Introduction
The Government welcomes the fact that the Committee
has recognised the importance of the Bologna Process and that
it is vital that the UK should continue to be fully involved.
It supports the emphasis that the Committee has placed on the
importance of institutional autonomy, diversity and the process
not becoming a top-down imposed set of rules.
The Government wishes to inform the Committee that
the outcome of last month's Ministerial Bologna conference in
London was, in its view, very successful. It represented a further
step forward in the efforts of the participating countries to
create the European Higher Education Area by 2010. The most notable
achievements were approval of the proposal to create a European
Register of Quality Assurance Agencies and endorsement of the
strategies to take forward work on the social dimension and to
promote the Bologna Process to the wider world. There also seemed
to be a general acknowledgement in the discussions on what the
European Higher Education Area should look like beyond 2010 of
the need to ensure continued progress in the four main areas of
curriculum reform, institutional autonomy, diversifying funding,
and engagement with business and the wider community. The Government
believes that this shows how the ongoing work in the Bologna Process
will increasingly support the broader EU Higher Education modernisation
agenda.
3. It will be essential to maintain a strong focus
on the importance of institutional autonomy at the London meeting
whilst recognising that the variability at present in university
autonomy across the EC, and even more so across the European Higher
Education Area, is an issue that cannot be shirked for the future.
The importance of institutional autonomy is increasingly
acknowledged within the process. The President of the European
University Association, Professor Georg Winckler, made clear in
his presentation to the London Ministerial conference on 17-18
May 2007 that universities are major agents in creating the European
Higher Education Area and that institutional autonomy is of fundamental
importance. The Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further
and Higher Education, Bill Rammell, also emphasised at the London
Ministerial conference that autonomy needs to be a key characteristic
of the European Higher Education Area. A copy of the London communiqué,
agreed at the May conference, is attached for the information
of the Committee.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
The Government is pleased that the Committee has
recognised that the process is not about standardisation or harmonisation,
but about greater comparability and compatibility. It agrees that
there is a need for improved awareness and understanding of this
in the HE sector. The Government continues to work closely with
the UK HE Europe Unit on raising awareness about and improving
engagement with the process. A booklet for the sector, which aims
to address this and to highlight a number of examples of good
practice and engagement with the Bologna reforms, was published
by the Department for Education and Skills at the time of the
London Ministerial conference.
8. 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.
The Government is clear that it is vital that the
process should remain on a basis of voluntary participation. It
also needs to remain dynamic and not become a rigid set of static
rules. In addition, the Government agrees that the process should
continue to embrace the diversity and autonomy of all systems
and institutions. Part of the attractiveness of the European Higher
Education Area will be the diversity it offers. Both the Secretary
of State for Education and Skills and the Minister of State for
Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education emphasised this
point at the London conference on 17-18 May 2007, and it is reflected
in the London communique.
9. 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.
10. 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.
The Government agrees with the Committee that more
should be done to support student mobility. The Government is
working with the British Council and other stakeholders in promoting
mobility and addressing real or perceived barriers to mobility,
with a view to increasing participation. Erasmus is the part of
the EU's Lifelong Learning Programme which provides mobility opportunities
for higher education students. As part of the launch of the new
programme in January 2007, there was a number of promotional activities
to raise the profile of the programme. Ongoing promotion to potential
Erasmus students and higher education institutions should help
to raise the number of UK students participating in the programme.
The Government has also consulted with a number of Vice-Chancellors
on what more might be done to help students take up mobility opportunities,
and how good practice might be spread across the sector.
This has resulted in the Department for Education and Skills working
with the Council for Industry and Higher Education to put together
some examples of the way in which higher education institutions
are internationalising their provision and promoting outward student
mobility. The intention is to make available later in the summer
some examples of good practice that can be shared across the sector.
11. 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.
The Government fully agrees that mobility opportunities
should be available to a broad range of students, and that
those from groups which have traditionally been less likely to
spend time abroad should be encouraged to do so to enable them
also to accrue the benefits that mobility brings. The Government
continues to examine various options for the financial support
of students embarking on periods of mobility and would encourage
institutions to consider how they could make use of some of the
additional revenue that they gain from variable fees to support
mobility.
