ࡱ>  8:34567yy5@ 0Wbjbj22 -XXGA(   48t 4F264TEEEEEEEGRJ8Ei E^T;1F* 8T TEE&* T `6V8 0&[F<FSJhnSJ044SJ 4 M EE44d.44Evolution of Ukrainian Private Higher Education: 1991 2003 Joseph Stetar, Oleksiy Panych & Elena Berezkina Joseph Stetar is professor of education at Seton Hall University, Kozlowski Hall, South Orange, NJ 07079. E-mail < HYPERLINK "mailto:Stetarjo@shu.edu" Stetarjo@shu.edu>. Oleksiy Panych is chair of the department of cultural studies at Donetsk Humanitarian Institute of Donetsk National University, Ukraine. Elena Berezinka is a Ph.D. student in the higher education program at Seton Hall University. Overview of Ukrainian Higher Education System: Last Decade Developments Ukrainian higher education with deep roots going back to the 17th century is a developing and changing educational system. The transformation began in 1985 as the regime changed in the former Soviet Union. Ukrainian independence in 1991 introduced new concerns for the future of the countrys higher education. With a higher education system deeply rooted and well developed a newly independent Ukraine did not face the challenge of creating a new system of higher education; it only needed to adjust the existing one. Throughout the 20th century, the roots of the Ukrainian education were shaped and controlled by central authorities in Moscow not Kyiv. With its independence, Ukraine gained the freedom to reshape educational planning and form a system to educate Ukrainian citizens. While part of the Soviet Union the academic preparation of individuals who would serve in the key areas of the Ukrainian economy historically occurred, at least partially, in Moscow, St. Petersburg, or other academic centers of the Soviet Union. Having gained sovereignty, a new Ukrainian government embarked upon a policy to insure it would be independent from Russia in the development of leaders and talents needed for its economic development. During the last decade, the landscape of the Ukrainian higher education changed dramatically. Post-secondary educational institutions changed in quantity, form of governance and financial policies; also new academic degrees were introduced. Except for constantly decreasing budget financing, statistics demonstrate a rapid increase in the main quantitative parameters of the Ukrainian higher education system during 1990s; thus, the expansion of Ukrainian post-secondary institutions in 1991-2000 was sponsored solely by non-state investments. In the Soviet Union era, higher education system in Ukraine, as well as in all other Soviet republics, was monopolized by the state. Since virtually all forms of private enterprise were prohibited by the regime, private higher education did not exist (except for some special cases that will be discussed later). The first private higher education institutions, appeared a result of Perestroika transformations, started their operations in Ukraine right at the moment when it declared its independence (the fall of 1991). Since June 1992 Ukrainian authorities started adopting first rules regulating licensing, accreditation and legal establishment of Ukrainian private higher education institutions. One of the most significant changes in the system of classifying Ukrainian higher education institutions lies is the state-run licensing and accreditation. According to the national classification standards adopted by the Ukrainian government in the mid-1990s, all Ukrainian post-secondary institutions are divided into four general levels of accreditation. The 1st level of accreditation is granted to Professional Schools, 2-year education institutions offering a Minor Specialist degree. Professional schools of the first level of accreditation are roughly equal to community colleges in the United States and the degrees they issue to an Associate degree (the degree of "Minor Specialist" is given after about 2 years of studies based on complete secondary education). The 2nd level of accreditation is granted to Technical Schools or Colleges offering Bachelor degree after completion of three to four years of undergraduate course work. The 3rd level of accreditation is granted to Institutes, Academies and Universities offering the traditional five-year degree of Specialist ("Diplom", in traditional, although not quite correct, Western classification). The 4th level of accreditation is granted to Academies and Universities offering Master degree (after Specialist or as alternative to Specialist degree). The difference between Master and Specialist degrees is still very vague in Ukraine as they both signify "complete higher education" (the degree of Bachelor, according to the Ukrainian Laws on Education and on Higher Education, officially signifies in Ukraine only "basic higher education"). Thus, only institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditation are considered in Ukraine as higher education institutions in the full sense of the word. The last decade demonstrates more qualitative than quantitative changes in the composition of Ukrainian higher education system. The total number of higher education institutions increased from 911 in 1993 to 971 in 2000 and 997 by the beginning of 2002/2003 academic year. More dramatic changes took place inside the composition of the higher education institutions. Although the data in Table 1 reflect a considerable decrease in the number of higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditation between 1997 and 2000, in real terms most of them did not disappear. During the period of 1997-1998, 105 Ukrainian state higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditation were simply incorporated into educational institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditation. Currently (beginning of 2002/2003 academic year) there are 997 Ukrainian post-secondary education institutions of all levels, including 822 state and 175 private institutions. State sector consists of 232 institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation (116 universities, 58 academies, 58 institutes and conservatoires) and 590 institutions of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation (123 colleges, 279 technical schools and 188 professional schools). Private sector includes 98 institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation (14 universities, 5 academies, 79 institutes) and 77 institutions of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation (46 colleges, 22 technical schools and 9 professional schools). For the last two decades before 1991, there was no considerable increase in the proportion of students in the Ukrainian higher education institutions. Since 1970s until mid-1990's the higher education attendance rate in Ukraine remained roughly the same. In 1970 there were 170 students for every 10,000 of the Ukrainian population (counting only institutions that are currently considered as those of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation). This figure dropped down to 169 in 1975-1976, went up to 173 in 1985, and dropped again to 170 in 1990. Interestingly enough, while student attendance rates from 1970 to 1990 remained relatively stable in Ukraine, they doubled in Germany, increased 1.5 times in England and 1.25 in France. In 1991, the first year of Ukrainian independence, there were 48,000 educational institutions of all levels with two million teachers employed and nearly fifteen million students enrolled. Thus, in Ukraine with its population of about 50 million every third person in the country was involved in education, either teaching or studying. The number of higher education students in Ukraine decreased in 1991-1995 and then grew rapidly between 1996 and 2001. In 1991 Ukraine had 170 students for every 10,000 of the population, by 2001 the corresponding figure was 285 students for every 10,000 of the population (the data only includes higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditation). Tables 2-6 give better understanding of the students dynamics from 1996/1995 to 2002/2003 academic year. There is a certain dynamic in the distinction between the number of students of state and private higher education institutions. In 1995, only about 4.61% of the total student body attended private higher education institutions. By 2001/2002 academic year, however, the average percentage of students attending private institutions increased to 9,3% for institutions of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation and 9,4% for institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation (see Tables 7 and 8 for more details). As a result of the increase in the number of higher education institutions and admission quotes for these institutions, the admission standards were lowered. In 1985-1986 academic year 146 Ukrainian state higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditation (according to currently existing classification) were receiving an average of 181 applications for every 100 seats in their programs. In 1996-1997 academic year, 274 Ukrainian state and private educational institutions of the same levels of accreditation had an average entrance competition of 163 applications for every 100 seats. Thus, during 1986-1997 the admission requirements decreased by 10 percent, and the scope of admission increased at 15 percent. Until the time of independence (1991), higher education in Ukraine was supported by centralized financing via Soviet government in Moscow. Currently, financing of educational institutions in Ukraine has several sources, including state and local budgets, private investments and donations, etc. Financing of higher education in Ukraine is a hybrid between old central administrative command and control mentality and efforts to provide for increased institutional autonomy and diversity. A considerable part of tuition is still covered by the state (at state institutions only, with only solitary exceptions for private institutions); however, tuition expenses paid by students or their private sponsors (at all types of institutions) have dramatically increased in 1995 1999. According to the Ministry of Education and Science estimates, by January 01, 1999, totally about 800,000 Ukrainian students were receiving non-budget-financed education, including nearly 150,000 in private higher education institutions (counting both full-time and part-time students). As Table 9 illustrates, by the beginning of the 1999/2000 academic year most of the financial support for higher education system in general still came from the state budget (more than 50 per cent). Table 10 shows, however, that by 2001/2002 academic year private financing had replaced state budget as the dominating source of higher education financing, including not only private but even state institutions taken separately (average 52,8% of total financing for state higher education institutions of all levels). In many respects, this shift may be regarded as critical for the development of Ukrainian higher education system in general. Private higher education in Ukraine had a great influence on the admission categories and numbers, increasing the total scope of the non-budget-financed educational services. At the institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation (all forms of property) the non-budget-financed admission raised from 45,300 students in 1995 up to 159,900 students in 1999; and from 26,700 to 73,000 students respectfully at the institutions of the lower accreditation levels. For the institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation, the scope of admission covered by students or their private sponsors became higher than the total scope of the budget-covered admission as early as since 1998 (Table 11). It has been predicted that this tendency will continue and this prediction proved to be correct at least up to 2001/2002 academic year (Table 12). The total scope of annual admission in 2002 amounted to 612,3 thousands of students, including 408,6 thousands at the institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation and 203,7 at the institutions of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation. This scope of annual admission is 54,8% higher than in 1995. However, the growth has been concentrated mainly in the institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation (97,6% of increase as compared to 1995), while the institutions of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation remained at nearly the same level of annual admission (7,9% of increase as compared to 1995). Overview of Ukrainian Private Higher Education The emergence of the private education in Ukraine due to the countrys necessity to address rapidly changing and long suppressed educational needs occurred after the advent of Ukrainian independence. This new form of education allowed certain cultural and religious groups to establish higher education institutions of private ownership in order to spread knowledge, culture, and religion and have more freedom to select a language of instruction. The distribution of private higher education institutions in Ukraine is uneven. The majority of these institutions are located in the Central, Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine, in or around Kyiv, Donetsk, Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkiv, and the Republic of Crimea. Tables 13 and 14 show regional distribution of all Ukrainian higher education institutions (state and private) as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year. Private higher education in Ukraine has undergone several stages of development in the last decade. First private institutions emerged in 1991 1992. They rapidly grew in numbers in the next two years. The accreditation of the newly established private institutions began in 1995 1996, which led to a certain decrease in the number of institutions. Private higher education institutions in Ukraine finally gained state recognition and issued first diplomas in 1996 1999. Ukrainian legislation differentiates between licensing and accreditation. Licensing, which is a temporary right granted by the state permitting an institution to begin operation, is the first step in the state accreditation process. First licensing of private higher education institutions in Ukraine began in 1993, after about 2 years since the first private institutions actually started their operations. This time licensing was based upon a relatively modest quality assurance process. Currently both processes, licensing and accreditation, are very complex procedures designed to insure broad institutional and educational quality. As to accreditation, according to Ukrainian law, an institution can only be accredited upon