Former prime minister laments the fate of thousands of students, hundreds of professors after the closure of programmes

I don't question the noble intentions of many critics of public universities, and I'm one of them, but the distribution, the closure of research programmes, and with that, reducing academic staff doesn't help, rather harm higher public education. And he does not question the noble intentions of many critics of others who, in the name of “quality” want to ruin public education for financial gain. Currently, in sting are new public universities, because there are political clashes about their formation, but the real blow is to the University of Pristina.

The Notation Agency's announcement of the closure of many research programmes at public universities and the reaction of the Rectors Conference further exposed these trends. This discussion is open and good to flow. Some things are known, but there are no details. Damn it sleeps in detail. Here are some of them.

Forming new public universities. Formation of new public universities still continues to be the subject of political clashes over higher education. Universities are still valued with the taste of their <x0 political formation”. There are two arguments that make this approach obsolete: 1. The formation of every public university is in essence a political act (the government proposes, the assembly approves), even if it was made in time of election campaigns, again the Kosovo Assembly has voted the foundation and this shuts down any party approach; 2. For five years it is worked in new universities, hundreds of professors and about thirty thousand students build it every day, while critics do not want to see the work and defeat these tens of thousands of people! Does anyone really think that in the political anger of the “who created” could be played with the fate of thirty-four thousand? And with family expectations and the hopes of jobs of these thousands of students?

This diplomatic approach to new universities has contributed to the Kosovo government -- that it may never have a strategy for their development, not engage in their development, and hinder their development. This has essentially affected the rate of university development. I believe he would do well with the real discussion, but not the denigration campaigns.

Campaigning to shut down new public universities. Especially in the last two years, this approach culminated. There was no debate. Campaigns to shut down new universities took place instead of debate. A group (formal or informal) was founded, which without meeting with university professors and leadership of public universities, drafted a document in which they brought in two proposals: the reduction of public universities, leaving only two, the University of Pristina and the University of Dukagjin. Other universities became branches or campuses of these universities.

Fortunately, this campaign failed and “document” remained unofficial. But what wasn't politically realized is proving to be done with “procedure”. Article 14, prg.6 of the Law on Higher Education 04/ L-037 says: “The public bartium is considered licensed unless it fails to meet AKA's standards for institutional accreditation.” As we will see below, the Agency of Accreditation was instrumentalised to shut down new universities.

That the government, first of all, did not support them, rather prevented the development of universities, unfortunately there are many facts: MANT failed to approve and prosecute in the Kosovo Assembly universities; it did not help university independence, and they still are part of August and its sub-column budgetary command; the bureaucratic procedure of “obtaining permission for the acceptance of academic and administrative staff at universities and so on.

This approach is extremely incorrect. The fates of some thirty thousand students and hundreds of professors are at stake. They're in the chair of the fraud reactor, professor and student: are we or aren't we college? Do these diplomas not apply? Universities remain like fish on a hook! These universities cannot be closed politically. There should be a debate about their development opportunities, not their lynching campaign.

The Agency of Recognition has climbed into the dance. Unfortunately, the Accreditation Agency was excluded from ECAR following the government's arbitrary intervention with the dismissal of the State Council of Quality. The dismissal, suspension and appointment of the new KSHC are linked. How can a neutral and independent institution be established if the same government dismissed several months ago arbitraryly? What guarantee does the KSHC have that it will not be arbitrarily downloaded again if it fails to perform its tasks? The 77 deputies' votes for the KSHC show that we were all aware of the dismissal mistake, and now, Balkan style, we're going to improve our mistake quickly! Name and downloads are made quickly, but errors are not quickly corrected. It's really supposed to be “to convince” E NQA, ECAR and others that AKA is independent of politics with the decision to close 40% of research programmes at new universities, as well as arbitrary?

There is no doubt, this AKA arbitrator for closing programmes stems from the government's arbitracy for the KSHC dismissal in 2017. Therefore, some KSHC members have duties to do. Let them do, but they cannot convince us that they are independent of politics and business.

