|


Ô



 Ô

  
    
(


 (

    
   



„
  

Ý    

 
 

Ô „


  

m
m
m
m
m
m
Æ 
 

 Ô 


 

 Ý




 Æ Æ




 





(9 1999):
Ź developing a vision of ³a common European higher
education space´.


(2000-2005):
Ź drafting a framework for the EHEA: ³a devil is in
details´.
 
 


Ź 2006-2010: ³implementation of the agreed principles
and guidelines´.
Æ 
 

 Ô 


 

 Ý




 ˜ Æ

  

Ýhe context of ³the Bologna conception´:

 ³Europeanisation´ of higher education› in particularly:
9 Erasmus programme (since 1987);
9 Maastricht Ýreaty (1992)› article 126 & 127
 ³Global competition´, also in higher education:
9 ³European universities lagging behind´ USA and
some countries of the Pacific rim.
 Ú fall of the Berlin wall; its material & symbolic effects:
9 ³higher education in transition´; Ýempus (1990);
9 ³explosion´ of the CEE higher education sector.
 mncreasing co-operation and mobility in higher education.
 ˜ ˜    
 
Æ

³Universities - 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.
Ýherefore› 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
 ˜     
 
Ƙ

³Ýhe 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. [«]
Ýhe 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 Ýreaty (1992)› Art. 126.1› 3
 ˜     
 
Æ

³Ýo 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)
 ˜     
 
Æ

³Ýhe 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.
Ýhese have to a large extent been shaped by its universities´.
[«]
³An 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)
Æ 
 

 Ô 


 

 Ý




  Æ

 



 


³We 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.´
[«] ³We 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
  ˜

 !
 "# Æ$



% 
 " &!" 

Ýrends and issues in European higher education (June 1999)›

by G. Haug and J. Kirstein. ± Key findings:
9 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;
9 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;
9 a convergent set of reforms recently introduced or in
progress in several European countries: they signal a
move towards shorter studies.
 '

 ( 

 

!  

 !

% 

)   $ * "
 +  $
- encyclopaedic programmes; - high drop-out rates;
- graduate unemployment; - late entry on the labour market;
- lack of attractiveness for foreign
- free education / low students;
motivation; - unnecessarily high costs for
- part time work. 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.
#
(( !  $ a push towards the reduction of the real duration of studies.
 '

 # 
 !

  
   
 !


!  
# (


%,&%%
 
˜ Æ

- 
-"

-
&( 
 

% 
Ýraditional in UK and Ireland; Denmark in 1988; Finland in 1994› Germany in
1998 etc.› etc.
˜ ˜

  
 !
 -

" #
 !
 ' " #

 
Growth in the non-university sector is stronger
New laws covering the whole of higher education
Ýhe possibilities to transfer credits; recognition; access for foreign degree holders
Small specialised colleges merged into more comprehensive institutions
˜ 
!
# (

 !
 !
%

Ýwo thirds of EU/EEA countries apply credit systems [in 1999]
˜ 
.
  (#
(
"  
Procedures for quality assurance and evaluation; accreditation systems
˜ 
.  
 
(
"
Foreign universities increasingly recruit paying students from Europe
Branch campuses› franchising agreements; transnational education
 ' 

-#
 

 





 Æ

 !
% 
!
# (
9 credit transfer & credit accumulation; applicable to all sectors; all forms of
learning; across the whole of Europe› recognition given for equivalent abroad› et
 ˜

((

)
(

+   
9 a rigid› uniform model (like the 3-5-8 model) is 



9 the length of studies  
 but as number of 

9 : first degree (Æ/'˜/); second degree (//

 )
9 

: not re-packing of existent programmes but develop-
ment of new curricula; qualitative improvement; lower dropout; employability«
 

  !
% 
!( 

+  #
  
 !
"  
9 quality assurance agencies› either governmental or independent
9 European dimension: convergence in QA standards and procedures
9 quality standards for transnational education
 
%(- 
%  



-
  
  

% 
9 student mobility programmes need to be further developed
9 mobility for teachers and administrative staff
9 short master courses; joint degrees; Diploma Supplement
 '0
1
 !

% 

!  
2

 Æ
+  #$ reforms concerning credit systems or degree structures

cannot substitute efforts to improve and guarantee quality in
curricula, teaching and learning;
 ˜
( #$ 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;
 
!" #$ 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;
 
 $ European higher education can only fulfil its
missions within a worldwide perspective based on competition and
cooperation with other regions in the world.
  