graduation of its first students. Thus, since private higher education was only introduced in 1991, no institution could be accredited before 1995 1996. The contradictions of Ukrainian legislation regarding licensing and accreditation issues will be addressed further. The Ministry of Education and Science estimated that by January 2000, 138 higher education institutions in Ukraine were licensed. This statistics demonstrates a progressive increase in the number of the licensed institutions in the country during 1990s (Table 15). At the very beginning of the licensing process, in 1993, only 23 institutions were granted state licenses. The number rapidly increased and by March 1996, 71,000 Ukrainian students were enrolled at 123 licensed institutions. In 1996, the Ministry of Education and Science announced new accreditation and licensing procedures. The same year, the establishment of the new private institutions had been suspended for several months. However, the process resumed by the end of 1996, so that by 1999 the total number of all licensed private higher education institutions was 132, including five universities, seven academies, 86 institutes and 34 private higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditation.. As mentioned above, currently (beginning of 2002/2003 academic year) there are 175 legally recognized private higher education institutions, including 98 institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation and 77 institutions of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation. During 1993-2000, about 200 private higher education institutions were reported to establish legal contacts with the Ministry of Education and Science regarding their licensing. The increasing number of licensed private higher education institutions led to the increase in their admission parameters. The total scope of annual admission at all Ukrainian private higher education institutions amounted to 66,991 students (more than 10% of total annual admission) as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year (Table 12). Tables 16 and 17 show distribution of state and private higher education institutions (3rd and 4th levels of accreditation only) by the number of students for the same academic year (2001/2002). By this time, an average number of students per one institution had been 668 for private institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditation (862 for the corresponding state institutions) and 1569 for private institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation (6232 for the corresponding state institutions). Average figures for institutions of all levels are, correspondingly, 1158 students per one private and 2354 per one state institution. Governance of Private Higher Education in Ukraine Private higher education institutions in Ukraine base their governance policy on developing a healthy distance from central government and are governed by non-state personnel. Meanwhile, Ukrainian legislation regarding the establishment of educational institutions contains many imperfections and prescribes different and unequal procedures for state and private institutions. State higher education institutions are treated as non-profit institutions. They are normally established by central or local authorities in accordance with the Law on Education. Their main statutory goal is to satisfy the educational needs of citizens. Unlike state institutions, private higher education institutions are treated primarily as commercial enterprises and are created in accordance with the Law on Business Undertakings and/or the Law on Joint-Stock Companies. In accordance with those Laws, the main statutory goal of private higher education institutions is defined as "making profit" despite the fact that article 22 of the newly adopted Law on Higher Education defines the main goal of any higher education institution as "providing conditions for receiving higher education, training specialists for the needs of Ukraine". Moreover, the teaching staff of private higher education institutions is still not legally treated as an academic personnel and, unlike teaching staff of state institutions, has no legal right for special increased state old-age pension. According to the second version of the Law on Education adopted in 1996, state higher education institutions are not required to have any statutory fund. Unlike that, the statutory fund of a private institution must not be lower than the declared annual tuition fee for the scope of students that, according to license, may be admitted in one academic year. Different approaches to taxation for state and private institutions (see below) simply follow this distinction between state and private higher education institutions. Since 1996, the Ministry of Education and Science approves registration documents for newly created private institutions prior to their registration by local authorities. Besides the requirement to comply with the Ministry regulations, private higher education institutions are required to follow the legislation regulating the establishment of commercial enterprises. Thus, Ukrainian legislation has obviously discriminative policies towards private higher education institutions by relating them to commercial law. Interestingly enough, according to Russian legislation on private higher education institutions, they are considered as non-profit institutions if they re-invest all their profit into the institutional development. State policy on private higher education institutions is also declared in the two newly adopted state legislative documents that had been under discussion since fall 2001. The draft of the Law on Higher Education was renewed after its first reading in Ukrainian Parliament. After numerous discussions, the Law was adopted by the Parliament on January 17, 2002 (document # 2984-III). The National Doctrine of the Development of Ukrainian Education in the 21st century defines the main state guidelines for the next 25 years. Representatives of the private higher education institutions expressed great expectations towards the new Law on Higher Education. The new Law contains important positions that may significantly change the situation in the nearest future. According to the Law, the Ministry of Education and Science (or similar authorized state organ) now approves the appointments of rectors in all higher education institutions, including those in private sector. Each rector of higher education institutions of the 3rd or 4th level of accreditation is now required to hold the title of Professor and the research degree of Doctor or Candidate. The age requirement is also imposed a rector cannot be older than 65 years. To understand the importance of these regulations it is important to note that currently there is no rector election procedure at private institutions. Institutions founders usually appoint rectors. Thus, in many cases rectors of private higher education institutions are not academicians but rather their founders appointing themselves. The new regulation should guarantee competence and expertise of educational leaders. Another important provision in the Law of Higher Education states that all higher education institutions regardless of their form of property are considered as non-profit organizations in the sphere of educational, research, scientific and technical activity. This amendment to the existing law on private institutions is one of the most important. However, so far (2003) this norm has not been yet put into practice because it contradicts to other taxation regulations that are always regarded by Ukrainian tax organs as more important (e.g. Law on Budget, internal instructions of the State Tax Administration etc.). At the same time, the Law imposes control sanctions on private higher education institutions such as the Ministry approval required for all registration documents and even admission rules. The National Doctrine of the development of Ukrainian Education in the 21st century has been adopted by the Decree of the President of Ukraine # 347/2002 dated April 17, 2002. This legislative document contains mostly general statements regarding educational regulations. State policy towards private institutions is only once indirectly addressed in the final version of the document by stating that budget financing may be allocated to higher education institutions of "different forms of property" "taking into account the quality of educational services". With regard to higher education governance in general, the Doctrine states that the governance system must be state-and-public and must take into account regional peculiarities, tendencies towards increasing autonomy of educational institutions, competitiveness of educational services. While the draft of the National Doctrine was under discussion, international experts were invited to assess it, including Jerzy Wishnievski from Poland; Tomas Timar, Professor of Education at UCB and Riverside University; Sren Poulsen, Regional Manager for Belarus, Moldova and Ukraine, the European Training Foundation; Jan Kovarovich, Consultant, Educational Policy Center of Charles University, Czech Republic. They agreed that the proposed draft did not contain clear problem statement and was too general, abstract and vague. Unlike those international experts, Ivan Timoshenko, President of the Ukrainian Association of Private Higher Education Institutions, suggested that the Doctrine cannot go deeper into details, because nobody can predict in details what will happen after 25 years. However, despite the criticism expressed by the international experts, the final version of the Doctrine, as approved by the President's Decree, has not undergone any significant changes comparing to its early draft; moreover, in many cases it has become even more abstract and vague. In his speech for the Second All-Ukrainian Educators' Congress (Kyiv, October 7-9, 2001) President of Ukraine, Leonid Kuchma, made several key statements, which supplement the new legislation documents. President Kuchma has referred to the German-and-Russian educational model that had been traditionally preferred in Ukraine. This model is based on the state responsibility for education, its availability for citizens, irrespectively of their economical situation and social status. According to Kuchma, the inherent feature of the state controlled educational system is the lack of material recourses for education and, correspondingly, bad applications of innovative educational technologies. Kuchma agrees that the practice constantly demonstrates that the education strictly controlled by the state has more difficulties in adapting to rapid social changes. Kuchma emphasizes the possibility of educational quality decrease in private educational institutions; according to him, in Ukraine private education allows for lower admission and academic standards, which, in turn, leads to lowering the level of educational training. President Kuchma is positive that the state must guarantee to citizens their constitutional right to receive education and secure the availability of education for everybody without any restrictions. One of most important points Kuchma made in his speech was on the state monopoly for certain educational fields. In Kuchmas opinion, state must keep the monopoly for training doctors and lawyers since these two professions are "the most important now". In his speech Kuchma also mentioned with a great enthusiasm the idea of privatization of state higher education institutions. The resonance in the society around this idea was controversial. Our respondents, rectors and educational officials, expressed opposite opinions about this idea. Some of them consider this idea ruinous for the Ukrainian educational system; others believe this is the only solution for state higher education institutions in the coming decade. The possibility of merging state and private higher education institutions in discussed further. According to Liubov Kondratenko, Executive Director of the Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, at the end of 2001 Ukrainian Parliament had adopted special amendment to the existing Law on Scientific and Scientific-and-Pedagogical Activity, which extended the rule about the increased old-age state pensions to the teachers working in private institutions. However, President Kuchma vetoed this amendment and Parliament had not enough votes to overcome his veto. The new Parliament body, reelected in Spring 2002, adopted similar amendment again very recently (July 11, 2003). "If nothing unexpected will happen" (this is the wording used by the Parliamentary Committee clerk while commenting this event), the amendment will be submitted for Presidential approval in August 2003; accordingly, President's reaction will be known probably in September 2003 or later. Financing of private higher education in Ukraine Financing of private higher education institutions in Ukraine remains very complex. All our respondents agreed that financing is the most challenging topic of discussion. Rectors of private institutions are positive that their colleagues from state institutions have considerable advantages regarding financial legislation. The main advantages of state higher education institutions are their access to budget financing and exemption from the profit tax. With regard to state higher education institutions, Ukrainian legislation has virtually no limitations for their non-budget activity except for privatization and re-profiling of their material resources. Often state institutions' authorities follow the principle everything that is not forbidden is permitted. However, state higher education institutions administrators report that local State Treasury departments control all their expenditures including non-budget funds. Thus, state institutions are accountable for every expense they have, which also requires them to process an incredible amount of paper work daily. As for private institutions, they are less controlled. As a result, our respondents from both private and state institutions have expressed their dissatisfaction with both the existing financial legislation and its practical application. Serhiy Dobrovsky, Financial Manager at Kyiv Institute of Investing Management, says that following Ukrainian legislation resembles going under escort: "one step left or right, and you immediately get penalties, fines At the same time, the legislation is not clear, so that it is not easy for financial managers to define, what are the exact duties of the Institute concerning its payments to budget. Rules are interpreted in different ways". Taras Finikov, First Vice-Rector at Kyiv