Quality and the Bologna Process

Andrée SursockDeputy Secretary General

European University Association (EUA)

EPC Annual Congress,21-23 March 2005, Brighton

…2…

EUA Membership organisation of 753 members:

universities and national rector conferences in 45 countries (increase of around 200 members in 4 years)

UK members: 82 universities + UUK Mission: To ensure that universities can fulfill their

three-fold public mission (research, teaching and service to society)

Activities: Policy development, projects, research and publication

…3…

Bologna: Who does what?

Involves many actors: IntergovernmentalNGO’s: EUA, ESIB, EURASHEQUANGO’s and other bodiesHEIs

Decisions are prepared through “Bologna conferences”Emphasis on consensual decision-making

…4…

Bologna: State of playMajority of countries have adapted legislation to fit the two-degree structure (exceptions: Spain, Sweden)Many countries are implementing the various “Bologna tools”Trends IV: 60 site visits in 28 countries: A great deal of enthusiasm for the reform process: an

opportunity to bring about profound changes (curricular, administrative, management, links to stakeholders)

A very ambitious and challenging change agenda that will enhance the international profile of many universities across Europe

…5…

Changes in the quality debate

Bologna Declaration (1999): quality is not a key issuePrague Communiqué (2001): the role of QA agencies predominatesBerlin Communiqué (2003): Quality moves to the top of the agendaThe responsibilities of HEIs is acknowledged

…6…

The QA action lines of the Berlin Communiqué (2003)

“The primary responsibility for quality lies in HEIs"

Invites ENQA, in co-operation with EUA, ESIB and EURASHE (= E4),

To develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance

To explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer-review system for QA & A agencies

…7…

EUA’s interpretation of the Berlin Communiqué

Standards take as their starting points key policy objectives for HE: institutional autonomy, diversity, innovation, etc.: i.e., link the EHEA and the ERA

These key objectives are developed into guidelines to evaluate QA agencies

QA and HE communities must work together in partnership

…8…

Agreement: Institutional level

HEIs must play a key role in order to ensure real accountability

Internal Quality Culture

…9…

Institutional level - EUA’s interpretation:

Develop a quality culture in institutions Avoid a bureaucratic, top-down, managerial approach Promote quality as a shared value and collective

responsibility Begin with a shared understanding of the institutional

profile Ensure that results are fed back into institutional

planningFocus on capacity for changeFitness for purpose approach

…10…

Agreement: National level

Diversity of national QA procedures must be

accepted because:

It reflects national priorities

Choosing a specific procedure is a national

prerogative

But we need to develop a European dimension

…11…

E4 Agreement: European level (I)

QA agencies will be subject to a cyclical reviewThese reviews will be undertaken nationally wherever possibleA European register of QA agenciesA European Register Committee as a gatekeeper to the RegisterA European Consultative Forum for QA in HEEuropean standards for HEIs and QA agencies

…12…

Agreement: European level (II)

Standards for QA agencies Independence of agencies from governments

and higher education institutions: i.e., conclusions are not affected by ministry or HEIs and QA agency is autonomous

QA procedures must include a self-evaluation report, a visit by an external panel and a public report

QA procedures must be transparent and fair

…13…

Agreement: European level (III)Standards for HEIS:Develop a quality culture policyFormal approval and monitoring of

programmes and awardsPolicy concerning students’ assessmentQuality assurance of teaching staffAdequate learning resources and student

support Information systemsPublic information

…14…

Key issues at European level

Fitness for purpose or agreed standards? i.e.,

how specific should be the agreed standards

given the need to promote diversity and

innovation?

Peer-review process and structure? i.e., What

should be the role of stakeholders and the

articulation with the national level

…15…

Engineering education and Bologna: 2004 SEFI survey

Most countries are implementing a 3+2 structure, with no selection for access to 2nd cycleBologna reforms in engineering are limited and difficult: How to define ECTS (workload/outcomes/both)?How to define employability at bachelors level?How to convince employers that the change is

positive?Will this change cause mission drift in binary

systems (proliferation of masters degree in all types of institutions)?

…16…

Engineering and Quality

EUR-ACE project launch, September 2004 aims at setting up a European system for accreditation

Based on agreed common standards

Tested and retested through pilots

Operational in five years

Aspiring to become a model for other professional fields

…17…

What does this means for you? Ensure that professional associations and employers

understand the European discussions Most importantly, get involved in the European policy

discussion to ensure that: The voice of academics is heard: the future

“European dimension of QA” must be congruent with academic values

A role for the academic community in defining standards and any QA process at European level