Round tableProcessing the Bologna Process: Current Losses and Future Gains

University of Zagreb, UNESCO Chair for Governance and Management of Higher Education

Zagreb,5–6 March 2010

Ten years after: time for reconsideration

Pavel Zgaga

University of Ljubljana

1. Introduction 2. “Pre-history”3. “History”4. “The end of history”?

1.1 Phases of the Bologna Process

“Pre-history” ( 1999): ► developing a vision of “a common European higher education space”.

“History” (2000-2005): ► drafting a framework for the EHEA: “a devil is in details”.

Towards “the end of history”? ► 2006-2010: “implementation of the agreed principles and guidelines”.

1. Introduction 2. “Pre-history”3. “History”4. “The end of history”?

2.1 A conception

The context of “the Bologna conception”:

□ “Europeanisation” of higher education, in particularly: Erasmus programme (since 1987); Maastricht Treaty (1992), article 126 & 127

□ “Global competition”, also in higher education: “European universities lagging behind” USA and

some countries of the Pacific rim.

□ A fall of the Berlin wall; its material & symbolic effects: “higher education in transition”; Tempus (1990); “explosion” of the CEE higher education sector.

□ Increasing co-operation and mobility in higher education.

2.2 Conceptions (I., 1988)

“Universities - particularly in Europe - regard the mutual exchange of information and documentation, and frequent joint projects for the advancement of learning, as essential to the steady progress of knowledge. Therefore, as in the earliest years of their history, they encourage mobility among teachers and students; furthermore, they consider a general policy of equivalent status, titles, examinations (without prejudice to national diplomas) and award of scholarships essential to the fulfillment of their mission in the conditions prevailing today.”

Magna Charta Universitatum, 1988

2.3 Conceptions (II., 1992)

“The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching and the organization of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity. […]

The Community and the Member States shall foster co-operation with third countries and the competent international organizations in the field of education, in particular the Council of Europe.”

Maastricht Treaty (1992), Art. 126.1, 3

2.4 Conceptions (III., 1997)

“To the extent that a recognition decision is based on the knowledge and skills certified by the higher education qualification, each Party shall recognise the higher education qualifications conferred in another Party, unless a substantial difference can be shown between the qualification for which recognition is sought and the corresponding qualification in the Party in which recognition is sought.”

Lisbon Recognition Convention, Art. VI.1

(11 April 1997)

2.5 Conceptions (IV., 1998)

“The European process has very recently moved some extremely important steps ahead. Relevant as they are, they should not make one forget that Europe is not only that of the Euro, of the banks and the economy: it must be a Europe of knowledge as well. We must strengthen and build upon the intellectual, cultural, social and technical dimensions of our continent. These have to a large extent been shaped by its universities”. […]

“An open European area for higher learning carries a wealth of positive perspectives, of course respecting our diversities, but requires on the other hand continuous efforts to remove barriers and to develop a framework for teaching and learning, which would enhance mobility and an ever closer cooperation.”

Sorbonne Declaration (25 May 1998)

1. Introduction 2. “Pre-history”

3. “History”4. “The end of history”?

3.1 A birth of the Bologna Process

“We are witnessing a growing awareness in large parts of the political and academic world and in public opinion of the need to establish a more complete and far-reaching Europe, in particular building upon and strengthening its intellectual, cultural, social and scientific and technological dimensions.” […] “We engage in co-ordinating our policies to reach in the short term, and in any case within the first decade of the first millennium, the following objectives”:

(1) adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees;(2) adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles;(3) establishment of the system of credits;(4) promotion of mobility […] to the effective exercise of free movement;(5) promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance;(6) promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education.

Bologna Declaration, 19 June 1999

3.2 A background survey (1999): areas of European convergence/divergence

Trends and issues in European higher education (June 1999), by G. Haug and J. Kirstein. – Key findings:

extreme diversity, to such a degree that it may well be called confusion, or even chaos; the dense jungle of degrees, institutions and systems is the single biggest obstacle to more mobility in higher education in Europe;

no ready-to-use external model (e.g. in the USA) that would be replicable; Europe needs to develop its own model to suit its unique cultural and educational needs;

a convergent set of reforms recently introduced or in progress in several European countries: they signal a move towards shorter studies.

(3.3-A) A phenomenon of long real duration of studies in Europe

Possible explanations: Negative consequences:

- encyclopaedic programmes;

- graduate unemployment;

- free education / low motivation;

- part time work.

- high drop-out rates;- late entry on the labour market;- lack of attractiveness for foreign students;- unnecessarily high costs for students/families and public resources;- undemocratic aspect (length of studies may discourage students from less favoured social backgrounds); a formidable obstacle for lifelong learners;- additional difficulties to attract students to such areas as science and technology, resulting in skill shortages in key economic sectors.

