QUALITY ASSURANCE MECHANISMS AND ACCREDITATION PROCESSES IN PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION IN ROMANIA*
Ana-Maria Dima, In Globalization and the Market: Quality, Accreditation, Qualifications, Stamenka Uvalic Trumbic (ed.), Paris, UNESCO/IAU, 2002, Economica

(*The author based portions of this article on the following: Dima, Ana-Maria. "Romanian Higher Education Viewed from a Neo-institutionalist Perspective", Higher Education in Europe 23 3 (1998): 397-406)

" Massification of higher education" is the label that has been given to this new era of student numbers - a boom in enrollments that has been taking place over the last few decades. This process has triggered a rising concern, on the part of those responsible for the evaluation of higher education, for the improvement of the quality of the latter and for the effectiveness of the educational process.

Different countries have adopted various decrees, laws, and decisions in order to regulate the strategic objectives of higher education and the modalities by which they are to be achieved. The definitions of accreditation as a process, content, or field, designed to evaluate the activity of private and public higher education institutions, are tending to converge around the fact that

"accreditation is a process by which a higher education institution is periodically submitted to an overall or partial evaluation of its educational activity. The aim of this evaluation is to determine whether and how the educational objectives of the institution are [being] achieved. The results obtained should comply with certain standards which are specific to other comparable institutions of higher education at a given time." (Sterian, 1992).

The most recent definition of accreditation in the European context was elaborated by a CRE working group that participated in the Conference, "Towards Accreditation Schemes for Higher Education in Europe?", held on 17 January 2001.

"Accreditation is a formal, published statement regarding the quality of an institution or a programme, following a cyclical evaluation based on agreed standards" (CRE Project, July 2000 - May 2001).

In this context, the CRE group distinguished between two main possible functions of accreditation: minimal quality control and promotion of quality assurance ( i.e. , improvement and excellence):

•  Minimal quality control (mostly in the shape of some kind of certification) serves as a filtering mechanism in confirming that a higher education institution is fulfilling minimal quality requirements and has appropriate quality monitoring procedures in place. This verification would ensure the minimal quality of providers (whether public or private) and minimize the existence of "rogue" providers.

•  Quality assurance refers to the process of evaluating an institution or a programme. It leads to an analysis and to recommendations regarding its quality, including its specific quality assurance strategy. Evaluation has an internal dimension (self-evaluation) and an external one (conducted by external experts, peers, or inspectors). The recommendations reflect the objective of this exercise, which is to promote ongoing improvement.

So as to operationalize this definition, the CRE Working Group concluded that "these two functions - minimal quality control and quality assurance - already exist in some way in most European countries and higher education institutions, but generally not in the form [known as] accreditation. In general, the forms are organized in a national (or even a regional) context and mainly for a national audience"(CRE Project, July 2000 - May 2001).

In 1998, the European Training Foundation published the results of a study (Brennan, 1998) that was carried out as a PHARE Programme project on "Quality Assurance in Higher Education - A Legislative Review and Needs Analysis of Developments in Central and Eastern Europe". This study underlined that

accreditation in the countries of South-Eastern Europe serves as a two-tiered procedure of recognition of higher education institutions, when the state introduces a formal licensing procedure based on a process of quality evaluation of the institution. This system was applied to the establishment of new (often private) higher education institutions in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Romania. The methodology of evaluation contains mostly elements of normative and summative assessment (standards based) of the mission of an institution (or a programme), input (staffing, resources, student admission procedures), throughput (curricula and organization of the study process), [and] data on research activity and management structures.

In the South-Eastern European context, a description of the Romanian system for the accreditation of private and public higher education constitutes a positive experience and an example of good practice for implementing mechanisms for quality assurance in a developing country.

In giving a brief sketch of the history of the accreditation process in Romania, the starting point is the context, in which private universities were first created, viewed in a neo-institutionalist perspective. The analysis of the establishment of the accreditation body, along with the methodological stages of the legalization process, also reflects the main stages in the accreditation process.