12. We further recommend that, whilst it will
take several years for Lord Dearing's recent proposals 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.
The Dearing Report on languages presents a co-ordinated
package of proposals for supporting language take up, focused
primarily at secondary school level but also setting out what
could be done at other levels of the education system. In Higher
Education, the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE)
will be funding four regional consortia through the Routes into
Languages programme, the aim of which is to stimulate demand for
language learning in HE through outreach to schools and FE colleges.
Lord Dearing has recommended that an additional £3m is given
to this project over four years. The Government has committed
£750,000 in the next financial year to support this and is
looking at how this support might continue over the Comprehensive
Spending Review period.
The Committee may also wish to note that the Association
of University Language Centre in the UK and Ireland study for
the years 2003/04 to 2005/06 shows that there has been a noticeable
rise in the numbers of students taking a language either as an
assessed part of their degree, (IWLP/UWLP), or as an extra curricular
activity. Student numbers taking a language module as part of
their degree rose from 27,986 in 2003/04 to 38,194 in 2005/06,
and for students studying a language as an extra curricula activity
the number rose from 25,516 to 30,402.
13. 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.
The Government firmly believes that the Bologna Process
has a key role to play in promoting mobility and increasing the
employability of students and graduates through equipping them
with new skills and experiences. While the Bologna Process is
a separate intergovernmental agreement and may not have been designed
to achieve the objectives of the Lisbon agenda, the Government
is clear that it can make a major contribution towards doing so
and should not be seen in isolation. It can for example provide
a real impetus to the European Union's modernisation agenda for
higher education.
15. 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.
The Government thanks the Committee for its comments
and agrees that modernisation can only be successful if all the
parties concerned work together. It believes that it maintains
a good close working relationship with the sector and representative
bodies (eg Universities UK, QAA, UKNARIC etc) and that, in collaboration
with the sector, it is able to promote a clear position on key
policy issues.
16. The Leitch Report 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.
The Government welcomes the fact that life-long learning
has been identified in the London communiqué as a priority
for the work programme of the Bologna Process over the next two
years.
17. As a European leader in higher education,
the benefits of engagement in the Bologna Process might not be
as immediately obvious for the UK as they are for other signatory
countries in the EHEA but this does not mean that there are none.
18. Many countries in the European Higher Education
Area have a long and proud history of excellence in higher education
and many European Universities are considered to be world-class
institutions. In those countries in the EHEA where their higher
education systems were already admired, the Bologna Process is
being used to further improve and modernise higher education.
19. In a rapidly developing global market for
HE it would be a mistake to think that the UK is in a sufficiently
advantageous position as to be able to stand aside whilst other
countries in the European Higher Education Area make progress
through the Bologna Process.
20. The Bologna Process is a major development
in the international market for higher education and is attracting
significant international interest as a result. The government
should be doing everything possible to articulate and promote
the genuine advantages to the UK of being involved in the Bologna
Process.
21. There are economic advantages to be gained
for the UK through engagement in the Bologna Process: increasing
employment and productivity; and increasing the competitiveness
of the UK higher education sector through promoting the attractiveness
and international reputation of the European Higher Education
Area (EHEA). There are advantages for UK students in terms of
increased mobility and employment opportunities. Finally there
are advantages to UK universities through the increased market
for both EU and international students within the EHEA, increased
mobility of staff, sharing of best practice and expertise in a
broad range of areas, and increased opportunities for research
collaboration across the European Research Area.
22. Thus there are significant advantages for
the UK in achieving the action lines stated in the Bologna Process,
which increasingly reflect the policy priorities in the UK. Furthermore,
there are aspects of HE provision in other participating countries
that the UK could learn from to improve its own structures and
practices.
The Government is pleased that the Committee has
recognised the importance of the UK being actively involved in
the Bologna Process and that it would be a mistake for the UK
not to engage with it.
The Bologna Process presents numerous advantages.
