Annexes to COM(2009)487 - Report on progress in quality assurance in higher education - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2009)487 - Report on progress in quality assurance in higher education. |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2009)487  |
| date | September 21, 2009 |
The European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR)[15] is the major new body in the European quality assurance architecture. It was set up by the E4 Group as a new legal body in 2008, with the support of the Commission, in response to the 2007 meeting of Bologna Ministers in London and in line with the principles set out in the 2006 Recommendation. The Register is open to agencies operating in the EHEA on condition that they demonstrate their compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines. There is a simplified procedure for the admission of full members of ENQA, who already satisfy this condition, but candidate agencies may also apply directly to EQAR. Decisions about admissions are taken by the Register Committee whose members are nominated by the E4 Group and other stakeholders. Governments may become EQAR members but only with observer status in the Committee. The first two rounds of registrations of December 2008 and April 2009 resulted in the admission of nine ENQA members into EQAR. More are planned to follow soon.
The considerable development of the quality assurance infrastructure in Europe over the past few years is in line with the 2006 Recommendation and with the Bologna Process. However, the variety of actors in quality assurance is large and some aspects may need to be reviewed to improve the transparency of the system as a whole. In particular, agencies in small higher education communities face an additional challenge to achieve real credibility beyond their boundaries. There is some concern that agencies’ membership in ENQA or even their registration in the EQAR might not generate the necessary level of mutual trust. Such trust however is the basis for the transparency and credibility within the EHEA as a whole.
With multiple layers of agencies and networks, the system can be difficult to read and use. The basic requirement for membership in both ENQA and EQAR is compliance with the European Standards and Guidelines and the two bodies have a number of members in common, but not all. Hence, much more effort will be needed before the EHEA has a readable and user-friendly quality assurance system. It is in many cases still unclear what being accredited in one country, even by a registered agency, means in another. It is also unclear how the misuse of such an accreditation could be prevented, e.g. in the case of a higher education institution which operates in several countries without offering in all locations the guarantees that led to the initial accreditation. Stronger warranties would help, since the credibility of the European quality assurance system may hinge on the least trustworthy agency accepted or maintained in the Register and the weakest HEIs with accreditation from a registered agency.
Good Practice
Joining forces: NVAO is the joint quality assurance agency of the Netherlands and Flanders (Belgium). These territories share a common language but have significantly different higher education systems and degrees. The single agency helps to increase the evaluation resources and enhance the credibility of NVAO’s quality seals.[16]
Increasing objectivity: the Austrian Accreditation Council uses almost exclusively foreign evaluators and Austrians are not in a majority in the decision-making Board. This adds to international credibility by preventing suspicions that vested interests may distort accreditation decisions.[17]
3.2. Quality assurance still has a limited European dimension
The 2006 Recommendation encourages Member States to enable HEIs to seek accreditation (or other quality seals) from registered agencies outside their own country. This can only become a reality if several conditions co-exist:
- HEIs need sufficient autonomy to apply for a foreign quality seal;
- Agencies need to be able, allowed and willing to operate beyond their national borders;
- National governments and quality assurance agencies must acknowledge registered agencies from other countries and recognise their conclusions.
There are still only a few examples of HEIs seeking evaluations or accreditation from foreign agencies, apart from cases of subject-specific agencies and of some joint-degree courses. Only few governments have opened quality assurance in their country to other registered agencies (an example though can be found in the Netherlands). Universities of the EHEA seeking a quality seal in a given discipline still tend to turn to US agencies like ABET[18]or AACSB[19]. There seems, however, to be a growing number of agencies that are preparing for quality assurance activities outside their national context.
Good practice
Engineering schools and technical universities from several countries have received the accreditation of the French Commission du Titre d’Ingénieur (CTI). CTI has also carried out joint evaluations/accreditations with other agencies. Business schools/faculties in various countries have been “accredited” by the German ACQUIN agency. German HEIs have shown an interest in the quality audit provided by the Swiss agency (OAQ).
Two successful European quality seals exist since before 1998: the EQUIS in management studies[20] and the European University Association’s Institutional Evaluation Programme (IEP)[21]. Both offer an institutional rather than programme-based approach, draw on genuinely international evaluation panels and are now attracting interest from outside Europe. A few newer subject-based initiatives have developed more recently from thematic networks in chemistry and engineering (both with financial support from the Commission) or are still in the planning phase (e.g. in musical education).
