Movements towards a European dimension in Quality Assurance and Accreditation

1. Movements towards a European dimension in Quality Assurance and Accreditation Don F. Westerheijden Conference Working on the European Dimension of QualityAmsterdam, 12-13.3.2002

2. Contents 1 The Context: the Globalisation Challenge 2 The European Response: the Bologna Declaration Intermezzi 3 National Responses 4 International initiatives © DFW | CHEPS

3. 1 The Globalisation Challenge: The WTO Agenda • GATS: General Agreement on Trades and Services • Is education a service? Yes, but… • Education has a public good character at least up to secondary education • Private benefits outweigh public benefits for postgraduate ‘job training‘ • Is higher education the borderline? • Europe: higher education is a public good • thinking of undergraduate higher education (‘initial’ higher education) • USA: post-initial higher education is a service © DFW | CHEPS

4. 1 The Globalisation Challenge: The WTO Agenda • How to maintain the border between initial and post-initial? • it depends on the situation of the student • US proposal applies only to countries where private higher education is allowed • If a higher education provider is allowed into one EU country, it is automatically allowed to operate in all EU countries? © DFW | CHEPS

5. 1 The Globalisation Challenge: Who are the Actors? • WTO is inter-governmental • For a governmental task: regulate markets • Actors on the higher education market are • higher education institutions • virtual/online universities • corporate universities • and their hybrids • Actors decide autonomously to be ‘global players’ or not © DFW | CHEPS

6. 2 The Bologna Declaration, 1999 • Two main rationales for Bologna: • Make European higher education competitive again in world market • Simplify mobility within Europe: for labour market, for students • Main mechanism: ‘bachelor’-‘master’-‘doctor’ model • governmental reform of (public?) higher education • public higher education institutions are instruments of government policy, not autonomous actors © DFW | CHEPS

7. 2 The Bologna Declaration, 1999 • Striving for ‘comparable degrees’ • ‘Similar degrees’, or ‘degrees that can be compared’? • Anyway, transparency is needed • Role for quality assurance in Bologna process is to provide transparency • but Bologna is vague about quality assurance • ‘Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance with a view to develop comparable criteria and methodologies’ © DFW | CHEPS

8. 2 Follow-Up Conference: Prague, May 2001 • No big changes from Bologna: • ‘higher education is perceived as a public good and governments are the agents in society that are responsible for providing public goods’ • ‘Ministers called upon the universities and other higher educations institutions, national agencies and the European Network of Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) … to collaborate in establishing a common framework of reference and to disseminate best practice’ © DFW | CHEPS

9. Intermezzo 1: Some Design Requirements for Q.A. After Bologna and WTO • Bologna: • Object of evaluation: (comparable) degrees • Consumer protection against substandard programmes • Europe-wide transparency • WTO: • Fair competition • national - foreign • public - private © DFW | CHEPS

10. Intermezzo 2: Some Dilemmas in Accreditation • For many, programme accreditation is the answer to the Bologna design requirements • focus on degrees (programmes) • more transparency, compared with (formative) quality assessment • consumer protection, through minimum standards • Dilemma: quality assessment without real consequences is not taken seriously, quality assessment with real consequences turns into a strategic game without regard for quality of education. © DFW | CHEPS

11. Intermezzo 2: Some Dilemmas in Accreditation • Dynamics of external evaluation change: • role of higher education institution: self-evaluation vs. self-selling • role of external reviewers: peers/consultants vs. experts/judges © DFW | CHEPS

12. Intermezzo 3: How Might the European Higher Education Area Work? Initial H.E. Ph.D. “master”, research oriented “bachelor” secondary education “master”professional orientation professional doctorates Local and Regional Inter-national Life-long learning Labour market © DFW | CHEPS

13. 3 National Responses • Bachelor/Master structural reforms • in many countriese.g. Germany, Italy, Netherlands • not where two-cycle structure already existed e.g. UK, France • not (so much) where two-level structures already existed e.g. Central/Eastern Europe • but this is not our topic in this conference • Regulation of transnational education export • UK © DFW | CHEPS

14. 3 National Responses • Changes to evaluation, quality assessment, accreditation • Germany: Akkreditierungsrat • ‘open accreditation system’ • programme accreditation • Netherlands: National Accreditation Organ • like Germany • Switzerland: Organisation for Accreditation and Quality • institutional accreditation • Flanders: too small for own accreditation? © DFW | CHEPS

15. 3 National Responses: Potential Problems • Do national responses lead to more European harmonisation? • Or will only the differences stand out more clearly? • One’s judgement depends on interpretation of ‘comparable’ • Will national accreditation lead to less diversity within countries? • While it is claimed that diversity is needed in the ‘knowledge society’… • Should not be the case in an ‘open accreditation system’ © DFW | CHEPS

16. 4 International Initiatives: World-wide • IQR: internationalisation quality review • GATE: Global Alliance for Transnational Education • changed character dramatically in 1998: online, for-profit only • ‘Global Quality Label’ • INQAAHE: Internatl. Network Q.A. Agencies • IAUP: Internatl. Assoc. University Presidents • UNESCO • a label for quality agencies © DFW | CHEPS

17. 4 International Initiatives: Platforms H.E. Providers IAUP Customers:Students Q.A. Agency INQAAHE UNESCO Customers: Employers, Professions Government © DFW | CHEPS

18. 4 International Initiatives: World-wide • Let us not forget private initiatives: • professional bodies: EFMD’s EQUIS • university associations: EUA Institutional Evaluation Programme • university consortia: Universitas 21, CEMS, ECIU • GATE post-1998 • Are the Americans coming? • More demand from universities than willingness of US accreditors to expand business? © DFW | CHEPS

19. 4 International Initiatives: European • ENQA / EUA / ESIB • talking about several projects • a.o. setting up a European platform © DFW | CHEPS

20. 4 International Initiatives: Platforms H.E. Providers IAUP EUA Customers:Students Q.A. Agency INQAAHE ESIB ENQA UNESCO Customers: Employers, Professions Government © DFW | CHEPS

21. 4 International Initiatives: European • ENQA: Membership rules as quality ‘screening’? • Cross-border evaluation pilot projects • a series of them, started in ca. 1991 • Tuning Project (Socrates) • Joint Quality Initiative • ENQA / EUA / ESIB • talking about several projects • a.o. setting up a European platform © DFW | CHEPS

22. Thank you for your attention © DFW | CHEPS