Select Committee on Education and Skills Fourth Report


3  Purposes and action lines of the Bologna Process

Comparability v. standardisation

32. It is clear that in principle the Bologna Process is not intended to be about creating a standardised higher education system across the European Higher Education Area. The DfES set out the Government's understanding that:

33. The Minister for Higher Education reinforced this position:

    "(Bologna) is about comparability and compatibility of higher education qualifications across the broader Europe. It is about mutual recognition and it is about aiding mobility, both of students and academics."[24]

    "[…] it is about recognition, it is not about standardisation."[25]

    "[…] we need to ensure it is not about standardisation, it is not about uniformity, it is about translation."[26]

34. The manager of the UK HE Europe Unit told the Committee that:

    "[…] certainly among the European stakeholders involved in the process there is a consensus that it remains about broad principles at European level rather than detailed, top-down, rigid recommendations."[27]

35. Lord May, former President of the Royal Society emphasised that:

    "We should be driven not by some idealised, tidy scheme that unifies things, we should be governed by the aspiration of making it easy to move around and evaluate people, recognising that at the moment we have huge diversity."[28]

36. This consensus regarding the intention of the Bologna Process in principle, does not altogether remove anxieties in some quarters about the risk of standardisation in practice. The concern is that despite the official intentions or purposes, there is a possibility that the Bologna Process could move towards a more typical European-style bureaucratic, top-down, rigid and legislative process which would result in higher education sectors being forced to move towards standardised or uniform higher education systems. Professor Drummond Bone, President of Universities UK (UUK), said this anxiety "[…] is well founded […] there is always that danger."[29]

37. As academic studies of the Bologna Process have identified, there are "tensions at work between the domestic reform agenda and the European-wide concerted harmonisation process. In general, the UK position regarding these issues is that a diversified and flexible approach should be adopted and that higher education institutions should be free to set the duration of courses as they see fit in relation to their activities and environment."[30]

38. The Quality Assurance Agency suggest that concerns about this issue of standardisation might be driving behaviour at the European level as well:

    "[…] concerns about the standardisation of European higher education as a consequence of the Bologna Process may well also be behind the continued push of Dutch colleagues, the OECD (IMHE) and the European Commission for projects to develop typologies and classifications of European higher education institutions, echoing the new Carnegie classifications in the USA. Pressures are mounting too for a European ranking of universities—again underwritten by the Commission— and there are initiatives at national and institutional level in some countries, notably Germany, variously to identify centres of excellence and clusters of 'top institutions.'"[31]

39. Related to this issue about standardisation is the concern regarding the timetable set for implementation of the changes necessary to create a European Higher Education Area by 2010. Each member country completes a 'stock-taking' proforma that records progress in the implementation of each of the ten objectives, which is then analysed as the basis of a country-by-country 'scorecard'. Across the 45 countries currently involved there are many differences in rates of progress. The UK Quality Assurance Agency has doubts as to whether the 2010 target is realistic and is concerned that any strict deadlines will become like a "regulatory straight jacket" and restrict the voluntary nature of the Bologna Process:

    "The achievements and aims of the Bologna Process have to be set alongside the urgent need for other steps to be taken to modernise or revitalise universities in many parts of Europe.

    "A key factor in the success of the Bologna Process to date has been its voluntary nature. It needs to remain thus rather than become a regulatory straitjacket to constrain innovation and change in higher education at institutional or national level. The 2010 deadline for the 'completion' of the European Higher Education Area is unrealistic and it is likely to take much longer for the full fruits of the Process to be borne ." [32]

40. It is clear to us that the Bologna Process is in intention and design about comparability and compatibility and not about standardisation of higher education systems across the European Higher Education Area.

41. We commend the clarity and consensus of the Government's position on the issue of comparability versus standardisation and recommend that more is done to communicate this message to the sector and to confirm that the intention of the Bologna Process is not to create a uniform or standardised European higher education system. We have been further assured in evidence that there is currently no appetite for a homogenised European Higher Education Area amongst the 45 signatory countries.

42. Some of our evidence, however, has demonstrated that anxieties still exist, despite the formal intentions, that working to achieve comparability across the EHEA might in practice lead in the direction of standardisation or uniformity—and therefore undermine the autonomy and flexibility of the UK system. Later in our report we address some of the issues that arise from these anxieties.

43. We recommend that the Government be increasingly vigilant in guarding against a move towards bureaucratic, top-down, detailed agreements. It is of great credit to all those involved that the Bologna Process has so far maintained the pursuit of a flexible framework based on broad non-binding principles—keeping institutional autonomy at the heart of the process. This is integral to the key principle of maintaining national determination of education policy. We recommend that the Government and others work to ensure this continues—and that realistic criteria and timetables are set for the achievement of the Process's objectives to safeguard the voluntary nature of the process.

