House of Commons - Education and Skills

Select Committee on Education and Skills Fourth Report

6 Issues in need of resolution: opportunity for progress

136. Organisations and individuals submitting evidence to the Committee were overwhelmingly supportive of the Bologna Process. They did, however, identify areas or aspects of concern.[115]

Quality Assurance

137. Quality assurance (QA) is arguable the key issue for Bologna and progress in this area will largely determine the success or otherwise of the Bologna Process. The aim of putting in place a broad framework of comparable higher education qualifications in order to achieve increased mobility, employability, and competitiveness across the EHEA can only take place if it is underpinned by robust and reliable QA systems in each country.

138. As the UK HE Europe Unit explains, "the Bologna Process has worked to develop a common understanding of quality assurance to stimulate quality HE provision in Europe and to develop a culture of mutual trust across the EHEA (European Higher Education Area)." There are two key points made here: one is about the importance of trust in achieving the aims of the Bologna Process—this will be discussed further in the section on credit—and the other is to note that what is being pursued is a common understanding of QA, not a common QA framework or system across the EHEA.

WITHIN-COUNTRY SYSTEMS OF QA

139. The Institute of Education outlined the major issue for the UK in terms of QA which is that:

"UK higher education.. [has] quality assurance systems within institutions, allied with external inspection of these systems—as distinct from the accreditation model involving detailed state control of university curricula, student admissions finance, staffing and other matters […] which is to be found in many other Bologna member states. The UK's arm's-length model of state control (often referred to in the literature as 'state steering') is often held to be an important contributor to the relative effectiveness and efficiency of its universities […]."[

116

140. The UK operates a fundamentally different approach to quality assurance to the rest of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) and this external "arm's length" approach is a major contributing factor to the success of the UK HE sector. The government and the Europe Unit, through the Quality Assurance Agency's involvement, are working to ensure that the UK keeps control of its own Quality Assurance (QA) arrangements whilst in parallel also working to shape and influence the development of QA systems across the EHEA. The Committee gives its full support to this approach.

141. As we mentioned above,[117] there was a potential threat posed to the UK's capacity to keep control of its own QA system in 2004 when the European Commission published a Recommendation on further co-operation on quality assurance in HE. The European Commission proposed a European QA register that would have effectively meant that "control of HE would have moved away from the national scene to the European scene."[118]

142. There was no appetite for the European Commission's proposals amongst member states and the proposals have been diluted. In October 2004 the Commission's proposals were critically examined by the House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee and on first examination were 'Not cleared', and further information called for.[119] In March 2006 the European Parliament agreed an amended proposal which is now seen by the DfES as the basis for "a useful information tool to help identify credible quality assurance agencies."[120] The issue was successfully resolved on this occasion but it has not necessarily reduced the interest of the European Commission in centralising QA arrangements in Europe.

143. The Government and others have a continuing role in persuading the rest of the European Higher Education Area to share its position: that each country must maintain control of its own independent system of quality assurance.

144. We believe that the Quality Assurance Agency were right to resist the original plan for a European Register for Quality Assurance. If a Register is to be implemented, however, we concur with the UK HE Europe Unit that "it will be vital that it does not become a regulatory tool or ranking instrument. There is also a need for the legal, ownership and regulatory issues linked to the development of a Register to be fully addressed."

IMPROVING QA SYSTEMS ACROSS THE EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION AREA

145. The second part of the UK's approach to QA issues in the Bologna Process outlined by the UK HE Europe Unit is to contribute to improving QA systems across the European Higher Education Area. The Bergen Ministerial meeting in 2005 formally adopted a statement of Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) which the QAA tell us has become "the principal instrument for the creation of a 'European dimension' to quality assurance."[121]

146. The UK played a major role in developing the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for QA as part of the Bologna Process which were co-authored by the chief executive of the QAA.

