Strategic Implications of the Bologna Process:

a view from the mainland

Bologna Seminar

Leeds Metropolitan University

30 January 2004

Dr. Sybille Reichert, ETH Zürich

2

1. The Bologna Process: from instruments to strategies?

2. Aims of the Bologna Process

3. Toward comparable structures and beyond

4. Autonomy and Quality Assurance

5. Lifelong learning

6. Bologna and the UK: Conclusions

3

1. The Bologna Process: from instruments to strategies?

4

Bologna Process: from intergovernmental commitments to

institutional realities

• originally intergovernmental• but the idea of creating a „European Higher Education

Area“ will only become a reality if Higher Education Institutions subscribe to the aims, implement the operational objectives and fill with meaning what the Bologna Declaration and the Prague Communiqué sets out to achieve

• to see what progress has been made we have to look not only at the national level legislation, policies and incentives but also at the institutional realisation of the central objectives

• to make sense, „Bologna“ has to be put into the context of the institutional strategies and developmental goals

5

Bologna and Prague objectives

• common degree structures (Bachelor /Master)• establishment of transparency instruments: ECTS,

Diploma Supplement• recognition of foreign degrees and study abroad periods• promotion of European and/or joint programmes• promotion of mobility• cooperation in quality assurance• promotion of LLL• social dimension, HE as a public good/ responsibility• significant role of HEIs and students in this process• link with European Research Area, doctoral studies

6

European Higher Education Area

attractiveness = visible qualitycompatibility

inside/ outside Europe

innovative and adaptable, capacity to continously improve learning

interculturally and linguistically competentwith exp. of other cultural contexts, comfortable in other Eur. contexts,

European horizon (culture, citizenship)

flexible learning paths: LLL,

modular studies, ECTS

mobility (helped by transp. recognition procedures, DS, ECTS),

foreign language training, European dimension in curriculum

improvement-oriented QABachelor/Master degrees

with compatible number of credits/length of study

System

Graduate

Instruments

From instruments to strategies – from structural adaptation to curricular reflection

7

Bologna: From commitment to reality

It takes concerted action on all levels to make the European Higher Education Area a reality…

national commitment

national legislation

national incentives/

support

institutional leadership/

policy

instit. communication

deliberationdecision

instit. reality

only half have provided some funding75% of HEIs: clear financial incentives needed

little more than a third have a Bol. coordinator

46% of HEIs: nat.legisl. undermines auton. decision-making

role of academics? (less than half „reasonably aware, 30% „not very aware“)

students not included enough at dep- level stud., admin. less aware

awareness less as one „descends“ into the HE institutions

8

2. Aims of the Bologna Process

9

Which goals are the driving forces of Bologna?

1. enhancement of academic quality – reforms go beyond just a formally changed degree system

2. preparing graduates for the European labour market – 91% of heads of HEIs regard employability as important of very important when redesigning curricula (70% of HEIs track employment of some or all graduates)– how to make sustainable

employability and academic quality compatible values is the core challenge of curricular reform

3. competitiveness/ attractiveness of national (not European) system of HE

employability

academic quality

attractiveness

10

2 conflicting agendas in European, national and institutional policies:

1. competitiveness agenda (international, global): – focussed on research and technology transfer– aiming at concentration of excellence, creating critical masses with optimal

conditions– tough competition for funds: winners and losers– entailing selectivity to optimise potential of assembling the winners in these

competitions– internationally oriented

2. social agenda (LLL, access etc.), often with a more regional focus– consensus: Higher Education is a public good and a public responsibility

(continuing role for state support)– needs for enhanced support structures for students (and academics) : social

conditions of studies and mobility, incl. tuition fees, portable grants but also transferable pension rights for mobile academics

– the issue of addressing solidarity not only within but also between countries (Graz process)

– regarding the related GATS discussion, trends 3 data reveal that awareness at national and institutional level leaves considerable room for improvement)

11

Promote attractiveness where?

Figure 6: Priority Areas of European HEI (2003)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

EU EasternEur.

US/Can Australia ArabWorld

Asia Latin Am. Africa

Pe

rce

nt

RC (35)

Min (35)

HEI (760)

12

Targeting Europe?

13

Marketing at HEIs

14

Mobility: Imbalances

15

Bologna‘s goals: what could they mean for a given European university‘s profile?

• What are the primary values which act as driving forces? e.g. flexible access, pushing frontiers of science (selective/competitive research)

• Are there different components with different sets of values?

• Which community do I primarily serve?

• Which communities do I want to target in addition?

• Where and according to which criteria do I recruit my students, teachers, reserachers, partners?

• Which qualities, skills, competences, attitudes do I want to promote in my students, professors, scientific and adminsitrative staff?

• Which reference points do I want to use in the development of my offer (teaching curricula: qualification frameworks, learning outcomes according to disciplines, programmes, research: emphases and their effect on teaching)? How do I promote institutional thinking (beyond identification with disciplines) to allow for a will to coordinate thoughts and efforts? How and when do I include my partners in these sensitive already difficult deliberations?

• How do I define success and progress in these processes? Which targets do I set and how do I defend these to the outside world (politicians, industrial partners)?