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ACCREDITATION PROCESS IN ROMANIA

The emergence of private higher education institutions in Romania after 1989 represented one of the most spectacular changes in Romanian education to follow the Revolution. In most cases, these institutions came into being in the absence of a specific legal framework. Rather, they made use of diverse legal forms: cultural foundations, trading companies, and charity organizations. The functioning of these institutions gave rise to abundant suspicion as to the quality of the academic services that their students received.

The number of private faculties increased from 101 in 1990 to 221 faculties in 2000 offering a total of 376 specializations (see Table 1). Over the same period, the proportion of Romanian students in the private sector of higher education attained 27 percent of the total in 1997, and recently, over the 1999-2000 academic year, this proportion increased to 31 percent of the total.

Source : Comisia Nationala a României pentru Statistica [Romanian National Commission for Statistics] (2000).

An analysis of the circumstances of the proliferation of private faculties suggests six causes of this phenomenon:

•  The reduced number of students admitted to Romanian universities before 1989 that led to a large accumulation of young and not-so-young people who had failed in their attempts to become university students. As a consequence, the average age of students in the private universities is considerably higher than that of students in the public institutions.

•  The public higher education sector could not offer an alternative to the young people who were denied admittance to public higher education. This factor also reflects the failure of the system to respond to social demand. Private universities appeared to provide a second chance for people who had not passed their state university entrance examinations.

•  The state budget was unable to cover the costs of educating the growing number of students in the post-1989 period. Supply could never catch up with demand.

•  Student status was substantially revalued in terms of public perception. A study focused on the social perception of students in Romania undertaken by Cristina Neamtu, in 1997, emphasized the perceived importance of achieving the cultural and material capital associated with incipient social prestige (career) and the lack of rigorously defined social responsibilities (freedom).

•  Private higher education institutions have been very market-oriented, offering a wide range of specializations required by the transition to a market economy. Thus, specializations much sought after by first year students include management, business, administration, marketing, finance and accounting, journalism, international relations, and law. Many of the private higher education institutions also opened faculties of medicine, social sciences, and even faculties offering technical specializations.

•  The legislative vacuum that existed until the enactment of the 1995 Law on Education facilitated the emergence of private so-called universities that took advantage of a legitimate demand for higher education, conferring diplomas without legal recognition. These institutions were frequently found to be functioning in the absence of the most elementary teaching/learning conditions, profit-making being the real purpose of their activity.

In addition to positive factors, there was also a negative factor. Public opinion came to reflect the idea that public higher education is more rigorous than private higher education in terms of selection of incoming students. This thesis was indeed sustained by the greater success of students in the public institutions on the graduation examinations than of the students in the private institutions. Large proportions of the students from the private universities fail these examinations, while those from the public sector institutions pass them without unusual difficulty.

Admission procedures at the initial level of tertiary education in Romania are based on entrance examination results. Each institution establishes its own requirements for each major study area. The examinations are developed and graded by the individual faculties. The rector of the institution is responsible for this process and authorizes the admission of students. The number of students to be admitted in a given year is determined by the institution in collaboration with the Ministry of Education and Research (MER). Government Ordinance 54/1998 on fee-paying enrollment in publicly funded universities aims to ensure that, in spite of funding constraints, higher education responds, with a quality offer, to the increasing demand for tertiary education (Korka, 2000).

The possibility of admitting tuition fee-paying students to public higher education institutions, that appeared in 1998, did not result in the reduction of enrollments in private universities (see Table 2). Possible explanations for this situation reflect, on the one hand, improvements made in the offerings of the private universities, and, on the other hand, the level of tuition fees which in many cases is lower than that of tuition fees charged by public sector institutions.

Table 2. Evolution of student enrollments in private higher education, 1989-2001.

Sources : Comisia Nationala a României pentru Statistica [Romanian National Commission for Statistics] (2000);

Consiliul Na tional pentru Evaluare Academica si Acreditare [National Council for Evaluation and Academic Accreditation. Database. Bucharest, 2001.

In order to ensure a balance between the standards of state and private universities and to avoid the negative consequences of the lack of quality assurance mechanisms described above, the National Council for Academic Assessment and Accreditation (NCAAA) was set up in 1993.

