Chapter 5 The Interview Analysis and Discussion (B): Passing Ratio of
5.3 Discussions on the exercising of civil rights in conducting evaluation
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The above interview results and analysis summarized as follows: (1) The higher education evaluation aimed to discover the problem in teaching and to propose suggestions for continuous improvement. Accordingly, the evaluation results did not need to set the passing rate. (2) Most of the respondents considered the significance of the evaluation lay not in penalizing departments but in mainly hoping that departments recognized their own weaknesses, improved, and ultimately passed the evaluation. (3) Although the evaluation needs not to set penalty, the current evaluation results were related to funding schools by MOE. Only government policy for evaluation and awarding grants would be dealt with separately, the objectives of the recognition system can effectively be achieved. (4) There were divided opinions in evaluation agencies as counselors or reviewers. There were also inconsistencies in the interpretation of understanding the role of foreign accreditation agencies. This problem was worthy of the study of the education experts and evaluation policy-makers. Concerning the interviews in this study, institutions being evaluated and education authorities were more supportive of the professional evaluation agencies as counselors.
5.3 Discussions on the exercising of civil rights in conducting evaluation
It is necessary for universities to be evaluated in every aspect, which is based on Article 5 of University Law. The Ministry of Education is required to compose the Accreditation Council or to commission a professional organization to conduct the evaluation. The Ministry of Education possesses the civil right authorized by national laws. Whether the professional organizations commissioned by the Ministry of Education, such as HEEACT, possess the similar power is an issue worthy of discussion. According to Article 5 of University Law, universities that are approved
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
by the professional accreditation organizations commissioned by the Ministry of Education are eligible for applying being free from evaluation by the Ministry of Education. For example, the departments that are approved by IEET or AACSB can waive the evaluation by the Ministry of Education. In the future, there will be more professional organizations getting commissioned by the Ministry of Education. If those non-governmental organizations or international organizations have the civil rights when operating evaluation, it may cause lots of controversy. The higher education accreditation in Taiwan has just developed not long ago, the relevant legal status must be clarified so that the effect and the disciplinary power of evaluation results can be established. The results of the interviews in this study show that scholars and experts have different points of views. Among them, one scholar who studies on the accreditation system indicates that accreditation agencies simply perform their profession and do not possess the mandatory of civil right.
I think accreditation agencies do not have the civil right, and only government authorities have it. Accreditation organization simply uses its expertise to evaluate with objective views. Whether the universities should be forced to receive the evaluation is governmental decision. I do not see how the accreditation organization exercises the civil right. Accreditation agencies only provide the evaluation service, but civil right is a sort of mandatory force. Such forceful power belongs to the government and not to the accreditation agencies.
Therefore, I argue evaluation procedure does not involve the exercise of civil right but the exercise of its expertise. To put it clearly, it is not a question of civil right. Accreditation agencies do not perform any disciplines which are the responsibility of educational bureau. The accreditation organizations hand results into governmental department who can then make decisions of giving
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
awards or disciplines based on the evaluation results. That is called civil right.
(G)
However, one university professor reckons that HEEACT is an organization with indirect public power, because it receives the commission from government for conducting the task while the professional organizations that are not commissioned by government do not have the public power.
HEEACT won the bid of the accreditation project from the Ministry of Education and they perform the accreditation process. Basically, you may think it represents the civil right. The Ministry of Education issues the official letter to notify universities for receiving evaluation. The process is an exercise of civil right which is not directly performed by the Ministry of Education but indirectly.
Other accreditation agencies, both local and overseas, are not exercising the civil right because their responsibilities do not have mandatory force to university departments. (C)
One of the scholars being interviewed in this study also indicates that the higher education evaluation is mandatory, hence the practice of evaluation certainly has the civil right. The purpose of the exercise of civil right is to improve educational quality.
The higher education evaluation in Taiwan is not voluntary; according to the law, I can evaluate your system. Such involuntary is the exercise of civil right.
Although American universities accept the evaluation voluntarily, they have no choice not to do so. If the universities do not get any accreditation approvals, their students will not be able to receive the student loans provided by the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
government. Of course, government should bring the awareness to universities, whether voluntary or involuntary is not the point, quality assurance is the most important requirement. (I)
Another interviewee think HEEACT and other professional organizations that are recognized by the Ministry of Education have civil right because their evaluation or accreditation results are the references for governmental decision-making of disciplines. However, non-governmental organizations are skeptical about the attitude of and courage of the Ministry of Education. They think that the MOE is constrained by governmental and legal authorities and has no courage to do it.
HEEACT is established with governmental support, so it represents civil right. If the foreign accreditation unit is recognized worldwide, it certainly represents broader civil right. I think the accreditation results released by accreditation organizations can be the basis for the discipline decision made by the Ministry of Education towards university departments. However, I don't know if the Ministry of Education has the courage to do so. There are many things that the Ministry of Education cannot achieve. (J)
Nonetheless, some evaluation or accreditation agencies think civil right belongs to the government and not to the agencies. Professional accreditation agencies only perform tasks based on guidelines, the units that receive evaluation or accreditation are voluntary so the professional accreditation agencies certainly do not have civil right. This point of view is coherent with previous interview results. The purpose of evaluation or accreditation results is not to discipline university departments. To those universities who do not want to take part in the accreditation system voluntarily can be evaluated by the civil right exercised by the Ministry of Education. In terms of the
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
evaluation results from professional organizations, the Ministry of Education should exercise its civil right and set up the disciplinary actions. Professional organizations exercise the authority independently. Although they are supervised by the government, they are not controlled by government. This attitude can remain the justice of evaluation and accreditation.
