IOS-NEWSLETTER 
Forschung, Veranstaltungen, Publikationen

Seminarreihe des Arbeitsbereichs Ökonomie am IOS

Zeit: Dienstag, 13.30–15.00 Uhr
Ort: Leibniz-Institut für Ost-und Südosteuropaforschung (IOS); vorerst online via Zoom, Link wird mit den Einladungen verschickt!
Programm

Forschungslabor: „Geschichte und Sozialanthropologie Südost‐ und Osteuropas“

Zeit: Donnerstag, 14–16 Uhr (Lehrstuhl) oder 16–18 Uhr (Graduiertenschule und Leibniz-WissenschaftsCampus)
Ort: WiOS, Landshuter Str. 4 (Raum 017)
Programm

Freie Stellen Text
Gastwiss. Programm Text
Leibniz

2.3. Reforms in detail with comments and links

Reforming education

Ekaterina Sprenger, OEI

From a statistical point of view, Ukraine is close to the world leaders. 99.7 % of adults (15 years and older) are literate. Youth (15 to 24 years) literacy rate is also high, 99.8 %. In 2008, gross enrolment ratio in secondary education was 94 %, and some 79 % of Ukrainians were enrolled in tertiary education.
From a public funding point of view, there is not much to be deplored either. The problems experienced by the Ukrainian education system are not of a financial nature. Whilst the other parts of the social sector rightfully lament the low level of funding, the education system cannot blame the lack of financial support. The past ten years have seen gradual growth of money supply, be it public funding, bribes, or parents' charitable support. According to UNESCO, public expenditure on education in Ukraine grew from 3.6 % of GDP in 1999 to 5.3 % in 2007. Public expenditure on education constituted 20.2 % of total government expenditure in 2007. EU-27 expenditure on education, on the other hand, comprised 4.96 % of GDP in 2007.
Why does Ukraine even need education reform? The ongoing problems related to the Ukrainian education system are inefficient spending, low quality standards, and obsolete organisation structures, which lead to wasteful spending of substantial public funding and cast doubt on the quantitative results.
The Programme of Economic Reforms accurately points out most the problems associated with the Ukrainian education system. According to the Programme, the country is much too slow in reforming its education system due to the following reasons: education quality that is incompatible with international standards (reflected in international university rankings), inaccessibility of education (noticeable shortage of preschools, inadequate education for children with special needs, lack of scholarships), inefficient spending despite much public funding (resources spent on salaries, equipment, and building maintenance rather than on improving the quality of education), poor fit with employers' needs (little or no cooperation between employers and higher education institutions), and inefficiency due to lack of common educational space (higher education institutions are controlled by 27 central executive bodies). The Programme, however, completely forgets the crucial problem of corruption being fostered by low salaries in the sector, with average monthly salary in September 2010 in education (UAH 2008) being 15 % lower than the average (UAH 2349). Another sensible extension would be the introduction of university competition for funding as suggested in Proposals for Ukraine: 2010 - Time for Reforms by Åslund et al.
Among other, less clearly defined actions, the implementation plan includes the development and introduction of a national system of educational quality monitoring, and the development of educational programmes responsive to needs of the labour market until the end of 2014.
The aims of education reform programme as well as its indicators of success show some eagerness to see Ukrainian universities in international university rankings. Modernisation of the education system by overcoming the existing problems thus becomes a means to an end when it deserves to be an end to itself.