Currently, in Romania, academic evaluation and quality assurance as an activity is regulated by the Law Concerning the Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and the Recognition of Diplomas (Law 88/1993) as modified by Government Decision 535/1999. The specified accreditation procedure has two stages: (i) authorization for provisional functioning entitling institutions to organize competitive entrance examinations, to hire the required teaching and auxiliary personnel, and to conduct educational and research activities; (ii) accreditation that confers to accredited higher education institutions the right to organize school-leaving examinations, to award diplomas, and to operate autonomously (Mihailescu, 1996).

The law stipulates that the evaluation procedure for the provisional functioning authorization should consist of the following steps:

•  The institution soliciting accreditation will present a self-evaluation report according to established standards. The self-evaluation report will be attached to the evaluation application for the authorization to function (accreditation).

•  The given NCAAA Evaluation Commission will write the evaluation report, following an analysis of the self-evaluation report, and verify that the standards corresponding to the general criteria stipulated by law have been met by the institution.

•  The NCAAA will present its own report, based on the evaluation reports of the subordinated commissions. This report will propose the granting or the refusal of the provisional authorization for each faculty, college, or field of specialization. The law stipulates that the reports of the evaluation commissions and the NCAAA report represent public writs with all the legal consequences deriving therefrom.

Based on the NCAAA report and on approval by the Ministry of Education, the Government of Romania grants applying institutions, which meet the standards prescribed by law, the provisional functioning authorization.

The accreditation procedure begins two years after the first cohorts of students have graduated from the given faculties, colleges, and fields of specialization. It certifies that the studies followed by these students have met the standards stipulated in the Law. The NCAAA assessment, along with the assessments made by the subordinated commissions, lead to an evaluation report on the basis of which the Government elaborates the draft laws regarding the establishment of higher education institutions including all the specialization fields proposed for possible accreditation.

The evaluation process covers five categories of criteria: (i) the contents of the course programmes offered; (ii) the levels of qualification and the competencies of the teaching personnel; (iii) performance in scientific research activities; (iv) material resources; and (v) financial resources. Each category of criteria reflects a minimum standard. With regard to the standards that must be met, some of these are particularly rigorous in regard to private institutions. For example, each institution must have filled 70 percent of the total number of full-time posts for each faculty, college, and specialization, and at least 30 percent of the posts must have been filled by university professors and readers.

An important condition established by the Law on Accreditation stipulates that "at least 51 percent of [the] graduates of private universities [over] the first three [years of operation] should [take and] pass the licenta examinations at a public university".

The National Council for Accreditation and Academic Assessment, as the principal Romanian authority in the domain of academic evaluation and accreditation, undertook a huge task over the last eight years. According to the statistics accumulated by this body, 84 private higher education institutions including 376 authorized specializations were evaluated. Of these, 23 institutions and 63 specializations were proposed for accreditation. In 2001, NCAAA withdraw the authorization to function of 14 private higher education institutions that did not met the legally recognized quality standards. At the same time, NCAAA proposed that fifteen additional private institutions have their authorizations withdrawn for the same reasons.

In October 2001, for the first time in the history of accreditation in Romania, eight private higher education institutions were fully accredited by Government Ordinance and are now permitted to organize graduation examinations and to award diplomas equivalent to those awarded by the public universities.

THE NEO-INSTITUTIONALIST PERSPECTIVE

Neo-institutionalist theory has its origins in the writings of John Meyer, particularly his two articles, "The Effects of Education as an Institution" (1977), and "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony" (1992). He wrote the latter article in collaboration with Brian Rowan in 1992 and reprinted both articles in the work compiled by himself and Richard Scott, Organizational Environments - Ritual and Rationality (Meyer and Rowan, 1992).

Explaining the structure of educational organizations, Meyer presents schools as organizations that seek accreditation, not in order to accomplish instructional ends, but to maintain their legitimate status as schools. Usually accreditation depends upon structural conformity with a set of rules that are professionally specified and legally mandated.

[Schools] hire teachers who are properly credentialed. Persons lacking such certification will not be employed regardless of their knowledge or instructional abilities. These teachers are assigned to carefully defined students who are classified in grades that are given standardized meanings throughout the country. The teachers apply to the students a curriculum.... Instruction takes place in buildings and classrooms whose characteristics and contents must conform to state laws (Meyer and Rowan, 1992).