Policy recommendation: a push towards the reduction of the real duration of studies.

(3.3-B) Analysing trends in learning structures and higher education systems in the EU/EEA countries

(2.1) A growing wave of new bachelor/master courses in EuropeTraditional in UK and Ireland; Denmark in 1988; Finland in 1994, Germany in 1998 etc., etc.

(2.2) Blurring boundaries between the university and non-university sectorsGrowth in the non-university sector is strongerNew laws covering the whole of higher educationThe possibilities to transfer credits; recognition; access for foreign degree holdersSmall specialised colleges merged into more comprehensive institutions

(2.3) Credit system gain ground around ECTSTwo thirds of EU/EEA countries apply credit systems [in 1999]

(2.4) More autonomy, more evaluationProcedures for quality assurance and evaluation; accreditation systems

(2.5) Mounting challenge from overseasForeign universities increasingly recruit paying students from EuropeBranch campuses, franchising agreements; transnational education

(3.3-C) Possible ways into the future Four main avenues for combined action are suggested:

(3.1) A generalised European credit system credit transfer & credit accumulation; applicable to all sectors; all forms of learning; across the whole of Europe, recognition given for equivalent abroad, etc.

(3.2) A common but flexible frame of qualifications a rigid, uniform model (like the 3-5-8 model) is neither desirable nor feasible the length of studies not in years but as number of academic credits main levels: first degree (180-240); second degree (300 in total) meaningful first degrees: not re-packing of existent programmes but develop-ment of new curricula; qualitative improvement; lower dropout; employability…

(3.3) An enhanced European dimension in quality assurance and evaluation quality assurance agencies, either governmental or independent European dimension: convergence in QA standards and procedures quality standards for transnational education

(3.4) Empowering Europeans to use the new learning opportunities in Europe student mobility programmes need to be further developed mobility for teachers and administrative staff short master courses; joint degrees; Diploma Supplement

(3.3-D) What kind of European higher education space?

(4.1) quality: reforms concerning credit systems or degree structures cannot substitute efforts to improve and guarantee quality in curricula, teaching and learning;

(4.2) mobility: the most powerful engine for change and improvement in higher education in Europe has come, and will come from growing awareness of alternative approaches and best practice in other countries;

(4.3) diversity: measures not respecting the fundamental cultural, linguistic and educational diversity in Europe could jeopardise not only the progress already made, but the perspective of continuing convergence in the future;

(4.4) openness: European higher education can only fulfil its missions within a worldwide perspective based on competition and cooperation with other regions in the world.

3.4 Developing a framework for the EHEA

1999: an action plan was set up with goals (EHEA), time frame (2010) and activities (various working groups; “Bologna follow-up seminars”; surveys and reports, etc.).

The role of “Bologna partners” (national ministries, EUA, EURASHE, ESIB/ESU, Council of Europe, EC, etc.).

Biannual ministerial conferences to test the progress and make decisions on further developments.

Gradual development of “a framework for the EHEA”:□ Framework for qualifications in the EHEA (2005);

□ Standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the EHEA (2005);

□ The European Higher Education Area in a Global Setting (2007)

□ Lisbon Recognition Convention recognized as a legal instrument

3.5 Towards “realising the vision”

In the mid-1990s, “the model” was roughly set up and there was a need to make “the vision 2010” more detailed. Two main directions of further work were discussed:

implementation of “the model” at national levels; recapitulation/reconsideration of values and principles;

proposed e.g. in a draft document (Nov. 2004; in archives): “the following principles are inherent in the Bologna Process: □ Mobility of students and staff; □ Autonomous universities; □ Student participation in the governance of higher education; □ Public responsibility for higher education”.

The first direction was approved and the Process entered its implementation phase – towards “the finish line” in 2010.

1. Introduction 2. “Pre-history”3. “History”

4. “The end of history”?

4.1 Reforms: from design to implementation

Implementation of HE reforms is always a risky process: a risk of loosing momentum while moving from macro to micro level.

Top-down vs. bottom-up: particularly important in HE reforms.National HE reforms: centrally initiated but responsibilities are

(should be) shared between partners at different levels. Bologna reforms: voluntary process of “connecting” national

reforms. Design at the European level, implementation at the national level.

A success at the European level (e.g. an emerging “common HE space”) is accompanied by problems at the national level.

“Bologna Stocktaking” (2009) – a confirmation that something goes wrong; e.g.: “It seems that there is not enough integration at national level between the qualifications framework, learning outcomes and ECTS.”

4.2 Bologna vs. “bolonja”

The strongest and the weakest point of the Bologna Process: it is a voluntary process.

