The Bologna Process from Berlin to Bergen presented by Per Nyborg Head of the Bologna Secretariat October 2003 - June 2005
2
INDEX Russian-Norwegian Co-operation, St.Petersburg 22-23 September 2003 The Bologna Process after Berlin Page 5 A Trans-Atlantic University Summit, Washington DC 6 October 2003, under the auspices of the Royal Norwegian Embassy Objectives and Processes in Intra-European Higher Education. Some Trans-Atlantic Implications 11 Russia in the European Higher Education Area, St.Petersburg 29-30 October 2003 Higher education governance 15 Council of Europe Conference, Strasbourg 2-3 December 2003, Implication of the Bologna Process in South East Europe The Bologna Process and its Bodies: How does it all work? 21 Moscow Academy of Economics and Law, 1-3 April 2004 The Bologna Process 27 Higher Education in Ukraine and the Bologna Process, Kiev 13-14 May 2004 Higher Education as a Public Good and a Public Responsibility 33 Higher Education in Ukraine and the Bologna Process, Kiev 13-14 May 2004 Ukraine and the Bologna Process 37 Council of Europe Ministerial Conference South Caucasus, Strasbourg 17-18 May 2004 The development of the Bologna Process, Central elements and basic concepts 41 Twelfth OSCE Economic Forum, Prague 31 May 4 June 2004: New Challenges for Building up Institutional and Human Capacity for Economic Development and Cooperation The influence of the Bologna Process on reform processes in higher education in the Caucasus and Central Asia 47 UNICE Education and Training Working Group, Brussels 9 June 2004 The Bologna Process and UNICE 51 EAIE Conference, Turin 15-18 September 2004 Universities as partners in the Bologna Process 55 Seminar organised by the Norwegian Embassy in Berlin, 20 September 2004 The Bologna Process from Berlin to Bergen 59 Council of Europe CDESR, Strasbourg 21-22 September 2004 The Bologna Process from Berlin to Bergen 65 Meeting on the Draft Law on Higher Education in Armenia, Yerevan 25-26 October 2004 Principles and goals of the Bologna Process, Consequences for national legislation 67 3
Kazan State University 200 th Anniversary Events, 15-19 November 2004 The Bologna Process on the way to Bergen 71 International Conference, Chisinau 25-28 November 2004 Principles and objectives of the Bologna Process 75 Education International Pan-European Structure, Brussels 11-12 February 2005 The Bologna Process: Where are we, where are we going? 81 inter}artes launch meeting, Warsaw 17-19 March 2005 The Bologna Process moving towards Bergen 87 Tuning Educational Structures in Europe, Phase III Launch meeting, Budapest 22 April 2005 From Bologna to Bergen and beyond 93 ESIB seminar: Bologna, Bergen and beyond, Bergen 11-13 May 2005 A vision for 2010 and beyond 97 The Bergen Ministerial Conference 19-20 May 2005 Presentation of the General Report of the BFUG: From Berlin to Bergen 101 4
Russian-Norwegian Co-operation, St.Petersburg 22-23 September 2003 The Bologna Declaration The Bologna Process after Berlin The Bologna Process is the most important and wide-ranging reform of higher education in Europe since thirty years. The ultimate aim of the Process is to establish a European Higher Education Area by 2010 in which staff and students can move with ease and have fair recognition of their qualifications. This overall goal is reflected in the six main goals defined in the 1999 Bologna Declaration, signed by Ministers of Education from 29 countries: A system of easily readable and comparable degrees, including the implementation of the Diploma Supplement; A degree system essentially based on two main cycles: - a first cycle relevant to the labour market; - a second cycle requiring the completion of the first cycle; A system of accumulation and transfer of credits; The mobility of students and teachers; Co-operation in quality assurance; The European dimension of higher education. Developments The follow-up Ministerial meeting in Prague in 2001 took stock of the progress towards a European Higher Education Area and also gave further impetus to the Bologna Process by addressing a limited number of new areas. The Ministers confirmed the orientations of Bologna and in stronger terms underlined the importance of higher education for democratic values and the value of a diversity of cultures and languages as well as a diversity of higher education systems. An important step forward in Prague was the actual recognition of students as competent, active and constructive partners and the emphasis on co-operation with higher education institutions, which was in a symbolic way demonstrated by the dialogue between Ministers, European higher education institutions and students in Prague. The students were instrumental in bringing in the aspect of the social dimension of the Process and the recognition of higher education as a public good and a public responsibility. New countries were invited to join the Process and the number of participating countries increased to 33. Since Prague, awareness of the importance of the Bologna process and the real need for a common European Higher Education Area has dramatically increased all around Europe, not only at governmental level but also at the level of institutions. Several factors have been pushing the signatory partners of the Bologna Declaration towards a more substantial commitment to the process. They have been preparing and implementing substantial reforms in their higher education systems. Even if a country should consider this need only for itself, it would be important to study the practices of other countries and their educational systems. However, the Bologna process is much more than just an excellent set of good national practices. Challenges to national higher education systems are interlinked with challenges brought about by 5