"Institutionalization", in Meyer's perspective, refers to the ways in which procedures, obligations, and social processes come to be "taken for granted", ways that involve legal status in regard to social thought and action. In this respect, organizations are defined as partly "institutionalized formal structures". Moreover, formal structure is defined as a blueprint for activities, which includes, first of all, the table of organization: a list of offices, departments, positions, and programmes. These elements are linked by explicit goals and policies that make up a rational theory of how, and what end, activities are to be fitted together.

The motivation for including the Romanian private institutions of higher education in the category of formal organizations is based on the structural similarity between these institutions and formal organizations defined in terms of the psycho-sociology of organizations. According to this definition, formal organizations represent "the type of organization with a clearly defined structure designating the norms, positions, and particular roles assigned to the organization members". Formal structure also defines the objectives and "hierarchy, the relations of authority, the degree of power and responsibility associated with a certain position, the communication channels, etc." (Vlasceanu, 1995).

Formal structures are not simply the creatures of their relational networks in social organizations; in modern societies, the elements of rationalized formal structure are deeply ingrained in and reflect widespread understanding of social reality. Many of the positions, policies, programmes, and procedures of modern organizations are enforced by public opinion, by the views of important constituencies, by knowledge legitimated through the educational system, by social prestige, by laws, and by the definitions of negligence and prudence used by the courts (Meyer and Rowan, 1992). All of the above are so-called formal myths.

During the last nine years, owing to the appearance of private higher education institutions in Romania, the idea of universities as public service organizations has become quite familiar. Interestingly, the public acceptance and success of private institutions comes as a result of the favourable image that the public has of public universities and of public trust in them.

This trust is supported by the many identifiable ways in which the private universities mimic the public ones. They have, for instance, assumed the title of "University". They have copied the organizational structure of public universities. The courses they offer are similar, often being taught by the same professors.

During the 1999-2000 academic year, 376 specializations were offered in Romanian private higher education institutions. Their enrollments represented 31 percent of the total number of Romanian students. On the one hand, these data give proof of the significant amount of trust accumulated by the private faculties over a short period. On the other hand, it is easy to observe the similarity between this situation and the first implication of the theory of Meyer and Rowan to the effect that "as institutionalized myths define new domains of rationalized activity, formal organizations emerge in these domains". Indeed, the ways in which the Romanian private faculties have settled into their environments evoke a number of aspects of the theories of Meyer and Rowan.

The two authors have listed three consequences of organizational isomorphism with the environment:

•  Organizations incorporate elements legitimated in ideological ways rather than in terms of efficiency.

•  Organizations adopt external criteria of evaluation in defining the quality of their outputs.

•  As the activities of private institutions depend on the evaluation and control bodies that buffer them and shield them from instability, they are thus able to preserve their stability.

In regard to the first of these consequences, it is possible to cite the number of private faculties that awarded diplomas, even though the diplomas in question were not legally recognized. Another example is the way in which the private institutions employ, on a part-time basis, the most prestigious professors employed by the public institutions.

The second consequence listed above is also present in the Romanian case. One need only consider the process of external evaluation as undertaken by the Romanian National Council for Academic Evaluation and Accreditation (NCAAA), an independent body composed of nineteen to twenty-one members nominated for their acknowledged professional competencies, moral standards, and impartiality. The fact that the number of private faculties has been stabilized is proof that instability has been eliminated.

The need to earn accreditation is fundamental to all private faculties because Law 88/1993, as modified by Government Decision 535/1999, specifies that unaccredited faculties must be closed. Thus, many private institutions have put themselves into a situation of illegality by organizing licenta examinations similar to those organized by the public universities that their students would have to pass in order to be awarded a diploma.

In order to comply with the requirement, that "at least 51 percent of the graduates of private universities of the first three series pass the licenta examination at a public university", private institutions were unable to avoid the paradox of behaving illegally in order to comply with legal requirements.

The conflict between the prescribed rules and requirements for efficiency confirms the structural inconsistency emphasized by Meyer and Rowan. According to the authors, there is an inherent conflict and incompatibility between the economic necessities of efficiency and the necessities of legitimization or, to put it more precisely, "categorical rules conflict with the logic of efficiency".