Mobility, employability, and competitiveness

Mobility

44. In 2005 the UK HE Unit described the purpose of Bologna as being about "mobility, employability, and competitiveness."[33]

45. The Minister for Higher Education, Mr Rammell, when asked about the fundamental purposes of Bologna, focused on mobility . He said that:

    "I think it is about enabling a greater mobility of students and academics across that wider European area, and it is about facilitating interaction and movement between global higher education institutions [...] "[34]

46. The DfES also described the advantages of Bologna largely in terms of increased mobility across the EHEA, with students and staff being "able to move more freely between European universities".[35]

47. Regrettably, however, the number of UK students undertaking study and work placements abroad as part of a degree programme in the UK, or following a course in more than one country that will lead to degree awarded by two or more universities, has been declining rather than increasing.[36] This is against the trend elsewhere in the EHEA.[37] The DfES admits that:

    "[…] though mobility is a priority for the Bologna Process, the evidence to date is that progress has been slow."[38]

48. Furthermore, mobility is still based on bi-lateral agreements between specific institutions, which requires intensive investment in time and energy by the HEIs involved.

49. Studies of student mobility carried out during 2004 by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the United Kingdom Council for International Education (UKCOSA) agreed that poor take-up was due principally to a lack of recognition of the year abroad by the student's home institution; individual students' attitudes; lack of language competence; perceived financial concerns and absence of a "mobility culture."[39]

50. The Director of the UK Socrates Erasmus Council has told us that his experience

    "[…] suggests that the key may lie in the cultural and motivational climate and, the lack of institutional incentives to support, encourage and promote student mobility. If Government policy, translated through the Funding Councils, provided financial incentives coupled with targets, I am confident that there would be a dramatic change in outward UK mobility. An increase in UK student mobility is essential for the future role of the UK in Europe."[40]

51. Among other factors affecting outward mobility are the smaller number of pupils in UK schools who continue to study foreign languages beyond the age of 14 and the closure of language departments in some universities due to shortage of applications.

52. The University of Kent reinforced these findings from its own experience:

    "There appear to be several reasons for this decline. These include lack of sufficient language ability, difficulties with regard to leaving part-time jobs and accommodation for short periods of study abroad, perceived financial problems despite the availability of the Erasmus grant and, in the case of study abroad as part of a four-year degree involving a full year in another country, unwillingness to delay finishing the degree and entering the workplace.[41]

53. The QAA have pointed out to us that there are also many opportunities for UK students to study in countries that are outside the Bologna Process. Increased mobility beyond Europe is to be encouraged but if, however, this is as a result of either perceived or real reductions in opportunities for, or access to, study within Europe, then this is a cause for concern.

54. The Committee recommends that the Government does more to tackle, and encourages higher education institutions to do more to tackle, the likely restraints on mobility for UK students, namely: lack of recognition by the student's home institution of the value of study abroad; individual student's attitudes; lack of language competence; perceived financial concerns; and the absence of a mobility culture. This will take a concerted and consistent effort by universities and by the Government to promote the benefits of mobility and to encourage a cultural change in students and across the sector.

55. There is an urgent need for further research to identify those subject areas and universities where mobility is low and where funding and take-up may need to be targeted and prioritised.

56. We support the proposal by the DfES that internationalism should become a standard part of HEI's overall strategies. We also recommend that there should be specific, targeted funding to encourage international student mobility amongst a broader range of students—especially those who choose to live at home during their courses. There should also be a greater diversity of opportunities for overseas study, with more short-term study options available in addition to the standard year abroad.

57. We further recommend that, whilst it will take several years for Lord Dearing's recent proposals[42] concerning the teaching of modern languages to take full effect, the Government should act swiftly with measures that will help reverse the decline of language learning. A reversal of that decline would undoubtedly help the UK to take advantage of the opportunities for greater student mobility that are being created by the Bologna Process.

EMPLOYABILITY AND COMPETITIVENESS

58. Mobility needs to be seen as a means for the achievement of other goals, rather than as a goal in itself. The Minister suggested what some of these might be:

    "[…] what will be better is that you will enable students and academics to interact and travel to other institutions. I have a very strong view that British students.. who spend some time studying abroad develop skills and competences in terms of self-reliance, language skills, appreciation of other cultures that are very beneficial in the increasingly globalised jobs market. I think it will enable a mobility of labour to take place that has an economic benefit, and crucially, it will ensure that we maintain a very competitive position […] in terms of attracting overseas students."[43]

59. In this context a salutary point is made by the Director of the UK Socrates Erasmus Council:

    "Large numbers of Erasmus students are travelling from the new partner countries to Germany, France, Italy and Spain, but relatively few to the UK. The markets in the new partner countries are burgeoning and the next generation of their leaders, in all walks of life, will increasingly have had part of their Higher Education formation in countries to which they will look for partnerships, rather than to the UK."[44]

60. The UK HE Europe Unit clearly believes that increasing mobility can achieve broader purposes. They have said that "in its drive to improve the quality of higher education and, in turn, human resources across Europe, the Bologna Process will play a key role in contributing to the EC's Lisbon Strategy[45] goals which aim to deliver stronger, lasting growth and to create more and better jobs." The Bologna Process is not part of the Lisbon Strategy but is, arguably, compatible with it.