The creation of a transparent and accessible European Higher Education
Area should make European Higher Education more attractive and
competitive in a global market. It will provide an impetus for
colleges and universities to modernise so that they can enable
society to deal with the economic and social challenges posed
by the progress of global change. It will provide a wider range
of educational programmes for students to choose from and the
ability to move more freely between European universities will
offer opportunities to acquire the experience, language skills,
cultural maturity and other skills they will need to succeed personally
and professionally, thereby enhancing their employability. As
more countries move towards a common structure of Bachelors and
Masters qualifications, this will in turn help employers to understand
what each qualification represents in terms of learning outcomes,
and therefore promote graduate mobility throughout Europe. Graduates
will have access to an enlarged labour market and employers will
have access to a larger pool of resources. There will also be
significant benefits in terms of developmental opportunities for
all staff. These include: greater scope for interaction and collaboration
with colleagues and institutions in other countries; more opportunities
to spend time in other European institutions; and more incentives
to introduce an international dimension to the curriculum. All
of these will enable people to learn new ways of living and working
and provide skills and good practice that individuals can take
back into their professional life.
However, the Government would emphasise that any
advantages will only be realised if individual institutions engage
with the process and make the most of the opportunities it presents.
23. We are concerned that use of the Open Method
of Coordination (OMC) means that the absence of a Treaty base
poses little constraint on what the European Commission and Member
States may do voluntarily in the area of education, and more specifically
higher education. We ask the DfES to give their view on whether
the European Commission are using the OMC to expand their involvement
in higher education and whether this is a cause for concern.
The Department for Education and Skills does not
believe that there is cause for concern over the Commission's
role or the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC). The OMC, although
not strictly relevant to the Bologna Process, is a key means of
spreading good practice and building sustainable partnerships
across Europe to ensure universities make their full contribution
to the Lisbon strategy. Indeed, the UK is working closely with
the Commission and other Member States on compiling a compendium
of good practice which it believes can contribute to the wider
action on modernising universities.
Furthermore, Article 149 of the Treaty sets out how
the Community shall contribute to the development of quality education
by "encouraging co-operation between Member States and, if
necessary, supporting and supplementing their action, while fully
respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content
of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their
cultural and linguistic diversity". There are thus clear
limits to how far the European Commission can get involved in
higher education.
24. The Committee is encouraged by references
to increasing recognition across the European Higher Education
Area, and within the decision making structures of the European
Community, of the importance of each country having an autonomous
and flexible higher education system. It is concerned, however,
to hear reports about the bureaucratic momentum behind Bologna
and of the dangers of trying to achieve progress towards greater
institutional autonomy by central direction.
25. The Government should continue to encourage
increased autonomy in higher education across the European Higher
Education Area but must guard against growing bureaucratisation.
The Government must seek to uphold that the autonomy and flexibility
of institutions by ensuring the Process only pursues its objectives
within broad, non-compulsory frameworks.
The Government has emphasised the importance that
it places on institutional autonomy in response to the Committee's
conclusions 3 and 8. The Government is clear that the Bologna
Process should not become a top-down imposed set of rules and
emphasised this in the discussions at the London conference on
the future of the European Higher Education Area. It would be
perverse and contrary to the spirit of Bologna to allow it to
become a rigid set of rules which cannot adapt flexibly to new
challenges.
26. The European Commission, and the European
Community more broadly, play an important formal role in the Bologna
Process that is welcome. The expanding role of the European Community
in the field of education, however, and the belief that it is
seeking to expand its role through the mechanisms of the Bologna
Process, is a common cause of concern to UK organisations and
institutions. It is also this Committee's greatest concern regarding
the future of the Bologna Process.
27. We recommend that the Government seeks clarification
of the exact role of the Commission in the Bologna Process. Whilst
the involvement of the Commission, including financial assistance,
is of considerable importance for the success of the Bologna Process,
a way must be found to ensure its involvement does not undermine
the essentially voluntary and 'bottom up' approaches characteristic
of its development to date.
