European Higher Education Area and the Issue of Quality Pavel Zgaga University of Ljubljana, Sloveni

1
European Higher Education Areaand the Issue of
QualityPavel Zgaga University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia

• Compostela Group of Universities
• XI General Assembly
• Post-Bergen Higher Education Area
• Quality Assurance, Accreditation, Autonomy of
  Universities
• Brussels, 8-9 September, 2005

2
1.0 Why European Higher Education Area (EHEA)?

• 1998 The European process has very recently
  moved some extremely important steps ahead.
  Relevant as they are, they should not make one
  forget that Europe is not only that of the Euro,
  of the banks and the economy it must be a Europe
  of knowledge as well. We commit ourselves to
  encouraging a common frame of reference, aimed at
  improving external recognition and facilitating
  student mobility as well as employability.
  (Sorbonne Declaration)
• 1999 We are witnessing a growing awareness in
  large parts of the political and academic world
  and in public opinion of the need to establish a
  more complete and far-reaching Europe, in
  particular building upon and strengthening its
  intellectual, cultural, social and scientific and
  techno-logical dimensions. (Bologna Declaration)

3
1.1 From Paris 1998 to Bologna 1999

• In the Bologna Declaration (1999) ministers
  openly engaged in co-ordinating our policies to
  reach in the short term, and in any case within
  the first decade of the third millennium, the
  following objectives, which we consider to be of
  primary relevance in order to establish the
  European area of higher education and to promote
  the European system of higher education
  world-wide
• ? adoption of a system of easily readable and
  comparable degrees,
• ? of a system essentially based on two main
  cycles,
• ? establishment of the system of credits (like
  ECTS),
• ? promotion of mobility by overcoming obstacles
  to the effective exercise of free movement,
• ? promotion of European co-operation in quality
  assurance,
• ? promotion of the necessary European dimensions.

4
1.2 At a midway results from Bergen

• The 4th Bologna Conference (19-20 May 2005 /
  Bergen) took place at a midway to the EHEA
  (2010).
• The developments so far (2005)
• - Partnership of 45 European countries
  ministries, academic institutions, students and
  other stakeholders
• - The first stocktaking report substantial
  progress have been made in three priority
  areas
• (1) adoption of an agreed set of common
  standards, procedures and guidelines for quality
  assurance
• (2) adoption of an overarching framework of
  qualifications for the EHEA
• (3) mutual recognition of degrees and study
  periods on basis of the Lisbon Recognition
  Convention (36 ratifications).
• A common vision for 2010 was set up we wish to
  establish EHEA based on principles of quality and
  transparency.

5
1.3 A Common Qualifications Framework

• In Bergen (May 2005) ministers adopted the
  Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA with
  three main cycles (generic descriptors for all
  cycles based on learning outcomes and
  competences credit ranges in the first and
  second cycle).
• Short cycle (within the first cycle)
  qualifications may typically include / be
  represented by approximately 120 ECTS credits
• First cycle qualifications may typically
  include / be represented by 180-240 ECTS credits
• Second cycle qualifications may typically
  include / be represented by 90-120 ECTS credits,
  with a minimum of 60 credits at the level of 2nd
  cycle
• Third cycle qualifications do not necessarily
  have credits associated with them. (Report on FQ
  of the EHEA).

6
1.4 European Standards in QA

• In Bergen (May 2004) ministers adopted the
  Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in
  the European Higher Education Area (report from
  the E-4 Group, February 2005).
• E-4 Group set up a broader agenda
• European standards and guidelines for internal
  and external quality assurance (QA) of higher
  education (HE)
• European standards and guidelines for external QA
  agencies
• peer review system for QA agencies (cyclical
  reviews)
• a register of external QA agencies operating in
  Europe,
• the European Consultative Forum for QA in HE.
• Principle of a register was welcomed yet,
  practicalities of implementation should be
  further developed and reported back (in 2007).
  The Forum was not mentioned.

7
2.0 QA where the story began?

• The first official international document
  encompassing the idea of common QA standards is
  the Bologna Declaration one of its main aims has
  been a promotion of European co-operation in
  quality assurance with a view to develop
  comparable criteria and methodologies.
• Actually, this idea entered international
  discussions later than the idea to establish
  comparable degree systems.
• Its roots are not linked to international
  discussions on HE but to changes of national
  legal provision on HE governance. In the 1980s,
  the sharpened questions of effectiveness of the
  'mass higher education' caused a gradual
  transition of concepts from the old
  'interventionary' towards the new 'facilitatory
  state' (Neave and Van Vught, 1991).
• Autonomy has been linked to accountability the
  QA systems started to be implemented in HE,
  country by country.

8
2.1 Variety of QA provisions as an obstacle

• European HE institutions have been traditionally
  very much influenced by the state. As a trend of
  the last decades, the state has no longer
  controlled the process but redirected its
  influence to setting general HE objectives that
  is, to higher education output (graduates,
  employability, etc.).
• A preliminary result of national developments in
  this area was an extreme variety of QA provisions
  this variety was even larger than in the case
  of HE degree structures they were a result of
  establishing new relationships in HE sector in
  particular national circumstances.
• A huge diversity of systems is always an obstacle
  to mutual co-operation. It became clear rather
  early that degree structures and qualifications
  should be concerted among different systems.
  The QA standards and procedures are not less
  important in this respect they are real basis
  for mutual trust among HE systems and
  institutions.