Institute of Economics and Law 'KROK' (private), adds that there may be various ways to mitigate the taxation burden for private institutions: while total exemption from the profit tax is desirable, "widening the basis of the tax-deductible expenditures and narrowing the taxable basis" would also be helpful. The problem, however, is that even those more moderate measures are not even planned by Ukrainian authorities. Katerina Astakhova, Vice-Rector of Kharkiv Institute of Humanities "People's Ukrainian Academy" (private) remarks that her institution has to pay profit tax even for money received from private sources for secondary education (the Institute contains a secondary school in its structure), although according to law all secondary education, irrespective of the institution's form of property, must be budget-financed, and even partially budget-financed institution must be exempt from the profit tax. "We got it just once, during one month, about 5 years ago", says she; and then we were told that "there is no money for us in the city budget". On the other hand, Oleksandr Shubin, Rector of Donetsk State University of Economics and Trade, also expressed complaints against state regulations, that, according to him, give private institutions more "financial freedom", particularly by setting various limitations on the amount of teachers' salary at state institutions. Only one of our respondents, Nina Oushakova, First Vice-Rector of Kyiv National University of Economics and Trade (state-owned), agreed with the existing taxation inequalities between private and state educational institutions. "I want to reply to all private higher education institutions", said Professor Oushakova, "that they must pay those taxes because they got teachers trained at the expense of the state, and got them for free! This way we [i.e. state institutions] indirectly contributed to their development." The new National Doctrine contains some proposals for improving Ukrainian financial legislation. Personal educational loans are promoted in the document as a way to secure equal access to higher education. Educational loans are already used in Ukraine although not widely. According to the Doctrine, assess to higher education in the state and municipal higher education institutions must be kept free of charge on the competitive basis. Here the Doctrine uses the principle of free universal access to education, which had been used in Ukraine since the Soviet times. Important statement regarding taxation in the draft of the Doctrine was that money paid for education by private and corporate investors must be exempted from all forms of taxation; however, this statement has not been included into the final version of the document. Currently, according to Serhiy Gvozdiov, Vice-Rector of Lviv Institute of Management (private), money paid by a corporate investor for someones education must be reported both as the students personal taxable income and at the same time also as the taxable income of this investor (i.e. for the investors such expenditures are not tax-deductible). In the discussion on the future of financial legislation in Ukraine, some private higher education representatives state confidently that if the combination of budget and non-budget financing at state institutions will continue it will be unnatural and ruinous for both models (i.e. for both state and private institutions). The reason of this position is that state and private higher education institutions are claimed to be radically different in their nature. In Ukrainian reality, the definition of a state institution is practically identical to a state-financed higher education institution, while a private institution is a non-state-financed higher education institution. As Sydorenko (2000) states, ''the attempts to combine the two models [of financing] under one roof are utopian and destructive for both of them; as to the current commercialization of state institutions, it will certainly entail the decrease of the educational quality. The mechanism is simple: first, state institutions now risk admitting more students than they can effectively educate; and second, this development questions the unity and centralization of state institutions, since commercial activity does not involve equally all departments and all faculty members. This situation creates an atmosphere of inequality and entails internal contradictions between different departments and faculty. Ogarenko (2000), who does not see the process as destructive, claims that the position described above represents specific interests of the private educational sector and does not concern about saving the achievements of the state sector. From his perspective, state higher education institutions must have a right to offer commercial education in addition to the state-sponsored one, while private institutions must have at least limited access to budget funds on the competitive basis. The combined funding system for higher education institutions finds general support in the National Doctrine and is probably the one to dominate in the future. Licensing and Accreditation of Ukrainian Private Higher Education State plays the principle role in the process of accreditation and licensing of higher education institutions. The first regulations on Ukrainian state accreditation adopted in 1992 were based on a highly centralized, Byzantine administrative structure. They have been replaced in 1996 by less centralized but even more complicated and more Byzantine-style system. The main innovation of the accreditation system in 1996 was shifting the execution of the primary stage of the accreditation from the Ministry of Education and Science officials and experts to so called special councils. These special councils, or specialty/disciplinary groups, were organized on the base of the largest state higher education institutions that were thus formally recognized to be the leading ones, each in the corresponding field. Thus, the cohort of the largest and most influential Ukrainian state higher education institutions had gained serious control over the accreditation process, including initial decision-making and share of financial streams. As a result, each academic field was subordinated to a single state higher education institution (and partially to several other state institutions represented in a special council's board) that actually determined state policy in the country scale. Nevertheless, the Ministry also retained considerable control over the accreditation and licensing processes. The interests of the Ministry and the most influential state higher education institutions were now counterbalanced in the formally independent State Accreditation Commission (SAC), headed by the Minister of Education ex officio and staffed chiefly by the Ministry clerks. SAC was created in the reformed system as the highest accreditation instance making all final decisions about licensing and accreditation (before that time the final decisions were adopted by the Ministry board). The SAC board was organized as consisting of about 50 members, including key Ministry of Education and Science representatives, representatives of other Ministries having higher education institutions in their subordination (e.g. Ministry of Defense or Ministry of Health Protection), rectors of the key state higher education institutions, mostly those who hosted special councils, and a couple of rectors of the most recognized private higher education institutions. This composition of the SAC board and the scope of its functions remain without changes until now. Accreditation procedure adopted in 1996 and valid until 2001 included the following steps: Step 1. Self-evaluation of the higher education institution by the following criteria: (1) historical development; (2) general organization of instruction; (3) student recruitment system; (4) academic personnel; (5) academic departments; (6) research activities; (7) material recourses and financial activities; (8) international relations; (9) sources of financing for training specialists provided by budget (if any) and legal persons (e.g. Ministries, factories etc.). The last indicator was included to determine social need for training specialists at a particular institution, as opposed to private need when education is financed by physical persons. Step 2. Higher education institution submits self-evaluation materials to the Ministry of Education and Science. The Ministry is free to accept or reject the materials. (The documents are rejected if they do not formally comply with the existing but constantly changing requirements.) If the documents are accepted, the Ministry forwards them to the corresponding special council. Step 3. The special council's expert group audits the higher education institution and presents the decision. Step 4. The special council's session approves or disapproves the decision and adopts recommendations for the expert council that works in the Ministry of Education and Science as a preparatory stage to SAC. Step 5. The expert council at the Ministry of Education and Science approves or disapproves special councils recommendations. In case of disagreement, if the expert council's opinion is in favor of the higher education institution, the documents are usually forwarded to SAC for final decision. If the expert council's opinion is against the higher education institution, but the special council's decision was in favor of this institution, the documents may be returned to the special council for re-consideration at the next special council's session. If both councils are against the institution, the accreditation procedure may stop at this stage without submitting the documents to SAC. Step 6. Upon receiving the documents, SAC adopts the final decision. (SAC may also disagree with the expert council's or special councils decisions.) Step 7. The accreditation procedure above applies to each academic specialty separately. If 75 percent of specialties are accredited separately, an institution can apply for being accredited "as a whole". However, in that case it will have to pass similar accreditation procedure again (at least, this is required for private institutions; for state institutions this may be done automatically, without additional inspections). In this system of administrative checks and balances, special councils represented the interests of the most influential state higher education institutions, while the expert council represented the preliminary position of the Ministry. In the case of contradiction, SAC had a free space for maneuvering and looking for compromise. The procedure of licensing adopted in 1996 and valid until now follows the same steps 1 to 6, with some differences in the scope of requirements only. Licensing is required before starting any new higher education program. In summer of 2001, the accreditation procedure in Ukraine was simplified a little and became again closer to the initial 1992 1995 system. The original intention of the Ministry was to totally dismiss all special councils; but it achieved only partial success. As a result, SAC somewhat changed the procedure of accreditation but not the procedure of licensing. Thus, since 2001 the accreditation process is conducted bypassing special councils: all expert commissions are now organized by the Ministry's expert council immediately, and then the documents are going directly to SAC via expert council. However, licensing still goes via special councils as before. This seems to be the result of a compromise between the Ministry and the most influential state higher education institutions acting as special councils' holders. SAC is not formally obliged to explain any of its decisions to any higher education institution; moreover, it usually discusses all cases in absentia (behind closed doors). Representatives of the higher education institutions whos cases are being discussed usually wait outside (sometimes they may be invited inside to answer some questions) and have no control over the decision making process. Formally, the decision of SAC is final; however, if an institution disagrees with the SAC decision, it may appeal. Curiously enough, an institution may only appeal to SAC itself, so that there is no independent arbiter provided. An institution may be put on probation and later SAC will review the required improvements. However, the most difficult dimension of accreditation procedure was not even its complexity, but a long set of strict quantitative accreditation requirements adopted by SAC. The most important of these requirements, in the version adopted by SAC decision on November 23, 1999, were the following: total percentage of full-time instructors (at least 80 percent of instructors employed by a particular institution must keep their work-record books there ); total percentage of instructors with research degree (for the institutions of the 3rd level of accreditation must be at least 8 percent of Doctors and 60 percent of Candidates). Only 40 percent of the total number may be of the retirement age, otherwise they are not counted for accreditation purposes; total instruction area metric (for the institutions of the 3rd level of accreditation must be at least 10 square meters per student); the availability of student dormitories for all students (must be 100 percent); total computer time available for each student (must be at least 0.9 hour per student per day); institution's own library (must be at least 90 percent of the existing requirement); percentage of positive grades for the control tests organized by the experts' commission (must be at least 90 percent); percentage of 4 and 5 grades for the control tests organized by the experts' commission (must be at least 50 percent). If any of the above accreditation indicators is lower than required, but the difference is less than 5 percent of the total, higher education institution still "may be" accredited. If the divergence of any of these indicators is 5 to 7 percent, but the rest comply with the requirements without any divergence, an institutions certificate of accreditation "may be" suspended (the vagueness of this expression is quite typical because it reserves still more free space for subjective solutions based on various "informal relations", both positive and negative). If the divergence of any of these indicators is more than 7 percent, this is sufficient reason for canceling the certificate of accreditation. If an institution is reported to fraud, the certificate of accreditation is also cancelled. To understand the importance and practical implications of these quantitative requirements it is necessary to compare them with the real