Development Trends in Higher Education in EuropeHigher Education in Europe

Pavel Zgaga University of Ljubljana, Slovenia

Second ECA Education Conference, Dubrovnik, CroatiaTertiary Education: Quality, Financing

and Linkages with Innovation and ProductivityDubrovnik, 2-4 October, 2005

1.0 Introduction

What will be our next hour about?Expansion of higher education has had huge impact on universities, it

stimulated research on higher education and established higher education policy studies – and also provoked systemic reforms on national level as well as a need to 'concert' them internationally.

We will follow contemporary trends in higher education along two dimensions:

(a) trends towards comparable and compatible degree structures;(b) trends towards common guidelines and standards in quality

assurance in higher education;In both aspects, Europe has been moving from an extreme variety of

systemic solutions to 'concerting‘ them around common principles.Analysis of contemporary trends in higher education probably answer

some questions, for sure it also open many of them. Yet opened questions are usually more interesting than answered ones.

2.0 Expansion of higher education

Transition from elite to mass higher education is a turning point in the development of modern higher education.

The increased demand for places at universities was a combined result of economic development, political processes and the population’s higher social and cultural opportunities and expectations.

Higher education is no longer primarily a personal call or privilege; it is a social demand: modern societies cannot function without increasing the number of educated and skilled people who work in the economy and public services or without expanding the research and knowledge that drive modern civilisation.

»A historic shift is occurring in the second half of the 20th century: tertiary education is replacing secondary education as the focal point of access, selection and entry to rewarding careers for the majority of young people« (OECD, 1998).

2.1 University has to reconsider its role

Modern universities could be happy about these developments. Yet complaints have instead been heard from the academic world.

Mass higher education has totally changed the traditional university. Universities have had to reconsider their roles »in a changing and increasingly international society« (Magna Charta, 1988).

It is particularly important that as a place of learning and teaching university has in certain ways always been opened to society.

Modern theories on higher education generally distinguish between several genuine roles or tasks of universities. To undertake research and teaching, that is:

(1) to maintain and develop an advanced knowledge base; (2) to train people for their professional careers; (3) to prepare them for a life as active citizens in a democratic society; (4) to contribute to their personal growth.

2.2 Responsiveness vs. responsibility

For the multiple roles they play in culture and society, higher education institutions should not only be responsive (receptive) but also responsible (pro-active):

»While responding to society’s needs and demands, universities have also to assume a crucial responsibility towards society. The great difference between being responsive and being responsible lies in the fact that in the first case, universities should be receptive to what society expect from them; in the second case, they should have an ambition to guide reflection and policy-making in society. While universities excel at making new discoveries in all disciplines of science and technology, they must also scrutinize systemically the trends that might affect soon or later the well being of populations, and, if necessary, raise criticism, issue alarm signals and make recommendations.«

Luc Weber, 2002

2.3 Towards a systemic policy development

Universities do not exist just for some 'external purposes'; they are (also) a legitimate place to reflect them. Academics should also deploy their own intellectual resources to take stock of modern changes seen in higher education:

»What were universities for? Why should society at large value them? Was there not something to be said for radical revision and review?« (Gordon Graham on debates of the 1980s).

The expanding tertiary education sector put the need for systemic reforms firmly on national and institutional agendas: the question of the efficiency of higher education systems in quantitative (resources etc.) and qualitative (qualifications, academic output etc.) terms was raised.

This is the real background which has been dominating national policy developments and pushing them, at a later stage, towards the processes of international 'concerting'.

2.4 National vs. international

There were no geographical or political barriers for universities in the middle ages. In 19th century, parallel to the industrialisation and the birth of national State, national (higher) education systems appeared. As a part of the protection of national (labour) markets, measures emerged also in higher education: e.g. recognition procedures, etc.

Europe developed variety of rather incompatible education systems.Policy and legislative activities remained within relatively closed

national frameworks at least up until the late 1980s. Now, different factors – the globalisation of economies, political shifts, growing multiculturalism etc. – accumulated and influenced governments to also start international discussions on education policies.

The emerging new reality has started to argue against the incompa-tibilities of national (higher) education systems. International forums dealing with policy issues have been formed aiming for the first time at »a concerted approach between participating countries«. In this direction, the Bologna process was conceived.

3.0 Towards comparable degreesThere are two main driving forces of the contemporary higher

education policies: (1) the phenomenon of mass higher education and (2) internationalisation of higher education.

»Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees« is the first of the six 'action lines' of the Bologna Declaration (1999); it is a backbone of the processes of international 'concerting‘.

Yet, the idea to reform (national) degree structures is older: it is linked to debates on the efficiency of higher education of the 1980s.

»In 1980, university degree courses in many European countries lasted a minimum of five years and were often highly academic. The lack of intermediate qualifications meant that students who did not complete a course, or pass their final exams, were left without any recognition of their years of study.« (Eurydice, 2000).

Dropouts in a context of mass higher education and a hindered mobility in an internationalised environment shown that old degree structures became counter-productive.

3.1 Trends in both sectors of tertiary education

During last two or three decades interesting trends could be observed:(1) the trend towards shorter initial university degree courses giving

access to the next level ran parallel to (2) the development of the non-university sector with a pronounced

vocational orientation;(3) the limitation of the number of places in expensive professional and

practically-based university courses as well as their dividing up into successive 'shorter' ones adapted to the needs of students who consider higher education as preparation for entry to the job market;

(4) the expansion of places in less expensive university courses (social sciences, etc.) and a lack of students in some courses (e.g. science);

(5) the expansion of places in new vocationally-oriented courses in the non-university sector as well as their upgrading and lengthening to two- or three-year courses;

These trends have led to similar first degree structures in both sectors of tertiary education: the question of transition from one sector to another arose. This has become also an international issue.