61. The DfES written submission to us went even further and said the Bologna Process was 'fundamentally' about responding to the Lisbon Agenda.[46] In oral evidence, however, the Minister qualified this emphasis:

    "This is where I run the risk of contradicting something we may have sent you in writing. I would not use the words that Bologna is fundamentally about implementing and achieving the Lisbon goals. I think it is an important contribution, but I think this [i.e. the Bologna process] is much more important and much wider than just the European Union."[47]

62. We welcome the Minister's caveat. The objectives of the European Community in the field of education[48] are consistent in many respects with those of the Bologna process, but there are important differences which need to be respected.

63. There are three principal reasons why the Bologna Process cannot be 'fundamentally' about implementing and achieving the Lisbon goals. First, the Lisbon agenda is much wider and more comprehensive than that of Bologna; second, the constitutional status, membership and governance of the Bologna Process are distinct from those of the EC, and third, the success of the Bologna agenda depends on the willingness and cooperation of institutions which enjoy varying but always highly valued measures of autonomy in decision making. We therefore welcome and support the comment made in evidence to us from the UK HE Europe Unit that:

    "Bologna can complement Lisbon and support many of the reforms that the Commission is recommending within that but we wish the two processes to remain separate in their decision making."[49]

64. This takes nothing away from potential of the Bologna Process to contribute to increasing employability and productivity.

65. Increased mobility of high-level skills and labour can contribute to increased employment, productivity and growth. This is a major benefit of the Bologna Process that should be helping to drive it forward. These are distinct from the goals of the Lisbon Agenda and the Bologna Process must remain separate from that Agenda. We recommend that the Government does more to communicate its position: that whilst the Bologna Process is not fundamentally about achieving the objectives of the Lisbon Agenda, increased employment and competitiveness across the 45 signatory countries are important aims of the Bologna Process.

Modernisation

66. At the Prague Ministerial Summit of 2001, an action line was added 'to promote the attractiveness of the European Higher Education Area.' This is connected to one of the key drivers of the Bologna Process across the EHEA: to modernise European higher education systems. Professor Bone specifically described the Bologna Process as "effectively a modernisation process in Europe."[50]

67. Many of the weaknesses in European higher education which need to be addressed in modernisation agendas were set out a Communication from the European Commission entitled "Mobilising the brainpower of Europe: enabling universities to make their full contribution to the Lisbon strategy" which was considered by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee in 2005. [51]

68. Whilst the UK's involvement in the Bologna Process has not resulted in major changes to its higher education system, "revolutionary change"[52] has been taking place in many other member countries. University College London tells us that Bologna has had "a remarkable impact on many European countries, and has led to fundamental reforms of HE systems."[53] The University of Leeds suggests that "the Bologna Process has led to a profound restructuring of higher education in many parts of Europe".[54]

69. On the basis of a detailed study of the impact of Bologna, Dr Keeling found that:

    "Comprehensive stocktaking by the University Association, the student unions and many other groups has demonstrated that Bologna has initiated profound changes in the higher education systems of dozens of countries, despite lingering concerns about the speed and quality of the translation of the Bologna goals at the university grass-roots […] Over the past five years, therefore, the Bologna Process has had a decisive impact on almost all aspects of higher education in Europe."[55]

70. This modernisation process is not, however, intended to create a single, standard European higher education system. As the Chief Executive of the QAA, Mr Williams, told the Committee:

    "[…] the one thing it is not creating and was never intended to, except by some enthusiasts, is a European higher education system."[56]

71. The UK and Ireland are currently the only countries in the EHEA with flexible, autonomous higher education sectors. There is a very different culture across the rest of continental Europe where state-owned higher education systems are closely controlled by government through detailed legislation outlining degree structures, financial arrangements, credit systems, and even curriculum. A key part of the modernisation process will be moving towards a system that allows and encourages more flexibility and autonomy in higher education institutions across the EHEA.

72. The positive response to the Bologna Process across the EHEA suggests that other countries wish to move towards a more flexible and autonomous model of higher education but they still have a long way to go. The Minister told us that:

    "[…] as I go round the European Union discussing this with my counterparts (and I do not want to over-state it), there is a degree of strong support for our model."[57]

73. It is of great credit to the Government that the Bologna framework explicitly recognises and respects institutional autonomy, but the UK still needs to work hard to foster an underlying culture of respect for institutional autonomy across the EHEA.