I think accreditation should not be the exercise of civil right, but at the moment it indeed an exercise of such power, which is contradictory. However, accreditation system has just started in Taiwan, it requires civil right to get it on track. But in the long term, I think evaluation should be spontaneous. That is to be inspired by market mechanism so that it will have better efficiency. (K)
Domestic professional evaluation or accreditation agencies just perform the task by their expertise, and the departments being evaluated are also voluntary.
The evaluation or accreditation results can provide departments for improvement, and those are not the exercise of civil right. This power still belongs to the government, which is the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of Education has the power to discipline by the evaluation or accreditation results, such as releasing the subsidy award, approval of the increase or decrease of enrollment quota, etc. Those are the civil right exercised by government authorities. The evaluation or accreditation results of non-governmental authorities only act as the diagnosis suggestions for departments, and those do not substitute the governmental civil right. (H)
In terms of the evaluated departments, department heads have different point of views on this issue. One of the senior professors being interviewed thinks that
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
professional agencies. Another professor at the executive level took America for example to illustrate that the accreditation abroad are mostly done by non-governmental agencies, and American government does not consider that it loses its civil right. Observing from the interview results, government and professional accreditation agencies should have good mutual trust, and they do not argue which side has the civil right but to take the purpose of improving higher education quality.
With regard to the matters that involve the citizen right and obligation, such as academic degree identification and license application, are the responsibility of government that exercises its civil right. That has nothing to do with professional accreditation agencies. The opinions of these two professors are listed below.
Evaluation and accreditation have nothing to do with civil right. HEEACT do not have civil right, the accreditation unit certainly do not either. Therefore, they do not present the exercise of such power, even if the Ministry of Education dares not to exercise this power by using the results. (A)
Does the Ministry of Education really need to exercise the civil right for managing national and private universities? In America, many accreditations are done by non-governmental agencies, and many licenses are issued by non-governmental agencies. Unlike in Taiwan, nearly all the licenses are issued through national examinations. However, if individuals want to practice which involves citizen right and obligation, they have to be evaluated in terms of their ability and qualification, hence they have to register with the government. Do you think conducting evaluation must be the exercise of civil right? Without accreditation conducted by the government, does it mean the loss of power of government? I think I answered your question! (D)
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
However, there are some department heads who are also professors think accreditation agencies have civil right. In the past few years, the accreditation results released by HEEACT have resulted that some departments were listed as ”to be observed”, and the Ministry of Education placed the order of reducing the number of classes and enrollment. Therefore, many departments worried about HEEACT and think it is an agency with great power. This thought may not be true, but it represents the opinions of many university professors. The opinions collected through interviews are listed below.
I think evaluation or accreditation agencies are practicing the civil right because during the evaluation, everyone worried about the results. That is a sort of exercise of civil right, because if it did not have such power, we wouldn't be so worried. The accreditation results will impact on the development of a university with disciplines, if the university does not meet its criteria. It will be asked to reduce the classes or the reduction of tuition fees. It has such strong power so that I think it has civil right. (F)
Of course, the views of executives in governmental departments are very crucial.
The interview results of this study present various points of views. One interviewed official executive think the Ministry of Education commissioned the civil right to HEEACT, but other professional agencies are not commissioned by such power from the Ministry of Education. In the future, if the Ministry of Education would like to commission any of accreditation projects to other professional agencies, it will be limited in the commission of transactional work. From the interview, we learn that the Ministry of Education has administrative civil right, and HEEACT has some official color and also this kind of power. This echoes the fact that evaluated universities are
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
afraid of HEEACT. Other accreditation agencies do not have civil right which echoes the views of some interviewed scholars and experts. University departments are voluntarily accepting the evaluation or accreditation of other professional agencies, but whether accreditation results are acceptable to the government is totally the decision of the Ministry of Education. Currently, the Ministry of Education does not completely accept the evaluation or accreditation results from the professional agencies. The opinions collected through interviews are listed below.
Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association is appointed by HEEACT, which is the commission by civil right. It is conducting the business that is the responsibility of the Ministry of the Education. However, the Ministry of Education and professional accreditation agencies do not have any commission relationship. Unless when it contracts one of the business projects, say if I have an accreditation project and I commission it to an agency, it is a commission of administrative contract without the commission of civil right. All the accreditation projects are appointed to HEEACT, which is the commission relationship, also a commissioned relationship of civil right. However, other professional accreditation agencies conduct the evaluation process on their own.
Basically, its attribute is different from HEEACT. (M)
Another expert, an executive of governmental department claims that the entire accreditation project is dominantly managed by the Ministry of Education. HEEACT only accepts the governmental funding grants. When it performs the business operation, it does not exercise the civil right. To infer from what was said above, other domestic or international professional accreditation agencies are required to apply to and gain approval from the Ministry of Education for conducting the accreditation
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
business. Even if they obtain approval on their expertise, it does not mean their evaluation or accreditation results (i.e. award approval to a department) are completely accepted by the Ministry of Education. The following is the collected information in interviews.
The evaluations that Taiwan Assessment and Evaluation Association conduct in Technology Universities are administrative part. The entire authorities still belong to the Ministry of Education. We do not authorize it the civil right. To HEEACT, it seems to be authorized by the Ministry of Education directly. In fact, I think it does not exercise the civil right because it receives the funding grant from the Ministry of Education. We, the Ministry of Education, do not authorize any civil right, and we still lead the entire evaluation work. (N)