New Dawn For Higher Education In Ukraine?

To understand the way things work in Ukraine, one must remember that it is a post-Soviet state with its own features that cannot be compared to any other system in the world. For example, it is quite natural for a Ukrainian official, even one not suspected of being corrupt, to think one thing, say another and act in a way that reflects neither what he thinks nor his proclaimed position. Under these conditions, laws are not just bypassed but become so flexible that they can be used in support of totally opposite positions.

Once I asked two rectors of really good Ukrainian higher education institutions the following question: “Why do you support any decision taken by the Ministry of Education and Science in Ukraine, including the obviously absurd draft law on higher education?” The answer was that I worry about the wrong things because it does not matter what the new law says.

No matter if it is very good or very bad – no one will obey it because it is inept or because it is impossible to follow its stipulations. What will happen is that a kind of middle road will be forged based on the need to keep Ukrainian universities alive by providing minimal financial support from the state budget.

In late February this year, something unexpected happened. Ukraine's Prime Minister Mykola Asarov took part in a round-table discussion with representatives from the academic community, and said that he wanted them to review the draft law on higher education. At that point one draft law prepared by Minister of Education Dmytro Tabachnyk, and two alternative draft laws prepared by MPs, had already been submitted to parliament.

The prime minister admitted that the draft law prepared by the education minister needed work and asked Mykhailo Zhurovskyi, rector of the National Technical University of Ukraine (Kyiv Polytechnic Institute, or KPI) to organise a working group to look at the document immediately and bring it in line with Ukraine's economic needs.

Tabachnyk was not allowed to be present at the round-table meeting. Despite this, he remains education minister. The formation of the working group was like a bolt out of the blue for the Ukrainian academic community, for several reasons.

First, the education minister had been trying to remove the rector of KPI from his post. Second, the government had previously ignored all alternative opinions given regarding the proposed higher education laws, dismissing them as politically motivated rather than taking into account the drafters’ professional experience.

Third, by organising the round-table meeting, Prime Minister Azarov took the side of those who had protested against Tabachnyk’s position and against his authoritarian vision for the future of Ukrainian science and higher education.

Also present at the round-table meeting were leaders of student organisations that had earlier taken part in mass protests. The members of the working group and the way they operated under the leadership of Zhurovskyi, was also unprecedented. The group consisted mainly of KPI and NaUKMA (National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy) representatives, student leaders and independent experts.

Representatives of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the administration of the president of Ukraine, the Corporation of Employers of Ukraine, trade unions and non-government educational organisations were also involved.

The working group considered about 4,000 proposals from more than 100 organisations and institutions. Literally everyone could participate. The academic community gradually realised that this group was shaping the future of Ukrainian universities.

A key factor in shaping the draft law, which brought both positives and negatives, was that it had to be done by consensus. This meant there were no controversial issues left in the text of the new law. This was necessary to make sure that there was no professional group that could criticise the document.

Read details here.