situation in Ukrainian higher education. Some of the SAC requirements adopted in 1999 were higher than most of the Ukrainian higher education institutions could and still can meet, except for the largest state institutions. Thus, it may easily seem that by setting such standards SAC left virtually no chance to many private institutions to pass the accreditation. In fact, however, it only gave SAC and those state higher education institutions that hosted special councils a high level of formal and informal influence over the majority of other institutions seeking the accreditation. Evaluation of the real numbers for some of the key accreditation requirements such as the number of degree-holding instructors and instruction metric space explains the above. As Tables 18-20 indicate, the average percentage of Candidates of the total number of instructors for the institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation was about 48-49 percent in both 1995/96, 1999/2000 and 2001/2002. The average percentage of Doctors was 7 percent in 1995/96, and about 8 percent in both 1999/2000 and 2001/2002. However, the minimal accreditation requirement for the institutions of the 3rd level of accreditation, adopted in 1999, was to have no less than 60 percent of Candidates and 8 percent of Doctors. For those institutions, which would try to attract instructors from other institutions (part-time) in order to increase indicators, SAC has adopted 80 percent "primary employment" rule plus additional age limit requirements mentioned above. A leader of one of the private higher education institutions openly stated that the main strategic goal of SAC was to make its requirements for instructors unattainable for any higher education institution. One of the reasons for setting such a high numerical requirement for degree-holding instructors is financial. To receive Candidate or Doctoral degree in Ukraine is very expensive for an average scholar. For Doctoral degree, it costs $2,000 and more, including the cost of publication of the required 20 articles in the formally recognized scientific journals (the list of such journals is approved by the state organ separately for each specialty) and one monograph, plus the organization of the very process of defense, usually also paid. By Ukrainian standards of academic salary, such expenditures are hardly affordable without external support. Since May 2003, the budget-paid monthly salary of a full-time state university teacher (without the degree of Doctor and title of Professor) ranges from H" $ 53 (no research degree and title) to H" $ 80 (Degree of Candidate, Title of Docent) for the institutions of the 3rd level of accreditation and, respectively, H" $ 66 to H" $ 100 for the institutions of the 4th level of accreditation. Before April 2003, budget-paid salaries (previously increased in February 2002) were even lower (5 to 10%). This situation is partially remedied only for some teachers working at the most "profitable" and highly paid departments of state institutions (Law, Accounting, Business and Management, Foreign Languages) who may sometimes receive various kinds of irregular additional payment (from the institution's non-budget income sources). At private institutions, teachers' salaries are usually equal to or just slightly higher than salaries at similar state institutions. Thus, it is virtually impossible for an average Ukrainian scholar to get to the Doctoral dissertation defense without considerable financial support from either his institution or some other sources. On the other hand, the most influential Ukrainian state higher education institutions, those who host special councils and are represented in the SAC board, also host considerable part of the councils for Candidate and Doctoral defenses, as well as considerable part of the scientific journals formally recognized for defense purposes. Thus, a big share of the money paid for publications and other expenses associated with a dissertation defense goes to the same relatively narrow circle of the largest Ukrainian state institutions that are thus interested in increasing the mentioned accreditation requirement. In a long run, these measures will certainly increase the existing financial gap between the largest Ukrainian state higher education institutions and all other higher education institutions within the national higher education system. As for instruction metric area requirements, which were set as 10 square meters per one full-time student for the institutions of the 3rd level of accreditation and 12 square meters for the institutions of the 4th level of accreditation, the difference with reality here was even more dramatic. As official statistics indicate, the corresponding numbers for 2000 were 7.9 square meters per student for institutions of the 1st and 2nd level of accreditation and 6.5 square meters for the institutions of the 3rd and 4th level of accreditation. In 2001/2002 academic year the situation with instruction area metric remained virtually the same (see Tables 21 and 22 for details). The question, which arises here, is how Ukrainian higher education institutions managed to be accredited after November 1999 without meeting at least some of the most fundamental accreditation requirements. One of the possible explanations is corruption in Ukrainian society. In other words, by setting the mentioned accreditation criteria unattainable for many higher education institutions, SAC did not mean to ruin the Ukrainian higher education system or close the majority of the institutions. In accordance with the old cultural tradition, it used formal requirements as a bureaucratic cover for informal relations that must be inevitably set between the accrediting organs and the accredited institution to make the process go successfully. This Ukrainian phenomenon does not necessarily mean bribes or gifts since in some cases the informal counter-influence from the bottom can be substituted by personal relations, connections, and even sympathy between accreditation experts and representatives of the accredited institutions. However, absolute majority of our respondents stated clearly (although mostly unofficially) that at least some sort of informal relations is necessary to pass Ukrainian accreditation. In particular, this opinion was expressed by Oleksander Serdiuk, Rector of Kharkiv Institute of Management (private). Vladimir Medvedev, Rector of Odessa Institute of Management and Law (private) agrees. He confesses that his "limit" of bribery (not in the case of accreditation) is a bottle of cognac or $100-200. He admits that this is much less than is "required" for accreditation, but he simply has no resources to give more; if I had, he adds, I would "give". The reason why he generally agrees to pay money bribe is, according to his own words: If I have given $1000, and have solved problems for $5000, why shouldn't I give? Obviously, the bribery phenomenon in Ukrainian education can be corrosive. Some Ukrainian education authorities understand how destructive for the society the bribery is. They reject to be involved in this illegal activity. For example, Vice-Rector of Kyiv Institute of Investing Management (private), Sofia Rybakova, stated that her colleagues from the corresponding special council behaved absolutely correctly with her. There were no hints or talks about extra payments. Thus, her institution never faced the bribery problem in the accreditation process. The accreditation procedures existing in Ukraine since the new version of the Law on Education was adopted on March 23, 1996 were practiced with various discriminations against private higher education institutions. New law declared licensing a necessary condition to start any new higher education program. The Cabinet of Ministries adopted the new accreditation rules at the same time. The new Ministry of Education and Science team, which replaced the previous one soon after Ukrainian 1995 presidential election, initiated both these legislative innovations. However, the accreditation procedure that existed since 1992 had been already stopped in the fall of 1995, while the new accreditation rules were adopted several months later. Moreover, although the first session of the newly created SAC took place in April 1996, the real licensing and accreditation procedures resumed only in the fall of 1996. This created a long break in the accreditation procedure, just when the first Ukrainian private higher education institutions were ready to pass the accreditation and graduate their first students; of course, this artificially created break at a crucial moment negatively influenced their popularity among future students and their parents. At the same time, state institutions did not suffer from this break since they were temporarily accredited. The new Ministry team headed by Minister Mikhail Zgurovsky quickly cancelled or suspended many private higher education institutions licenses, usually after corresponding inspections revealing violations of the existing or newly invented rules and licensing criteria. In some cases, private institutions were not timely notified that their licenses were canceled or suspended. Sometimes SAC did not even perform an official inspection of an institution before canceling or suspending its license. Thus, from the very beginning of its activity, SAC demonstrated biased and mostly negative attitude towards private higher education institutions. Different approach in treating private and state higher education institutions was also reflected in the state licensing and accreditation fees. For state institutions, fees were fixed and did not exceed $50-60 in any case of licensing or accreditation; for private institutions, the licensing and accreditation fees were defined respectively as one and three per cent of the total annual fees paid by students. These sums amounted several hundreds and even thousands in US dollars. This regulation created a situation where private sector of higher education financed not only its own licensing and accreditation, but to a considerable extent also licensing and accreditation of state-financed higher education institutions. In 1996, Ukrainian authorities attempted to impose state monopoly on Law and Medical schools. In June 1996, President of Ukraine addressed a letter to the Prime Minister, in which he described negative tendencies in creating private higher education institutions and training professionals in specialties that influence the security of the state and its citizens first of all, doctors and lawyers. The Prime Minister was asked to work out proposals on how to stop training doctors and lawyers in the non-state and non-profile higher education institutions; their students had to be transferred into the profile state institutions. Corresponding private higher education institutions were proposed to become ad liberum structural subdivisions of those profile state institutions. When Kuchmas letter was published in the Business newspaper, the publication made an effect of an exploded bomb, especially since Presidential Administration did not deny the authenticity of the letter. However, for the first time an attempt to violate legal rights of private higher education institutions met an organized resistance. The same issue of the Business newspaper that published the President's letter also published sharply critical comment by A.Nikazakov, an Ukrainian lawyer, and V.Prokhorov, Executive Secretary of the Ukrainian Association of Lawyers. Their stormy and legally grounded negative reaction had positive consequences. The Prime Minister requested the Minister of Justice to analyze the President's proposal, and finally the entire story was silently smothered with no negative consequences for private higher education institutions. Nevertheless, the battles around Ukrainian Law schools continued. During 1996 2001 Law schools represented one of the most expensive and the most profitable educational fields. The special council for accreditation in the field of Law is situated in Kharkiv, on the basis of Kharkiv National Academy of Law. The council tended to serve first of all the interests of the Academy and several other large Ukrainian state institutions whose representatives were included into this special council's board. Thus, in May 2000 the commissions of the special council quickly visited other higher education institutions that trained lawyers, counted the number of instructors work-record books and went away, rejecting the institutions requirements to check the real quality of the teaching process and students' knowledge. As it was analyzed before, the quantitative requirements for the percentage of degree-holding instructors and total instruction area metric, declared as both the accreditation criteria and the conditions of licensing, were set so that the licenses and/or accreditation of many Ukrainian higher education institutions could be suspended anytime. During 1996 2001, SAC was constantly changing its rules and regulations, which did not lead to stability and order in Ukrainian higher education. Thus, SAC adopted new standards and requirements not only for the future accreditation but also for current higher education institutions activities. Many Ukrainian observers, including distinguished lawyers, state and private higher education leaders, remarked that SAC significantly exceeded its authority without having corresponding rights. Thus, SAC began to require methodical, material and personnel resources for four years ahead. SAC also adopted a rule that all new specialties should be primarily licensed at the 2nd level of accreditation only. As a result, now all Ukrainian institutions have to pass the procedures of licensing and accreditation over again for each of the two higher 'levels of accreditation', with all necessary financial expenditures that inevitably benefit the accrediting organs. SAC adopted rules for suspending and canceling licenses; rules for canceling accreditation, although the last procedure is not even mentioned in the regulations adopted by the Cabinet of Ministries. In addition, SAC imposed the rule that its decision about canceling an institutions license or accreditation must come into effect immediately. Consequently, an institution was doomed to appeal against this decision in the course of its closing, or rather after that. Thus, actually the rehabilitation here may be only posthumous. In addition, the documents regulating the SAC's activity, as well as documents adopted by SAC, contained numerous contradictions with other existing legal documents. For example, in accordance with legislative documents defining licensing in education and