Quality and the Bologna Process

1. Quality and the Bologna Process Andrée Sursock Deputy 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: • Intergovernmental • NGO’s: EUA, ESIB, EURASHE • QUANGO’s and other bodies • HEIs • Decisions are prepared through “Bologna conferences” • Emphasis on consensual decision-making

4. Bologna: State of play • Majority 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 issue • Prague Communiqué (2001): the role of QA agencies predominates • Berlin Communiqué (2003): • Quality moves to the top of the agenda • The 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 planning • Focus on capacity for change • Fitness 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 review • These reviews will be undertaken nationally wherever possible • A European register of QA agencies • A European Register Committee as a gatekeeper to the Register • A European Consultative Forum for QA in HE • European 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 policy • Formal approval and monitoring of programmes and awards • Policy concerning students’ assessment • Quality assurance of teaching staff • Adequate learning resources and student support • Information systems • Public 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 cycle • Bologna 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