What is the initiative and where is it implemented (city or country, for example)?
A sustainable funding strategy in higher education is usually characteristic of high-income countries with stable public structures and a peaceful political atmosphere. With the exception of economically advanced countries, most higher education structures were relatively underfunded and did not have a sustainable financing strategy in place even before the COVID–19 crisis. Nordic countries, the Gulf states, Singapore and Scotland (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) report relative success due to receiving financial support exclusively through public funding and provision. Higher education institutions in Australia, Canada, UK, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (People’s Republic of China), Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand and Switzerland operate via a combination of public resources and public cost-sharing (Salmi, 2021). The following case study discusses various funding strategies and makes a number of recommendations on how to implement sustainable financing.
How was the initiative established? How was it implemented?
The global pandemic further stressed the existing disparities between low- and high-income countries. Salmi (2021) outlines the main features of sustainable funding implemented in various higher education institutions globally, presents several recommendations on how to achieve self-sufficient systems and emphasizes the necessity to implement these systems in the near future.
Which stakeholders are involved in the design and/or implementation of the initiative? Which sectors do they represent?
The case discusses the funding strategies implemented during the COVID–19 crisis, categorizing the impacts of these strategies into long- and short-term impacts. Countries were selected to provide insight into diverse public structures with various governance systems and degrees of flexibility.
What are the impacts of the initiative in terms of facilitating lifelong learning? Who does it benefit and how?
Students and workers suffered severe economic and emotional hardships globally. The unprecedented health crisis uncovered the unpreparedness of the systems and stakeholders, such as teachers, administrators, students and parents, to switch to e-learning overnight. This change involved a lot of improvisation by everybody involved in the process in an attempt to smoothen the transition.
In the United States of America, students from low-income families, community college students, international students and those benefiting from subsidised on-campus accommodation were among the worst affected during the earliest stages of the pandemic.
In developing countries, the insufficient number of laptops within a household and the instability of existing infrastructures, such as low-speed internet connectivity or discontinuity in power supply, worsened the existing digital divide.
Due to the lack of technical and pedagogical support, teaching and administrative staff failed to implement necessary changes to address the demands of digital learning. Adapting traditional teaching materials was insufficient; classes lacked evaluation and assessment systems that reflected the new online learning environment; the administration did not provide the information necessary to accommodate formative assessment and ensure transition to the consequent grade or level of education.
Several OECD countries were able to recover from the initial shock of the crisis by approving economic rescue packages and providing students with financial support. These countries reallocated resources toward the education sector and invested into student and staff well-being. They also supported research in medical and social studies to alleviate the long-term effects of the pandemic.
In developing countries, the budget allocated to education suffered significant losses as medical spheres were prioritised to accommodate soaring health expenses. Within many education systems, the government funding was re-distributed towards the lower levels of education and prioritised the needs of younger students.
Based on the issues discussed above, Salmi (2021) has proposed four effective strategies to establish a functional and efficient funding strategy for higher education institutions:
Alignment between national policy and funding strategies
This is essential to achieve synergy between national priorities and financial resources allocated to higher education. Universities and other higher education structures are sources of unlimited potential to serve national economic interests and social welfare.
Alignment of resources with the performance of the institution
Budget allocation should be defined by the contribution of the institutions towards scientific quality and relevance, as well as their social contribution towards equity and democratic values.
Equity, objectivity and transparency
Equity in resource allocation can be ensured using the principle of universalism, along with objectivity and transparency in funding allocation and spending.
Sustainability, autonomy and accountability
Evidence shows that innovation in and validity of universities go hand in hand with flexibility and autonomy of the educational structures in relation to political measures and centralised financing. Flexible universities are better positioned to respond to rapidly changing environments and evolving market demands with innovation.
It is crucial to respond to the current demands within and beyond the global crisis and equip higher education structures with resilience.
References
Salmi, J. 2021. Sustainable financing of higher education after the pandemic. In: Bergan, S. et al. eds. Higher education's response to the Covid-19 pandemic - Building a more sustainable and democratic future. s.l., Council of Europe, pp. 107–114.