28. It remains crucial to the success of the Bologna
Process that it remains outside the framework of the EC. We agree
with the Minister that the role of the European Commission must
be appropriately circumscribed. This must be a priority issue
for the government at the London Summit in May.
The Government believes that the European Commission
has a role to play in supporting the Bologna Process and that
this is consistent with its role in relation to higher education
within the European Union. The responsibility for the organisation
of higher education systems is however quite clearly a matter
of Member States' national competence.
The European Commission is a full member in the Bologna
Process. It can stimulate Bologna initiatives at the European
level, for instance funding teams of Bologna experts in countries
to explain and promote the process to institutions or through
its student mobility programmes, such as Erasmus. Its Tempus programme
can also fund cooperation projects between EU and partner countries
in the areas of curriculum development and innovation, university
management, and structural reforms in higher education.
The Government agrees that the Bologna Process needs
to continue to operate outside the framework of the European Union,
not least because it involves 46 different European countries,
many of them from outside the European Union. It is crucial that
the process should complement the Commission's strategy for higher
education reform, which is all about making higher education systems
more flexible, more coherent and more responsive to the needs
of society.
There are also other issues which are key to making
higher education more competitive, but which are not strictly
speaking part of the Bologna Process. These include university
governance and autonomy, relationships with business and ensuring
sustainable funding from a variety of sources. The Commission
has a role in supporting EU Member States to address these too.
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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."
32. 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.
The Government is clear that the primary responsibility
for quality assurance and enhancement should rest with higher
education institutions themselves within a framework determined
by individual countries in line with national priorities. This
principle is now enshrined under the Bologna Process with an agreed
set of minimum standards and guidelines on quality assurance,
which apply across the whole European Higher Education Area. The
Government is pleased that the London Ministerial conference resulted
in the adoption of a proposal for a register of European quality
assurance agencies which are considered to be substantially meeting
the standards and guidelines. This will not be a pan-European
accreditation body and will not undermine country-level and institutional
autonomy with regards to quality assurance. It will however be
helpful in providing a list of credible quality assurance agencies
that meet the agreed European standards and guidelines for quality
assurance and help to deal with the problem of bogus agencies.
The register will be owned by the E4 group (the European University
Association (EUA), the European Association of Institutions in
Higher Education (EURASHE), the European Students Union (ESU)
and the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
(ENQA)) and will importantly be independent of governments.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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."
37. 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.
38. 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.
39. 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."
40. 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.
The Government believes that credit can be a useful
tool to enable transfer between programmes or institutions and
that it can assist in removing obstacles to academic mobility.
The Government commends the work of the Burgess Group and welcomes
its recommendation that the higher education sector should work
towards a national credit framework for England. The Burgess recommendations
also addressed the need to develop a national credit system that
could articulate with ECTS. The sector has now begun the process
of producing such a framework and the Government is encouraging
all institutions to credit rate their programmes as soon as possible
in line with the Burgess recommendations.
Whilst the Bologna Process does not explicitly require
use of ECTS, the fact is that it is used widely across Bologna
participating countries as a mechanism for both transfer and accumulation.
This suggests that any credit scheme that is used in a country
should at least be compatible with ECTS. There is nevertheless
agreement on the importance of learning outcomes and the need
to translate this from theory into practice. The Government's
view is that credit transfer therefore has to be about recognition
of learning outcomes. This means that, to create more transparency
about transfer, there needs to be a much clearer link between
credit and learning outcomes.
The Government therefore shares the concerns expressed
by the Committee and more widely in the sector that ECTS is not
explicitly underpinned by the learning outcomes approach, but
still retains a strong focus on workload. As there is widespread
agreement within the Bologna Process of the importance of learning
outcomes, the Government has raised this issue with the Commission,
including the 75 ECTS per calendar year reference in the User's
Guide, and emphasised the need to revisit the underlying approach
of the system so that ECTS better reflects learning outcomes rather
than simply the hours of study and student workload. The Government
would not however agree that learning outcomes alone should provide
the basis for the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications,
but would argue that there needs to be a better balance between
learning outcomes, workload and levels so that ECTS is better
able to function as an accumulation system.
