Bologna process: the european higher education area

The growing preoccupation of governments and stakeholders with the lifelong learning perspective has led to concrete developments in most Bologna countries. Where lifelong learning is a mission of some institutions, this is often related to questions of institutional autonomy, with some institutions choosing to focus on the mission of lifelong learning and others to avoid it. Consequently, the extent to which programmes and courses are oriented to potential lifelong learners can vary considerably, but the mission is acknowledged almost everywhere. Furthermore, in 24 countries, at least some higher education institutions are legally required to offer lifelong learning services. The earliest such legal act was adopted in France in 1968 – with further modernising legislation in 2002 creating the current comprehensive system of Recognition of Prior Learning. By 1990, only two other countries – Malta (1988) and Italy (1990) – had adopted similar legislation to encourage the development of lifelong learning in higher education. However, a significant number of countries have adopted legislation related to the higher education responsibility for lifelong learning during the current decade. These laws either generically define lifelong learning as a mission for higher education institutions or compel institutions to offer special access routes, provide certain types of programmes or engage in activities aimed at the general and working population.

Data on funding of lifelong learning activities remains scattered and is often unavailable at national level. In most cases, public budgets for higher education do not contain specifically earmarked funding for lifelong learning. As institutions have become more autonomous they now more often receive lump sum funding and it is up to them to decide on the allocation of funds in line with the legal requirements in place. As a consequence, data on overall spending on lifelong learning is available in only nine countries: Andora, Armenia, Belgium (French Community), Croatia, Cyprus, France, Moldova, Romania and Serbia. They report that between 0.1 and 2.5 percent of their respective total higher education budgets are dedicated for specific lifelong learning activities. In the United Kingdom (Scotland), this percentage is higher – between 2.6 and 5 percent. Another reason for the lack of overall data is the great diversity of funding sources for lifelong learning activities. Lifelong learning activities are financed through municipal, regional or national public funds as well as private sources. These can be contributions from business/industry or from individuals through tuition and variously named fees. The Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain are among countries where higher education institutions are free to set fees for lifelong learning programmes. Denmark emphasises that employers often pay for employee participation in lifelong learning programmes offered by higher education institutions, thus confirming the relevance of the programme offer in the sector. Finally, as in the Netherlands, expenses incurred through participation in lifelong learning programmes may be tax deductible or otherwise indirectly supported by the state.

From the point of view of potential lifelong learning students, barriers to lifelong learning may exist through age restrictions for student support measures and social benefits. This issue is being specifically addressed in the Czech Republic, where the restriction of social benefits to students under the age of 26 is set to be removed. From a policy perspective, however, the need for comprehensive and reliable data on the amounts and types of spending on lifelong learning cannot be overemphasised. Such information would permit improving the monitoring of lifelong learning activities. Knowledge about the way and the extent that lifelong learning is implemented in higher education institutions would provide a more coherent picture about the degree to which the goal set by the ministers has been achieved and would help further policy development. Overall, it could be said that the progress that has been made in integrating lifelong learning as an aspect of the missions of institutions has not yet led everywhere to positioning it at the core of higher education learning.

 

2.2 Student mobility

Student mobility has been an over-arching goal of the Bologna process since its inception, and the drive to promote mobility has been consistent throughout the last decade. Yet despite both the high profile of mobility issues in the Bologna Ministerial meetings and the sustained growth of European programmes (including Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus) promoting and funding mobility – there has been surprisingly little attempt made to analyse national policies and measures to promote mobility.

For a country to be able to have a clear policy on mobility, it must have a sense of how it would like mobility phenomena to change and, therefore, a vision of the situation that it considers desirable. While this is an obvious statement, it is nevertheless surprisingly rare for a country to express clear objectives related to student mobility, and it is more common to find general expressions of desires for more mobility – whether incoming or outgoing. It may also be mistaken to assume that countries all share the same basic objectives in this field, despite the fact that they may be able to reach common goals at the level of the EHEA. For example, some countries may focus on incoming mobility while putting in place few measures to encourage outgoing mobility (e.g. the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland)). Other countries, such as Belgium (Flemish Community), may be more concerned to stimulate outgoing mobility, and others still may aim to encourage both incoming and outgoing mobility. «The following list gathers together the issues mentioned spontaneously by countries when invited to outline their mobility policy:

• amending immigration legislation to facilitate visa procedures for students/researchers;
• a panoply of financial measures, from scholarships, grants and fee waivers to ensuring the portability of student support;
• information campaigns, directed either at encouraging national students to study abroad or attracting international students to the country;
• bi-lateral or multi-lateral cooperation agreements;
• support to institutions in considering internationalisation in curriculum design;
• focus on fair and simple recognition procedures and on the good use of ECTS;
• strengthening implementation of the Bologna measures;
• support for language learning (both incoming and outgoing students);
• encouraging language learning among staff in higher education;
• provision of programmes in other languages (particularly English);
• supporting higher education institutions in their mobility strategies;
• attention to mobility in quality assurance procedures;
• promotion of joint and double degrees;
• adaptation of information and counselling services for mobile students;
• support for accommodation» [2, p. 41].