Another example of formal inconsistency is the case of those private universities that functioned as small, limited liability enterprises. Immediately after the enactment of Law 99/1993, these enterprises transferred their capital to non-profit foundations or associations set up in order to comply with the non-profit principle laid down in this law. The report of the juridical commission that analyzed the case of capital transfers in such circumstances categorized them as pro causa actions and recommended the legal withholding of authorization.

The prospects for the long-term survival of the accredited private institutions are expected to improve as a result of the fact that they have become eligible for support by the state funding system. Success in obtaining accreditation enables private faculties to increase their capital by benefiting from public credibility. Indeed, one can identify another similarity between this situation and the third consequence, as stated above, of the theory of Meyer and Rowan: "Organizations incorporate societally rationalized elements into their formal structures [in order to] maximize their legitimacy and increase their resources and survival chances".

In spite of the paradox whereby certain faculties committed illegal actions while trying to meet legal requirements, the majority of these institutions tried to prove that things were as they seemed, that student contracts were respected, and that the legal procedures regarding accreditation were followed to the letter. Once again, the first consequence as stated in the Meyer and Rowan theory emerges: "The more the structure of a certain organization is derived from an institutionalized myth, the more trust, satisfaction, and good intentions are displayed."

Before they are accredited, private faculties are constantly being evaluated. After obtaining accreditation, they become institutionalized and, from that moment on, according to Article 9 of Law 88/1993, they only have to be evaluated every five years. In this case, evaluation means that the Faculty Council and the University Senate analyze the teaching and research performances of every teaching staff member and take whatever steps are required. This mechanism represents a novelty, not only in the Eastern and Central European countries, but also in comparison with procedures in many of the "advanced" countries. The five-year interval between evaluations requires the setting up of offices to be in charge of quality assurance in these faculties so as to maintain standards at the level required by all. Thus, one is reminded of Meyer's theory that emphasizes the tendency to avoid evaluation and even to favour the elimination of external evaluation on the part of institutionalized organizations. "Institutionalized organizations seek to minimize inspection and evaluation by both internal and external constituents."

Another thesis derived from this theory suggests that although organizations adapt to their institutionalized contexts, they often play active roles in shaping these contexts. To illustrate this thesis, one can cite the ways in which Romanian private faculties have not only succeeded in their adaptation to their environments but have also taken active steps toward modifying them according to their perceived necessities. One proof is the appearance of consortia organized to promote common interests. For example, a consortium formed by three private higher education institutions in the medical field obtained an authorization to function - the first step on the way to full accreditation.

In short, all the evidence seems to argue in favour of the identification of the paradigm of neo-institutionalism as providing an appropriate framework for the analysis of Romanian private institutions of higher education taken as a phenomenon.

SPECIFIC ISSUES OF THE FINANCING OF ROMANIAN PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

The vast majority of Romanian private higher education institutions are financed exclusively from the tuition fees paid by their students. The emergence of private higher education institutions is one of the factors that accentuated the need for the quality evaluation of all Romanian higher education institutions and of their course programmes.

According to the regulations laid down in the Law on Education 151/1999, private institutions of higher education are entitled to determine the tuition fees that their students will be required to pay. The sum is set by a contract that is established between the institution and each of its students. These contracts specify the nature, the duration, and the amount of fees for the educational services provided as well as the nature of the type of relations to be established between the given institutions and their students.

Students tend to be dissatisfied with the terms of these contracts. Moreover, students are not represented in any consultative bodies or in the Senates of any of these faculties. They are thus unable to make suggestions or to express their dissatisfaction. Furthermore, they have no control over the ways in which the tuition fees that they are obliged to pay, according to the contracts that they have signed, are spent.

Although tuition fees are the main source of financing for private sector education, they are not the only sources of funding. Private universities are eligible to participate in sponsorship systems according to the Law on Sponsorship of 1994. They are also eligible to compete for state grants on the same terms as the state universities. The state grant system offers funds on a competitive basis, for development, research, scholarships, and postgraduate programmes.