147. The ESG sets out frameworks for institutions' internal QA procedures, for external quality assurance within each country, and for external assurance of the work of the national agencies themselves. A number of countries have asked that such peer reviews be carried out, and these have been co-ordinated by ENQA, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education.[122] Established in March 2000 as a means of promoting the co-ordination called for in the Bologna Declaration and now with 46 national agencies and higher education organisations in membership,[123] ENQA is currently based in Helsinki, but likely in the near future to move to Brussels.[124]

148. The establishment of ENQA and then the ESG, and the development under the auspices of ENQA of a register of national quality assurance agencies and scheme for peer review of their work, had sparked anxieties in the UK. As the University of Southampton said, there were fears that the "European Standards & Guidelines" might become "prescriptive standards and a compliance list to be checked."[125] As discussed in the previous section, this fear has now diminished slightly, and it appears to have been accepted across the European Higher Education Area that diversity in national arrangements is here to stay.[126]

149. From its programme of work, it is clear that ENQA is providing valuable services to countries that have only lately begun to introduce quality assurance systems, but in this as in other aspects of European co-operation, it will be important to ensure that the variety of needs among the participating countries continues to be recognised and their national autonomy respected.

150. We commend the work of the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in playing an active and influential role in developing the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance (a broad framework for within-country Quality Assurance arrangements), and in the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) where the QAA's Chief Executive is currently President, and would wish to see such active involvement continue into the future.

Credit and ECTS

Purpose and definition of credit

151. In pursuit of the ambition for greater mobility of students in Europe,[127] the Bologna process includes a key action line to establish a system of credits across the European Higher Education Area.

152. The recent Report by the UK's Burgess Steering Group[128] described credit as being primarily about assessing the equivalence of learning:

"[…] credit can serve a number of purposes but is fundamentally a tool for assessing the equivalence of learning and achieved by an individual. Credit points and level or qualification descriptors are often part of, or linked to, local, regional or national frameworks. A credit framework is a means of setting down the recommended overall credit requirements for specific qualifications. Framework or level descriptors outline the general outcomes of learning expected at a given level."

153. This description of a credit framework from the Burgess Report neatly encapsulates what a report from the Higher Education Policy Institute on credit accumulation and transfer found to be the three essential elements of a credible system of credit: input (time spent); level of study; and outcome or standard achieved. The report found that "simply accounting for the time spent completing a module does not provide sufficient information to enable a student to be accepted onto another course in that, let alone another, university, and therefore […] information is required about the levels at which the work was done and the standards achieved."[129]

154. The same HEPI report clarified the different types of credit arrangements and made clear that credit transfer is a step beyond credit accumulation and requires a level of trust and bi-lateral agreements between institutions. The report dispels the myth that credit transfer happens universally across North American Institutions—in fact it only happens where agreements are in place—"it is clear that the transfer system is not general and widely used but intensive, specific, and negotiated bi-laterally."[130] The report found that credit frameworks need to be in place where there is a lack of trust or established agreement between institutions but that these frameworks can become very complex when taken beyond a local or regional level. The HEPI report, therefore, concluded that the first lesson to be learnt from their review of credit was that "we should be modest in our aspirations."[131]

ECTS

155. The reason why it is important to establish the definition and purpose of different approaches to credit is because the Berlin summit of 2003 called for the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) to be used as an academic transfer and accumulation system across the EHEA.

156. It was the European Commission that first introduced ECTS within its Erasmus programme. The Commission controls the system because it is responsible for awarding an 'ECTS label' to higher education institutions that are judged to be using the system correctly. ECTS is used widely across the EHEA.

157. The ECTS is "entirely input focussed at present.. and is a measure of time spent studying."[132] Recognition in the UK that any credible system of credit needs to be based on input, level of study, and outcomes achieved, explains why the use of ECTS across the European Higher Education Area, as supported by the Bologna Process, is of concern to the UK.

158. In its written submission to the Committee the University of Bristol has told us about some of the weaknesses of ECTS:

133

159. The Government has told us it is aware "of a number of concerns amongst stakeholders in the UK about some element of ECTS."[134]

160. The DfES points out in its memorandum that "under Bologna there is no requirement for ECTS to be the basis of any national credit system, but there is an expectation that national systems can be readily mapped onto ECTS."[135] The fact that ECTS is non-compulsory is less re-assuring when one considers how widely it is used across the EHEA, that it is officially supported by the Bologna Process, and that it is in the Minister's words, "the only show in town."

