After the 3rd edition of the Brazilian Congress of Private Higher Education (CBESP), held in Florianópolis in 2010, with the support of Prof. Gabriel Mario Rodrigues, I realized that I was facing the special possibility of creating a communication channel to take advantage of a relationship movement between the participants.
It was then that I started an Academic Forum in Google Groups, creating an environment that could contribute to the purpose of discussing the Education issues discussed in the Congress.
It was suggested in the Charter of Florianopolis that we should discuss and judge what was most preponderant. We defined some rules and guidelines as the stakeholders were welcoming the idea and manifesting themselves.
At the time, the concern with the image of Private Higher Education was a challenge and the dialogue with the Ministry of Education – MEC, almost an insurmountable barrier. I realize how far we have come. The consolidation of the work provided by ABMES throughout all these years was an important asset for us in order to have the image, the reputation and the respect that we have today.
Another fundamental aspect was the approximation between ABMES and MEC. Today there is a partnership, a growing quality relationship, and the recognition of the importance of dialogue in the construction of public policies.
With the advent of technology, not only was the ABMES Blog created, but ABMES TV and so many other aggregated services that give the owners of private HEI security and a sense of commitment to the Association.
On the occasion of the III CBESP and the creation of the Academic Forum we had some points of debates that we thought were important:
• Assessment of Private Higher Education
• Communication and Image of Private Higher Education
• Higher Education as a whole
• Innovation in Educational Services
• Ten Year Education Plan – 2011/2020
• Quality in Private Higher Education
• Accomplishments and Actions of the Academic Forum
• Regulation of Private Higher Education
• Private Higher Education Supervision
At the time, these topics of debate were translated by Prof. Edson Nunes in the form of questions, which contributed with the bringing up of relevant topics for the sector to this date. As we recall their concerns, we realize how current they are.
To reflect on the advances and challenges that we continue to face, I elaborated a synthesis of some of Prof. Edson statements:
1. Private higher education has several representative entities, and not all of them are able to join around central ideas. Public higher education (federal) has a single representative entity: ANDIFES. This allows for a unique way of manifesting itself. In the case of private education this unity is not achieved and neither does the Forum of Parliamentarians has been able to achieve it as well. When you think of ABRUC (community) and ABRUEM (state and municipal) in the Council of Rectors, for example, they share the status of “public” by adoption. I trust that dialogue is essential to this process of unification around ideas.
2. It must be recognized that private higher education, by the sheer number of educational institutions, is absolutely diversified in its intrinsic quality. There are sins in ones and virtues in other institutions.
3. If there are communication difficulties in general, we should at least find the necessary virtual unit of communication for private higher education. This can counteract accusations. We have to set ourselves up in this virtual unit, with some quality indicators that are not only those presented by the Government. This will provide for the identification of some private higher education differentials to counter the supposed differentials of public higher education. There are few private institutions that are capable of being considered by society as quality educational institutions. Let us try to reflect on such institutions. Nobody thinks in all conscience that all the public ones are of the highest quality.
4. HEIs need to learn how to produce Reports as large companies do. Not just to show internal results, but also to have the manifestation of quality consultants (external). Reports serve to show growth and must be produced even in difficult times. 5. How to overcome discredit? The lesson is that we need to act with unity, establishing our own quality criteria. There are three stages that we need to think about: a) stage one: before the student joins the IES; b) stage two: while the student is studying with us; c) Stage Three: after the program is over, offering the alumni the opportunity for further learning without this being simply a “specialization course”. Who among us is offering “entrance exams to trainees” and after the accomplishment of the same, is recovering knowledge not revealed in the “entrance exam” just completed? Who is implementing (really teaching) deans so that they really know how to plan their syllabus during the program? Who among us is offering some recall for alumni? Is there any research on problems detected post-program? And what was done as a result of these surveys?
6. Differentials, to what extent do they emerge in society in favor of private HEIs? It was thought, for example, that the offer of sandwich-programs abroad would result in a fever of demand. The demand was negligible and the differential did not work. The differential that works is the one that emerges in the mind of society. Does differential, then, depend on experimentation? Of course. It can be conceived in advance, but it will only come true insofar as it functions in the social mind. Hence the best propaganda is that of testimonials.
7. My big question is: who or which of the heads of representative bodies of private higher education is really committed to finding the core of unity for a discourse on quality? This core will only be found within the dialogue of humility, in the detachment of generosity, in the acceptance of modesty, in the patience of the search. This must be done. Otherwise we will continue to be discredited and governments will continue to make their rankings, getting to the media even before announcing to us the results of the evaluations they have been doing. Is there room for us to discuss unity? Is there time for this discussion? We are no longer staying good with our own speeches.
The search for meaning and purpose in the strengthening of Private Higher Education continues to be the focus of the ABMES’s actions. We are moving in a number of ways and new challenges present present themselves to us, both for the ABMES and for each of the associated institutions. But the question of the quality of education remains the core, the central element for strengthening the image of private institutions.
I end the reflection on the trajectory of the ABMES and its associates in this short space of time highlighting what I pointed out on the occasion about what I consider to be a good college (“What is a Good College?”).
“Good college is one that, overcoming the stages of education and training, manages to weave its pedagogy around a concept of education that guarantees the legitimate intellectual autonomy of its students, recognizing and empowering talents. This is how great schools refer to when they put professionals in the marketplace.”
“There is a brand, a reputation that is a priority for many candidates for a college degree. Such a brand transcends false economies and projects a portion of future college students to the proposal of excellence teaching. For this, I think, it is up to each college to focus on its differentials, betting on the variables of teaching, research and extension.”