growing European integration and at the same time an accelerating globalisation. In that sense, the Process expresses a conviction that under these new circumstances national higher education systems should become more comparable and compatible but also more attractive on a global scale. The Bologna Club is neither the European Union nor the Council of Europe but most of these principles are applicable in any case. There are national educational systems and curricula but there is also a firm understanding that European cultural diversity gives us great advantages and richness. Our advantages and richness can be mutually and fully enjoyed only if we create solid common roads among us. Taking stock When Ministers met again in Berlin last week, two years after Prague, they decided to make all countries party to the European Cultural Convention eligible for membership, provided that they implement the objectives of the Bologna Process in their own system of higher education. This increased the number of member states to 40, including Russian participation. In Berlin, Ministers underlined the importance of the social dimension of the Bologna Process. The need to increase competitiveness must be balanced with improving the social characteristics of the European Higher Education Area, aiming at strengthening social cohesion and reducing social inequalities both at national and at European level. In that context, Ministers reaffirmed their position that higher education is a public good and a public responsibility. Ministers emphasised the importance of all elements of the Bologna Process for establishing the European Higher Education Area and stressed the need to intensify the efforts at institutional, national and European level. However, to give the Process further momentum, they commit themselves to intermediate priorities for the next two years: Thus, they will strengthen their efforts to promote effective quality assurance systems; step up effective use of the degree system based on two cycles; improve the system for recognition of degrees and periods of studies. With a view to the goals set for 2010, Ministers decided that a stocktaking process should be carried out in time for their summit in 2005 with detailed reports on the progress and implementation of these intermediate priorities set for the next two years. Quality Assurance In their Berlin Communiqué, Ministers commited themselves to supporting further development of quality assurance at institutional, national and European level. They stressed the need to develop mutually shared criteria and methodologies on quality assurance. Ministers underlined that in accordance with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself. This provides the basis for accountability of the academic system within the national quality framework. They agreed that by 2005 national quality assurance systems should include: 6
- A definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institutions involved; - Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the publication of results; - A system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures; - International participation, co-operation and networking. Degree structure: Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles In the Berlin Communiqué, Ministers noted that, following their commitment in the Bologna Declaration to the two-cycle system, a comprehensive restructuring of the European landscape of higher education is now under way. All Ministers commited themselves to having started the implementation of the two cycle system by 2005. Ministers encouraged Member States to elaborate a framework of comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education systems, which should seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, competences and profile. They also asked for the development of an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area. Within such frameworks, degrees should have different defined outcomes. First and second cycle degrees should have different orientations and various profiles in order to accommodate a diversity of individual, academic and labour market needs. First cycle degrees should give access, in the sense of the Lisbon Recognition Convention, to second cycle programmes. Second cycle degrees should give access to doctoral studies. Ministers stressed their commitment to making higher education equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means. Recognition of degrees In the Berlin Communiqué, Ministers underlined the importance of the Lisbon Recognition Convention, which should be ratified by all countries participating in the Bologna Process. They set the objective that every student graduating as from 2005 should receive the Diploma Supplement automatically and free of charge. It should be issued in a widely spoken European language. Higher education institutions in many European countries are now pooling their academic resources in order to promote the development of integrated study programmes and joint degrees. Promotion of integrated study programs under the Russian-Norwegian Co-operation, making active use of a Diploma Supplement to promote the degrees given, may be a very direct contribution to the Russian participation in the Bologna Process. Some basic concepts Autonomous institutions The Bologna Process builds on co-operation and trust between national educational systems and between higher education institutions in Europe. The Bologna Declaration refers to the European universities as partners in the process, underlining their autonomy. 7
This implies that higher education institutions must be given the freedom they need to carry out their mission and they must be in control of their own system. However, autonomy also implies accountability. Autonomous institutions have the responsibility for the content and methods, relevance and quality of their teaching and research, and for optimal use of their resources and for correct reporting on theit use and on results. Institutions must of course respect political and administrative guidelines and the relevant laws and regulations. Public responsibility for higher education The Prague Communiqué stated that higher education is a public good and a public responsibility. This was reaffirmed in Berlin. Public responsibility is a precondition for a national higher education system. This responsibility must at the very minimum extend to the make-up of the education system, the framework within which higher education is delivered. One important part of the higher education system is the qualifications framework. There is agreement in Europe that public authorities decide the degree structure and its requirements. If this were not to be the case, one of the key goals of the Bologna Process a two-tier degree structure would be difficult to implement, as would the goal of transparency. In the Bologna Process, other important elements of the higher education framework is recognition and quality assurance. Ratification