The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher
Education met with Commissioner Figel during the London Ministerial
meeting to discuss the Government's concerns and the Secretary
of State for Education and Skills emphasised the importance of
learning outcomes underpinning both credit systems and qualifications
frameworks in his final address to the conference. The Committee
will wish to note that the Commission is planning a meeting with
Member State officials in late June to address the development
of ECTS and that the UK HE Europe Unit is to lobby the Commission
prior to that meeting.
41. 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.
The framework for higher education qualifications
in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, published in January 2001,
identified the requirement that all Masters degrees, including
those awarded for integrated programmes that include and build
upon undergraduate study, should be demonstrably above that of
a Bachelors degree with honours. These programmes are not simply
to be longer than a Bachelors degree but must meet the learning
outcomes ascribed to Masters level qualifications.
In addition, the UK has consistently argued within
the Bologna Process for an approach that ensures that credit for
assessing the equivalence of learning achieved by an individual
is based on learning outcomes rather than simply on course duration.
This approach has gained widespread acceptance and the Bergen
communiqué re-emphasised its importance by adopting the
Framework for Qualifications in the EHEA, comprising generic descriptors
for each cycle based on learning outcomes that focus on credit
ranges rather than time periods.
Nevertheless, the Government is aware that there
continue to be concerns about the compatibility of one year Masters
and four-year integrated Masters with the Bologna Process. The
Government however is clear that such concerns are unfounded.
There is no definition of the second cycle course
length within the Bologna Process. Provided that 12 month taught
Masters and four-year integrated Masters courses meet the Bologna
requirements for learning outcomes and credit ranges, there is
no reason to suggest that they cannot be compatible with the Bologna
principles. The Framework for Qualifications of Higher Education
Institutions in Scotland, which includes 12 month taught Masters
and integrated Masters, has been certified against the Bologna
Framework for Qualifications of the European Higher Education
Area.
The UK HE Europe Unit published a note for institutions
in 2005 which provided advice on the compatibility of such courses
and the Bologna Process. It is important that institutions offering
such courses ensure that they genuinely do meet the Bologna requirements
in terms of learning outcomes and credit ranges and so receive
appropriate recognition.
42. 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.
43. 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.
The Government welcomes the Committee's findings
on the doctoral cycle. It agrees that the value and importance
of professional doctorates should be upheld as 'real' doctorates,
and that the use of ECTS should not be extended to the doctoral
cycle. It is pleased that the Bologna Process has recognised the
diversity of existing doctorate programmes, including part-time
doctoral level study, and that durations vary. The Government
believes that it will be important for institutions to engage
with their European counterparts to promote a better understanding
of what different qualifications entail and represent.
44. 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.
Foundation Degrees are an important part of the commitment
to a culture of lifelong learning. The Government is clear that
Foundation Degrees are compatible with the Bologna Process. The
Bergen communiqué specifically provided for the possibility
of intermediate qualifications such as Foundation Degrees within
national HE systems. Allowing Further Education institutions to
apply for the power to award Foundation Degrees will not alter
or undermine the status of the Foundation Degree as a Higher Education
qualification.
45. 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.
Accelerated two year degrees are currently being
piloted as part of a wider focus on flexible learning and delivery.
They are delivered over two full calendar years, continuing throughout
the traditional summer holiday periods. The pilots are subject
to the same university validation and quality assurance processes,
deliver the same learning outcomes and would attract the same
number of credits under the new proposed credit framework for
England as similar 3-year Bachelor degrees. This is a novel and
flexible way of delivering a first cycle qualification. It will
be important that those institutions taking part in the pilot
engage with their counterparts in other countries to promote a
better understanding of the learning outcomes associated with
such programmes.
46. 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.
The UK was a member of the working group that has
taken forward work on the social dimension over the last two years.
The Government believes that the social dimension (i.e. that higher
education is open to all sections of society) is an important
part of the Bologna Process and welcomes the fact that Ministers
agreed at the London conference that strategies in this area are
a matter for national governments. The Government will continue
to work together with the sector to play an active part in the
ongoing development of work in this area.
