Accreditation and Private Higher Education Development: A Comparison Between Argentina, Chile and Uruguay

1. Accreditation and Private Higher Education Development:A Comparison Between Argentina, Chile and Uruguay Pablo Landoni Couture Carlos Romero Rostagno Catholic University of Uruguay  November 2005

2. At the Crossroads of Trends • Private Higher Education Growth in Latin America. • Increasing societal demand for accountability in higher education: Accreditation • Quality assurance • Authorization and accreditation • Interactions: proliferation and limits

3. Private Higher Education Evolution in Latin America • Origins: National Public Universities • Wave I: Catholic Universities • Wave II: Elite reaction • Wave III: Demand-absorbing institutions

4. 1950 2000 Growth Country Enrollment Enrollment rate Enrollment Enrollment rate Argentina 82,531 5.2 % 1,269,239 36 % 1438 % Chile 9,528 1.7 % (*) 452,347 26.7 % 4648 % Uruguay 11,722 6.0% 79,678 32.5% 580 % Private Higher Education Evolution in Latin America (Table 1) Sources: For 1950 Schwartzman (1994); for 2000, Argentina Fernández Lamarra (2003), Chile Bernasconi (2003) and Uruguay AEE (2000). (*) Includes students from universities and professional institutes.

5. 1970 2003 Public Universities University institutes 15 45 39 6 Private Universities University institutes 24 54 42 12 Total 39 99 Argentina: Public / Private Distinctiveness Institutional Proliferation (Table 2) Sources: For 1970 Cosentino (2003); for 2003 Caillon (2005)

6. 1993 2003 Growth Enrollment Share Enrollment Share Public 675,000 85.7 % 1,278,284 85.6 % 89 % Private 112,837 14.3 % 215,272 14.4 % 91 % Total 787,837 100 % 1,493,556 100 % 89 % Argentina: Public / Private Distinctiveness Growth of Enrollments (Table 3) Source: Caillon (2005)

7. 1980 2003 Public 2 16 Old private (publicly funded) 6 9 New Private 38 Total 8 63 Chile: at the Forefront of Market driven Reforms Impact of Reform (Table 4) Source: Bernasconi (2003)

8. 1990 2000 Growth Enrollment Share Enrollment Share Public 65,897 50 % 131,128 41 % 99 % Traditional private 46,294 35 % 84,158 26 % 82 % Private 19,509 15 % 103,805 33 % 432 % Total 131,700 100 % 319,087 100 % 142 % Chile: at the Forefront of Market driven Reforms Increasing Private Share (Table 5) Source: Bernasconi (2003)

9. 1994 2003 Growth Enrollment Share Enrollment Share Public 62,026 96.6 % 70,156 87,7 % 13 % Private 2,147 3.4 % 9,791 12,3 % 356 % Total 64,173 100 % 79,947 100 % 24 % Uruguay: Recent Private Sector Changing System (Table 6) Source: Caillon (2005)

10. The Wave of Accreditation in theSouthern Cone • Argentina: Concentration of Functions in an Agency (CONEAU) • Chile: Proliferation and State Reactions (Agencies: CSE, CNAP, CONAP) • Uruguay: Private authorization and Experimental Accreditation (CCETP and Commission) • MERCOSUR Experimental Accreditation Mechanism

11. Provisional Authorizations Permanent recognition Proposals Approved Proposals Approved 83 9 12 8 Argentina: Concentration of Functions in an Agency(CONEAU) • Institutional evaluation • Accreditation of new higher education institutions (Private and Public) • Program evaluation and accreditation (Graduate and Undergraduate levels) Impacts on private proliferation (Table 7) Sources: Fernández Lamarra (2004) and Caillon (2005).

12. Universities created before CSE (1980 - 1990) 43 Universities authorized by CSE (1990 - 2005) 10 Universities granted full autonomy 24 Universities closed by CSE 13 Chile: Proliferation and State Reactions • State approval of private institutions (CSE) • Undergraduate Programs Accreditation (CNAP) • Graduate Programs Accreditation (CONAP) • Institutional Accreditation (CNAP) Impacts on private proliferation(Table 8) Source: Lemaitre (2005)

13. Proposals Authorized Rejected Closed Under review 23 14 5 1 3 Uruguay: Private Authorization and Experimental Accreditation • State approval of private institutions and programs (CCTEP) • MERCOSUR Experimental Accreditation (Accreditation Commission) Impacts on private proliferation(Table 9) Source: Data provided by the Ministry of Education

14. Summary of Findings: (1) Common Trends • State involvement in the process of private higher education institution’s authorization: Impacts on proliferation • Continuous enrollment growth in the private sector. • Launching of Accreditation agencies.

15. Institutions created before Agency Institutions authorized by agencies Argentina (1990 – 1995) CONEAU (1995) 22 9 Chile (1980 – 1990) CSE (1990) 40 10 Uruguay (1985 – 1995) CCETP (1995) 1 13 State Authorization of Private Higher Education Institutions: Impacts on Proliferation (Table 10) Sources: Fernández Lamarra 2004; Lemaitre 2005: data provided by the Ministry of Education of Uruguay.

16. Private enrollment growth last decade Last decade’s enrollment growth for the total system Actual private enrollment share Argentina 91% 89% 14.4% Chile 182% 142% 59% Uruguay 356% 24% 12.3% Continuous Enrollment Growth in Higher Education, including the Private Sector (Table 11) Sources: Tables 3, 5 and 6.

17. Argentina Chile Uruguay Level Agency / Status Application Agency / Status Application Agency / Status Application Institutional CONEAU voluntary Public and private autonomy CNAP voluntary Public and private (autonomy) Not available Program Undergraduate Graduate CONEAU mandatory CONEAU mandatory Public and private (Only professions regulated by law) Public and private CNAP voluntary CONAP voluntary Public and private Public and private Commission voluntary MERCOSUR (3 programs) Moving into Accreditation: the Creation of Accreditation Agencies (Table 12)

18. Summary of Findings: (2) Impacts of Accreditation • Authorization constrained private institution’s proliferation – Coercive isomorphism. • Accreditation has limited impact on private growth and homogenization – Mimetic isomorphism. • Private institutions included accreditation in their strategy for legitimacy. • Policy implications: Unanticipated private development and State reactions.