of the Lisbon Convention clearly is a public responsibility, as is the establishment of an independent body for quality assessment. Funding of higher education may be considered a public responsibility. However, in any system, individuals have to carry some of the cost. The difficult part is to agree on how much public funding is reasonable, and on what conditions. Student support is another key economic issue where no readymade answer exists, but which is intimately linked to the public responsibility for making higher education more accessible. No qualified candidate should have to abstain from higher education because he or she lacks the means to study. Consequences for national legislation The Bologna Declaration is a declaration of intention. To realise the European Higher Education Area, Parliamentary decisions will have to be made in the participating countries, national laws on higher education will have to be changed: Universities should be autonomous; Students should be full members of the higher education community, participating in the organisation and content of education; The degree system should essentially be based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate; Joint degrees should be possible; Independent national quality assurance systems should be introduced; Obstacles to free movement for students and staff should be overcome. The Bologna Process is not a process moving towards a fixed goal: it is a dynamic system. 8
This means that an effective law on higher education should only regulate that which is essential to regulate and which cannot effectively be regulated in any other way. The law should be written to allow for change, remaining relevant as the higher education system develops. Follow-up In Berlin, Ministers entrusted the steering of the Bologna Process and the preparation of the next ministerial meeting to the Bologna Follow-up Group, composed of representatives of all member countries and the European Commission, with the Council of Europe plus university and student organisations as consultative members. A Board shall oversee the work between the meetings of the Follow-up Group. The overall follow-up work will be supported by a Secretariat which the country hosting the next Ministerial Meeting will provide. This country is Norway. I can assure you we will do our very best to assist the further development of the Bologna process in the coming two years. 9
10
A Trans-Atlantic University Summit, Washington DC, 6 October 2003 Under the auspices of the Royal Norwegian Embassy, Washington D.C. Objectives and Processes in Intra-European Higher Education Some Trans-Atlantic Implications Ministers responsible for higher education in 40 European countries met two weeks ago in Berlin to confirm their ambition to create a European Higher Education Area. What does this really mean and what will the implications be for the individual participating countries among them Norway, for the European co-operation in the university sector, and for our Trans- Atlantic relations? We optimistically believe it will stimulate reforms and focus on quality in the individual countries as the Quality Reform does in Norway, that it will stimulate international university collaboration not only within Europe, but also make it easier to establish and develop cooperation with partners in other regions. It may help higher education to develop globally on its own premises, not leaving the global dimension to trade in educational services under a WTO regime. Co-ordinated actions through UNESCO and OECD may be important elements in this development. The Bologna Declaration The vision of a European Higher Education Area was formulated in the declaration from a European Ministerial Conference in Bologna in 1999. It started an informal process, the Bologna Process, now seen as the most important and wide-ranging reform of higher education in Europe since thirty years. The ultimate aim of the Process is to establish the European Higher Education Area by 2010, allowing staff and students to move with ease and to have fair recognition of their qualifications. This overall ambition is reflected in the Bologna Declaration signed by Ministers from 29 countries, asking for: a system of easily readable and comparable degrees: - a first cycle relevant to the labour market (the Bachelor Degree); - a second cycle requiring the completion of the first cycle (the Master Degree); a system of accumulation and transfer of credits; co-operation in quality assurance. Since then, a social dimension has been added to the Bologna Process by Ministers declaring that higher education is a public good and a public responsibility. Taking stock of the Bologna Process The Ministers met in Prague two years after Bologna to take stock of the progress and then again in Berlin only two weeks ago. The number of participating countries has now increased to 40, including Russia and countries in South-East Europe. To give the Process further momentum, the Ministers commited themselves to intermediate priorities for the next two years: They will strengthen their efforts: 11
- to promote effective quality assurance systems, - to step up effective use of the degree system based on two cycles, - to improve the recognition system of degrees and periods of studies. Let us take a closer look at the three priority areas: Quality Assurance In their Berlin Communiqué, Ministers pressed for further development of quality assurance at institutional, national and European level. They stressed the need to develop mutually shared criteria and methodologies on quality assurance. In accordance with the principle of institutional autonomy, the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself. By 2005 national quality assurance systems should include: - Evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal assessment, external review, participation of students and the publication of results. - A system of accreditation, certification or comparable procedures. - International participation, co-operation and networking. Degree structure By 2005, all participating countries shall have started the implementation of the two cycle system. Ministers have asked for the development of an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area. Within such framework, first and second cycle degrees should have different orientations and various profiles to accommodate