Unfortunately, scientific research is still very much undeveloped in the private sector of higher education. Thus, it is very difficult for the private institutions to obtain funding, especially in the context of a performance-based funding system. They are faced with the incipient tendency to evolve a hierarchy of higher education institutions according to academic and scientific performance criteria.

If the private universities can meet the legally prescribed quality standards, they can become eligible for funding by the government on the same basis as public universities.

At present, the changed financing mechanism and the introduction of forms of competitive funding require an objective evaluation of institutions, faculties, and specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

The creation and implementation of an evaluation and academic accreditation system in Romania in 1993 aimed at:

•  ascertaining whether or not higher education institutions meet the quality levels corresponding to their proposed educational objectives;

•  ascertaining whether or not higher education institutions have the resources necessary to carry out their present and future activities;

•  evaluating the potential of Romanian education as measured against international standards;

•  offering an accurate preview of the academic level of those graduates who will work in different fields and orienting secondary school graduates in selecting options for their future careers - due consideration being given to the possibilities offered by higher education institutions.

A look at the list of institutions evaluated over the 1993-2001 period proved that this mission was successful. The list of authorized higher education institutions, representing the results of evaluation and accreditation, was made public by its publication in 2000, as an Annex to Government Decision 696 ( HG 696 / 2000).

Eight years after the elaboration of the methodology of academic assessment for the licensing and the accreditation of higher education institutions, it has become clear to both the public and the private sectors of higher education that although certain institutions have had the managerial and academic capacities to meet the required standards of quality, other institutions have fallen short of the mark.

Currently (December 2001), eight private universities are fully accredited. Romanian candidates for admission to higher education in the 2001-2002 academic year were aware of which private universities were accredited, authorized, and prestigious, and which were performing poorly.

REFERENCES

Brennan , John, coord. Quality Assurance in Higher Education - A Legislative Review and Needs Analysis of Developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Turin: European Training Foundation, 1998.

Comisia Nationala a României pertru Statistica [Romanian National Commission for Statistics]. Anuarul Statistic al României [Romanian Statistical Yearbook - 1999. Bucharest: National Commission for Statistics, 2000.

Consiliul Na tional pentru Evaluare Academica si Acreditare [National Council for Evaluation and Academic Accreditation Database]. Bucharest, 2001.

Cre . "Towards Accreditation Schemes for Higher Education in Europe?", CRE Project (July 2000- May 2001) < www.unige.ch/c r e/activities/accreditation/accreditation_home.htm >.

Dima , Ana-Maria. "Romanian Higher Education Viewed from a Neo-institutionalist Perspective" , Higher Education in Europe 23 3 (1998): 397-406.

Government of Romania . Law 88/1993 Concerning the Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions and the Recognition of Diplomas . Bucharest: Regia Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, 1993.

Government of Romania . Government Decision 535/1999 Concerning the Autorization and Accreditation of Public and Private Higher Education Institutions. Bucharest: Regia Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, 1999.

Government of Romania . Law 151/1999 . Bucharest: Regia Autonoma Monitorul Oficial, 1999.

Government of Romania . "Government Ordinances for the Accreditation of Eight Private Universities", Monitorul Official 677 (26 October 2001).

Korka , Mihai. Strategy and Action in the Reform of Education in Romania . Bucharest: Paideia Publishing House, 2000.

Meyer , J. W., and Rowan, B. "Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony", in , John Meyer and Richard Scott , eds. Organizational Environments-Ritual and Rationality . London: Sage, 1992.

Mihailescu, I. The System of Higher Education in Romania . Bucharest: SOCRATES National Agency, 1996.

Neamtu, Cristina. "Studiu asupra perceptiei sociale a studentilor" [A Study of the Social Perception of Students], in , A. Neculau, ed. Câmpul Universitar si actorii sai [The Academic Field and Its Actors]. Iasi: Polirom, 1997.

Neculau, A., ed. Câmpul Universitar si actorii sai [The Academic Field and Its Actors]. Iasi: Polirom, 1997.

Sterian , Paul Enache. Accreditation and Quality Assurance in Higher Education . ucharest: CEPES, 1992 .

Vlasceanu , M. Psycho-Sociology of Organizations . Bucharest: Paidea, 1995.

BACK TO THE TOP