licensing in general, higher education institutions license might be cancelled, respectively, by SAC only and by the State Chamber of Licensing. The decision about canceling the license could be appealed in the SAC only and at the same time also in the court of Law. Licensing fee for private higher education institutions was identified by the Cabinet of Ministries as much higher than the highest licensing fee set by another state document, namely the general Regulations on Licensing. Most of the Ukrainian observers agree that the process of accreditation existing in Ukraine today is cut off from reality and, in fact, is a product of organizational and professional incompetence. The main result of such accreditation procedure was increasing differentiation within the Ukrainian higher education system. It appears that several most influential state higher education institutions along with a few largest private institutions monopolized the market and significantly enlarged the gap between them and the rest of educational institutions. SAC is used as an effective tool in implementing these discriminative policies with its authority to change accreditation standards. Thus, as Medvedev (2000) remarks, if an American University, having exclusively Nobel-prize-winning teaching staff, would decide to transfer its base into Ukraine, it would not get here even a license (without a bribe, of course), and it would only dream about accreditation. Some positive changes within the accreditation process, however, gradually appeared during 2000-2003. Since summer 2000, accreditation fee has been finally made equal for all higher education institutions: now it amounts to H" $50 in USD equivalent. On April 08, 2003, SAC went even further and significantly lowered some of its most unrealistic quantitative requirements for both licensing and accreditation. Thus, the new requirement for the percentage of Candidate degree holders (primarily employed by the licensed or accredited institution) has been set as 30% against 60% in the previous version. It is worth noting that now the percentage in question must be counted not from the total number of teaching personnel (as before) but from the total scope of teaching loading. The requirement for teaching area metric has been lowered from 10 to 6 square meters per student, which is somewhat lower than average Ukrainian figures (cf. Tables 18 and 19). In fact, nothing can characterize better the irrelevancy and arbitrariness of the requirements existed before (since November 1999 to April 2003). However, the minimal requirement for the percentage of full-time Doctor degree holders (primarily employed by the licensed or accredited institution) has been increased at the same time from 8% to 10%, applicable to all institutions of the 3rd and 4th levels of accreditation while average Ukrainian rate for this type of institutions is only 8,49%. The recently adopted Presidential and parliamentary legislation documents do not seem to attempt to bring any serious changes to licensing and accreditation rules in Ukraine. The National Doctrine declares that the system of licensing and accreditation must be "improved", but it does not specify how it should be done. The Law on Higher Education preserves the accreditation procedure as it exists now. The document underlines the existing requirement inequality for state and private institutions and repeats that state higher education institutions as institutions founded by the state alone are not required to have any statutory fund. The statutory fund regulations for private institutions are described in a great detail in the document. Function of Ukrainian Higher Education In order to understand how Ukrainian higher education functions, it is helpful to analyze such important parameters as the composition of the student body, scholars and educational administrators, as well as their views and attitudes. Recent data (2001) provided by a group of Ukrainian sociologists from Donetsk National University headed by Dr. Volodymyr Kipen reflect general public and professional opinion concerning state and private higher education institutions in Ukraine. As research findings indicate, Ukrainian academics have highly critical attitude to the current educational situation in the country. 2/3 of the respondents are confident that the level of education in Ukraine is not lower than in the Western countries. Educational professionals generally support the idea of reforms (64 percent). Interestingly enough, leaders of private higher education institutions are more willing to support reforms than their colleagues from state institutions. The notions about desirable reforms are quite vague: to give more opportunities for talented youth from poor families to receive higher education (56 percent), to make teaching process more flexible to better fit students' abilities (50 percent), to follow international educational tendencies like continuity, humanization, informatization, and diversification of educational services (41 percent). Lack of finances and economic crisis are seen as the main obstacle for further development of the higher education system (76 percent). Corruption in the field of higher education is seen as quite a serious problem by 50 percent of the respondents, as extremely serious problem by 36 percent. Corruption was reported to take place in the admission process 64 percent of the respondents, distant education 50 percent, educational authorities 50 percent, at the level of educational leaders 42 percent. Data with regard to the student body does not reveal patriotic attitudes in the Ukrainian student body. According to the survey results, 23 percent of Ukrainian students would like to immigrate. Another sociological survey organized in 1994 and 1998 at two Kharkiv private higher education institutions and three Kharkiv state higher education institutions of similar educational profile showed that students of private institutions are generally more patriotic-minded than their colleagues from state institutions. 48 percent of the students from Kharkiv private institutions expressed a desire to go abroad for permanent residence, the same figure for the students from Kharkiv state higher education institutions amounted 73 percent. Attitude to democracy among students is more critical than at the beginning of 1990s. For 54 percent of the respondents democracy means slow economic development. 20 percent suppose that democracy may be good for other countries, but not for today's Ukraine. Official statistics on the composition of the Ukrainian private higher education institutions rectors body for the period from 1994 to 1999 indicates the increase in the number of Doctors degree holders from 31.3 percent in 1994 to 34.7 percent in 1999 as well as a total increase in the number of rectors from 67 to 92 correspondingly. Instructors at private higher education institutions are generally younger than their colleagues from state institutions. Average age of full-time Doctors employed in private institutions is less than 50 years, while this indicator for state institutions is higher. One of the examples of the effective functioning of Ukrainian higher education institutions is the tendency of cooperation and possible integration between state and private higher education institutions. Leaders of private higher education institutions tend to avoid any clashes with neighboring state institutions. Absolute majority of the Ukrainian private higher education institutions use niche strategy, i.e. orient their educational policy towards some limited but comparatively stable and free or at least not densely occupied segment of the educational market. The alternative growth strategy is unacceptable for most of the private institutions. There are at least 15 known examples when state higher education institutions became co-founders of private institutions including the leading Ukrainian state higher education institutions such as Shevchenko National University, Kyiv National Technical University, Kyiv National Pedagogical University, etc. At least once state and private higher education institutions organized a joint faculty for distance education, where the private institution contributed by its infrastructure and the state institution by its right to grant Masters degree. Another possible way of cooperation between private and state higher education institutions is a creation of a joint legal unit called educational complex. In this case, private institution formally remains independent, but actually works as a state institutions subdivision coordinating its activity with the host state institution. One of the examples of cooperation between institutions is the relationship between Lviv Theological Academy (LTA), the denominational private higher education institution initially founded in Lviv in the first half of the 20th century and newly restored in the mid-1990s, and Lviv National University (LNU). This cooperation is conducted without any informal or formal subordination. The formal basis of their collaboration is the special cooperation agreement. LTA and LNU exchange instructors and teaching materials and use specific advantages of both institutions for their mutual benefit. Despite of the feeling of competition and a shadow of mutual jealousy, both sides manage to avoid these negative trends in their relations. For some reasons, the willingness of both state and private higher education institutions to cooperate significantly differs from one Ukrainian region to another. Thus, Odessa seems to be one of the most hostile places for private institutions in Ukraine: now only one of seven initially opened private institutions remains acting in that largest Southern Ukrainian city. Liubov Shirnina, Vice-Chair of the Department of Education at Odessa Regional State Administration, explains this phenomenon by both especially high market activity of Odessas state institutions, arising from traditional entrepreneurial spirit of the city, and deep incompetence of the leaders of local private institutions. Her position is that indeed all Odessas private institutions but one remaining deserved to be closed immediately. At the same time, Kharkiv seems to be one of the most peaceful regions where several leading state and private higher education institutions cooperate constantly and actively. Moreover, this cooperation is supported and encouraged by the local state administration. The explanation of Liudmila Belova, First Vice-Chair of the Department for Education and Science at Kharkiv Regional State Administration, is again dual. First, she mentions old academic traditions of Kharkiv region that served, as she put it, as the source of tolerance and wisdom, and also of some discretion, especially at the beginning, when the attitude to private institutions was more ambivalent. Another reason, according to Liudmila Belova, is that, unlike Odessa, the founders of Kharkiv private higher education institutions were mostly competent, respected and experienced educators. Kharkiv Institute of Humanities People's Ukrainian Academy, a local leader in Kharkiv private higher education movement, is only 10 years old, but is already recognized by Kharkiv state higher education institutions as equal among equals; and at least two or three other Kharkiv private institutions have nearly the same high status. There are examples when state and private higher education institutions even join their efforts of resistance against another state institution or a group of institutions that act aggressively within some segment of the educational market. Thus, in the summer of 2000, when Kharkiv National Academy of Law, using its special council for accreditation as a tool in the market competition, tried to stop licensing and cancel existing licenses at several private and state non-profile institutions that trained lawyers, some state and private institutions united against the danger of monopolization. In particular, Odessa Institute of Management and Law, the only remaining private institution in Odessa, tried to make Odessa National University its ally in this struggle against both Kharkiv National Academy of Law and newly created Odessa National Academy of Law (ONAL) that initially was the Institute of Law within Odessa National University. These examples demonstrate that market competition among state higher education institutions in Ukraine became very sharp by the late 1990s and shifted from traditional group opposition against all private institutions. There are also examples of non-peaceful relationship between private and state higher education institutions in Ukraine. They express mutual accusations of unfair competition tricks, including bureaucratic mechanisms and legal pressure, various violations of licensing restrictions and other legal limitations. The Ministry of Education and Science was not a neutral arbitrator in this opposition, but openly ensured some state institutions one-sided advantages. Thus, during the admission campaign of 2000, all state higher education institutions received special permission of the Ministry to admit the unlimited number of students willing to pay tuition fees in addition to the limited number of budget students and irrespectively of the licensed scope of admission. At the same time, private institutions, which always charge tuition rates, were required do so within the limits of their licenses only. However, since the admission campaign of 2001 this permission for state institutions has not been renewed. Contradictions usually appear when two or more state and private higher education institutions clash over a narrow circle of the most profitable specialties, e.g. Law, Economics or Management. During the interview, Mikhail Dubrovsky, Rector of Kharkiv Social and Economical Institute, which is a private institution owned by the Ukrainian trade unions' Council, confessed that several years ago, when his institution offered law program, he was visited by a local attorney who openly lobbied the interests of the National Academy of Law. The visitors statement, according to Mr. Dubrovsky, was simply we forbid you to train lawyers! As a result, this private higher education institution was finally forced to stop the law program in order to survive. The most common area of tension between neighboring state and private higher education institutions is the problem of shared instructors. Scholars tend to keep their work-record books at a state institution for prestigious and pension purposes and work part-time at a neighboring private institution to earn more money. State institutions leaders understand that their employees are looking for better salary but at the