a diversity of individual, academic and labour market needs. Second cycle degrees should give access to doctoral studies. Recognition of degrees Regarding recognition, Ministers underlined the importance of the Lisbon Recognition Convention, which should be ratified by all countries participating in the Bologna Process. From 2005 at the latest, every graduating student should receive a Diploma Supplement automatically and free of charge; in most countries it will be issued in English. The Diploma Supplement will give information on the study programme and the learning outcome and place the institution and the study programme in the context of the national education system. Follow-up In Berlin, Ministers entrusted the steering of the Bologna Process to a Follow-up Group, composed of representatives of all member countries and a smaller Board. The Follow-up Group and the Board will be supported by a Secretariat which the country hosting the next Ministerial Meeting will provide. On the invitation of Minister of Education Kristin Clemet, the next meeting will be held in Norway in May 2005. I can assure you we will do our very best to assist the further development of the Bologna Process in the coming two years. 12
Some Trans-Atlantic implications Building a European Higher Education Area is not to build barriers to the rest of the international community. On the contrary, the external dimention and co-operation with other regions are important elements in the Bologna Process. From the Bologna priorities for the next two years, it can be seen that also Trans-Atlantic relations will benefit. First of all, a transparent quality assurance system in your partner institution will be a good thing. Institutional QA systems will be overlooked by national agencies such as the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education (NOKUT). The introduction of a two-cycle degree system in all European countries will make it easier for students to move. In particular, the possibilites for taking the first degree at home and the second degree abroad will be greatly improved. Although Norway had a two-cycle system before Bologna, the new Bachelor/Master system with its new teaching methods will be much closer to the American systems than our traditional system ever was. Conditions for transfer from a Norwegian 3-year Bachelor to an American Master study should be looked into as soon as possible. Hopefully, the modern approach to recognition of foreign degrees built into the 1997 Council of Europe /UNESCO Lisbon Recognition Convention for the European Region may stimulate recognition of equivalent although not identical degrees both ways across the Atlantic: Each country shall recognise qualifications from other countries as similar to the corresponding qualifications in its own system unless there are substantial differences. The UNESCO European Region includes Canada and the United States. Both countries have signed the Lisbon Convention, both participate actively in the European Network for Information Centers (ENIC). We very much wellcome the United States back in the world-encompassing cooperation in UNESCO; global solutions cannot easily be found without you. The Lisbon Convention and the Bologna Process have opened up for a new understanding of international education in Norway and in other European countries. Previously, we looked for identical degrees in the process of recognition, now the emphasis is on equivalence. I must admit that Norwegian institutions have not always been very willing to accept American Bachelors as a basis for a second degree in Norway. This should now change. The global dimension In parallel to the European effort to increase co-operation in higher education and the obvious benefits to widen the Trans-Atlantic co-operation and exchange, an increasing world-wide trade in educational services may shift the focus from co-operation to competition. Globalisation in higher education has economic, social, political and cultural implications. Nation-states are no longer the sole providers of higher education and the education community no longer holds a monopoly on decision-making in education. 13
The 1995 General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) defined rules for a global market that also includes educational services. Little is yet known about the consequences of GATS for quality, access, and equity of higher education. Although the present round of negotiations has come to a stand-still, we have to face the challenges of the global marketplace. Trade in educational services is now being discussed in many fora, including international fora such as UNESCO and OECD. What hopefully may come out of it, is an agreement on the need for an international framework for quality assurance and accreditation. Quality assurance is an implicit element in recognition of higher education, a field where we already have international conventions. A Code of Good Practice in Transnational Education has recently been developed as a subsiduary text to the Lisbon Recognition Convention. On the basis of the Lisbon Convention, UNESCO conventions for other regions are now being updated, hopefully leading to a global set of parallel conventions. The GATS agreement open up for WTO member states to co-operate with relevant intergovernmental organisations on the question of recognition: Wherever appropriate, recognition should be based on multilaterally agreed criteria. Members may work in co-operation with relevant intergovernmental organizations towards the establishment and adoption of common international standards. Thus, UNESCO Member States that are also members of the WTO could be invited to use the Lisbon Recognition Convention and the other UNESCO regional conventions as such international standards. This, of course, can also be done by UNESCO independent of WTO and GATS. In fact, the UNESCO General Assembly is just now discussing the use of international education agreements, such as UNESCO conventions, as an educational normative framework to respond to the challenges of globalisation. It is also proposed that regional and global networks for information on QA and accreditation should be built among national educational authorities and QA agencies to provide lists of bona fide institutions of higher education. Also OECD is working along the same lines, in close co-operation with UNESCO. The OECD/Norway Forum on Trade in Educational Services 3-4 November may hopefully show us how to build on the UNESCO/Council of Europe platform to establish international quality assurance and accreditation mechanisms for cross-border delivery. The number of Norwegian students at American universities is declining. One reason is that the support from the Norwegian State Loan Fund has not been able to meet the increasing tuition fees. A possibly more important reason is the competition from Australian universities, now catering for some six thousand Norwegian students. To meet these challenges, higher priority may be given to institutional co-operation, linking active student exchange to such co-operation. In this millennium of global challenges, I am sure a Trans-Atlantic agreement may be reached, taking advantage of a Norwegian grant system that really is quite generous and matching it with an American generosity. 14
