Democracy in higher education institutions in Berlin : Who also determined at the University of

What to expect from the Berlin working group for democratic universities? Shortly before the final report is completed, some students are disappointed: "The AG was redundant," says the student representatives Patrick Schubert. "There is nothing of substance came out of it." The high school Association, the conservative Professor, representation, rose in Protest even before the end of the deliberations, and does not want to support the completion of the paper. From the pages of the high school principals and of non-professorial academic Staff restrained Comments.
Between the fall of 2017 and December of 2018, had advised the Association on how the participation of all University members in the academic self-administration can be strengthened. The order to stand in the coalition agreement. Any recommendations should be taken into account in a Modification of the Berlin higher education act. At the AG, among others, representatives of the boards of Trustees, the Chairpersons, the Faculty, the Asten, the women's representative and the staff representatives and trade unions participated.

More participation beyond the bodies

After eight meetings, the two chairmen of the AG, Dagmar Simon, from the science centre Berlin for social research and Peer Pasternack, formerly of the Berlin state Secretary for science and now Director of the Institute for higher education research at the University of Halle-Wittenberg, to formulate the final version. In February you should go to the government groups.
according to reports, is likely to recommend the paper to the house of representatives to take the testing clause in the Berlin higher education act, wide. The testing clause has existed for over twenty years. So far there is to read, the Berlin universities could experiment with new models of organization, so as to ensure decision-making processes simplify and improve performance. Complements this might be now to aspects of the part of the high school members. In addition, the paper could contain clues about how to more participation beyond the Committee work is possible. So could be mobilised in front of a high school election by a campaign, for students of the future could be workshops set up to help you something of a better quality of teaching. Also, the universities should think about prior to negotiations on new contracts with the Senate of Berlin in the future, more and more high school members can be involved.

"An empty paper", says a student representative

it is Also expected that the AG utters in the final paper to support the work of these committees, for example, by the members to be better trained and informed. Where it is possible, could bodies of work on the working time credited. This point is not, however, alone from Berlin, because he also touches on the regulations of the Federal government. The staff representation, which developed in an own-AG proposals, should attach to the report. Examples of the self-government of universities, of other länder are to be appended.
originally from the AG target concrete proposals to the legislature would not be found in the final report, says the Student of Schubert. He was expecting a "empty paper". After the FU-Board of Trustees Chairman Jürgen Zöllner in the last session for by have set, that his dissenting opinion be recorded in the Annex, would inform other members of your opinions there.
the main concerns, with which the students were representatives in the AG, the introduction of the district parity in all committees where this is legally possible. Also should be written in an autonomy clause in succession to the testing clause, the minimum standards for participation. In addition, neutral bodies, units should arise, according to the nature of the parliamentary service in support of the proposals of the Committee members with information.

"Too much in the Thinking of the group of the University

arrested on a" No roll should have played in the AG, the proposals of the Council for higher education governance in the autumn. The panel had recommended, among other things, a strengthening of the University management and the deans, which should be balanced by strengthened academic Senate. That the balance of power between the Academic Senate and the University administration or between faculty members and Deans was not subject to the AG, is one of the points of criticism of the higher education Association that was represented in the AG by Susanne Fontaine, Vice-President of the UdK,. The paper from spare "key concern" of the Association of organized scientists "completely", - is spoken in the Letter of December in which the Association declared its withdrawal. He insists on the "constitutionally guaranteed freedom of Science", which requires the participation of the scientists "in all science-related decisions", which is why you should not be disempowered compared to the levels of management. In addition, the draft text had been arrested "too much in the Thinking of the group University". Would be served "almost exclusively on the concerns of the equality Ombudsman and staff representatives".
"It was clear that the composition of the AG only with the stakeholders' interests collide," says Dagmar Simon. "The risk of failure was great. I'm so glad we have made it this far.“ In addition to the formulation of concrete recommendations is managed by the AG, especially, "the social responsibility of the universities and their internal Disposition under the aspects of democracy and participation policy". With a view to the procedure, it might have been more productive if it is used first of all, a group of experts and the result would have then discussed wider, says Simon.