same time are concerned with the quality of instruction faculty can provide being overloaded with work. Iuriy Jampolski, Vice-Rector of a large regional state higher education institution Odessa State Polytechnic University stated that the best thing the Ministry of Education and Science could do is to close the neighboring private institution (i.e. Odessa Institute of Management and Law mentioned above) and provide his institution with more funds to pay his employees bigger salary. However, another point of view was also expressed. Zoltan Zyman, Vice-Rector for Studies and International Relations of Kharkiv National University (KNU), states that the cooperation of KNUs instructors with Kharkiv private institutions has both advantages and disadvantages. He agrees they have less time left for research activities but they also gain new and helpful professional experience they may use working with KNU students. Similar attitude is often expressed in official statements of state higher education institutions leaders. A tendency of self-organization of Ukrainian private higher education institutions appeared in the early 1990s. Several organizations of private institutions were established. In 1993, Volodymyr Medvedev, Rector of Odessa Institute of Management and Law, initiated founding the Ukrainian Association of Private (or Non-State) Higher Education Institutions in Odessa. Now the Association, embracing not only higher, but private education institutions of all levels, is headed by Ivan Timoshenko, Rector of European University of Finance, Informational Technologies, Management and Business (EUFIMB) located in Kyiv. An alternative organization, Ukrainian Confederation of Private Higher Education Institutions, was created in the mid-1990s by Georgiy Schekin, Rector of the International Personnel Academy (IPA) located also in Kyiv. Both EUFIMB and IPA are among the wealthiest and the most influential Ukrainian private institutions. It is necessary to add that not all Ukrainian private institutions belong to these organizations. Some institutions maintain membership at one of these unions or even both of them, but many private institutions prefer to stay close to a neighboring local state institution or conduct independent policy. The main reason for staying independent is that private institutions do not expect to receive a support from those metropolitan structures [the Association and the Confederation] and instead pay more attention to strengthening links with regional political and economic elites'. According to our respondents' estimates, the stratification process among Ukrainian private higher education institutions, which initiated during 1990s, will only increase in the following decade. Some observers remark that currently the wealthiest and most influential private institutions, including EUFIMB and IPA, aim to and already have much more in common with the most influential Ukrainian state institutions rather than with the rest of private institutions. About 20 percent of private higher education institutions with high academic culture have so stable market position that their future existence is practically secured. Developing private higher education institutions form another group, which according to the optimistic forecasts may join the first group soon. In addition, the third group of private institutions, about 40 percent of the total, is defined as solely making profit by all means. Social functioning of Ukrainian higher education institutions provides examples of efficient work in the field of ethnical and cultural cooperation, and promotion of religious tolerance and freedom in the society. In this regard, it is important to mention that the commonly accepted opinion about the total non-existence of private education in the Soviet Union is not completely true. At least two types of private institutions existed under the old regime. The first group of institutions, although de-facto not quite private, were founded and owned by professional unions analogue of Western trade unions. These institutions were never considered actually private because their founders, professional unions, were closely associated with the ruling Communist Party. Since the regime changed, professional unions remaining in Ukraine drifted towards classical trade unionism. They still own several higher education institutions that are legally treated as private institutions. The second group of private higher education institutions inherited by Ukraine from the Soviet Union was not de jure treated as higher education institutions under the previous regime. These institutions were founded by various Churches for their denominational needs. Though their existence was allowed, religious schools were never legally recognized as higher education institutions since the Church was officially separated from the State. The historical isolation of these institutions is still felt in the society: they are completely separated from non-denominational private higher education institutions created in the 1990s. Meanwhile, there are over 100 educational institutions that train priests and/or religious ministers for dozens of Christian and non-Christian Churches. These denominational institutions are still not legally recognized as higher education institutions and act in accordance with the Law on Liberty of Conscience that regulates activities of all religious organizations in Ukraine. This may be the reason for the lack of analysis of Ukrainian denominational schools in professional literature. The problem of legal recognition of Ukrainian denominational schools is not severe until they remain purely denominational and do not offer secular specialties. But at least several denominational institutions in Ukraine, following old national traditions and Western examples, do already try to combine denominational and secular education. Lviv Theological Academy (LTA) that belongs to the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and is commonly considered the best denominational higher education institution nationwide, from the very moment of its restoration in 1994 declared its main goal to create Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv. LTA was the first Ukrainian denominational institution that established secular Faculty of History and Philology. However, these specialties could not be licensed in LTA since it is legally recognized not as an educational institution but as a non-profit organization with religious orientation. Moreover, according to Ukrainian law it was legally impossible to transform LTA into private higher education institution and keep its denominational status. Thus, the only option remaining for LTA was to legally establish the Ukrainian Catholic University in Lviv (actually established in 2002) as a formally separate secular institution. Other denominational institutions also move in the same direction. Thus, in April 2003 SAC accredited at the second accreditation level (training Bachelors) Ivano-Frankivsk Theological Institute that belongs to the Ivano-Frankivsk Diocese of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Kyiv Patriarchy). Not surprisingly, the accredited secular specialty in this case has been "Religious studies". However, not every denominational school can afford to establish a separate institution to provide secular education. Our respondents from one of the Kyiv Protestant Seminaries, supported by Western Protestant Churches, also declared their intention to begin offering secular specialties in several years. Same intentions were expressed by Ihor Isichenko, Archbishop of Kharkiv and Poltava, Rector of the Patriarch Mstislav's Collegium in Kharkiv and Head of the Educational Committee of the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. Since denominational institutions are not granted private higher education institution status, their students are socially discriminated and do not enjoy social benefits provided by the government. De jure students of denominational institutions are deprived of their students rights, although de facto they are sometimes granted certain privileges (e.g. discounted railway tickets or deferment of conscription) by local clerks at the military registration offices or transportation bureaus. The official position of the Ukrainian State Committee for Religious Affairs is to grant all denominational institutions an official status of recognized private higher education institutions. Unfortunately, the Committee is unable to effectively lobby this issue in the currently existing body of Ukrainian Parliament. Ukrainian private higher education institutions are very diverse in their ethnic, social and cultural orientation. Only few of them support single ethnic group, e.g. Jewish-oriented Solomon University in Kyiv. In general, private institutions are very flexible and diverse with regard to ethnical and cultural minorities. Cultural and lingual orientation of Ukrainian private institutions is usually regional. Thus, with regard to linguistic policy, Western Ukrainian private institutions are mostly Ukrainian-oriented, while Southern and Eastern Ukrainian institutions are mostly Russian-oriented and use Russian as a language of instruction. With regard to external cultural orientation, Western Ukrainian private institutions are mostly Western-culture-oriented, while Eastern and Southern Ukrainian institutions combine Western, Russian and Eastern cultural orientation. In terms of social protection of their students, Ukrainian private higher education institutions usually do not have clearly defined policy or budgeting. However, in some exceptional cases they do create mechanism to support students. For example, Kharkiv Institute of Management in cooperation with Kharkiv Regional Employment Center developed second higher education programs for temporarily unemployed. Another example is recently founded Open University of Human Development Ukraine (OUHDU) run by Petro Talanchuk, former Ukrainian Minister of Education (1992 1995). Acting with his usual vigor and energy, Petro Talanchuk has quickly organized 26 regional branches of his institution offering 35 licensed specialties, including Humanities and Economics, but also comparative Computer Science, Chemical Technology, Technology of Nutrition, Automobiles and Engines, etc. According to Talanchuk, the main reason of this branch policy for his institution is the intention to serve socially unprotected population and handicaps residing in Ukrainian provinces, who are not able to relocate to big cities to receive education. OUHDUs philosophy is: since socially unprotected people cannot go far from their homes to receive education, an education must come as close to them as possible. Out of 5,000 OUHDUs students throughout Ukraine, 37 percent are reported to be disabled. Each of the disabled students in Kyiv receives an educational grant from Kyiv City Administration that is one of the co-founders of OUHDU. In the regions, OUHDU assists disabled students to find private sponsors. Private higher education institutions, especially those situated in the largest and the most cosmopolitan Ukrainian cities (Kyiv, Donetsk, Odessa, Lviv and Kharkiv), establish a growing number of international contacts. International contacts of private institutions are very diverse and are growing rapidly. Some private institutions, e.g. Lviv Theological Academy, widely employ international instructors; other institutions participate in joint regional international educational programs. Numerous private higher education institutions offer internationally recognized diplomas in close cooperation with Western institutions or professional associations. Thus, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management developed a strong network of international links with several professional organizations, including the American Association of Investing Management and Researches, the European Federation of Financial Analysts' Societies, the Britain Institute of Certified Insurers, the Britain Institute of Securities, the International Association of Risk-Managers, etc. The qualification of Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) offered by KIIM in cooperation with the American Association of Investing Management and Researches (AAIMR) is internationally recognized, as well as the qualification of Certified European Financial Analyst (CEFA) offered by KIIM in cooperation with the European Federation of Financial Analysts' Societies (EFFAS). In addition, KIIM in alliance with its foreign partners offers the internationally recognized qualification of Chartered International Investment Analyst (CIIA) and MBA degree. KIIM international initiatives contribute to the development of Ukrainian national financial market and allows the institution to cooperate with Ukrainian government structures such as the State Committee for Regulatory Policy and Business and the State Commission for Securities. Future of Ukrainian Higher Education The future development of private higher education in Ukraine is hardly predictable as it depends on critical decisions of Ukrainian government and legislation documents that are currently under discussion. It was expected that if the newly elected (spring 2002) Ukrainian Parliament would allow privatization of state higher education institutions, the landscape of private higher education in Ukraine would change dramatically. However, currently (July 2003) this turn of the situation seems less real than it seemed about a year ago. The roots of this problem go back to the Law on Higher Education, adopted in January 2002. Article 23 of this document requires that all state-owned higher education institutions must have in the total scope of admission not less than 51% of budget-financed students. This requirement was assigned to be in force since 2003 admission campaign. However, as Liubov Kondratenko, Executive Director of the Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, commented in her interview, recently (spring 2003) many state higher education institutions addressed to the Parliament and asked to postpone this rule at least over the next several years. The reason for their anxiety was that if average figure for Ukrainian state higher education institution (3rd and 4th levels of accreditation) is currently about 43% of "paid" students, for some state institutions this indicator is much higher, even up to 90%. Thus, the leaders of those state institutions that already have more than 50% of "paid" students faced the problem of either reducing the number of "paid" students (which is for them, of course, a hardly acceptable option), or breaking the Law, or making their