从高等教育评估看我国高等学校发展的特色形成与分类指导

高等教育评估的核心价值取向是办人民满意的高等教育。目前我国高等教育的基本评估方式是自上而下的,对全国高等学校使用统一的指标体系和要求,这种统一性不符合教育部对高等学校分类指导的基本宗旨,也无法满足各类高等学校的特色发展要求。实行承诺式符合度评估,即由教育部评估中心对学校提出评估的基本方面,二级指标和具体内容由各学校依据自身特点和特长确定,评估机构以学校的承诺内容为评估标准,进行符合度评估。这种由目前的自上而下转变为上下结合的评估方式,符合教育部分类指导的原则,将解决评估指标不易确定及适应性差等问题。由于学校所提供的承诺内容要向全社会公布,会促使学校做出更适合自己发展的承诺,从而更有利于形成自己的办学特色和办学空间,也必将引入更多社会力量参与学校的发展。在这种评估方式中,政府从目前的被动地位变为主动地位,评估专家的工作模式也从原来的死抠标准,转变为与学校进行深入沟通的探讨式方式,将评估工作转变为研究学校发展、学校特色和学校优势的一项工作。

Formation of University Features and Classified Guidance from the Perspective of Higher Education Evaluation

The core value orientation of higher education evaluation in China is to satisfy the public. A top-down approach is adopted in the present evaluation system, within which unified indexes and requirements are applied to all the universities and colleges across the country. The unification neither conforms to the basic purpose of the classified guidance issued by the Ministry of Education, nor meets the requirement of universities in developing their own features. To conform to the classified guidance, reduce the non-determinacy of evaluation index, and improve the adaptability of the evaluation, the commitment-based conformity evaluation need to be implemented. That is, the basic requirements for the universities will be proposed by the High Education Evaluation Center of the Ministry of Education, while the secondary indexes will be determined by the universities according to their own characteristics and advantages. Later, a conformity evaluation will be made based on the commitments made by the universities. Thus an evaluation approach combined top and bottom will be formed. Since the commitmentswill be publicized, the universities have to make feasible commitments, which will help them form their own characteristics and expand the school-running space as well as introduce more social resources to participate in the development of the universities. In this mode of evaluation, the government shifts from a passive to an active position. The focus of the evaluation experts also changed from the rigid criterion to effective communication with the universities, which turns the evaluation into a study on the development, features, and advantages of the universities.