Of the measures outlined above, financial measures are by far the most frequently mentioned. However, while this is significant, the widespread existence of financial measures needs to be considered in relation to the enormous socio-economic diversity within and especially between countries in the European Higher Education Area. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank rankings of countries by GDP per capita both include 6 of the EHEA countries in the top 10 world economies, while other EHEA countries rank as low as 114 out of the 166 countries included. This means that, even with the best political will to promote mobility and with some financial measures in place, less wealthy countries are simply unable to bridge the funding gaps that would be required for a substantial number of their citizens to be able to cover costs to study in some of the more wealthy countries. Thus, it is primarily the sources of funding available from host countries in the form of scholarships and grants that currently enable mobility flows in this direction to take place.

It is also interesting to note that very few countries appear to have mounted specific information campaigns to encourage students of the benefits of studying abroad. France and Germany are two major exceptions to this trend. « In Germany, a campaign called «Go Out» has been organised through the Federal Ministry of Education (BMBF) and the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), putting together information on scholarship and cooperation programmes» [4, p. 16]. Similar initiatives are undertaken regularly in France. In no single country do all the measures outlined above come together in the form of comprehensive mobility policy – at least not in explicit terms. This suggests that the commitment made for the EHEA to develop mobility opportunities extensively and aiming at the goal of 20 % of students benefitting from mobility during her/his studies (however this goal is eventually measured) requires a major push in policy making and implementation of measures if the European Higher Education Area is to meet the aspirations for an open and inclusive space for mobility.

 

 

2.3 The Economic crisis and Higher Education

The global economic crisis that began in 2008 adds a further dimension to these challenges. In the last two years, public budgets have come under immense pressure, and the higher education sector is being, and will continue to be, affected by this new economic reality along with all other areas of public responsibility. As the higher education sector can help societies adapt to a new and changing economic situation, there are important political choices for countries to make, particularly with regard to investment. The most prominent impact of the crisis reported by most countries is linked to changes in the higher education budget.

A number of countries have focused attention on the role of higher education in re-skilling citizens for the challenges of a transforming labour market. «Additional study places are being funded to upskill the unemployed in Ireland. Incentives for industry to transfer scientific staff to universities are a policy response in Denmark and the Netherlands. In Finland and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), new study places have also been funded in areas thought to be relevant for the future of the national economies. More negative trends in participation are reported in Estonia and Latvia, where lower numbers of fee-paying students and/or increases in the time students take to finish their degree have been noted due to economic constraints» [2, p. 45]. Some countries have experienced reductions in staffing as a result of the economic situation. In Ireland and Latvia, budgetary cuts will reduce the numbers of people employed by higher education institutions. In Estonia, the crisis is perceived as providing an opportunity for higher education institutions to close down only those study programmes that may lack critical mass and also to reduce the workload of some staff in order to improve efficiency. This contrasts with neighbouring Latvia, where severe cuts and consequent measures have been implemented. Indeed, a number of higher education institutions and/or faculties/departments have been or are expected to be closed. The freezing of funds despite increasing student numbers has also resulted in Serbia in the postponement of a foreseen increase in staff.

The crisis, however, is in practically no country explicitly taken as an excuse to reduce student support or to scale back enrolment in the higher education system. Indeed most countries reaffirm their determination to increase participation in higher education. In order to cushion the effects of the economic crisis, some countries are increasing the number of publicly funded places for students or increasing social support for students. This is clearly necessary, as several countries have reported increasing numbers of students that have problems paying fees for higher education, while Ireland reports increased demand for part-time programmes. The French Community of Belgium, Finland, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) will fund extra places for students at public or government dependent universities (Cyprus is still in deliberation on this topic) with Ireland and Finland focusing in particular on professional and vocational training. Belgium (French Community), Estonia, Georgia, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom (Scotland) have taken measures to improve the situation of students by extending direct and indirect student support.

 

2.4 Improving attainment levels and the quality and relevance of higher education

Improving the quality and relevance of higher education is also given a high priority. Two thirds of the countries refer to policy developments in the areas of quality assurance and employability of higher education graduates respectively. In the area of quality assurance, there is a trend towards establishing a single quality assurance and accreditation body that aims to provide more integrated and transparent services, as well as a move from programme to institutional accreditation. In some countries efforts to improve the employability of higher education graduates include, among others, «recent steps to establish or further develop shorter, more practically oriented courses which often focus on economic sectors experiencing skills shortages» [1, p. 7]. Several countries report that they have recently undertaken or are launching large-scale initiatives to both improve attainment levels and increase the quality and relevance of higher education.