Russia in the European Higher Education Area St. Petersburg 29-30 October 2003 Higher education governance My reflections on higher education governance are to a large extent based on my experiences over the last two years as Chairman of the Council of Europe Steering Committee for Higher Education and Research (CD-ESR) and the active engagement in the Bologna Process as a Council of Europe representative. This is also the background for my new task as Head of the Bologna Secretariat now being set up by the Norwegian Government. As a meeting place for representatives both from Ministries responsible for higher education and from the academic community in the member states, the CD-ESR is a good forum for discussions of themes such as higher education governance, involving the interaction of government responsibilities and the responsibilities of autonomous institutions. Higher Education governance relates to issues such as the relationship between the state and the institution, between institutional self-governance and the participation of external representatives, between the university and its constituent faculties. An important element of institutional autonomy is student participation. Higher education governance as defined today in the legislation of the individual nation-states is hardly conceivable without institutional autonomy and academic freedom, but is does not necessarily mean that all institutions are governed by an internally elected Rector and Senate or Board. New management forms and new legislation is being introduced. The Bologna Declaration very clearly reflects today s relations between state authorities and higher education institutions as it refers to the European universities as partners in the process, underlining their autonomy: European higher education institutions, for their part, have accepted the challenge and taken up a main role in constructing the European area of higher education, also in the wake of the fundamental principles laid down in the Bologna Magna Charta Universitatum of 1988. Autonomy The Magna Charta Universitatum is a text that was signed by University Rectors present at the 800 anniversary of the University of Bologna in 1988. It has a moral value, but no legal force. The Magna Charta states that The university is an autonomous institution at the heart of societies. It does not explicitly say what autonomy means. However, very clearly, academic freedom is an integral part of an autonomous university: To meet the needs of the world around it, its research and teaching must be morally and intellectually independent of all political authority and economic power. We may probably agree that any higher education institution calling itself a university should be an autonomous institution. It has not been discussed within the framework of the Bologna Process whether institutional autonomy is implied for all higher education institutions. National 15
laws differ on this point, in most countries universities have been granted autonomy, in some of them hochshulen/colleges/polytecniques have not. I shall restrict my considerations here to autonomeous institutions, whatever name they may come under in their home country or in any foreign language used. Institutional autonomy will formally be defined by law, but the legal aspect is only a partial description of reality. Autonomy may be described as the overall ability of the institution to act by its own choices in pursuit of its mission. It is the net result of the sum of its legal rights and duties and its financial and other resources. To find out how far a university enjoys autonomy in relation to the state, and whether the relationship departs from a proper balance of interests, we have to look at all dimensions of the state-institution relationship, such as: - laws and regulations, - academic freedom, - budgets (structure and implementation as well as level), - accountability, - appointments, - informal political and administrative relations. However, autonomy with respect to the state is nowadays only part of the total picture of institutional freedom. Universities are increasingly subject to pressures from sources other than the state: market forces, competition for students and staff, the commercial interests in commissioned research. For good and bad, this trend will reduce the traditional values of the state-institution relationship. Until fairly recently, universities in most European countries were elements in a system of state institutions, following general laws and regulations for state institutions. Laws on higher education would usually define a university as a special type of state institution with a right to self-government and as a place where academic freedom would be respected. Self-government would usually mean that an elected rector and an academic senate led the institution. Freedom was mainly related to academic matters, not to economic and organisational matters. Over the last one or two decades, this has changed. In many countries, higher education institutions may now have great economic freedom; they may be organised as public companies or foundations for more flexibility. However, these institutions are often led by an Executive Board, which would hire a Rector, often from outside. The academic community no longer governs the institution all by itself.. The individual academic member may ask himself/herself if such extended autonomy is worth its price. To be sure, to enjoy economic freedom, higher education institutions must operate in a societal context where funds are available and where there is a willingness to spend money on education and research. But the willingness to spend is usually restricted to specific areas and it does not imply that each professor will obtain funds to realise his or her priorities. We must also be aware that autonomy implies accountability. Greater autonomy for higher education institutions means greater accountability relating to budgets, appointments, student intake, degrees awarded. It must also include accountability relating to the quality of teaching and research. 16