16

Diversification of institutional profiles

In spite of the diversification of functions of HEI (including, in addition to research and teaching, flexible access and LLL, technology transfer, dialogue with public, fostering interest in S&T), the multiple calls for an elite in the midst of an increasingly flexible HE system ready to encounter 30-50% of any given age group,the European HE landscape remains relatively homogeneous.

• There are unexploited opportunities for institutional positioning which presuppose autonomy, non-mainstreaming funding

mechanisms – common fight of HEIs and HE nat. admin.could be greatly enhanced by positioning oneself with

European partners on an international stage (strategic networking at European level is still underdeveloped, incl. joint degrees)

17

3. Toward comparable structures and beyond

18

Ba/Ma systems according to Ministries

19

Implementation of ECTS at HEIs

20

Recognition

21

4. Autonomy and Quality Assurance

22

Quality and Autonomy

• legislative changes in many Bologna signatory countries but 46% of HEI rectors find that national legislation still undermines autonomous decision-making

• autonomy = state intervention

but also influence of other stakeholders• renegotiate system of outside influences rather

than realise the dream of self-regulation

23

Quality external (aggregate index of QA in teaching, research, other)

24

Quality Assurance: future challenges

• establishing improvement-oriented QA without disproportionate costs and administrative burden

• creating transparency, exchange of good practice but also enough common criteria to allow for mutual recognition of each others‘ principles and procedures without undermining its positive forces of competition (why and where should we protect diversity, where is mainstreaming helpful)

• build up coherent internal quality assurance which makes synergetic use of external QA procedures and reduces their extent in the long term

25

5. Lifelong learning

26

LLL between Rhetoric and Reality

• Lisbon Summit 2000: „Improving basic skills, particularly IT, is a top priority to make the Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy of the world.“

• Report on Concrete Objectives of Education and Training Systems (Stockholm 2001), high-level Task Force on Skills and Mobility (report Dec. 2001); EU work programme Barcelona, spring 2002

• Eur. Action plan: opening up Eur. Labour markets to everyone by 2005

• Guidelines for MS employment policies 2001 stress need for MS to set out coherent strat. on LLL

• European Social Agenda (access for LLL)• Memorandum on LLL, October 2000,

Consultation until 2001• National reports November ´01, EUA

coordinated consultation of HEIs• European Action plan on LLL 2002• Quality Indicators in LLL, 2002

EU rhetoric, national policies / incentives

National policies and incentives

LLL at institutional level: realities?

LLL divide in Europe, as far as national strategies and incentives are concerned

?

27

LLL strategies at national level

29

Lifelong Learning and Bologna: Opportunities for institutional development

• Opportunity offered to the status and integration of LLL in HEIs offered by Bologna trends, because of emphasis on flexbility (of units, degrees, institutions, systems)

potential for greater integration of LLL into HE central concerns

• BP has something to gain from LLL, namely its attention to/ experience with learners needs, competence-based learning and assessment

• Opportunity offered by LLL as experienced promoters of regional development, experienced with attention to stakeholders‘ needs

6. Conclusions

31

The Bologna Process• is more worthwhile as a trigger for reforms if dealt with holistically,

i.e. by putting its action lines into the context of its larger goals. In order to make Bologna reforms innovative and sustainable

they have to be integrated into other core functions and development processes of HEIs.

• should be dealt with systemically, i.e. in its implications for other aspects of higher education such as research and management. The Bologna reforms should not be pushed forward at the

expense of other urgent innovations and reforms at HEIs. They have to be reflected in the funding and funding mechanisms.

• will only lead to success if addressed in its ambivalent dimensions (competitiveness and social agenda).

• will only lead to success if, given the complexity of the systems, the European-level interpretations and frameworks for reforms should be reference points and triggers for improvement-oriented reflections and reforms rather than prescriptions, additional regulation.

32

The UK is clearly the odd one out in most aspects of the Bologna Process:

• It seems structurally most in line with the proposed EHEA two tier structure.• Together with a handful of countries, its systemic development seems to be

quite strongly in accordance the Bologna goals: – having an advanced external quality assurance system, – LLL strategies and initiatives with significant attention to maximising

access to HE, – caring about the promotion of the attractiveness of the HE system to the

non-European world, – existence of institution-wide recognition procedures for recogn. of foreign

degrees at most institutions• Only in three respects, the UK "lags behind" the European average progress in

the creation of a European HE Area:– the development of a unified credit system in line with ECTS (which has

become a standard in the rest of Europe) and the readiness to extend this system into a credit accumulation system,

– the awareness of the LC and recognition procedures (although the LC is just being ratified on 1st of July),

– the support for European mobility at national and institutional level, with the consequence of decreasing mobility from other European countries

33

So what‘s the added value of the BP for UK HE institutions?

• Academics and mobility promoters: does one want to promote European cultural identification or foster intercultural competence through exposure to European univ.contexts?

• HE managers, representatives and policy makers: Can something be gained from other European debates on – the role of the state and public interest in HE vs. the support and

interest HE should pay to private partners and funds– internal and external QA, – the integration of LLL into the core business of HE institutions,– flexible provision and its place and status in HE institutions?

• Is there not a danger for UK institutions to become cut off from the development of a deeper understanding of other European HE systems, reforms, mentality changes, national conditions, all of which seem to be developing at a considerably pace in most other European countries?

As a viewer from the mainland I will leave these questions for you to answer …