The higher education system in Belarus has been undergoing a sluggish but steady process of change since 1991. In the last few years, the goals of reform have drifted from those initiated after the collapse of the USSR in 1991, to new goals of overcoming the shortcomings of the Soviet system and bringing Belarusian higher education into line with international standards.

After declaring its independence, Belarus initiated steps to adjust its educational system to reflect the new realities of being without the support and structure of the Soviet system of higher education. The goals of higher education reform were discussed broadly in both academia and society, and the main problems facing Belarusian higher education were summarized by the minister of education of Belarus at that time:

• institutionalized and centralized organization, planning, and management;
• uneven regional distribution of institutions;
• the absence of academic freedom and university autonomy;
• absence of educational standards, assessment, and accreditation systems;
• the politicization of and lack of diversity and flexibility in curricula;
• inadequate content of the social science curricula;
• ineffective pedagogical methods and faculty training;
• lack of leadership skills and training;
• outdated means of access to information and information technology;
• the lack of international recognition of academic degrees;
• the isolation from the international academic community; and
• the gap between education and research.

The Belarusian authorities believed that, if not addressed, these problems would have negative consequences for the potential of Belarusian society in as few as five to ten years. Thus, the systemic reforms of this period were aimed at overcoming these deficiencies as quickly as possible. Some practical steps were taken: the new law on education was adopted in 1991, and the average salary of university professors increased, exceeding (for the first time in Soviet and post-Soviet history) that of factory workers.

Unfortunately, in the years since, the official goals and principles of higher education reform have drifted significantly from those originally stated. Though the authorities do not proclaim these changes to be explicitly related to an anti-Western stance, the attitudes are implied and can be inferred in state documents and in the pronouncements of state officials.

Points of Difference: 1991 versus the Present
The changes in the goals and directions of higher education reform are striking. First, there is an evident shift related to the international dimension. At present, higher education officials emphasize that, along with considering the experiences of other countries, "Belarus has to proceed first of all from its internal conditions and opportunities." According to the report of the minister of education at the World Conference on Higher Education, the Belarusian educational system is pursuing reform by "modifying the existing system, not breaking it." A similar idea was restated in the officially approved "Concept of Higher Education Development in the Republic of Belarus." This document does not mention even briefly any aspect relating to the international dimension of higher education.

It is evident that the approach of the current state authorities is contrary to that of 1991. At the same time, there are some signs that Belarusian authorities are interested in maintaining a certain level of dialogue with their Western counterparts. For example, the minister of education of Belarus participated in a conference in April 1999, promoting the principles of the "Joint Declaration on Harmonization of the Architecture of the European Higher Education System" that was signed by the ministers of education of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.

The second radical difference between the official direction of higher education reform today as opposed to that of 1991 is the extent of the state's involvement in and control over the administrative and other aspects of the system. In 1991, the authorities considered centralization and the lack of autonomy in higher education as drawbacks. Today, the state has reverted to maintaining control over higher education. For example, the Belarusian authorities have established new controlling and supervisory agencies, such as the State Inspectorate of the Educational System and the Interinstitutional Council on Coordination of Preparation of Highly Qualified Academics; they have also introduced state higher education standards.

The Belarusian authorities are placing private universities in particular under a great deal of pressure. In 1998, the republic had more than 20 private universities. Today, this number has dropped to 13, due partly to financial hardship (universities pay 37 percent of their income in taxes) and partly to the increasingly restrictive policies of the government.

The 1991 education law did not foresee the strict state regulation of private education policies and practices. The Ministry of Education has recently issued decrees that limit the development of and exert control over the private sector, including accreditation and degree certification. For example, the ministry requires that private universities own their own facilities and that at least 50 percent of their instructors work full time. Another requirement is that private universities grant diplomas that are different from those granted by state institutions-in contradiction with the 1991 law.

The state also has interfered with admissions policies. This year a quota was placed on the number of law students admitted to universities on the pretext that "the republic does not need such a large number of lawyers." Actually, over 93 percent of all law students at the International Institute of Labor and Social Relations stated that they did not wish to become lawyers but instead needed a legal background to be successful in business.

A serious problem for nonstate institutions in the future might be caused by Presidential Decree 39 of 7 October 1999, requiring that "commercial organizations" pay their employees salaries equivalent to those offered for the same positions by the corresponding state-run organizations. Simultaneously, the state has given a green light for state-run universities, which are supposed to provide free educational services, to charge tuition. As of 1998-1999, the state universities of Belarus were allowed to recruit up to 60 percent "paying" students (as opposed to 15 percent in 1995-1996). The content and the quality of the education offered remain the same.

The third change between the visions of higher education in 1991 and today relates to the development of administrative and leadership skills of education leaders. Virtually nothing has been done to implement this previously stated goal. The 1998-1999 master list of specializations of Belarusian universities does not include educational administration, leadership, or policy. Belarus still maintains practices from the Soviet era, when educational administrators were appointed by Communist Party bodies based on the "political maturity," loyalty, or other (perhaps nonrelevant) qualities of candidates. The only difference is that Belarus now has what are called "presidential executives"-authorities with almost unlimited rights, personally appointed by the president to all levels of the state hierarchy, instead of by Communist Party committees.

A fourth divergence of reform goals concerns the lack of diversity and flexibility in curricula. Belarus introduced state curriculum standards in 1998 for all specializations. The curricula are approved by the Ministry of Education, which specifies the content and the structure of training specialists in great detail. In particular, the standards list disciplines that the student must study and the sequence, term, and number of contact hours for each subject.

Some national programs in the area of higher education address specific goals-examples are "Textbooks for University Students," "Foreign Languages" and "Teachers." Although there are no reliable data as yet concerning the effectiveness of such programs, their success already seems doubtful. Most respondents to a survey conducted for this report were unaware of the existence of any active national programs in these areas. This demonstrates that the programs were developed in the traditional "secluded" soviet bureaucratic manner without the involvement of the academic community in either the development or implementation. This, in turn, implies that the programs most likely will remain on paper only.

In general, the situation is much more encouraging at the university level. Many deans, department chairs, and faculty members are reform-minded and hope to introduce curriculum changes for their faculties. This may be facilitated by introducing new courses, updating the content of old ones, establishing links with Western universities, inviting lecturers from abroad, etc. These efforts face many objective and subjective obstacles and restrictions caused by rigid state educational laws.

To summarize, the goals of Belarusian authorities and their policies for higher education reform remain complex and contradictory. There are some signs that the authorities understand the need for reform in the context of the political, social, and economic changes in Belarus and neighboring countries. The officially proclaimed goals of reform, however, have been strongly affected by the anti-Western stance of the current Belarusian authorities and have drifted away from those accepted soon after Belarus's independence. The international dimension of higher education reform priorities has almost completely disappeared. The state is increasing its pressure on universities and exercises strict control over virtually all aspects of university policies and practices.