Centre for Civic Education (CCE) welcomes the fact that the Ministry of education, science and innovation has taken into account part of CCE’s comments and suggestions on the Draft Law on Higher Education from November 2024, but also points out that there is room for amendments to ensure that the final text is of high quality in its entirety.
The Draft Law on Higher Education, adopted by the Government, finally introduces a flexible study model that will allow students to study what they want and complete their studies within the timeframe they choose – three, four, or more years. This is a key reform measure that aligns the higher education system with the labour market and resolves the long-standing issue of incompatibility with the 3+2 model, which placed generations of students at a disadvantage. This matter gained even greater importance following the students’ announcement of suspending classes. We remind that the previous model provided exclusively for three-year undergraduate studies (Bachelor), while the new proposal gives faculties the option to organize undergraduate programmes as three-year (180 ECTS) or four-year (240 ECTS), as well as to determine whether their Master’s programmes will carry 60 or 120 credits. This means that the University of Montenegro (UoM) must now clearly define which study programmes will be organized as three-year and which as four-year.
We also welcome the introduction of cooperation programmes with employers, as these link theory and practice and may have a stimulating effect on youth employability.
CCE regrets that our suggestion was not adopted for the Ministry to take responsibility for the continuation of studies in case of programme or institution closure, to ensure that affected students are able to complete their studies within the timeframe specified in the act abolishing the study programme, which should not be shorter than the legal duration of the studies.
Unfortunately, an opportunity has also been missed to democratize UoM, as the CCE’s proposal was ignored for the UoM Senate to elect and appoint the Rector, as is the case in neighbouring Croatia, an EU member state. Instead, the election of the Rector remains under the authority of the Management Board, with the Senate merely proposing a candidate. Such a centralized system has already shown negative consequences for the development of critical academic thought at UCG. It is also unusual that the Government does not limit the number of mandates for Vice-Rectors, as it does for Rectors (two terms), raising the question of why any Vice-Rector would hold what becomes a “lifetime” position.
The Draft Law also fails to provide that academic staff retain their acquired academic titles after retirement or termination of contract, except for full professors, which is restrictive and creates inequality.
Additionally, the September exam period conflicts with the start of the new academic year, which may disadvantage students given that the academic year begins on 1 September.
Although there is a separate Law on Academic Integrity, it is also very important that the Law on Higher Education recognizes the accountability of academic staff who violate the Code of Ethics, including sanctions and the obligation to record such violations when deciding on promotions. This issue has been ignored. Conflict of interest is mentioned only in relation to (re)accreditation and appeals committees, where it is stipulated that members may not have a conflict of interest under the law on preventing corruption. However, there is no mention of conflicts of interest in the hiring processes at higher education institutions, despite numerous examples of “hereditary” chairs at faculties.
A serious objection to the Draft Law relates to the regulation of the Higher Education Council, where the framework for members is defined without transparency, criteria, or equal opportunities. This leaves room for the perception that the Council is formed in a closed manner and on a political basis. Transparency and inclusiveness in member selection are missing—the draft only specifies that members come from “academic staff,” without requirements such as academic title, references, international experience, or ethical standards. It is also unclear who nominates the members, i.e., which UCG body nominates five of them. Particularly problematic is that two members are predetermined by function (the President of the Council for Scientific Research and the Head of the Ministry’s Higher Education Unit), which effectively “reserves” seats for certain individuals and excludes the possibility of an inclusive solution. Furthermore, among the 11 members of the Higher Education Council, there are no representatives of civil society, international experts, or trade unions of higher education employees – perspectives that would enrich the Council. A similar situation exists with the composition of the Council of the Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.
CCE emphasizes that students must not be hostages of political or administrative delays, as the adoption of this law is in their interest and in the interest of developing higher education in Montenegro. Therefore, we call on UoM and all higher-education institutions to publicly urge the Parliament of Montenegro to adopt the Draft Law as soon as possible, and on MPs to improve it through amendments in the areas we identified.
Snežana Kaluđerović, Senior Legal Advisor