161. This Committee supports the important work to develop a broad and flexible credit framework across the European Higher Education Area with the aim of both increasing mobility and opening up a more flexible and accessible higher education system to a wider range of people. We concur with the Burgess Report that credit is a tool for assessing the equivalence of learning and achieved by an individual and, as such, requires framework or level descriptors that outline the general outcomes of learning expected at a given level. Consequently we conclude that the European Credit Transfer Scheme (ECTS), based solely on input or 'hours studied', is not fit for purpose.

162. Whilst we recognise that the Bologna Process makes no requirement for the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) to be the basis of any national credit system it does, however, carry an expectation that national systems can be readily mapped onto ECTS, and the Berlin summit of 2003 specifically called for ECTS to be used as an academic transfer and accumulation system across the EHEA. This concerns us and we urge the Government to address the problems that this may cause at the London Ministerial meeting.

THE UK POSITION ON CREDIT

163. The use of Credit Transfer and Accumulation Schemes in UK universities is of long standing (although different schemes exist in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). Not all universities use them and arguably progress towards improving credit transfer and accumulation systems has been far too slow in the UK. Among those that do operate a credit system a variety of arrangements exist.[136] Over the years there have been many calls for standardisation of credit, notably in the Dearing Report on Higher Education in 1997.

164. The Steering Group on Measuring and Recording Student Achievement chaired by Professor Burgess published its final report in December 2006. The key features of the proposals were that the system of credit it suggested was outcome-focused, relatively modest in its ambition to set up a credit framework rather than a detailed credit transfer system, and was a voluntary process that respected the autonomy of institutions and their right to control their own academic standards.

165. Burgess recommended a credit system based on outcomes rather than hours studied. This model is well suited to current and emerging UK practice but, as discussed, does not easily map onto the European system of credit transfer. The Russell Group rightly pointed out that:

137

166. Given the weakness of ECTS, it is not surprising that Burgess did not map his proposals to the scheme. Peter Williams, Chief Executive of QAA, described the ECTS as an "odd scheme" and told us why he thought the UK was right not to be moving towards the ECTS model:

138

167. The Burgess Report set out a model that was voluntary[139] and recommended a "permissive credit framework, one which is respectful of institutional autonomy and integrated with the existing Framework for Higher Education Qualifications' (FHEQ)." [140] The Report said that "institution's decision-making processes regarding academic standards and quality should and will remain properly and entirely the responsibility of each autonomous institution. The application of any national guidelines on credit will remain a matter for individual institutions to decide upon at their discretion."

168. We commend the work of the Burgess Group and recommend that the UK HE Europe Unit, in partnership with the sector, work to develop proposals for an alternative to the ECTS—a broad and flexible framework for credit that takes account of input, level of study, and outcome, along the lines of Burgess's recommendations for the UK, keeping in mind the three key principles that any framework should be as simple as possible, should be outcome-focussed, and should be on a voluntary basis in order to respect an institution's right to control its own academic standards.

MAKING PROGRESS ON CREDIT AND THE QUALIFICATION FRAMEWORK

Progress towards an outcome-focus

169. The UK is still calling for use of credit in the European Higher Education Area to take account of the outcomes of periods of study and not simply workload or 'hours studied'. There had been some progress towards changing attitudes across the EHEA to adopt a more outcome-based focus. The Bergen ministerial meeting in 2005 adopted a report on the overarching Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area with an emphasis on learning outcomes, for example. We were told by the UK HE Europe Unit that:

141

142

170. There is "still a long way to go",[143] however, because as University College London put it:

144

171. The Committee agrees with the Royal Academy of Engineering that the Government should "press for the adoption of learning outcomes alone as the ultimate long-term basis for European HE Qualifications Framework."

172. As the HEPI report on credit[145] made clear, the successful introduction of credit systems and the adoption of the qualification framework will depend on issues of trust and confidence and these take time to build. The Bologna Process action lines are aiming for a credit system to be in place by 2010 but the Chief Executive of the QAA has advised us that it will take much longer—around fifteen to twenty years:

146

Review of the European Credit Transfer System

173. With regard to ECTS more specifically, the European Commission have said that they will review credit transfer systems across Europe in 2007. The DfES told us that concerns amongst stakeholders in the UK about the ECTS "have been communicated to the European Commission" and that "the Commission has responded by agreeing to look again at ECTS generally and involve the Member States in the process. This review is expected to start in the first half of 2007."[147] The Commission will undertake a consultation on a European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning that will include proposals for an integrated credit transfer and accumulation system for lifelong learning.

