Chair:Andrejs Rauhvargers, Lisbon Recognition Convention Committe

1
Parallel session 3Quality Assurance and
Recognitionin a Global Perspective

• Chair Andrejs Rauhvargers, Lisbon
  Recognition Convention Committe
• Rapporteur Carolyn Campbell, UK Quality
  Assurance Agency For Higer Education
• Speakers Maria José Lemaitre del Campo,
  Comision Nacional de Acreditacion, Chile
• Nikki Heerens, ESIB

2
Quality assurance standards and guidelines

• Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance
  in the European Higher Education Area have been
  developed in Bologna process
• What are our expectations regarding ensuring
  trust
• betwen the educational systems inside EHEA and
• between EHEA and other regions
• What effect will these recent developments in
  quality assurance have upon recognition of
  individual qualfications?

3
Quality assurance inside HEIs

• While governments may regulate for quality and
  facilitate quality assurance, a culture of
  quality depends on the actions and attitudes of
  education practitioners.
• How could we ensure the full contribution of
  educational staff and students in securing and
  developing quality in higher education?

4
Quality assurance

• How should the developments in QA in Europe
  together with the recent attempts by OECD and
  UNESCO - be used to open Europe to bona fide
  crossborder education providers?
• How could European developments in organising of
  HE quality assurance be perceived in other
  regions?
• Are European developments in the organising of
  quality assurance in higher education
  transferable to other regions?

5
Quality assurance - capacity building

• For many countries the challenges of managing
  and protecting national education policies and
  ensuring sustained quality in education are
  beyond current capacity.
• What contributions can be made, and how should
  they be made, by the more established education
  sectors of Europe?

6
INTERNATIONAL TRADE

• Globalised trade in higher education services
  already constitutes a significant segment of
  world trade in services.
• It is important however that the questions of
  recognition and QA with respect to crossborder
  education be the focus of discussion, not the
  questions of trade policy which lie outside the
  education field.
• In this perspective how could the Bologna
  Process help safeguard the special quality
  aspects of education -
• specifically the interests of the weaker
  countries who are the potential victims of
  low-quality across borders?

7
Some impressions and recommendations from
outside Europe

• taken from discussion at the seminar Improving
  the recognition system, Riga Dec 3-4, 2004
• and further dialog

8
Dealing with EHEA or with individual countries?

• while the emerging EHEA is major actor, the
  responsibility for recognition matters still
  falls on the individual States so the world will
  continue to deal with many individual national
  systems
• There are differences in the degree to which
  individual countries reform their recognition
  processes, or engage in intra- or extra-European
  dialogue.This can and do affect post-Bologna
  interaction.
• Educators in non-EHEA countries have difficulty
  in sorting this out.

9
European region or EHEA?

• EHEA matters dominate the agenda of the UNESCO
  European Region
• It is important but has the side-effect of making
  non-EHEA members of the European Region
  spectators offering occasional interventions
  rather than fully engaged partners.

10
Openness or restrictions?

• Its time for further openness and cooperation,
  and for the spirit of Lisbon Convention to
  re-animate the European-U.S. relationship.
• Old barriers of national restrictive practices
  should be truly removed, and not just replaced
  by a pan-European set of barriers defined by the
  borders of the EHEA.
• First, however, there needs to be a basis of
  mutual understanding based on respect for the
  systems of higher education on each side.

11
Competition and attractiveness

• Competition for students, resources, and prestige
  is not an Anglo-Saxon plot or a perversion
  introduced by the US. It is a consequence of
  needing to serve more students with limited
  resources, economic and social development.
• Attractiveness of EHEA is just an elegant way of
  mentioning competition.
• A dialog should allow to openly discuss issues
  but the outside partners should not have a
  feeling that while seeking own competitiveness,
  there is protectionism inside the EHEA

12
Credits

• Issues to discuss how to compare credits based
  on contact hours or on workload, discriminating
  between lower/higher division subjects or not,
  taking grades into account in credit calculation
  or not,
• It would be useful for U.S. and European experts
  to have a serious technical discussion about the
  comparability of credits, and to also refer to
  comparative calculations of other credit systems
  such as UMAP (University Mobility Asia-Pacific)

13
Degree Structures

• U.S. bachelors degrees are required to be at
  least 120 U.S. credit hours (normally 4 years)
• (Requirements by accreditation guidelines,
  institutional policy, federal law) This would
  mean that only EHEA bachelors programs with 240
  ECTS credits could be considered comparable
  unless additional factors were considered.
• US bachelors have recognition problems in Europe
  because part of the credits are often regarded by
  European institutions as secondary education.
• Switch to comparing learning outcomes seems
  necessary also in recognition between EHEA and
  outside...

14
Recommendations

• EHEA higher education institutions should inform
  their non-EHEA partners about Bologna degree
  developments and
• they together should actively seek to work out
  any issues and establish precedents that can be
  used to inform recognition policies
• make every effort to bring EHEA and non-EHEA
  experts and leaders together. A North American
  EHEA interaction could be a separate activity

15
Work together to address concerns that are shared
by EHEA and non-EHEA systems alike

• promotion of better international cooperation in
  quality assurance
• developing new and workable solutions to quality
  assurance and recognition of non-traditional
  education
• ensuring that the EHEA stays open to cross-border
  provision of education, partnerships, and
  mobility from outside
• resolving recognition and mobility issues that
  arise when systems are differently organized and
  structured than is EHEA and
• continuing to deal together with fraud

16
(No Transcript)
17
Recognition of EHEA degrees outside Europe

• Bologna process has initiated a number of
  reforms in the degree structures in the European
  countries with a view of making degrees easier
  recognised across the European Higher Education
  Area.
• But how are the new European degrees perceived
  outside Europe?
• And how should Europe promote understanding of
  the Bologna degrees?

18
Improving recognition

• In the European region, the Lisbon recognition
  Convention is the main legal document. It
• Stipulates applicants right to fair assessment,
• Introduces principle of recognizing same level
  if no substantial differences are evident
• Puts burden of proof on the assessing authority
• Bases recognition on trust among Members States
• Stipulates applicants rights to appeal.
• 40 countries have ratified the Lisbon convention
  and 9 more have signed

19
Improving recognition - inside EHEA

• Ratification of the Convention is just the first
  step.
• The principles of LRC have to be embedded into
  the national legislation,
• Information should be channelled to all levels of
  HEIs
• Practical issues following ratification, there
  is little change in the behaviour of credential
  evaluators.
• The burden of proof is not always switched from
  the student to the assessing institution.
• There is often no change in mentality, procedure
  or outcome.
• Much remains to be done in order to reverse
  attitudes to positively seeking to give
  recognition.
• Ministers are likely to agree to draw up national
  plans in improving quality of the recognition
  process. What could be the contents of such
  plans?

20
UNESCO conventions of African, Arab, Latin
American, Asia-Pacific and Mediterranean regions

• are well meant,
• address more issues than recognition only,
• deal with recognition for academic and
  professional purposes at the same time,
• But
• seek equivalence rather than recognition,
• do not establish applicants rights for fair
  assessment and appeal,
• do not clearly link recognition with mutual trust
  (or quality assurance),
• admit the need to develop criteria and procedures
  rather than stipulate them

21
Improving recognition - globally

• How well may the UNESCO conventions be suited as
  the framework for a global system of
  recognition?
• What could be the European contribution?