Student participation Student participation in higher education governance is a concern in the Bologna Process and was the topic of a seminar organised by the Norwegian authorities in Oslo in June 2003. For this seminar, the Council of Europe was commissioned to carry out a study on student participation in higher education governance, which concluded that the legal provision for student participation is now largely in place. There also seems to be broad agreement on the share of student representation on institutional governing bodies, which in general is situated in the 10-30 per cent range. It is accepted that students should have a significant representation on the governing bodies of HE institutions, but it should still be a minority representation. However, even if the principle of student representation is accepted and the necessary legal provisions largely in place, motivating students to make use of this possibility is a major challenge. Most indications of participation in student elections estimate it below 15 per cent, meaning that considerably less than one in five students vote. Beyond the question of representativity, this raises an even more serious question of student participation in governance in particular and the life of higher education institutions in general. Self-governance and external participation The traditional model of institutional governance is one in which the academic community elects its own officers (rector, deans, university and faculty senates) with little or no outside interference. However, in recent years, many higher education institutions have welcomed a number of external representatives on their governing bodies - or at least reluctantly accepted them. In some cases, institutions have also hired institutional leaders from outside the academic community, to replace the elected rector still found at the vast majority of higher education institutions. These developments also have consequences for the relative influence of different groups within the governing bodies, where the majority of members has traditionally been made up of academic staff in permanent positions. Where external representatives are in a minority on the governing body, their presence may still ensure that no single group is in a majority position. In some cases, external representatives may even be in a majority. It should be noted that groups do to always operate as a solid block, and that e.g. academic staff on some issues may take different views according to their faulty or their general political views. Nevertheless, a situation in which the permanent academic staff no longer holds a majority of votes on the governing body is a significant departure from the traditional European practice with considerable implications for higher education governance. Relationship between faculties and the central level Institutional governance implies finding a workable balance between three levels: central level (Rectorate/University Senate), faculty (dean/faculty senate) and departments. These are organised hierarchically, yet each level has considerable scope for organising its own life and activities within the framework set by the hierarchically superior levels. In most institutions, this implies that the central level represents the institution to the outside world and sets the broad institutional policies. Also in legal terms, the central level represents the institution and is legally responsible. The central level is the legal person, with corresponding rights and obligations. 17
In some countries, mainly those issued from former Yugoslavia, faculties rather than the institution do, however, have status as independent legal persons. As a consequence, the central level of the university is weaker than in most other European countries and it is difficult to elaborate institutional policies (as opposed to policies for individual faculties). In bilateral discussions as well as in other contexts, the Council of Europe has consistently advised against keeping faculties as independent legal entities and argued that coherent institutional policies require coherent institutions. While this issue is of immediate concern only to a minority of member states, it is nevertheless felt that it is an important issue for higher education reform in the countries concerned and that it is of more general interest in the context of a discussion on higher education governance. New management In recent years, both governments and universities have seen the need to open up for income from new sources as the state no longer can meet the costs of an expanding higher education sector. The increased co-operation with the business community and with international research institutions also increases the demands for academic and financial prioritisation. This often leads to a reform of the managerial structure of the universities to strengthen management and increase efficiency. As a consequence, legislation in a number of countries are being changed, allowing for new management forms, usually taking in managerial principles from the business world. This may imply that the power is taken away from the academic community, giving the responsibility for institutional governance to a Board of Directors. This Board hires the Rector. The Board of Directors approves the university s budget, strategy and development plan and regulations and, thus, provides the guidelines and directions for the university s daily management. The Board of Directors will have an external majority. The Chairperson of the Board will be an external member selected by the Board or by the Ministry. There will of course be student members on the Board and academic and other staff will also be represented. In such scheme, the Rector is a manager. So are Deans and Head of Departments. The Rector hires the Deans, and the Deans hire the Heads of Departments. This system may be efficient, but what are the consequences for the academic freedom? What will happen to research and teaching in fields where there are no customers? Will competition between universities take over from co-operation? Must universities give up the idea of being universal? Too much change too fast may not be good for university life. The recent presentation of new draft legislation for higher education i Norway has sparked an intense discussion on these matters. New legislation Introducing new management forms in higher education institutions means introducing new legislation. Taking the Danish case (2002) as an example, the new legislation is built on the following structure: 18