174. The UK HE Europe Unit has told us that:

148

175. The hope is that this review will lead to an approach based on outcome levels rather than input measure—and therefore bring ECTS closer to UK thinking on academic credit.

176. The fact that the UK does not yet have a national credit framework in place is, arguably, not helping the case for moving towards this type of outcome-based credit framework across the EHEA. The Minister told us that ECTS has been used by those involved in the Bologna Process because it is "the only show in town."[149] He said that "arguably, as part of this process, we should develop one." Burgess intends that credit arrangements for HE in England will be in place by 2008-09 but this may not be soon enough to give UK proposals sufficient credibility during the imminent review of ECTS.

177. We are encouraged that the European Commission has agreed to review the ECTS but remain concerned that the outcomes of such a review are by no means certain. We ask that the Government and the UK HE Europe Unit continue to lobby for the ECTS system to be reformed and, more broadly, for a cultural change towards an outcome-focus to be adopted not just in theory but in practice across the European Higher Education Area. We hope a progress report on the review of ECTS will be made at the Ministerial meeting in May, and recommend that developing a more suitable credit system for the future should receive priority at that meeting.

Second cycle (Master's) qualifications

178. The largest response to the Committee's invitation to institutions and organisations to submit written evidence relevant to our inquiry came from groups concerned with teaching and research in science, technology, engineering, medicine and related subjects, and emphasised the importance to these (and to other) subjects of second cycle awards— more specifically, the future of one-year Master's Degrees and four-year integrated Master's Degrees.

179. The importance of one-year Master's and four-year integrated Master's Degrees to the higher education sector should not be under-estimated. One-year Master's are well established and well respected in the UK and internationally. They are an important source of income for many universities, and are successful among European and international students and employers alike. Furthermore, the one-year Master's supports the Bologna objective of promoting non-traditional and flexible learning paths in an era of lifelong learning. Integrated Master's degrees in the sciences and technologies have been around for more than twenty years in the UK, and a substantial proportion of students sign up for such four year programmes (effectively five years in Scotland). About a third of all students who enter universities to study engineering, for example, are enrolled in Master's level programmes.[150]

180. Second cycle programmes in many other European countries last two years. Many detailed and important concerns have been raised in evidence to this Committee but in summary, there is concern, expressed in evidence to us by Professor Ritchie, Pro-Vice-Chancellor at the University of Newcastle, that:

151

181. Furthermore, there is concern that the European Commission has specified a maximum credit accumulation of 75 credits for one calendar year of study in its User Guide for ECTS. A Master's qualification requires 90 credits to be valid which puts UK one-year Master's Degrees and integrated four-year Master's Degrees outside the limits specified in the User Guide for ECTS. The Commission's guidance may be non-compulsory, but it is still adhered to, and has credibility, across continental Europe—hence the concerns within the UK higher education sector.

182. The fact that UK credit systems do not map easily onto ECTS and that the Commission has specified a maximum number of credits for one year of study is of considerable concern because of the extent to which ECTS is used across the EHEA and because it seems to be, in the Minister's words, the "only show in town."

183. The web-site of the UK HE Europe Unit, which is an important source of reference for members of the academic community, has this to say about the position of UK Masters and Integrated masters degrees in the Bologna Process:

Master's degrees

"Second cycle programmes in many other European countries last two years. There is concern elsewhere in Europe that the UK's one-year Master's programme is 'lightweight' in terms of hours studied and is therefore incompatible with Bologna requirements. The UK approach however focuses on the outcomes of study programmes, rather than notional learning time or hours studied. The one-year Master's supports the Bologna objective of promoting non-traditional and flexible learning paths in an era of lifelong learning. The one-year Master's has also been successful among European and international students and employers alike. Most taught Master's degrees in the UK achieve between 75 and 90 credits (with 90 for full year Master's)".

