Performance Agreement School

The Gini index used for this analysis showed that over time, research publications were more evenly distributed across disciplines. This turned out to be the case, especially for the four universities of technology. The Review Committee interpreted this situation as a decrease in the number of priorities in universities and as a decrease in the diversity of the Dutch university research system. For each university, the Committee recorded an increase in the number of sub-disciplines covered by research publications. Differences between different categories of universities (e.g. B all universities and universities of technology) seemed to be shrinking. This indicates a decrease in differences between academic research profiles. However, the audit committee has difficulty attributing these trends solely to performance agreements, as they occurred much earlier. The three committees agreed on many issues. They concluded that performance agreements (PAs) have contributed to the following results: at the beginning of the performance agreement process, higher education institutions agreed to use seven mandatory indicators that measure their ambitions in terms of student success and quality of education. Two indicators, success rates and dropout rates, received the greatest attention during the annual monitoring and, finally, during the final conclusion of the performance agreements.

Ambitions for differentiation and institutional profiling have been formulated in a more qualitative way with regard to thematic themes such as the launch and exit of old programmes, the introduction of student mentoring programmes, the creation of research centres, partnerships with local companies, etc. In the next section, we will present some features of PBF systems in several OECD countries. We will then (in sect. 3) Go to the Netherlands, where a recent experiment has been concluded with performance agreements. The results of Dutch performance agreements with regard to their impact on performance and diversity are discussed in the sects. Sections 4 and 56 set out some lessons that can be drawn from the Dutch experience and draw some general conclusions about performance agreements. The evidence also points to the following lessons for an effective design of such agreements: whether performance agreements are important for the performance of higher education is a question that cannot be answered solely on the basis of Dutch experience with performance agreements. Causality is difficult to prove. Firstly, because the experience has been integrated into a broader policy framework, linked to other political and political instruments.

Second, one must be aware that national policies and related incentives must be reduced from the ministry (i.e. B system level) at the university, then at the student or university level (e.g.B. teacher, researcher) to produce an effect. The specific properties of each heI and their specific properties constitute an important intermediate layer in which there are many factors involved (either disabling or facilitating) (Jongbloed and Vossensteyn 2016). And third, there is a need for a much better understanding of the concept of performance (de Boer et al. 2015); It is a multidimensional and very subjective concept in this area. The agreements ended in 2016. The Review Board assessed the performance of each institution in the light of its performance agreement, on the basis of the information provided to the Review Committee in the institutions` annual reports and in meetings with the institutional Boards of Directors. . . .

Posted in Uncategorized.

Partnership Agreement Armenia

At present, an agreement on this rail corridor has become even more unlikely due to the recent Russian-Abkhaz Strategic Partnership Pact, which Tbilisi sees as a step towards Russia`s complete annexation of Abkhazia (cf. EDM, 29 October). And despite some news to the contrary in the Russian media, most Armenian experts and politicians believe that any new movement on the railway issue is extremely unlikely (Tert.am, November 28; Arminfo.am, December 1). In addition to the political implications for Georgia`s aspirations in the EU, the agreements signed at the Eastern Partnership Summit in Brussels constitute an updated cooperation programme that offers several new areas of partnership between Armenia and Georgia. For example, the extension of the TEN-T (an EU initiative to build and modernise transport infrastructure across Europe) to Armenia provides for closer cooperation and connectivity through joint infrastructure projects. Given the blockade imposed by Turkey on Armenia in 1993 in response to the Nagorno-Karabakh war, all projects aimed at improving connectivity between the EU and Armenia are necessarily linked to Georgia, as it is the only transit zone between the two sides. Armenia and Georgia have already implemented several joint infrastructure projects supported by EU financial institutions, so the extension of the TEN-T to Armenia will bring great added value to ongoing projects. Since Georgia is also interested in a quality connection specific to European transport networks, the more Armenia and the EU will strive to invest in their transport cooperation. MEPs on Wednesday endorsed the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement between the EU and Armenia, which paves the way for closer cooperation in different sectors. The transit of freight between Armenia and other members of the European Union remains another unresolved problem. So far, there is no transit agreement between the EU and Georgia and transit tariffs can be increased, especially when the bloc`s rules require Armenia to increase its tariffs on Georgian products.

Indeed, in all likelihood, EU rules could lead Armenia to abandon its free trade agreement with Georgia (Lragir.am, 26 September). The agreement, signed at the Eastern Partnership Summit held in Brussels on 24 November 2017, establishes bilateral relations between Armenia and the European Union at a new level of partnership and governs political and economic dialogue as well as sectoral cooperation and trade relations. Since gaining independence in the early 1990s, Armenia and Georgia have made similar progress towards European integration and have used the same instruments to develop bilateral relations with the EU. . . .

Posted in Uncategorized.