0" 

(-


%3%

1999: an  was set up with goals (EHEA)› time

frame (2010) and activities (various working groups;
³Bologna follow-up seminars´; surveys and reports› etc.).
Ýhe role of ³Bologna 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 ³a framework for the EHEA´:

ramework for qualifications in the EHEÚ (2005);
 àtandards and guidelines for quality assurance in the EHEÚ (2005);
 Ýhe European Higher Education Úrea in a Global àetting (2007)
 —isbon Recognition Convention recognized as a legal instrument
  

-!
4 

" 5

In the mid-1990s› ³the model´ was roughly set up and there

was a need to make ³the vision 2010´ more detailed. Ýwo
main directions of further work were discussed:
9 implementation of ³the model´ at national levels;
9 recapitulation/reconsideration of values and principles;
proposed e.g. in a draft document (Nov. 2004; in archives):
³the following principles are inherent in the Bologna Process:
 obility of students and staff;
 Úutonomous universities;
 àtudent participation in the governance of higher education;
 Public responsibility for higher education´.
Ýhe first direction was approved and the Process entered its
implementation phase ± towards ³the finish line´ in 2010.
Æ 
 

 Ô 


 

 Ý




  Æ
6($
(
!

((  

Implementation of HE reforms is always a risky process: a risk of

loosing momentum while moving from macro to micro level.
Ýop-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 ³connecting´ national
reforms. Design at the European level› implementation at the
national level.
Ú success at the European level (e.g. an emerging ³common HE
space´) is accompanied by problems at the national level.
³Bologna Stocktaking´ (2009) ± a confirmation that something
goes wrong; e.g.: ³It seems that there is not enough integration
at national level between the qualifications framework› learning
outcomes and ECÝS.´
  ˜

 
"
4 75

Ýhe strongest and the weakest point of the Bologna Process:

it is a voluntary process.
Ýhe risk of different (conflicting) interpretations and
different views on priorities and pace of reforms.
Ýransvestism of the national reform aims (at least in some
countries) into ³Bologna reforms´ has resulted in:
 an inadmissible ³broadening´ of the Bologna action lines
into various ³bolonja´ scenarios (e.g. ³bolonja requires
that students pay fees´ etc.);
 nationally constructed ³bolonja reforms´ as an excuse
for domestic pushes and clashes;
 darkening of the national responsibility for higher
education (e.g. ³Brussels requires it´ etc.).
  

4  


 '
 5

Æ

G. Haug (Dec. 1999) and his five ³main areas of concern for
the post-Bologna developments´:
 the risk of non-concerted reforms (³if 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 ³to 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 ³not all countries in Europe be included in the process
of setting up the European space for higher education´;
 ³the most important risk [«] is that HE institutions themselves
under-estimate the level of change [«] and wake up a little bit
too late´.
  
1  
(


 !
6
˜//

³[...] 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.´
³[...] the shift to a three-cycle system seems to have taken place
largely in isolation from a debate on the reasons for doing
it.´
³In 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. Ýhe focus has been on changing structures
before attention is paid to the real substance of reform.´
   Æ

 !
6
˜//

3%

%%

In àouth-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.
   ˜

 !
6
˜//

3%

%%

³Universities all stated› however› that they had introduced

the ECÝS system› which is a significant change across
the entire region compared to the Ýrends 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.´
ECÝS 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.´
  8
-!
(
   

A slogan of today: ³a commitment to full and proper implemen-

tation of the Bologna agenda´ and ³stepping up efforts to
accomplish the ongoing reforms´.
It can¶t be denied that these commitments are important; yet› this
is rather a ³technical´ and not the ³substantial´ issue.
Ýhe ³substantial´ concern is that within a pure ³technical´
understanding of the Bologna implementation ± fascinated by
a miracle of ³the finish line´ ± the momentum for European
universities is diminishing. If one day ³the agenda´ is fully
implemented there will still be ³substantial´ concerns.
Ýhe realisation of the 1999 agenda opens new questions› e.g.
³what is University today?´ and new dichotomies› e.g.
instruments vs. values; competition vs. co-operation; culture
vs. economy› etc.
  
 -
%3%
 !

!
2

Remind again Sorbonne in 1998: ³Europe 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.: ³Our 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: ³what 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   

% 
, " #5

³Ýhe 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. Ýhere is much attention for the
µhow›¶ but little for the µwhy¶ and µwhat for.¶ We believe
that it is time for a change. We believe that it is time to
focus on a different question.´
9 University of Leuven› 10-11 February› 2011
http://ppw.kuleuven.be/les/agendaitems/curating_eur_univ