Integrated Master's degrees

152

184. The Government has adopted a very clear position and has consistently stated that it:

153

185. The Minister told us that he had "not seen evidence that actually Bologna will seriously harm, or harm at all, the one-year master's or the integrated master's programmes."[154] The Burgess Report went as far as to claim that:

155

186. UK institutional credit practice is by no means 'fully compliant' with the European Commission's User Guide for the ECTS, however, and the Burgess Report admits that this issue is not yet fully resolved. Despite the User Guide being non-compulsory, it holds significant authority across the EHEA. The Burgess Report does recognise the significance of this in an earlier paragraph and says that the "UK higher education stakeholders will therefore continue to lobby […] for the removal of this 75 ECTS/calendar year reference from new User's Guide."[156]

187. As Peter Williams, Chief Executive of QAA, explained:

157

188. Because the European Commission's guidance on ECTS is non-compulsory, it is true to say that in theory there is no threat to the future of one-year Master's and four-year integrated Master's Degrees. In practice, however, the situation is very different and the Government and other agencies involved must properly engage with these issues. The Government should seek a commitment from the European Commission for the removal of the 75 ECTS per calendar year reference from the new User's Guide.

189. The UK approach so far—focussing on the outcomes of study programmes, rather than notional learning time or hours studied—masks some of the more fundamental issues regarding the comparability and consistency of one-year Master's Degree both within the UK HE sector and with other second cycle qualifications beyond.

190. UK higher education institutions and subject organisations expressed considerable anxieties to us about the effect of current ECTS requirements on the future of the UK Master's degree. They are fully aware of the Government's position and the non-compulsory nature of ECTS requirement. Their worries focused on four main areas:

First, is the basis on which ECTS credits are calculated (Ev 46 Royal Academy of Engineering).
Second, on the number of such credits required (Ev 69 Imperial College London).
Third, on the effect of the credit requirements on progression from second cycle (master's level) to third cycle (doctoral) studies (Ev 74 University of Oxford).
Fourth, on the dangers of a piecemeal approach to these problems that may complicate mutual recognition (Ev 46, Royal Academy of Engineering; Ev 117, The Science Council; and Ev 50, Heads of Departments of Mathematical Sciences in the UK).

191. Furthermore, submissions from the Royal Society (Ev 50), the Royal Society of Chemistry (Ev 113), the Heads of Chemistry UK (Ev 89), the UK Science Council (Ev 117), the Institution of Chemical Engineers (Ev 71), and the Institute of Civil Engineers (Ev 102), all raise the issue of the comparability and consistency of the one-year Master's and the competitive position of graduates as a result.

192. Legitimate and serious concerns remain regarding the future of one-year Masters' Degrees and integrated four-year Masters' Degrees. These issues need to be fully debated within and beyond the academic community, and representatives at the Ministerial meeting in May need to be clear as to the UK's position should such points arise in formal or informal discussions.

Third cycle (doctoral level)

193. The third cycle (doctoral level) of the Bologna Process is being formulated at present. A number of possible concerns have been raised in evidence. The University of Bristol said "[…] the obvious risk is that European norms may be agreed which are incompatible with our current practices and which may threaten the quality, integrity and/or reputation of our doctoral degrees."[158] Overall, however, there appear to be rather fewer concerns about the impact of Bologna at the third, doctoral, cycle than at the second, master's cycle.

194. Professor Ritchie, Pro-Vice-Chancellor at Newcastle University, who is heavily involved in developing the third cycle agreements as a UK representative, re-assured the Committee that progress was being made in the right direction and that there were no major causes for concern. She told this Committee that despite some initial concerns that "the principles which emerged would be running against the grain of what we were doing here"[159] in the UK, that the final agreement was "very re-assuring." [160]

195. Specific issues, such as the recognition of professional doctorates, are still being negotiated. Professional doctorates are "an award at a doctoral level where the field of study is a professional discipline [usually business, engineering or education] and which is distinguished from the PhD by a title that refers to that profession."[161] The European Universities Association (EUA) have said that "strong opposition" to the UK Professional Doctorate from other European partners resulted from "misunderstanding" or "lack of information" of it.[162] EUA also suggested that "no other country awards professional doctorates comparable with the UK ones."[163] Professor Ritchie argued that the UK Government must continue to lobby:

164

196. We welcome and commend the active and influential role of a number of UK academics in the development process of the third cycle (doctoral level) agreements of the Bologna Process. We support Professor Ritchie's recommendation that the UK holds its line on two issues: first, to continue to uphold the importance of professional doctorates as being real doctorates; second, to ensure that there is no shift towards accrediting doctorates through the ECTS.