So I don't get misunderstood by the KSHC or the government: Discussion for IT WAS because I was a member of the State Council of Quality at the time of the Agency's membership in ECKA and ECAR.

How did AKA close their research programs? I discuss not all of the Agency's decisions, but only those for programs that have accredited by 2020 from now.

The agency can withdraw accredited programme at any time (as KSHC chairman says, Mr. Luboten, but only on the basis of an assessment report written by three international experts, which records violations of the condition of accreditation, described in Article 21, prg. 4 Administrative Guide 15/2018 (like not Mr. Luboten.

The agency did the opposite: it withdrew accreditations without the Rating Report. It has no legal competence, nor should it allow itself, on the basis of some lists of academic staff, to assess research programmes. The agency should open up to admit the mistake, apologize, restore the legal situation, and until there are no written decisions, the consequences are smaller.

The second violation was made under the application of Article 26 of the same UA retroactively. By 2018 The agency has asked universities for three (3) full - time professors for a program, and in 2018 it requires that a bar professor be valued at 60 ECTS and the professor be in the narrow field (Nani 26, p. 5,3.4, WA No. 15, 2018). These two standards may be required for new programs, not retroactively, even programs that continue to have accreditment.

In practice, these two standards have this result: In the Beginr Program, the Program for Priory and the General Jury Program of Kadri Zeka University, the number of professors from three to four professors for each separate program should increase. Of course, this cannot be done in public university for several weeks, so the retroactive obligation to change the number of professors in accredited programs has de balanced their alignment to those programs.

With any positive interpretation of the law, no law can be executed retroactively except in favor of the party. In this case, the side is university, while the retroactive application hurts the side. The agency would without hesitation admit the error and legal offense, improve the error and bear some responsibility.

Groups of political and business interest. The real problem is understood only when these decisions of the Agency relate to the political and business context about higher public education in Kosovo. There are two processes that are revealing the shell “the error” of the Agency.

Other interest groups, under the NGO firm, which are veggied and enriched under the auspices of August as of post-war, have a crucial role in determining high education policies in Kosovo. If we resume their policy, it makes this sense: it is good luck for Kosovo if the Agency of Discension closes the research programmes and public universities. This sentence is spoken, not once, publicly. These political and business interest groups through such campaigns “absorb” donations and training projects to correct the major shortcomings of higher public education. Instead of being viewed as two supplementary activities, study and training, university and learning through training, these interest groups created two opposing sides.

A new fact should not be neglected. Until the Agency closed 40% of research programmes at new public universities, 23% of programmes closed in private colleges. In recent days evidence came to the media that the Agency has not acted with the same standards to all: under the same conditions, some public programmes shut down and some accredited privates. The last few days also came to the media with facts that connected more than half the members of the State Council of Quality with a private college. This leads us to doubt that the Agency for Accreditation is in operation even of business interest groups.

And now, when the diplomatic or even anti-university policies of August and business and political interest groups look into the context of the Accreditation Agency's decision to close 40% of programmes in new public universities, the true nature of the problem is understood. The agency is not independent, it is politically influenced, and its decision to shut down the programmes is a deliberate, biased error and in the interest of these formal and informal political groups. The agency has opened the way for “procedural” August to close up new public universities.

The evil is greater: these political and business interest groups target Pristina University. Let them kneel with him, all the higher public education.

High public education must be protected!

There have been several years of campaigning against university professors and universities themselves. In the name of commitment to “cilai” political and business interest groups did not leave without attacking Kosovo universities. High public education is endangered by political interventions, by selfish and not legitimate interests of its university members, by the interests of political and business groups, by the desired quality, etc. This unwanted situation in higher education can only be overcome by work, plans, strategies, government support, and the will of university members for progress. Anyone who thinks and asks for the name of the quality to close and destroy higher public education only gives way to business with education, business with diplomas!

The arbitrary closure of 40% of new universities' research programmes is not in any case a quality decision, but a political decision against higher public education. The real battle is being fought not only for some research programmes, but for the preservation of one of the most important values of the high public education society. Now is the time for anyone who believes in these values and the importance of higher public education to protect it.