Good practice
The Eurochemistry seal started at the bachelor level but now also exists for master and doctorate degrees. It is awarded directly by the Eurochemistry network to programmes meeting the agreed standards[22].
The EUR-ACE label in engineering exists at the bachelor and master level. Standards were defined at European level, but are applied through national quality assurance agencies that are authorised to issue EUR-ACE “labels” together with their national accreditation. Several hundred labels have already been awarded, but they are still available from only seven national agencies[23].
However, overall cross-border quality assurance is still limited. As a result there is little comparable information for the stakeholders, in particular students, to make informed choices about where and what to study.
3.3. International Trends: growing commitment to transparency
Several new quality assurance networks have emerged in various world regions – sometimes using Europe as a reference model. The worldwide dialogue on quality assurance has intensified within the framework of the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)[24].
Another major development at both European and global level is the growing number of international university rankings. These are often criticised in the higher education community for their methodological shortfalls and their mono-dimensional approach (i.e. their focus on research achievements in 'hard sciences' and their disregard of performances of universities in areas like humanities and social sciences, teaching and community outreach). Notwithstanding these shortcomings, rankings can be a useful tool for comparison and contrast between HEIs and their programmes. The European Commission has recently launched a feasibility study to develop a new multi-dimensional and customised approach to the global ranking of universities[25]. The development of transparency tools in close consultation with stakeholders was supported in the 2009 Bologna Ministerial Conference[26].
The main developments in quality assurance in Europe should be seen in the light of these trends.
4. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF QUALITY ASSURANCE IN EUROPE
Over the past few years, Europe’s quality assurance system has developed enormously, both with respect to internal quality assurance in European HEIs and to external evaluation and accreditation of institutions and programmes[27]. Many new quality assurance agencies and networks have been created, there is an increased awareness of the European Standards and Guidelines on quality assurance and there are a growing number of agencies which prepare for quality assurance outside their national context. Notwithstanding this overall positive development, the full implementation of the 2006 Recommendation appears to require further efforts in a number of areas.
4.1. Looking at the quality assurance infrastructure
Some features of Europe’s quality assurance infrastructure appear to require further discussion in order to allow for a higher level of trust between agencies and hence a sufficient level of transparency for users and society. Quality assurance agencies are still a relatively new feature in the EHEA. They will need to demonstrate their independence and professionalism to build trust among stakeholders. They will further need to convince their European peers that they offer a sufficient level of comparability, which is important as a precondition for the cross-recognition of degrees and the promotion of student mobility.
The Commission is aware of the risk that agencies may have become too numerous while their size remains rather small. Therefore, the possibility of agency mergers might merit some consideration via the existing European quality assurance networks (ENQA, ECA), e.g. by regrouping agencies on the basis of regional or linguistic proximity. Agencies could also consider broadening the scope of their activities in order to deal more adequately with lifelong learning, distance, online, vocational, transnational and private higher education.
Creating a clearer distinction of roles between ENQA, EQAR and the European Consortium for Accreditation (ECA), with a stronger focus on the benefit of quality assurance users, might increase the efficiency of the European quality assurance infrastructure. Providing an easy, online access to the European-wide list of evaluated institutions and programmes could be discussed as a priority of EQAR. The Qrossroads experiment, started by ECA with support from the European Commission, may provide a useful point of departure for a much larger scale database. Close cooperation with the NARIC-ENIC[28] network is likely to enhance the database’s potential to contribute to the recognition of qualifications and to foster mobility.
4.2. Revisiting the European Standards and Guidelines
The European Standards and Guidelines could be further developed, to make quality assurance more coherent with the development of the EHEA , as was envisaged in the 2006 Recommendation. This exercise would need to involve agencies and other quality assurance stakeholders within the Bologna Process framework. Such a development could consider the following three aspects:
(1) Complying with the main structure (three cycles) as a basic quality requirement in the EHEA. This would be in accordance with the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and the Qualifications Framework of the EHEA adopted in 2005[29]. A clearer reference in the guidelines should be given to the Diploma Supplement and the ECTS, since these are not fully implemented in most countries.