197. With respect to third cycle, doctoral level studies, as in so many other aspects of the Bologna Process, it is imperative that UK members of the Follow up Group and other committees and working groups, and UK representatives at the two-yearly Ministerial meetings, remain closely in touch with specialists in individual subjects, groups of subjects and professional fields to ensure that initiatives by other countries and international organisations relevant to UK policy and practice are identified and considered in appropriate depth at a sufficiently early stage. In this respect the efforts of the UK HE Europe Unit have already proved to be valuable, and need to be maintained and if necessary further developed as the European Higher Education Area becomes a more significant element in the academic planning of UK institutions.

Shorter higher education

Foundation Degrees

198. While there is no length specified for the second cycle (Master's) qualification at present, there is a required length for the first cycle; it is specified that this should last a minimum of three years.

199. This will not affect two-year Foundation Degrees, however, because the Bergen communiqué included a specific statement to allow intermediate qualifications (of which Foundation Degrees are an example) 'within national contexts'. The UK HE Europe Unit says that it is "working with stakeholders to promote intermediate qualifications and their continued recognition in the European Higher Education Area."[165]

200. Linked to Parliament's consideration of the Further Education Bill there are, however, possible implications of proposals to give further education institutions powers to teach for and award Foundation degrees and the acceptance of Foundation Degrees within the Bologna Process. As a result the issue of Foundation Degrees is not entirely without concern in the sector.

201. The CMU point out that:

166

202. It has not been possible to include a detailed look at Foundation Degrees in our inquiry, but we have noted views expressed to us and we encourage the Government to consider them—particularly with regard to proposals to give FE Colleges Foundation Degree awarding powers. We will consider this further in our inquiry into the future sustainability of higher education: purpose, funding and structures.

TWO-YEAR ACCELERATED DEGREES

203. In light of the specified 3 year minimum length of first cycle (undergraduate) degrees, the new "fast track" two-year honours degrees currently funded by HEFCE through the "Flexible Learning Pathfinder Projects" would seem to be under threat. The UK Europe Unit have said in their memorandum that "despite UK pressure for European HE systems fully to embrace learning outcomes under the Bologna Process, it is not at all clear that European partners will be prepared to recognise a two-year bachelor degree as equivalent, in terms of learning outcomes (or credit points) to a three or four year continental first cycle qualification."[167] The Chief Executive of QAA agreed that they would be "very difficult […] to sell"[168] across the EHEA.

204. There are serious concerns about how such degrees might be presented at European level—particularly in the context of the UK hosting the London ministerial summit in May 2007. The UK HE sector has clear views about the best way to approach this issue[169] and have emphasised, with due care and caution, the importance of learning outcomes. It will be important to ensure that the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications in the UK is compatible with the Bologna Process Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area.

205. The predicted lack of acceptance within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) of the UK's new accelerated two-year degrees raises broader concerns about attitudes of signatory countries within the EHEA, namely that flexibility and a focus on learning outcomes have not yet been fully accepted across the EHEA as being more important than length of study.

Social Dimension

206. The 'social dimension' was added to the Bologna Process at the Prague summit in2001. At first, the social dimension was about "the role of HE as a public good and public responsibility and the crucial role of students as full members of the HE community."[170]

207. In 2005, at the Bergen summit, Ministers described the social dimension as a "constituent part of the European Higher Education Area." They went as far as to say that it was a precondition for the competitiveness of European HE. The notion of accessibility of HE and conditions to enable all students to participate, regardless of social and economic background was also added as part of the Bergen Communiqué. These are commendable aims of the Bologna Process—the importance of widening participation in higher education and fair access to universities has been widely recognised in the UK for many years. Ministers called for data to be collected on mobility of staff and students and the social and economic situation of students.

208. In their guide to the Bologna Process the UK HE Europe Unit explain that:

171

209. There is support within the Bologna Process for the portability of student grants and loans. The UK HE Europe Unit state that "the UK would support portability of such benefits rather than host country funding." The distinction is important for the UK: portability of student support would mean that the Government continues to offer student grants and loans when UK students study anywhere in the EHEA, whereas host-country funding would require the UK to extend its student support arrangements to all students entering the UK from the EHEA. As the biggest net importer of students across the EHEA this would be extremely expensive for the UK and is being strongly resisted.