1. The universities duty portfolios (research, education, exchange of knowledge) 2. Research-based education 3. Management 3.a. Boards of Directors 3.b. Managerial staff 3.c. Academic Councils and Curriculum Boards 4. Internal quality assurance and quality development 5. Advisory panels 6. Steering 7. Independent ownership and regulations 8. Deregulation Management, steering, independent ownership and deregulation are code-words for the new order. Also in countries where more traditional management models are retained, adjustment and general simplification of the legislation are being carried out. This has a direct link to the Bologna Process. The Bologna Process is not a process moving towards a fixed goal: it is a dynamic system. This means that an effective law on higher education should only regulate that which is essential to regulate and which cannot effectively be regulated in any other way. It should be written to allow for change, remaining relevant as the higher education system develops. 19
20
Council of Europe Conference, Strasbourg 2-3 December 2003 Implication of the Bologna Process in South East Europe The Bologna Process and its Bodies: How does it all work? Since it started in 1999, the Bologna Process has come a long way toward its goal to set up a European Higher Education Area by 2010. However, the most difficult part of the process is still ahead of us. Handling the Bologna Process At the outset, no rules were set for the follow-up of the Bologna Declaration of 1999. Ministers only agreed to meet again in two years time. When Ministers met in Prague in 2001, they confirmed the need for a structure for the follow-up work, consisting from then of a follow-up group responsible for the continuing development of the process and a preparatory group responsible for the planning of the next Ministerial Conference. The follow-up group was composed of representatives of all participant countries and the EU Commission, chaired by the rotating EU Presidency. The preparatory group was a smaller group chaired by the representative of the country hosting the next ministerial meeting (Germany). The Council of Europe, together with EUA, EURASHE, ESIB, took part as observers in both groups. In the Prague Communiqué, Ministers encouraged the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG) to arrange a series of international seminars to explore the most important issues in the Process. After Prague, the BFUG, developed a work programme for the period up to Berlin based on a number of seminars (ten in all), covering the issues of the Prague Communiqué. The ten seminars were realised in the period from spring 2001 to early summer 2003. The BFUG also had to consider the enlargement of the Bologna process and the handling of new applications for access. It formed a few working groups to prepare particular issues for discussion. However, the BFUG devoted most of its working time and expertise to a discussion about stocktaking and possible directions for further development of the Bologna process, and to considerations of issues important for the drafting of the Berlin Communiqué. In its last meeting before Berlin, the BFUG discussed the future steering of the Bologna Process. The process had developed into a range of complex activities based on the common political will of ministers and aiming at strengthening the international co-operation between all member states and partners. In his report to the Berlin Ministerial Conference, prof. Zgaga stated that the main tasks of the steering structures in the coming years would be: (1) to organise the further follow-up programme after the Berlin Communiqué, (2) to organise the stock-taking exercise, (3) to secure continuity and further clarification of the principles of the Bologna process, (4) to secure close co-operation with relevant stakeholders, (5) to prepare the next ministerial conference. 21
The necessary link between national implementation and international co-operation can be guaranteed only by getting all members involved, and by giving them a chance of active participation. This argument requires a large group with an overall responsibility for following up on the decisions of ministers, and preparing the ministerial conference. On the other hand the demanding and comprehensive programme after Berlin will require an effective administrative as well as content-regarding working structure. The final result of the discussions was conveyed to the Ministers and written into the Berlin Communiqué: Ministers entrusted the implementation of all the issues covered in the Communiqué, the overall steering of the Bologna Process and the preparation of the next ministerial meeting to the BFUG, chaired by the EU Presidency, with the host country of the next Ministerial Conference as vicechair. A Board also chaired by the EU Presidency shall oversee the work between the meetings of the Follow-up Group. The Board will be composed of the Chair, the next host country as Vice- Chair, the preceding and the following EU Presidencies, three participating countries elected by the Follow-up Group for one year, the European Commission and, as consultative members, the Council of Europe, the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB. The Follow-up Group as well as the Board may convene ad hoc working groups as necessary. The overall follow-up work will be supported by a Secretariat that the country hosting the next Ministerial Conference (Norway) will provide. The Board and the Secretariat In its first meeting after the Berlin Conference, the Follow-up Group further defined the responsibilities of the Board and the tasks of the Secretariat: The Board The Board shall support the BFUG in its activities and provide efficiency to the management of the Bologna Process. The Board shall co-ordinate and monitor the implementation of the work programme. The following list, which is not exhaustive, illustrates the scope of this responsibility: supporting the realisation of the Bologna events; providing support and assistance to new members as they seek to meet the objectives of the Bologna Process; co-ordinating actions for the preparation of the stocktaking; organising Working Groups composed by BFUG members and /or experts on special issues decided by the BFUG; overseeing the preparation of the next Ministerial Conference. The BFUG may delegate to the Board tasks it deems appropriate and necessary to achieve the objectives of the Bologna Process. However, formal decisions are the responsibility of the BFUG itself. 22