(2) In the EHEA, the quality standards would encompass priorities such as employability and mobility (in line with the target set for mobility in the 2009 Communiqué of Bologna Ministers).
(3) The standards for internal quality assurance systems of HEIs might also factor in other key dimensions such as the quality of student services in general[30], career/employment guidance for students and alumni[31], the development of financial management capacity and the implementation of the European Charter for Researches and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers[32].
4.3. A stronger European dimension in quality assurance
The possibility for HEIs’ to choose from among registered agencies, as highlighted in the 2006 Recommendation, hinges on the development of a larger number of European quality seals. They could be based on broad disciplinary fields (rather than on narrow areas of professional specialisation) and awarded either by separate specialised agencies or in conjunction with national evaluations in the corresponding field. The Commission is supporting the development of initiatives of this type[33].
National quality assurance agencies should be encouraged to develop activities beyond their borders and to seek the recognition of their decisions in other countries, e.g. through conventions of mutual recognition. HEIs could be encouraged to use the services of registered agencies outside their country. There may be a need to clarify the portability of national accreditation within the EHEA and also the issue of quality assurance for cross-border higher education within the EHEA. Given the growing importance of joint and double degree courses in Europe, clear principles might be useful to avoid the need for multiple accreditations.
The Commission supports the development of transparency tools complementing quality assurance, in particular those providing a comparative view on the quality of HEIs and their programmes. This includes the aforementioned feasibility study on a multi-dimensional, customised university ranking[34].
The international outreach and credibility of the EHEA may be further promoted through cooperation in quality assurance with other world regions. This point has been underlined in the statement of the first Bologna Policy Forum in Louvain-la-Neuve, which specifically mentioned quality assurance as an area for concrete cooperation between the 46 Bologna countries and countries from across the world. [35]
In the present report the Commission has highlighted the positive developments in quality assurance in higher education but has also made some suggestions for further discussion and development. The Commission would like to invite all stakeholders to reflect on this report and to ensure the appropriate follow-up to the 2006 Recommendation. The Commission looks forward to being able to report on further progress in 2012.
[1] COM(2005) 152 final of 20.4.2005
[2] Recommendation 98/561/•C of 24 September 1998 (OJ L 270 of 7.10.1998)
[3] Recommendation 2006/143/EC of 15 February 2006 (OJ L 64 of 4.3.2006)
[4] Adopted at the Bologna Ministerial Conference in Bergen in 2005, see http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso
[5] Trends V, Universities shaping the EHEA, EUA, 2007.
[6] Quality Procedures in the EHEA and Beyond, 2nd ENQA Survey, ENQA, 2008.
[7] http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/ Stocktaking_report_2009_FINAL.pdf
[8] Quality Procedures in the EHEA and Beyond – Second ENQA Survey (2008)
[9] Bologna with Student eyes, ESU, 2009.
[10] Comprised by ENQA, the European University Association (EUA, www.eua.be), the European Student Unions (ESU, www.esib.org) and the European Association of Institutions of Higher Education (EURASHE, www.eurashe.eu).
[11] European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
[12] www.enqa.eu
[13] www.ecaconsortium.net
[14] www.qrossroads.eu
[15] www.eqar.eu
[16] www.nvao.net
[17] www.akkreditierungsrat.at
[18] http://www.abet.org/the_basics.shtml
[19] http://www.aacsb.edu/
[20] http://www.efmd.org
[21] http://www.eua.be/events/institutional-evaluation-programme/home
[22] http://ectn-assoc.cpe.fr/chemistry-eurolabels/default.htm
[23] http://www.enaee.eu
[24] http://www.inqaahe.org
[25] http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc62_en.htm
[26] Leuven-Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, April 2009, http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/
[27] Trends V, op.cit.
[28] http://www.enic-naric.net
[29] http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/qf/overarching.asp
[30] Bologna with Student eyes, ESU, 2009.
[31] Leuven-LLN Communiqué, op.cit.
[32] http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf
[33] http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc910_en.htm
[34] http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc62_en.htm
[35] http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/forum/ Bologna_Policy_Forum_Statement_29April2009.pdf