210. The Social Dimension of the Bologna Process, embracing the widening of participation in higher education in terms of age, ethnicity, gender, social-economic origins, and level of study, is an important area that reflects existing UK priorities. We recommend that the UK continue to play an active role in defining and progressing the Social Dimension.

211. It is important that signatory countries maintain autonomy in their grants and fees policies. We support the proposals for portability of student grants and loans for home students studying abroad but urge the government to maintain its strong opposition to a system of host country funding because of the disproportionate costs this would entail for the UK as the largest net importer of EU students.

Role of Government

212. It was regularly stated to us that the Government had not done enough to give a lead, disseminate information, anticipate problems and suggest solutions. For example:

"What is needed is some leadership. The government needs to grasp the nettle of the issues of concern, and not continue to be so blasé about the implications of the Declaration, continually stating that the UK is not legally bound to adopt the Declaration, therefore no consideration needs to be given to any possible modifications in the light of the Bologna Process. It may be true, but it is the fact that other European nations will bind to the Declaration that will have ramifications for UK graduates and postgraduates […]. It is impossible to have a sensible debate on the impact of the Bologna Process without the government or its agencies taking ownership of the key issues and showing leadership at both a national and European level" (The Institute of Physics )

"In general the Bologna Process represents a significant opportunity for enhancing the experience and employability of our students. However, we are concerned about the lack of a clear national position on certain key issues, above all on the qualifications framework" (University of Bristol)

213. The Committee shares the view expressed by Oxford University concerning the importance of a "clear national perspective" on matters relating to the Bologna Process:

"In relation to all the aspects of the Bologna Process, the University attaches importance to a clear national perspective on the matters of both immediate and longer-term significance to UK higher education. The Bologna Process has a growing influence not only within Europe but internationally. It is therefore of real importance that individual institutions and the UK as a whole understands the impact of that influence on the UK higher education sector. All institutions recognise this but it is particularly critical for those like Oxford whose international focus must continue to be worldwide, and whose major competitors are largely outside the Bologna framework. While welcoming the development of the Bologna Process and its principles, the University is bound to be cautious about any developments which might limit its capacity to compete with the best international universities worldwide. Without clear understanding at national level, the strategic thinking of all institutions is bound to be hindered, and international strategies which are key to the pursuit of global excellence potentially undermined. The University hopes that this can be recognised and underlined by the work of the committee ."[

172

214. However, a 'clear national position' needs to be expressed in a way that is consistent with the equally highly valued 'bottom-up' character of the Bologna Process, and the subject-specific character of many of the issues that confront those engaged in implementing a policy based on broad principles. Furthermore, as pointed out earlier in this report, the Bologna Process has no permanent secretariat. Evidence submitted to us suggests that the Europe Unit, based in London and financed by a number of higher education funding agencies, is seen to play a valuable role in dissemination. Whilst it is important to avoid adding to bureaucracy, it is important that the work of the UK HE Europe Unit is kept under review and if necessary strengthened in ways that ensure UK interests are well served.

215. It also matters that official bodies such as the higher education funding councils, the Quality Assurance Agency and the Training and Development Agency, together with relevant directorates in the DfES and other government departments with higher education interests, should closely monitor the development of the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area, especially as this affects the education and training of public service professionals, for example in health and education.

216. The work of the UK HE Europe Unit is overseen by a 'High Level Policy Forum' (HLPF), on which sit representatives of the DfES, the Higher Education Funding Councils, the Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly, Research Councils, Universities UK, Scottish Universities and the National Union of Students, and also by an officer-led and more broadly representative European Co-ordinating Group (ECG) with some twenty-five members. Three meetings are held of each body in each year.

217. Whether or not the Higher Level Policy Forum and European Co-ordinating Group provide sufficient opportunities for inter-agency co-operation and co-ordination is something we would be grateful for the DfES' view on when it responds to this Report.

Involvement and engagement of universities

218. Many academics do not appear to have a high level of engagement with the Bologna Process. The University of Leeds described the sector's involvement as "patchy at best"[173] Bologna does not feature prominently on the agendas of Councils, Senates and faculty boards or, apparently, in common room conversation. The Universities and Colleges Union (UCU) asserts that "The Bologna Process is generally little understood or discussed in the United Kingdom."

