House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fourth Report

3 Purposes and action lines of the Bologna Process

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:

"[…] the Bologna process is not intended to lead to the standardisation or greater uniformity of European higher education provision. It is more a framework designed to ensure the highest level of quality, consistency and coherence between Europe's respective national systems and between individual institutions." [

33. The Minister for Higher Education reinforced this position:

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

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

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:

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.

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:

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:

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

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:

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:

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

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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 Ibid. Back

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

34 Q 146 Back