The Europe 2020 strategy highlights higher education as a key policy area where reforms can directly contribute to jobs and economic growth. «In this context, one of the 2020 twin targets on education refers to the commitment made by Member States that at least 40 % of young people (aged 30-34) should have completed tertiary or equivalent education by 2020» [1, p. 35]. The European Commission has defined an agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems which outlines the main areas for reform. Against this backdrop, among the important challenges discussed within the framework of the European Semester are widening access to tertiary education by facilitating entry and improving the retention of students from disadvantaged groups and increasing efficiency by improving completion rates and reducing the time taken to complete degree courses.

In many countries, reforms to broaden participation and increase tertiary attainment levels are undertaken in parallel with measures to improve the quality and relevance of higher education, or to help institutions achieve or maintain excellence. Several European countries report significant reorganisations of their national systems of accreditation and quality assurance since 2011. An important common objective has been to increase the transparency of information about quality assurance and strengthen efforts to make this information easily available to both students and the general public. Developing comparable criteria and methodologies has been a noticeable recent trend that has also been influenced by the Bologna process.

Effective partnerships between education institutions, research and business can enhance the contribution of higher education to innovation and growth. A number of countries report recent initiatives that focus on better knowledge transfer between companies and higher education and research institutions, and between the public and private sector. Increased attention on the role of education programmes in enhancing the capacity for innovation is also featured. «In Sweden, higher education institutions and their holding companies are receiving special funds to build up «idea banks» of research results. In France, the 2013 Law on Higher Education and Research provides for the simplification of research management and more efficient use of existing investment schemes» [1, p. 42]. Special support will be provided for technological research, with a view to revitalising the innovation capacities of France’s industrial base and contributing to the development of new branches creating employment.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Bologna Declaration became the primary document used by the signatory countries to establish the general framework for the modernisation and reform of European higher education. This Declaration also formulates the objective of increasing the international competitiveness of the European system of higher education and stresses the need to ensure that this system attracts significant attention from around the world. Since the beginning of the Bologna process, higher education systems in the European Higher Education Area have grown significantly. The general shift in national higher education policy priorities also indicates that countries have already begun to look forward to giving reality to the European Higher Education Area in the next decade.

The Bologna process has led to greater convergence in the architecture of national higher education systems on the structural level. In order to help the development of comparable and understandable degrees and systems, a number of pre-existing «tools» were introduced in the Bologna process. They are to foster transparency and mutual recognition. The aim is to make education systems and programmes more transparent and render them understandable for all. The Diploma Supplement, the second important Bologna «tool», was developed by the European Commission, the Council of Europe and UNESCO-CEPES. The goal of the Diploma Supplement is to increase transparency of education acquired for the purposes of securing employment and facilitating academic recognition for further studies. The intention is thus to improve understanding of the knowledge, skills and competences acquired by the learner.

Еnsuring and improving quality of higher education and establishing quality assurance systems remains a high priority for many countries. In higher education, quality assurance can be understood as policies, procedures and practices that are designed to achieve, maintain or enhance quality as it is understood in a specific context. During the Bologna period, quality assurance in higher education has been clearly linked to establishing stakeholder confidence. The European Higher Education Area is now largely full of national external quality assurance systems with independent agencies.

The growing preoccupation of governments and stakeholders with the lifelong learning perspective has led to concrete developments in most Bologna countries. Where lifelong learning is a mission of some institutions, this is often related to questions of institutional autonomy, with some institutions choosing to focus on the mission of lifelong learning and others to avoid it. Student mobility has been an over-arching goal of the Bologna process since its inception, and the drive to promote mobility has been consistent throughout the last decade.

The global economic crisis that began in 2008 adds a further dimension to these challenges. As the higher education sector can help societies adapt to a new and changing economic situation, there are important political choices for countries to make, particularly with regard to investment. The crisis, however, is in practically no country explicitly taken as an excuse to reduce student support or to scale back enrolment in the higher education system. In order to cushion the effects of the economic crisis, some countries are increasing the number of publicly funded places for students or increasing social support for students.

All European countries, regardless of current levels of tertiary attainment and progress towards their respective 2020 national targets, or 2012 and 2013 Country-specific Recommendations (CSRs) in the area of higher education, report that a range of policy measures have been put in place and continue to be developed in order to improve attainment, quality and relevance in European higher education. The policy objective of increasing the number of young people with higher education qualifications has been translated into a number of large-scale initiatives to widen participation in general and in particular among under-represented groups.

 

SOURCES

 

1. Education and Training in Europe 2020: Responses from the EU Member States. – Luxembourg: Eurydice Report, 2013. – 110 p.
2. Focus on Higher Education in Europe 2010: The Impact of the Bologna Process. – Brussels: Eurydice, 2010. – 158 p.
3. Focus on the Structure of Higher Education in Europe – 2006/07: National Trends in the Bologna Process. –Brussels: Eurydice, 2007. – 350 p.
4. Supporting growth and jobs – An agenda for the modernisation of Europe’s higher education systems. – Luxembourg, 2011. – 32 p.