74. Professor Drummond Bone, UUK, told the Committee that:

    "it would be […] disastrous for the UK if we were not involved in the Bologna Process because I think then we are […] in a position where we would lose control of what is effectively a modernisation process in Europe. I think there is some evidence that at the moment we are still in control of that process."[58]

75. The Committee welcomes the progress that has been made in many European Higher Education Area countries to modernise higher education systems in accordance with the principles of the Bologna Process. We recognise the importance of promoting the attractiveness of the EHEA and the considerable benefits this will bring to all signatory countries—including the UK. Bologna itself is a reflection of the recognition and priority being given to higher education in Europe and this is an important and positive process for the UK to be involved in.

76. We commend the work that the Government and other agencies have been doing to help shape the modernisation process across the European Higher Education Area through the Bologna Process and support this continuing role in fostering a culture of respect for institutional autonomy and flexibility in higher education. We firmly believe that such modernisation is likely to be more successful and sustainable if it reflects a partnership between government and institutions within the higher education sector which encourages and enhances the innovative and creative capacities of their staff.

Life-long Learning

77. A key action line added after the Prague Ministerial summit in 2001 is the 'focus on life-long learning.' This is clearly in line with UK priorities. Continental Europe has quite a poor record in terms of flexible learning. A comparison of data from the EuroStudent survey in 2000, and UK HESA data,[59] found that:

    "[…] our system (UK) is actually more diverse and more open than many of the continental European comparatives."[60]

78. This action line, as with all of the Bologna Action lines, is not about developing strict legislation across the European Higher Education Area (e.g. for student support arrangements) but about a general recognition of the importance of stimulating and facilitating life-long learning and establishing the conditions that make it possible.

79. The Leitch Report[61] has recently emphasised the importance of a focus on life-long learning and the economic importance of developing such a culture. The action line that calls for a 'focus on life-long learning' is a good example of where the Bologna Process is fully consistent with existing priorities in the UK and, through a broad framework of flexible, non-binding agreements, can encourage important progress in this area across the European Higher Education Area.


23   Ev 35 Back

24   Q 132 Back

25   Q 152 Back

26   Q 133 Back

27   Q 23 Back

28   Q 32 Back

29   Q 21 Back

30   Cecile Deer, European higher education policy: what is the relevance for the United Kingdom?, Centre on Skills, Knowledge and Organisational Performance (SKOPE), University of Oxford, Issues Paper 11, June 2006.  Back

31   Ev 19 Back

32   IbidBack

33   UK HE Europe Unit, Guide to the Bologna Process, 2005. Back

34   Q 146 Back

35   Ev 30 Back

36   Ev 30 Back

37   Ev 93 Back

38   Ev 33 Back

39   Ev 33 Back

40   Ev 94 Back

41   Ev 61 Back

42   DfES, Languages Review, the final report of the Dearing Language Review , March 2007. Back

43   Q 147 Back

44   Ev 94 Back

45   The Lisbon Strategy is an action and development plan set out by the European Council in Lisbon early in 2000 which committed the EU to develop by 2010 the most dynamic and competitive knowledge-based economy in the world capable of sustainable economic growth. The Strategy was re-launched in 2005, with a focus on jobs and growth (see The European Commission, General Report on the activities of the European Union 2006, Brussels, 2007, page 31). Back

46   Ev 31 Back

47   Q 145 Back

48   The European Commission, From Bergen to London: the Commission's contribution to the Bologna Process, Brussels, 22 December 2006/rev 2: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/report06.pdf  Back

49   Q 45 Back

50   Q 34 Back

51   European Scrutiny Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06, HC 34-i, para 34, DfES (26525) Reform and modernisation of European universities. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmeuleg/34-i/3436.htm  Back

52   Professor Sir Roderick Floud, President Emeritus London Metropolitan University, Vice-President European University Association. "UK leading Europe: HE challenges in the context of European developments", Presented at the Guardian HE Summit, February 2007. Back

53   Ev 111 Back

54   Ev 57 Back

55   Dr Ruth Keeling, "The Bologna Process and the Lisbon Research Agenda: the European Commission's expanding role in higher education discourse", European Journal of Education, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2006, p 208. Back

56   Q 76 Back

57   Q 150 Back

58   Q 34 Back

59   Brian Ramsden, "Euro Student 2000 : some comparisons with the United Kingdom", in Slowey and Watson (eds.) Higher Education and the Lifecourse, Open University Press, 2003 Back

60   Uncorrected transcript of oral evidence taken before the Education and Skills Select Committee on 7 March 2007, HC (2006-07) 285-iv, Q 374 Back

61   HM Treasury, Prosperity for all in the global economy-world class skills, Final Report of the Leitch Review of Skills, December 2006. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2007
Prepared 30 April 2007