institution private. However, the last option remains still very unclear because currently there is no corresponding legal mechanism in the existing Ukrainian legislation and, thus, any attempt of this kind would entail hardly predictable legal consequences (including possibly heavier taxation burden). Finally, the Parliament postponed validating this part of the article 23 until 2005. This decision brought with itself at least temporary relief for the mentioned state institutions, so that now they can avoid the uncertainties of privatization for the nearest future. As for existing private institutions, the predictions about their future are not very optimistic, especially in the light of the increasing demographic gap. All our respondents remarked that demographic gap in the decade of 2001 2010 will influence dramatically the development of Ukrainian higher education system. This gap originated in Ukraine in the second half of 1980s due to Chernobyl disaster and economic uncertainties associated with Perestroika. During the 1990s, this gap already eliminated most of the Ukrainian kindergartens (now their buildings are used for other purposes, including private higher education institutions). Ukrainian secondary schools are also in risk now. When this destruction wave will reach higher education, the demand for it will significantly decrease, while the competition between currently existing higher education institutions will reach its pick. According to the statistics, if the index of the demand for higher education in 2002 would be taken as 1.0, its decrease in 2007 will drop down to 0.86, will continue to descend down to 0.64 in 2012 and 0.61 in 2013. If the current share of private higher education institutions at the Ukrainian educational market is estimated as about 6-7 percent of the total, our respondents 5-year forecasts range from 10 percent in the best case to 5 and even 1 - 2 percent in the worst case. Some of our respondents are confident that only about 20 percent of the currently existing private higher education institutions will survive the new demographic and market challenges. The rest is predicted to be closed or absorbed by larger private or most probably state institutions. Market competition among higher education institutions is predicted to become harder in the following decade. Acknowledgements. We express our deepest gratitude to all our Ukrainian respondents, representing various educational institutions, governing organs and public organizations. This is the openness and sincerity of our colleagues that have made this study possible. Their willingness to cooperate proved out to be above all our expectations. Our special thanks are addressed to the authorities of four Ukrainian PHEI who agreed to serve as the subjects of case studies: Lviv Theological Academy, Odessa Institute of Management and Law, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management and Kharkiv Institute of Humanities People's Ukrainian Academy. The complete list of our respondents includes 43 persons representing five largest Ukrainian cities from five different regions: Lviv: Mikhailo Brihin, Head of the Department of Education, Lviv regional state administration; Sozont Koval, Vice-Head of the Department of Education, Lviv regional state administration; Father Boris Gudziak, Rector, Lviv Theological Academy; Jeffry Wills, Vice-Rector for Information Technology and Development, Lviv Theological Academy; Olena Dzhedzhora, Acting Dean of the Historical Faculty, Lviv Theological Academy; Petro Kostrubiy, Vice-Rector, Lviv National Technical University; Maria Zubrytska, Vice-Rector, Lviv National University; Serhiy Gvozdiov, Vice-Rector, Lviv Institute of Management; Roman Mokrik, Rector, The University of 'Lvivsky Stavropegion'. Odessa: Oleksander Zaporoschenko, Acting Vice-Rector for Studies, Deputy Chair of the Admission Commission, Head of the Scientific-Methodical Commission, Head of the Department of Biochemistry, Odessa National University; Volodymyr Medvedev, Rector, Odessa Institute of Management and Law; Eugenia Denchuk, Vice-Rector, Odessa Institute of Management and Law; Iuriy Jampolski, Vice-Rector, Odessa State Polytechnic University; Liubov Shirnina, Vice-Chair of the Department of Education, Odessa Regional State Administration; Serhiy Stepanenko, Vice-Chair of the regional SHEI Rector's council, Rector of Odessa State Ecological University. Kharkiv: Mikhailo Dubrovsky, Rector, Kharkiv Social and Economical Institute; Zoltan Zyman, Vice-Rector for Studies and International Relations, Kharkiv National University; Christian Rakovsky, Rector, The International Slavonic University; Oleksander Serdiuk, Rector, Kharkiv Institute of Management; Valentyna Astakhova, Rector, Kharkiv Institute of Humanities 'People's Ukrainian Academy'; Katerina Astakhova, Vice-Rector, Kharkiv Institute of Humanities 'People's Ukrainian Academy'; Mikhailo Bondarenko, Rector, Kharkiv Institute of Business and Management; Liudmila Belova, First Vice-Head of the Department for Education and Science, Kharkiv Regional State Administration; Yuri Sokara, Vice-Rector for Humanities, Kharkiv National Technical University. Donetsk: Oleksandr Shubin, Rector, Donetsk State University of Economics and Trade; Vyacheslav Byelousov, Vice-Head of the Department for Education and Science, Donetsk Regional State Administration. Kyiv: Jaroslav Holovko, Rector, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management; Halyna Kanafotska, Vice-Rector for External Relations, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management; Serhiy Dobrovsky, Financial Manager, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management; Natalia Parkhomenko, Chief Specialist for Quality, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management; Valeriy Shapovalenko, Director for International Development, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management; Sofia Rybakova, Vice-Rector for Studies, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management; Olena Byelofastova, Director of Kyiv Business School, Kyiv Institute of Investing Management; Taras Finikov, First Vice-Rector, Kyiv Institute of Economics and Law 'KROK'; Valerij Hondyl, Vice-Rector for Research, Kyiv National Shevchenko University; Victor Liubchik, Head of the Department for Religious Studies and Analytical Work, Ukrainian State Committee for Religious Affairs; Liubov Blinda, Vice-Head of the Department for Internal Policy, Kyiv City State Administration; Father Ihor Isichenko, Archbishop of Kharkiv and Poltava, Rector of the Patriarch Mstislav's Collegium in Kharkiv, Head of the Educational Committee of UAOC, Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church; Nina Oushakova, Vice-Chairman of the 'special council' for Accreditation of Trade and Management Programs, Chairman of the Ministry's Methodical Commission for Management Education, First Vice-Rector of Kyiv National University of Economics and Trade; W. Lee Allison, Academic Dean, Kyiv Evangel Theological Seminary; Ivanas kulis, President of Vilnius Theological College of the Union of Pentecostal Churches of Lithuania, post-graduate student of Kyiv Evangel Theological Seminary; Petro Talanchuk, President, Open University of Human Development 'Ukraine'; Liubov Kondratenko, Executive Director, Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions. Table 1 1995/19961996/19971997/19981998/19991999/20002000/20012001/20022002/2003Higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditationState735738606592589593587590Private4752546169717877Total782790660653658664665667Higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditationState169199202206220223225232Private6475789293929398Total255274280298313315318330Grand Total10371064940951971979983997 The number of Ukrainian higher education institutions (as of the beginning of each academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 34-37 (original in Ukrainian). This edition reprints without changes all data and materials provided in: Higher Education of Ukraine. The materials for the Summarizing Session of the Ministry of Education and Science Board (Kyiv, 2003). Table 2 1995/19961996/19971997/19981998/19991999/20002000/20012001/20022002/2003Higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditationState11511198949498104108Private6667891112Total121117104101102107115120Higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditationState172181206224238261286311Private811141821243037Total180192220242259285316348Grand Total301309324343361392431468 The dynamics of student body for 10.000 of Ukrainian population (as of the beginning of each academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 34-37. Table 3 1995/19961996/19971997/19981998/19991999/20002000/20012001/20022002/2003Higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditationState588,9565,9496,0496,0465,9485,1509,2525,3Private28,829,030,434,737,843,052,057,6Total617,7595,0526,4503,7503,7528,0561,3582,9Higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditationState880,5921,41039,91119,81183,91285,81402,11506,4Private42,355,570,190,5101,4117,1145,9180,5Total922,8976,91110,01210,01285,01402,91548,01686,9Grand Total1540,51571,51636,31714,01788,71930,92109,32269,8 The number of students in Ukrainian higher education institutions (thousands of students per academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 34-37. Table 4 1995/19961996/19971997/19981998/19991999/20002000/20012001/20022002/2003Higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditationState176,5170,6151,1148,1153,0169,4176,5177,0Private12,312,815,116,817,120,724,726,7Total188,8183,4166,2164,9170,1190,1201,2203,7Higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditationState193,5205,0243,2263,0272,7314,5344,8359,5Private13,316,521,627,127,931,942,349,1Total206,8221,5264,8290,1300,4346,4387,1408,6Grand Total395,6404,9431,0455,0470,5536,5588,3612,3 The dynamics of admission (thousands of students per academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 34-37. Table 5 1995/19961996/19971997/19981998/19991999/20002000/20012001/20022002/2003Higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditationState181,5174,2150,0145,5143,3134,8132,9139,8Private9,711,512,211,412,713,814,615,7Total191,2185,7162,2156,9156,0148,6147,5155,5Higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditationState145,9152,9180,8202,3225,2254,1288,2326,6Private2,12,95,912,115,119,524,630,1Total148,0155,8186,7214,3240,3273,6312,8356,7Grand Total339,2341,5348,9371,2396,3422,2460,3512,2 The dynamics of graduates (thousands of students per academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 34-37. Table 6 1995/19961996/19971997/19981998/19991999/20002000/20012001/20022002/2003Higher education institutions of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditationState3534302929272729Private22223333Total3736323132303032Higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditationState28,630,4364045525967Private0,40,6133456Total2931374348566473Grand Total66676974808694105 The dynamics of graduates for 10.000 of Ukrainian population (per academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 34-37. Table 7 StudentsNumber%Number%Number% 1-2 levels of accreditation StatePrivateTotalFull-time387,691,735,28,3422,8100Part-time3,485,00,615,04,0100Distant118,287,916,312,1134,5100Total509,290,752,19,3561,3100 3-4 levels of accreditation StatePrivateTotalFull-time849,792,271,77,8921,4100Part-time10,287,21,512,811,7100Distant542,288,272,711,8614,9100Total1,402,190,6145,99,41,548,0100 Distribution of full-time, part-time and distant students in Ukrainian higher education institutions (thousands of students, as of the beginning of 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 56-57. Table 8 Institutions' level of accreditation1-23-4TotalState sectorTotal number of students 509,21402,11911,3Number of students for 10,000 of population104286390%90,490,590,5Private sectorTotal number of students 52,1145,9198,0Number of students for 10,000 of population113041%9,69,59,5TotalTotal number of students 561,31548,02109,3Number of students for 10,000 of population115316431%100100100 Distribution of student body in absolute figures (thousands of students) and for 10.000 of Ukrainian population (as of the beginning of 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 44, 56. Table 9 Ukraine total Institutions' level of accreditationState budgetLocal budgetsFinanced by state ministries and corporate investorsFinanced by private investorsTotal1-251%12%2%35%100%3-454,9%0,4%1,69%43.02%100% Ukraine state sector Institutions' level of accreditationState budgetLocal budgetsFinanced by state ministries and corporate investorsFinanced by private investorsTotal1-255,33%12,65%0,82%31,2%100%3-459,6%0,43%1,56%38,41100% Distribution of students (in percentage) by the sources of financing and type of institution (as of the beginning of the 1999/2000 academic year) Sources: Higher Education of Ukraine. The materials for the Summarizing Session of the Ministry of Education and Science Board (Kyiv, 2000). Table 10 Ukraine totalInstitutions' level of accreditationState budgetLocal budgetsFinanced by state ministries and corporate investorsFinanced by private investorsTotalNumber of students %Number of students %Number of students %Number of students %Number of students %1-2237,642,365,211,64,90,9253,545,2561,31003-4658,942,612,10,816,41,1860,655,51548,0100Total896,542,577,33,721,31,01114,252,82109,3100Ukraine private sectorInstitutions' level of accreditationState budgetLocal budgetsFinanced by state ministries and corporate investorsFinanced by private investorsTotal1-20,5160,90,9711,83,2146,147,34190,952,0421003-4----0,0130,02,0331,3143,85798,5145,903100Total0,5160,20,9840,45,2472,6191,19896,5197,945100 Distribution of students by the sources of financing and type of institution (thousands of students and percentage, as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 75-76. Table 11 19951996199719981999HEI of the 1st and the 2nd levels of accreditationState budget135,4115,881,276,975,9Local budgets15,621,019,818,918,6State ministries11,17,64,53,22,6Private donations / students funding26,739,160,766,073,0Total =SUM(ABOVE) 188,8 =SUM(ABOVE) 183,5 =SUM(ABOVE) 166,2 =SUM(ABOVE) 165 =SUM(ABOVE) 170,1HEI of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditationState budget152,4140,9134,7134,7135,1Local budgets1,00,51,01,21,4State ministries8,17,86,44,44,1Private donations / students funding45,372,2122,7149,8159,9Total =SUM(ABOVE) 206,8 =SUM(ABOVE) 221,4 =SUM(ABOVE) 264,8 =SUM(ABOVE) 290,1 =SUM(ABOVE) 300,5 The dynamics of higher education institutions admission, by the sources of financing (thousands of students) Source: Higher Education of Ukraine. The materials for the Summarizing Session of the Ministry of Education and Science Board (Kyiv, 2000). Table 12 Institutions' level of accreditationState budgetLocal budgetsFinanced by state ministries and corporate investorsFinanced by private investorsTotal Ukraine total Number of students %Number of students %Number of students %Number of students %Number of students %1-274,637,221,210,51,60,8103,851,5201,21003-4137,435,53,00,83,20,8243,562,9387,1100Total212,036,124,24,14,80,8347,359,0588,3100 Ukraine private sector 1-20,2240,90,6622,71,1734,722,64591,724,7041003-4----0,0010,00,4030,141,88399,042,287100Total0,2240,30,6631,11,5762,364,52896,366,991100 Distribution of students admission by the sources of financing and type of institution (thousands of students, as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 91-92. Table 13  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Distribution of higher education institutions by Ukrainian administrative regions (number of institutions, as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 53. Table 14  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Distribution of higher education institutions by Ukrainian administrative regions (number of institutions, as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 54. Table 15 YearNumber of licensed private higher education institutions of all 4 levels of accreditationSeptember 199323January 199435October 199476January 199581July 1995109January 1996120April 1997127September 1997136January 1999136January 2000138 Dynamics of the private higher education institutions licensing process Source: Victor Ogarenko, Non-State Higher Education in Ukraine: the First Decade (Zaporizhia, 2000), p. 105. (Original in Ukrainian). Table 16  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Distribution of state higher education institutions (3rd and 4th levels of accreditation) by the number of students (as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 52. Table 17  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Distribution of private higher education institutions (3rd and 4th levels of accreditation) by the number of students (as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 52. Table 18 1995/961996/971997/981998/991999/2000Total52.50053.00047.20046.30046.400Total full-time41.60042.10038.30037.50037.500Candidates, total10201258140214461651Candidates, full-time349454579597675 Total number of instructors at the higher education institutions of the 1st and 2nd levels of accreditation. Source: Higher Education of Ukraine. The materials for the Summarizing Session of the Ministry of Education and Science Board (Kyiv, 2000). Table 19 1995/961996/971997/981998/991999/2000Total77.92070.50571.85673.27075.974Candidates38.42136.38236.47536.34037.571Docents29.59729.79028.24328.51128.540Doctors63376468655565846558Professors57285855657662966546 Total number of instructors at the higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditation (1995-2000) Source: Higher Education of Ukraine. The materials for the Summarizing Session of the Ministry of Education and Science Board (Kyiv, 2000). Table 20 Number of personsAbsolute growthRate of growth (in percentage)Structure (in percentage)2001200220012002Ukraine totalTotal80,00083,8415,481106,85%100100Doctors6,8907,261371105,38%8,61%8,49%Professors6,6816,964283104,24%8,35%8,15%Candidates39,03040,3271,297103,32%48,79%47,18%Docents28,93330,1731,240104,29%36,17%35,30%Ukraine private sectorTotal5,8467,3091,463125,03%100100Doctors474702228148,10%8,11%9,60%Professors48558499120,41%8,30%7,99%Candidates2,7853,348563120,22%47,64%45,81%Docents1,8972,446549128,94%32,45%33,47% Recent dynamics of the "primary" teaching staff (keeping their work-record books inside) with research degrees and/or academic titles at the higher education institutions of the 3rd and the 4th levels of accreditation (2001-2002). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 135-136. Table 21  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Distribution of teaching and subsidiary area metric for Ukraine in general and Ukrainian regions (square meters per one full-time student, as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 146. Table 22  EMBED MSGraph.Chart.8 \s  Distribution of teaching and subsidiary area metric for Ukraine in general and Ukrainian regions (square meters per one full-time student, as of the beginning of the 2001/2002 academic year). Source: Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 147. PAGE  PAGE 75 V4.5 - 30 July 2003 -  PAGE 1 -  Vasyl Kremin, Ukrainian Minister of Education and Science, remarked at the Second All-Ukrainian Educators' Congress (Kyiv, October 7-9, 2001) that the admission to the budget-financed places at Ukrainian SHEI has been increased at 4% in 2001 for the first time during the last 10 years. Source: "Osvita Ukrainy" (Ukrainian Education), 2001, # 47 (275), October 12. The same tendency of increasing budget financing, although in a lesser degree, had been preserved during 2002 and 2003 admission campaigns.  The level of accreditation defined at a time of licensing differs from the accreditation itself. The level of accreditation is actually the level of the highest academic program licensed at a particular institution.  "Diplom" is actually the name of the document that is being given to graduates of all levels, i.e. currently there are "Diploms" for Bachelors and Masters as well as for Specialists. Thus, the proper name for the traditional degree of Specialist must be just Specialist, not "Diplom".  The given classification of academic degrees exists in Ukraine since 1996 when corresponding changes were made to the basic Law on Education. The Law on Higher Education, adopted in January 2002, develops the same classification in more details.  Oleksander Sydorenko, Private Higher Education: Ukrainian ways in the World Context (Kharkiv, 2000), p. 17. (Original in Ukrainian).  Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis, (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 9 (original in Ukrainian). This edition reprints without changes all data and materials provided in: Higher Education of Ukraine. The materials for the Summarizing Session of the Ministry of Education and Science Board (Kyiv, 2003).  Victor Ogarenko, Non-State Higher Education in Ukraine: the First Decade (Zaporizhia, 2000), p. 27. (Original in Ukrainian).  Ogarenko, p. 19.  "Osvita Ukrainy" (Ukrainian Education), 2001, # 47 (275), October 12.  Oleksander Sydorenko, Private Higher Education: Ukrainian ways in the World Context, Kharkiv, 2000, 195. (Original in Ukrainian).  Private Higher School in the Lens of Time: the Ukrainian Variant, ed. V. Astakhova (Kharkiv, 2000), p. 121. (Original in Russian)  Yekateryna Astakhova, Social functions transformation of higher education in contemporary conditions (Kharkiv, 1999), p. 21. (Original in Russian)  Sydorenko, p. 7.  Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis, (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p. 16.  Sydorenko, p. 29.  Ogarenko, p. 91.  Sydorenko, p. 195.  Ogarenko, p. 76-77.  Higher Education: Retrospective Analysis, (Kyiv: Association of Ukrainian Private Educational Institutions, 2003), p.62.  Ogarenko, p. 91.  Available in Ukrainian at: HYPERLINK "http://www.rada.gov.ua/laws/pravo/new/"http://www.rada.gov.ua/laws/pravo/new/  Available in Ukrainian at: HYPERLINK "http://www.rada.gov.ua/laws/pravo/new/"http://www.rada.gov.ua/laws/pravo/new/  Ukrainian academic system distinguishes the position of professor (similar to US "full professor") and the title of professor, granted by the special department of the Ministry of Education and Science basing on the request of an institutions Academic Council. Private higher education institutions are deprived of the right to grant a title of professor until the institution is fully accredited, and this is very important in the light of the mentioned newly adopted requirement. The holders of this title enjoy better salaries and usually occupy a corresponding position of professor. Under the Soviet Union, the title of professor was usually granted only after successful defense of a Doctoral dissertation; nowadays, Ukrainian academicians may sometimes get a title of professor having only the degree of Candidate. The degree of Candidate is lower than the degree of Doctor and must be received prior to Doctor; however, it also requires dissertation defense. The official position of the US National Science Foundation is that Ukrainian degree of Candidate is equal to US 'Doctor of Arts (DA), Doctor of Ministry, Education Specialist and Master of Philosophy' (code 72), while Ukrainian Doctor is equal to US 'Doctor of Philosophy/Education/Theology' (code 73). This position in details is available at:  HYPERLINK http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/mapping/pdf/degu.pdf www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/mapping/pdf/degu.pdf. On the other hand, Ukrainian academics regard this position as discriminative. They insist that the requirements for Ukrainian Candidate degree are equal to US Ph.D. and other similar degrees, while Ukrainian Doctor has no direct analogies in the US academic system, being at the same level with German 'Doktor Habilitatis' (code 74 in the NSF classification, see  HYPERLINK http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/mapping/pdf/degg.pdf http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/mapping/pdf/degg.pdf).  Available in Ukrainian at:  HYPERLINK "http://www.rada.gov.ua/laws/pravo/new/" http://www.rada.gov.ua/laws/pravo/new/  This statement in the final version of the document is even more brief and vague than was the corresponding statement in the early draft.  The Program of Support for Creating the Strategy of Educational Reforms, Bulletin # 1 (Kyiv, March-April-May, 2001); The Program of Support for Creating the Strategy of Educational Reforms, Bulletin # 2 (Kyiv, June-July, 2001).  The Program of Support for Creating the Strategy of Educational Reforms, Bulletin # 2 (Kyiv, June-July, 2001), p. 43.  Sydorenko, p. 63.  Private Higher School in the Lens of Time: the Ukrainian Variant, p. 93-94.  Sydorenko, p. 40.  Sydorenko, p. 41.  Sydorenko, p. 64.  Ogarenko, p. 128.  Stetar Joseph, Higher Education Innovation and Reform: Ukrainian Private Higher Education 1991-1995 (Kyiv: USIS, 1996), p. 21.  Basically, this procedure is still in force until now (July 2003). All important alterations made after 2001 are described below.  The work record book only indicates the primarily places of employment. Primarily and secondary jobs are treated separately for taxation and retirement purposes. More severe tax is applied on the wages from additional jobs. Thus, it is not an equivalent to part-time and full-time form of employment. Work record book gives an employer both more responsibility and influence over an employee. The distinction between these two forms of employment is important in all spheres of Ukrainian economy, including higher education.  The retirement age in Ukraine is currently 60 years for men and 55 for women. After this age, people may still work with some limitations that do not concern teaching.  The formal requirement is to have one copy for three students of each book recommended in the programs of taught disciplines.  A+ to B grades in the American equivalent.  Medvedev Vladimir, Illegal field of legal education, 'Dzerkalo Tyshdnia' ('Weekly Mirror') ( # 9 (333), March 03, 2000). (Originals in Ukrainian and Russian).  Higher Education of Ukraine. The materials for the Summarizing Session of the Ministry of Education and Science Board (Kyiv, 2000).  Ogarenko, p. 95.  Ogarenko, p. 100.  Ogarenko, p. 100.  Medvedev, Illegal field of legal education.  Ogarenko, p. 104.  Medvedev, Illegal field of legal education.  Sydorenko, p. 67.  Private Higher School in the Lens of Time: the Ukrainian Variant, p. 222.  Medvedev, Illegal field of legal education.  Data were collected via the chain of sociological research financed by the local Ukrainian branch of the Soros Foundation and the UN Developmental Program. Data are based upon interviews of 562 instructors from 25 Ukrainian higher education institutions located in four different Ukrainian regions and focus-group interviews with various key professionals and administrators working in the field of education.  The Program of Support for Creating the Strategy of Educational Reforms, Bulletin # 2 (Kyiv, June-July, 2001), p. 2-4.  Sydorenko, p. 174.  Higher Education Institutions. A collection of statistical data (1997-1998) (Kyiv, 1999), p. 13-14, 48-49.  Private Higher School in the Lens of Time: the Ukrainian Variant, 246.  Sydorenko, p. 180.  Ogarenko, p. 131.  Ogarenko, p. 132.  Ogarenko, p. 133.  Now ONAL acts as an independent and the most rapidly developing Odessa state Higher Education Institution, which puts Odessa National University in a position of competitor against its former subdivision. ONAL was the only Ukrainian state institution we tried to interview, where all executives refused to give any comments concerning this situation and refused to participate in the research.  Ogarenko, p. 129.  Ogarenko, p. 116-117.  Private Higher School in the Lens of Time: the Ukrainian Variant, p. 97-98.  Ibid.  Ibid.  Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church is currently one of the three main branches of Ukrainian Orthodoxy, together with the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Moscow Patriarchy and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kyiv Patriarchy.  The problem is that such legislative step will require changing the existing Ukrainian Constitution, which can be done only if 2/3 of the total number of deputies will vote for the corresponding changes. With the currently elected body of deputies, this is hardly possible.  Sydorenko, p. 33.  The title of Docent differs from the position of Docent (Associate Professor in the US equivalent) as the title of Professor differs <=no|     ,     ñh[âIA9hpB*phh\1RB*ph#h\1Rhp5B*CJ\aJphh`%h.0JCJaJ,jh`%h.B*CJUaJph&jh.5B*CJU\aJphh.5B*CJ\aJphh\1R5B*CJ\aJph#h\1Rh\1R5B*CJ\aJphhp5B*CJ\aJphh\1RB*CJaJphh9"B*CJphh B*CJphh\1Rh9"B*CJph=mno   O "D) #)% ')+#025j8$ $d*$`a$ $d*$ $*$gdp $*$gd\1R $ $*$a$gd\1RTV DEhioq oq{} '(  % ' - / """"##&%'%x&z&&&&&''((((((((****++"jh\1Rh9"0JB*Uphh\1Rh9"B*H*phh\1Rh9"B*phT+!0"0r3t3z3|34444555566666666}77777777h8i8l<m<CCEEbFdFjFlFFFFFuGvG+I-I3I5IJJJJJJJJ^K_KaST=V>VWW X XNXOXh\1Rh9"B*mH phsH h\1Rh9"B*mH"phsH"h\1Rh9"B*H*ph"jh\1Rh9"0JB*Uphh\1Rh9"B*phHj8k888]: <=AxG`KaKK MPQaS@VPX[\,__?chkm $d*$$ $d*$`a$` $ $d*$a$OXFZHZMZOZZZ2`4`bb