9
2.2 Subsidiarity and educational co-operation

• Diversity is an obstacle but administrative
  harmonization is a danger. What risks would we
  expose the process of co-operation and
  integration if we demand harmonization of all
  those diverse contents, symbols and systems that
  have been developed through our histories?
• Subsidiarity as the principle. In the EU, each
  country keeps responsibilities in (higher)
  education without supra-national harmonization
  in legislation (Maastricht Treaty, 1991)
  however, in a dialogue and co-operation they all
  seek for more compatibility and common
  structures.
• Similar principle has been accepted also in the
  Bologna process (geographically much broader than
  EU) countries promote co-operation on a higher
  level (the open method of co-ordination OMC),
  develop common frameworks and standards but
  remain responsible for HE systems.

10
2.3 Mobility and recognition issues

• The first steps of the European coming together
  in HE were made in mobility and recognition
  issues
• - within EU Erasmus and ECTS were launched (1987)
  and the European Council Directive regarding a
  general system for the recognition of higher
  education diplomas awarded on completion of
  professional education and training was adopted
  (1989)
• - within the broader European Region the Lisbon
  Recogni-tion Convention was signed (1997).
• Quality issues in HE were not addressed in these
  documents however, both mobility and recognition
  depend very much on mutual trust and mutual
  trust could be strengthened most effectively if
  transparent and comparable quality standards and
  procedures are provided at national and
  institutional levels.

11
2.4 A long way to common QA standards

• At the end of the 1990s two important events
  marked the discussion on QA in the EU new
  Recommendation on European cooperation in quality
  assurance in HE was adopted (1998) and the
  European Network of Quality Agencies (ENQA) was
  established.
• These discussions influenced also the drafting of
  Bologna Declaration and the issue of quality
  assurance has finally entered the broadest
  European forum for HE.
• The further way was difficult and slow primarily
  due to extreme variety of diverse national
  provisions but also due to interests among
  various stakeholders.
• Berlin communiqué (2003) made clear that the
  primary responsibility for quality should be with
  HE institutions and set a homework to submit
  standards and guidelines on QA in Europe until
  the Bergen Conference (2005).

12
2.5 QA and institutional co-operation

• Reflecting recent developments, Trends IV Report
  (2005) turns focus from the fact that in QA the
  differences among individual European countries
  are enormous to a clear trend toward more
  institutional approaches to exploit synergies,
  economies of scale and spread models of good
  practice at institutions which do not suffer from
  low degrees of autonomy and concludes
• The essential aim of the Bologna reforms, namely
  to create a European Higher Education Area which
  is predicated on quality and therefore attractive
  to its members as well as the outside world, can
  only be achieved if the concern for quality is
  not reduced to the establishment or optimisation
  of external quality assurance processes alone,
  but considers all processes of institutional
  development (Trends IV).

13
3.0 Towards 2010 from Process to Result

• The Bologna process has now entered 'the second
  half' what would be the 'final score'?
• The Bergen summit brought a following definition
  signed by 45 ministers The European Higher
  Education Area is structured around three cycles,
  where each level has the function of preparing
  the student for the labour market, for further
  competence building and for active citizenship.
  - The overarching framework for
  qualifications, - the agreed
  set of European standards and guidelines for
  quality assurance and
  - the recognition
  of degrees and periods of study are
  also key characteristics of the structure of the
  EHEA.
• Monitoring of the Bologna Process (stocktaking)
  shows that there are important developments as
  well as delays.
• Quality issues seem to be rather delayed than
  advanced.

14
3.1 Towards 2010 what scenario?

• Gradual broadening of the Bologna Club brings a
  danger of the two-speed Bologna and raises new
  questions
• ? 2010 could we expect a need to reschedule the
  agenda?
• ? What structures (governance) for the emerging
  EHEA? Minimum and maximum scenarios
• (a) voluntary reform movement based on OMC
  vs.
• (b) more binding structures? A need for
  international (transnational) legal agreement
  (Convention)?
• A limitation of voluntary reforms in independent
  national HE systems is challenged with a call for
  a common legislative solutions see the Dany
  Bidar case (Judgment of the European Court of
  Justice, 15 March 2005, on assistance covering
  maintenance costs of students without
  discrimination within EU) or the case on
  admission to Austrian universities (7 July 2005).

15
3.2 Implementing Bologna interpreting Bologna?

• Despite important developments of last years,
  national and institutional particularities
  (could) still cause different approaches to
  implementation and open the question What is
  the genuine Bologna?
• Trends IV (2005) introduction of the two or
  three cycles levels gives ample room for
  different and at times conflicting
  interpretations regarding the duration and
  orientation of programs.
• The understanding which has appeared in some
  national environments that the old integrated
  (long) degrees are equal to the new Bologna
  second cycle degrees could set up serious
  obstacles to the further implementation of the
  genuine Bologna. A national withdrawal from
  the European agenda? A tactics? A new spirit of
  time?

16
3.3 A challenge of institutional co-operation in
QA

• Running HE reforms are a huge challenge to all
  national governments they are in the centre of
  their problems and (future) developmental plans -
  and open dilemmas, e.g. effects on
  employability, social dimensions, etc.
• Reforms are also a huge challenge to HE
  institutions, their missions and their (future)
  cooperation - and open dilemmas, e.g. to
  redefine the mission and strengthen internal
  reforms or only to whitewash the front?
• If HE institutions are expected to be primarily
  responsible for quality than this should not be a
  dilemma at all.
• Is it possible that a pan-European institutional
  cooperation in HE could help where subsidiarity
  principle sets limits to national states? A real
  challenge for HE institutions.