are no mechanisms of accountability in the entire law proposition and inclusively there were no definition of which group or body is held responsible for things as simple, but so important as efficiency indicators, as evaluation reports…Though this proposal speaks about giving freedom to the institutions to choose their governance model, the competences of each body are described to exhaustion.Although the questions addressed focus on empowerment of unique figures, as a director instead of a directive board, they would mean little or no influence on the leadership nurturing whatsoever. To be very clear, the cultural reasons for the absence of leadership and strategic thinking and planning, considered fundamental, were not addresses nor glimpsed and the only result of these proposals would be an unbearable conflictuality and unavoidable lost of trust among the academics and the leaderships thus formed.* The autonomy process is not being exempt from contradictions. An interpretation of the concept of schools "democratic management" led to an organization and functioning system supported by a disproportionate weight of students and non-teaching staff in schools' strategic decision boards and to rigid and inflexible administrative models, hindering the strategic decision making which is essential for the future of the institutions. (…) So, it is necessary that approved legislation predict this aspect that is fundamental to the correct functioning of all the system of higher education: there should be responsibility of institutions and their leaders, teachers and students, by the decisions they take.
Categorias
Entidades
In Portugal, recent law proposals, as Proposta nº 79/IX, made by the former governments (XV Constitutional Government and resubmitted by the XVI Constitutional Government) described in their justifying texts the need to produce changes in governance and in institutional attitude. However, the attempts made focused on questions of power equilibria, of compromise between public and private initiative and on questions of organization limited to structures. This is very well summarized by a paragraph in the page 5 of this document:"O processo de autonomia das instituições não tem sido isento de contradições. Uma leitura do conceito de gestão democrática das escolas conduziu a um sistema de organização e de funcionamento assente num peso desproporcionado de estudantes e de funcionários nos órgãos de decisão estratégico das escolas e em modelos administrativos rígidos e pouco flexíveis, dificultando a tomada de decisões estratégicas essenciais para o futuro das instituições. (…) Assim, é necessário que a legislação a aprovar contemple esta vertente indispensável ao bom funcionamento de todo o sistema de ensino superior: a responsabilidade das instituições e dos seus dirigentes, dos seus docentes e dos seus estudantes, pelas decisões que tomam."*The items under proposal, as it is perceived by the accurate responsibilization of students, collegial organization and rigidity of the decision process, were mainly the number and nature of members of boards, the election of the rector, a deviation of powers from the scientific boards to the directive organ and the extinction of assemblies or their fusion into a single consultive senate, always under the theoretical unproved principle that students participation and collegiality are the causes of the supposed strategic deficiencies.Here, some incoherencies can be identified. Although accountability is referred as an objective of this proposal, there are no mechanisms of accountability in the entire law proposition and inclusively there were no definition of which group or body is held responsible for things as simple, but so important as efficiency indicators, as evaluation reports…Though this proposal speaks about giving freedom to the institutions to choose their governance model, the competences of each body are described to exhaustion.Although the questions addressed focus on empowerment of unique figures, as a director instead of a directive board, they would mean little or no influence on the leadership nurturing whatsoever. To be very clear, the cultural reasons for the absence of leadership and strategic thinking and planning, considered fundamental, were not addresses nor glimpsed and the only result of these proposals would be an unbearable conflictuality and unavoidable lost of trust among the academics and the leaderships thus formed.* The autonomy process is not being exempt from contradictions. An interpretation of the concept of schools "democratic management" led to an organization and functioning system supported by a disproportionate weight of students and non-teaching staff in schools' strategic decision boards and to rigid and inflexible administrative models, hindering the strategic decision making which is essential for the future of the institutions. (…) So, it is necessary that approved legislation predict this aspect that is fundamental to the correct functioning of all the system of higher education: there should be responsibility of institutions and their leaders, teachers and students, by the decisions they take.