19th EURASHE General Assembly and. University of Economics, Prague

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "19th EURASHE General Assembly and. University of Economics, Prague"

Melvin Stone
5 years ago
Views:

2 European Higher Education Area Beyond th EURASHE General Assembly and Annual Conference University of Economics, Prague May 2009 Věra Šťastná cz

3 Introduction Beyond 2010 Bologna Process and EU policies (Lisbon Agenda) Synergies of both processes Discussions in Ghent academic seminar, May 2008 Discussions at BFUG meetings in Sarajevo, June 2008, in Paris, October 2008, in Prague, February 2009 and March 2009 Ministerial conference in Leuven/Lovain- la Neuve April 2009 National reports Stocktaking report Beyond 2010 report Leuven-Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué of ministers

4 Where we are (1) Bologna was based on previous development - the answer to challenges in European HE in 90ieth Political changes fall of iron curtain Erasmus (ECTS) and other EU programmes mobility UNESCO/CoE Lisbon Recognition Convention Sorbonne Declaration four big countries (1998) Bologna Declaration 30 countries (1999) In spite of all shortages Bologna was success and has influenced development in all HE systems in Europe Legislative changes Changes in degree structures, quality assurance Influenced image outside Europe - other continents

5 Bologna goals Clear, brief but very difficult to measure Different entrance conditions Different systems in different countries Different political will Different time of accession to the Process Since 2005 an attempt to see how the goals have been fulfilled stocktaking reports Evaluation of basic priorities, mainly dealing with structures (three cycle system; quality assurance), partly with principles (student participation in QA, recognition)

6 Where we are (2) The Process is dynamic, it has been developing and its goals have been developing Harmonisation of architecture (Orchestra) Changes in content to what extent there was a success to meet the demands of the labour market, society??? How do the programmes respond to chances of the new structure??? How do the programmes respond to new challenges e.g. new student bodies in HE, LLL needs??? Qualification frameworks, qualification systems

7 Where we are (3) Quality assurance European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) European Register for Quality Assurance - EQAR Information, understanding versus misuse what is not popular is Bologna

9 New challenges Demographic decline Growing global competition for financial and human resources (students as well as academics and researchers) Global economic and financial crisis Creativity, innovation, use of full potential (all talents)

10 Main focus for future Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Conference lifelong learning, among others on implementation of national qualification frameworks by 2012,, including, within the national context also the short cycle degrees, or recognition of prior learning ; social cohesion e.g. invited each participating country to set measurable targets to be reached by 2020 for widening overall participation and increasing participation of underrepresented groups in higher education mobility of students, academics and researchers 20% of graduates in EHEA should benefit from a stay at a foreign university it or a practical placement by 2020

11 Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve 10 priorities Motto: Quality in all activities of HEIs excellence social dimension: equitable access and completion lifelong learning employability student centre learning and the teaching mission of higher education education, research and innovation international openness mobility; data collection multidimensional transparency instruments; funding

12 Louvain-la-Neuve Bologna Policy Forum First time meeting of Bologna and non-bologna delegations 15 countries: Australia, Brazil, Canada, P.R. China, Egypt, Ethiopia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Tunisia, USA, Along with the International Association of Universities and other international organizations (Magna Charta Observatory) Some countries wish to enter the Bologna Process what rules/principles? Main areas of common interest - recognition (including parts of studies), qualification frameworks, quality and mobility. At the end of the meeting all participants adopted Statement by the Bologna Policy Forum Next Forum - Vienna on 12 March 2010, following the celebration of EHEA Working group and database of experts

13 Development within European Union (1) meeting of the Council of Minister for Education on 12 May - two key documents summarising the results achieved on the path for EU education up to 2020 Council Conclusions on enhancing partnerships between education and training institutions and businesses Strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training for the period to 2020 The Council further adopted two more documents the Recommendation on the European Credit System for Vocational Education and the Recommendation on the European Quality Assurance Reference Framework for Vocational Education and Training.

14 Development within European Union (2) Strategic t framework for European cooperation in education and training for the period to 2020 lifelong learning and mobility quality and efficiency; equal access and active citizenship; creativity, it innovations and entrepreneurship Further more fundamental principles of European cooperation, openness towards third countries cooperation with international institutions, links to the Bologna Process and the European Research Area.

15 Where we are (4) All countries have introduced d Bologna reforms BUT Degree structures models have harmonised architecture but in reality vary considerably e.g. Master's degree see EUA study, EURYDICE Report ECTS ECTS (or ECTS compatible systems) used in majority of countries understanding what ECTS means varies considerably see e.g. the EURYDICE report results of the ECTS Label 2009 evaluation 66 applications submitted to NAs 36 preselected nationally 22 finally successful total success rate 35%

16 Level of Implementation of ECTS (Eurydice David Crosier) 75 % + using ECTS based on learning outcomes and student workload 75 % + using ECTS based on student workload 75 % + using ECTS based on contact hours, or contact hours & student workload 75 %orless using ECTS with variety of credit definitions National credit systems in parallel. ECTS mainly used for transfer Source: Eurydice

17 Where we are (5) Curricula reform Obstacles to mobility and recognition issues implementation of the Lisbon Recognition Convention see the Report to the BFUG on the analysis of the national action plans for recognition,, Eurydice Report Diploma Supplement was introduced in Bologna countries but there is a question concerning use of it Results of the DS Label 2009 evaluation 161 DS application submitted to NAs 92 preselected nationally 52 successful total success rate 32%

18 Where we are (6) Funding - Europe spends 1,1% on education (less than half in comparison to USA) 1,9 % on research (in USA 2,7%) Mainly the gap in private funding Education seems even more underfunded than research Underfunding of Europe is not homogeneous in countries of the Central and Eastern Europe wider gap also due to the fact of lower GDP per capita

19 Concluding remarks Neither Bologna nor Lisbon have met their initial iti goals and they will not be achieved by 2010 as planned. both Processes overlap as well as are unique. both Processes have introduced their priorities for future decade. The first priority, however, for all actors should remain fair and open stocktaking, ki evaluation of the achievements and setting clear plans what has to be done. We all have to be certain that the initial objectives of the Bologna Process and the Lisbon Strategy are really achieved.

20 Some questions in the end (1) Bologna Process in the next decade seems to face many challenges. There is a criticism stemming from a fear that the credibility and momentum of the Bologna Process has been decreasing. Will this become a reality or the last sets of agendas will bring it again to move? How has the HE landscape changed - what is the difference between higher education at the end of the 20ieth century and now? In Europe? And in global world? We have achieved a harmonised architecture, but have we been achieving more transparency?

21 Some questions in the end (2) How can the EHEA exist and function if we do not pay attention to the level of divergence in degrees, credits or quality assurance systems which have been appearing and we start a new set of reforms? Where is the balance between transparent diversification and divergence? What is the proper balance between national and European coordination? It seems that t in some, carefully identified d areas, a stronger European coordination will be necessary for future (e.g. the agenda of implementation of NQFs as well as EQF and QF-EHEA or recognition). How will the new priorities and methodologies, e.g. diversification of missions of higher education institutions, evaluation and mapping based on validated data, and /or the old priorities, often with a new connotation e.g. lifelong learning, mean for future of the emerging EHEA?

22 For more information see: e/hogeronderwijs/bologna/ Thank you for your attention

What is the added value of a Qualifications Framework? The experience of Malta.

Meeting The Latvian Qualifications Framework, Riga 2011 What is the added value of a Qualifications Framework? The experience of Malta. Dr James Calleja Chief Executive Malta Qualifications Council National