219. At managerial level, many universities and HEIs have already taken systematic steps to keep abreast of Bologna developments and to relate these to their own work. At the University of Bristol, for example a Bologna Working Group was established in 2004:

174

220. Undoubtedly if cooperation and competition across European higher education is significantly enhanced by the progressive implementation of the Bologna Process, there will be major implications for UK universities. There could well be significant winners and losers, depending on the degree of responsiveness and we therefore recommend that representative HE bodies actively promote debate among their members about the potential outcomes.

221. The DfES has made known its intention of encouraging individual HEIs to develop strategies to ensure that:

"they provide the Diploma Supplement to all their students (currently only one in three institutions provide this as a matter of course);

they increase the use of student and staff mobility programmes;

their quality assurance arrangements are in line with the ENQA standards and guidelines;

they look for opportunities to develop arrangements for awarding and recognising joint degrees;

they create opportunities for flexible learning paths, including recognition of prior learning;

they increase the number of doctoral candidates taking up research careers".

222. Government initiatives in this area are assisted by a 14-strong national team of 'Bologna Promoters', funded by the European Commission, who help UK higher education institutions with the promotion and development of student and staff mobility; the implementation of ECTS; and preparation for the ECTS label and implementation of the Diploma Supplement and Diploma Supplement label.

DIPLOMA SUPPLEMENT

223. The Diploma Supplement is a document intended to describe a qualification that a student has received in a standard format that is easy to understand and easy to compare. It should describe the content of the qualification and the structure of the HE system within which it was issued.[175]

224. At the Berlin Summit in 2003 it was agreed that "[...] every student graduating as from 2005 [is] to receive the Diploma Supplement automatically and free of charge."[176] This commitment has not been met in the UK.

225. Three-quarters of the 53% of UK institutions which responded to a survey undertaken in late 2005 were already producing transcripts which accord with the minimum requirements of the Bologna specification. Only a third were at that time issuing the Diploma Supplement to graduates, but most planned to do so within a couple of years.

226. The Diploma Supplement, which is a detailed description of a qualification gained, is an important development to come out of the Bologna Process. We encourage universities to meet the Bologna requirements and issue Diploma Supplements for all graduates and for the DfES to play a more active role in promoting the Diploma Supplement.

227. The Committee have repeatedly found that the language used within the Bologna Process (and indeed the name itself) has obscured meaning in an unhelpful manner. The lack of clarity in terms such as the 'Diploma Supplement' or the 'Social Dimension' only serves to hamper what is otherwise a good process. We urge the Government and others to be more thoughtful in their translation of such terms and suggest that 'Diploma Supplement' could be replaced with 'Qualification Transcript' as a more descriptive and easily-recognised name.

115 Ev 50, Ev 53, Ev 57, Ev 74 and many others. Back

116 Ev 58 Back

117 Paragraph 115. Back

118 Q 115 Back

119 See European Scrutiny Committee (26046) 13495/04: HC42-xxxvi (2003-04), paragraph 4 (10.11.2004), and HC 34-viii (2005-06), paragraph 11 (2 November 2005). Back

120 Ev 34 Back

121 Ev 17 Back

122 ENQA, the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education: www.enqa.eu/ Back

123 Membership of the Network is open to quality assurance agencies, public authorities responsible for quality assurance in higher education and associations of higher education institutions in the European Union. The role of ENQA is to disseminate information, experience, good practice and highlight new developments. ENQA publishes selected reports online (e.g. 'Benchmarking in Higher Education' and 'Transnational European Evaluation Project'). The list of ENQA members is a good introduction to a wide range of European quality assurance bodies. INQAAHE (International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education) is a similar body, but with global membership. http://www.obhe.ac.uk/cgi-bin/keyresource.pl?resid=23 Back

124 News from the Board, ENQA, 12 December 2006: http://www.enqa.eu/newsitem.lasso?id=116 Back

125 Ev 81 Back

126 "The promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance (5) was originally identified as a potential risk, with concern that we might in due course be presented with a European QA system that was excessively bureaucratic and unsuited to British HE. Subsequent discussions, helpfully facilitated by ENQA, suggest that this is a remote possibility." Ev 96, University of Bristol. See also written submission from the Quality Assurance Agency, Ev 17 Back