The Secretariat The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research has set up a Secretariat to support the overall follow-up work, as was foreseen in the Berlin Communiqué. The Secretariat will be fully operational by the end of the year with a staff of three. By then, we also hope that the Bologna- Bergen 2005 website will be up and going. The tasks of the Secretariat will include - administrative and operational aspects associated with the next Ministerial Conference; - secretarial functions as directed by the BFUG and the Board; - Execution, under specific mandate from the BFUG or the Board, of special tasks concerning the implementation of the work program. The Secretariat may be contacted for information and advice on practical matters relating to the Bologna Process. It will do its best to support the Bologna Process and in particular assisting the new member countries. Work programme 2003-2005 In the Berlin Communiqué, Ministers asked the Follow-up Group to co-ordinate activities for progress of the Bologna Process as indicated in the themes and actions covered by the Communiqué and report on them in time for the next ministerial meeting in 2005. Going through the communiqué section by section, a large number of activities may be proposed. Seminars Also for the 2003-2005 period, seminars will be important instruments. Member countries and organisations have been asked to come forward with proposals, a deadline has been set for 15 December. The Secretariat has provided guide-lines for proposals. The proposals will be considered by the Board in its January meeting and by the BFUG in March. A first discussion indicate that the BFUG itself will feel a special responsibility for fields in which co-ordinated actions are necessary, but that member countries and organisations should feel free to propose and organise seminars on topics according to their own priority. Possible topics for seminars may for instance be: - In the field of Degree and Qualification Structures: An overarching framework for qualifications for the EHEA (Proposed by Denmark, a possible BFUG responsibility?) - In the field of Social Dimensions of the Bologna Process: Public Responsibility for Higher Education. (Proposed by Council of Europe) - In the field of Higher Education and Research: Doctoral programmes for the European Knowledge Society ( Proposed by Germany, Austria and EUA) Projects One of the actions asked for by Ministers in Berlin is a report on agreed standards, procedures and guidelines in quality assurance: At the European level, Ministers call upon ENQA through its members, in co-operation with the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB, to develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance, to explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies, and to 23
report back through the Follow-up Group to Ministers in 2005. Due account will be taken of the expertise of other quality assurance associations and networks. The BFUG will follow this co-operation with great interest, hoping of course to report significant progress to the Ministers when they meet in Bergen. Ministers also asked for a survey of the social and economic situation in member countries. As a first step, the Secretariat may find out what information is readily available, for instance on national student support systems. Perhaps a working group would be relevant. BFUG Working Groups To prepare recommendations on special topics, the BFUG may decide to establish working groups to advice BFUG regarding recommendations to the Ministerial Conference. This may for instance be relevant for - a follow-up of Stockholm, Mantova and Cluj seminars on joint degrees. - a follow-up of the Zürich Seminar on accumulation and transfer of credits, - a follow-up of the Prague Seminar on Life-long Learning, - the stocktaking process, - a first draft of the next communiqué. BFUG topics for discussion and recommendation Some topics may benefit from a more deep-going discussion in a BFUG meeting, either for clarification or for a possible recommendation. This may for instance be relevant for reaching a conclusion building on previous reports, for instance: - How to link shorter higher education to the framework of EHEA? (EURASHE report) This approach will also be relevant to set procedures, for instance for - relations to European NGOs, - relations to out-of-region organisations. It may also be used for - discussions of topics related to the Bologna Process (for instance: Globalisation/GATS) A basis for such discussions may ether be a document prepared by the secretariat or an oral presentation by an invited expert. BFUG Stocktaking In the Berlin Communiqué, Ministers emphasised the importance of all elements of the Bologna Process for establishing the European Higher Education Area and stressed the need to intensify the efforts at institutional, national and European level. To give the Process further momentum, they committed themselves to intermediate priorities for the next two years: - to strengthen the efforts to promote effective quality assurance systems, - to step up effective use of the system based on two cycles, - to improve the recognition system of degrees and periods of studies. Ministers charged the Follow-up Group with organising a stocktaking process in time for their summit in 2005 and undertaking to prepare detailed reports on the progress and implementation of the intermediate priorities set for the next two years: 24