The risk of different (conflicting) interpretations and different views on priorities and pace of reforms.

Transvestism of the national reform aims (at least in some countries) into “Bologna reforms” has resulted in:□ an inadmissible “broadening” of the Bologna action lines into various “bolonja” scenarios (e.g. “bolonja requires that students pay fees” etc.);□ nationally constructed “bolonja reforms” as an excuse for domestic pushes and clashes;

□ darkening of the national responsibility for higher education (e.g. “Brussels requires it” etc.).

4.3 The “concerns for the post-Bologna” of 1999

G. Haug (Dec. 1999) and his five “main areas of concern for the post-Bologna developments”:

□ the risk of non-concerted reforms (“if some countries were to introduce superficial, window-dressing reforms, e.g. taking a long curriculum and just cutting it in bits and pieces”);

□ the risk “to focus on very small differences rather than looking at the big common issues” (e.g. tracking the minor differences in content and organisation between degree in chemistry in two countries) ;

□ the risk that the challenge from abroad remains under-estimated (e.g. transnational education, etc.);

□ the risk if “not all countries in Europe be included in the process of setting up the European space for higher education”;

□ “the most important risk […] is that HE institutions themselves under-estimate the level of change […] and wake up a little bit too late”.

4.4 Warnings from the Trends Report (2007)

“[...] the Bologna process has sometimes become a focus of tension, with institutions perceiving their government as being more interested in the rhetoric of reform than in providing genuine support to institutions. Many academics questioned how they could be expected to make a radical change [...], while the overall level of financial support from government was decreasing.”

“[...] the shift to a three-cycle system seems to have taken place largely in isolation from a debate on the reasons for doing it.”

“In some institutions and parts of Europe, implementation of the three cycles seems to have become a task which is considered as a goal in itself, rather than a means to achieve other objectives. The focus has been on changing structures before attention is paid to the real substance of reform.”

4.5.1 Trends Report (2007) on HE in SEE

In South-East Europe, the Bologna Process has been perceived as a key driver for rebuilding and reinvigorating higher education systems that all share a common heritage.

One of the main issues constantly pointed out is the legacy of Yugoslav self-management, and its embodiment in the notion of faculty independence.

As faculties rather than institutions still enjoy high levels of legal, functional and academic autonomy, it is extremely difficult to introduce coherent reforms even in one university, let alone across a national system.

4.5.2 Trends Report (2007) on HE in SEE

“Universities all stated, however, that they had introduced the ECTS system, which is a significant change across the entire region compared to the Trends III responses. Yet when asked if this means that students are able to study a degree programme by selecting some modules from different faculties within their institution, the reply was that this would be very exceptional.”

ECTS had been superimposed on a model of teaching and learning in place, rather than being used to re-think and re-organise teaching and learning through a more deep-rooted reform.”

4.6 Towards some conclusions

A slogan of today: “a commitment to full and proper implemen-tation of the Bologna agenda” and “stepping up efforts to accomplish the ongoing reforms”.

It can’t be denied that these commitments are important; yet, this is rather a “technical” and not the “substantial” issue.

The “substantial” concern is that within a pure “technical” understanding of the Bologna implementation – fascinated by a miracle of “the finish line” – the momentum for European universities is diminishing. If one day “the agenda” is fully implemented there will still be “substantial” concerns.

The realisation of the 1999 agenda opens new questions, e.g. “what is University today?” and new dichotomies, e.g. instruments vs. values; competition vs. co-operation; culture vs. economy, etc.

4.7 Between EHEA and free trade area?

Remind again Sorbonne in 1998: “Europe is not only that of the Euro, of the banks and the economy: it must be a Europe of knowledge as well.”

It has been periodically repeated, e.g.: “Our challenge is to build a Europe reaching beyond the sphere of economy to promote sustainable development as a means to meet citizens’ expectations concerning quality of life and cultural and social diversity”. And more: “what needs to be reaffirmed, on the eve of enlargement, is the role of culture in the development of a European identity without which the Union would be doomed to be nothing more than a vast free trade area”.

Commissioner Viviane Reding, at a conference on cultural and educational rights

in the enlarged Europe (November 2002)

4.8 “Curating the European University”

“The EU and its member states are urging universities to innovate and change in order to be able to meet the demands of the knowledge economy and play a leading role in its further development. […] Discussions about the future of European universities increasingly focus on questions about productive innovation, institutional differentiation and the effective mobilisation of human and financial resources. There is much attention for the ‘how,’ but little for the ‘why’ and ‘what for.’ We believe that it is time for a change. We believe that it is time to focus on a different question.”

University of Leuven, 10-11 February, 2011 http://ppw.kuleuven.be/les/agendaitems/curating_eur_univ