3.2 The Bologna steam train…

In 1999 just a general idea »of a system essentially based on two main cycles« was put down; »the achievement of greater compatibility and comparability of the systems of higher education nevertheless requires continual momentum in order to be fully accomplished« (Bologna Declaration, 1999).

Trends 1 (1999): »the survey of existing structures shows the extreme complexity and diversity of curricular and degree structures«.

Trends 2 (2001): »in a number of countries the Declaration clearly seems to have influenced the introduction of a two-tier system«.

Trends 3 (2003): another »two years later, the reform train is gathering steam and speed almost everywhere in Europe«.

Ministers in Berlin (2003) noted that »a comprehensive restructuring of higher education is now under way« in Europe and undertook »to elaborate an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area [EHEAEHEA]« (Berlin Communiqué, 2003).

3.3 The Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA

In Bergen (2005), Ministers adopted The Framework for Qualifications [FQFQ] of the EHEAEHEA: it develops the Bologna idea systematically and extensively and gives good prospects for future European mobility.

It is »an overarching framework«, a »common denominator« to be used by various national systems and comprises of: three cycles (including the possibility of intermediate qualifications), generic descriptors for each cycle based on learning outcomes and competences, and ECTS credit ranges in the first (180–240) and second cycles (60–120).

A demanding promise was given: »We commit ourselves to elaborating national frameworks for qualifications compatible with the over-arching framework for qualifications in the EHEA by 2010, and to having started work on this by 2007« (Bergen Communiqué, 2005).

FQFQss should strengthen mutual trust as well as the internal coherence / logic of each particular national higher education system. This task will be in the front of the next Bologna period. The final result – the EHEAEHEA – decisively depends on a success or a failure with this task.

4.0 Common guidelines and standards in QA

During the 1980s and partly the 1990s, quality concerns were only sporadically a real theme in international discussions.

Yet, quality concerns were high on national policy agendas with the closest links to efficiency and financing issues. At least in Western Europe a growing number of countries implemented modern quality assurance [QAQA] systems. A preliminary result of national develop-ments in this area was the extreme variety of QAQA provisions.

Developments in this area have been particularly demanding – clearly more than in the area of comparable degrees. Only by »1997, all countries participating in this study, except the French Community of Belgium, had introduced some form of nationally (in German at Land level) defined QAQA system« (Eurydice study, 2000).

The first serious effort to 'concert' QAQA systems among countries was made within EU: on basis of the Recommendation on European cooperation in QAQA (1998) the European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) was established (2000).

4.1 QA has followed FQs

The increasing number of students and limited resources launched a debate on the effectiveness and governance of higher education. The main result was a move away from the traditional »interventionary« towards the new »facilitatory state« (Neave and Van Vught, 1991).

While financing and organisation issues remained to a certain degree 'behind national fences', the changing of degree structures (or FQsFQs) in national systems had to involve inter-national 'concerting' at an earlier stage: a wish to increase mobility required compatibility but it can only be achieved only if diverse degree structures are restructured on similar grounds. Quality was lagging behind…

However, the declared formal compatibility of degree structures is not enough for mutual trust; there should also be evidence about quality provision based on transparent – and at a second step also compatible – quality standards and procedures.

It became evident: not only degree structures (or FQsFQs) but also quality standards and procedures should be 'concerted‘ internationally.

4.2 A motor and struggles…

»Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance with a view to develop comparable criteria and methodologies« was put down in the Bologna Declaration (1999).

Trends 1 (1999): »more and more countries establish external evalu-ation or quality assurance bodies or agencies« but »the level and scope of the evaluation procedures vary from country to country«.

Trends 2 (2001) contains a whole chapter under the eloquent heading »Quality assurance and accreditation: a need for more convergence«.

Trends 3 (2003) confirms »the primacy of the concern with quality as a motor of the Bologna reforms« but quality »is also the scene of underground and explicit struggles to redefine the respective roles which public authorities, universities and society should play in defining higher education in future«

Ministers in Berlin (2003) agreed that by 2005 national QAQA systems should include some common elements and put a task to ENQA and partners to elaborate it and report back at their next meeting in Bergen (2005).

4.3 Standards and Guidelines for QA in the EHEA

In Bergen, Ministers adopted Standards and Guidelines for QAQA in the EHEAEHEA and commit »to introducing the proposed model for peer review of QAQA agencies on a national basis, while respecting the commonly accepted guidelines and criteria« (Bergen Communiqué).

The document »sets its face against a narrow and highly formulated approach to standards« and »prefers the generic principle«. It contains three main elements which cover institutional and system levels of QAQA as well as the 'control of the controllers':

European standards and guidelines for the internal QAQA within higher education institutions; for the external QAQA of higher education; and for external QAQA agencies.

Trends 4 (2005): the differences in Europe are still enormous but »a clear trend toward more institutional approaches to exploit syner-gies and spread models of good practice at institutions« is visible.

Is it possible that pan-European institutional co-operation in QAQA can help where 'subsidiarity principle' sets limits on national states?

5.0 Instead of a conclusion: some further questions

What are main stages in the development of mass higher education and what are main policy challenges at particular stages? Where are we today; what will be a challenge of tomorrow?

Which are 'internal' drivers – inherent to the nature of higher education and its traditions – that can stimulate internationalisation? How does the internationalisation of higher education as a sector also stimulate the internationalisation of higher education (national) policy?

How can higher education as 'the top' of the education pyramid help in improving the lower levels (e.g. teacher training, popularising science and technology etc.) as well as itself?

Which obstacles have meant that financing issues have not been included (or very rarely) in multilateral political documents (e.g. in the Bologna communiqués) as more 'binding statements'? Would their inclusion be at all helpful?