47. 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.
The Government continues to believe that a system
of host country funding is inappropriate because of the disproportionate
costs that this would entail for the UK as the largest net importer
of EU students. The Committee may wish to note that it is in fact
the home country principle that is preferred by EU Member States.
The Government welcomes the fact that Ministers agreed at the
London conference that a network of national experts should be
set up to share information and help to identify and overcome
obstacles to the portability of grants and loans.
48. 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.
The UK HE Europe Unit is a body financed by the higher
education sector and therefore independent of government. The
Government agrees that the UK HE Europe Unit has an important
role to play in both raising awareness of the opportunities and
challenges of the Bologna Process and in helping the sector to
implement the key tools. The Government will continue to work
closely with the Europe Unit as the process moves towards 2010.
49. 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.
The Government believes that it maintains a good
close working relationship with the sector and representative
bodies, such as the UK HE Europe Unit. The Department for Education
and Skills appreciates the opportunities that both the High Level
Policy Forum and the European Co-ordinating Group provide for
discussion about key Bologna issues. Both these mechanisms are
effective channels for communication and provide a proactive and
positive way of working. The Department hopes that they will continue
to operate as the process develops further.
50. 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.
51. 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.
The Government welcomes the Committee's recommendation
that all institutions should issue Diploma Supplements to all
graduates. The Government continues to promote the key role of
the Diploma Supplement in underpinning the principle of easily
readable and comparable degrees. The Minister for Lifelong Learning,
Further and Higher Education wrote to every institution on 4 May
2007 to encourage them to ensure that they issue the Diploma Supplement
automatically to all their graduating students.
The term 'Diploma Supplement' is a recognisable
and widely used term across the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA). The Government does not believe therefore that altering
the name of the document would facilitate greater mutual understanding,
but would be more likely to hinder such understanding across the
countries of the EHEA and create confusion.
52. The UK must take full advantage of the opportunity
afforded by this year's London Ministerial meeting to seek greater
clarity among participating countries concerning the respective
roles of their Ministers and of their higher education institutions
in advancing the Bologna Process.
53. The UK should make it clear, both within the
UK HE sector and across the European Higher Education Area, that
whilst policy initiatives in this field are necessarily the responsibility
of Government, operational decisions will continue to rest with
institutions and will need to be discussed, stimulated and evaluated
within the sector.
The Government believes that its main role is to
create the framework in which higher education operates so as
to ensure that it provides the high level of skills and knowledge
needed for society as a whole to meet the challenges of globalisation
as well as to develop individuals so that they are best able to
maximise their opportunities in this modern society. The main
responsibility for implementation is essentially a matter for
the sector itself. This balance of responsibilities is becoming
increasingly recognised under the Bologna Process as the importance
of institutional autonomy grows.
54. It is in the interests of higher education
in the United Kingdom, and of the government, institutions, agencies,
staff and students directly involved in funding, providing and
managing such education, as well as those of employers and of
the wider society, for the United Kingdom to continue to be actively
involved as a lead partner in the Bologna Process.
The Government welcomes the Committee's conclusions
and in particular that the Committee has recognised the importance
of the process and that it is vital for the UK to continue to
be fully involved.
55. We welcome the emphasis that we believe UK
representatives at the London Ministerial Meeting intend to place
on the importance of the voluntary principle in the development
of the Bologna Process. We agree that there is a need to maintain
a flexible and varied pattern of awards and qualifications across
the European Higher Education Area, within which compatibility
will be underpinned by effective within country quality assurance
systems.
The Government would refer the Committee to the comments
it has made in response to the Committee's conclusion 8.
56. The European Commission, and the European
Community more broadly, play an important and welcome role in
the Bologna Process. In considering evidence submitted to this
inquiry, however, the expanding role of the European Commission
in the Process has become our greatest concern. It is crucial
to the success of the Bologna Process that it remains outside
the framework of the EC. We agree with the Minister that the role
of the European Commission must be appropriately circumscribed
and recommend this be sought at the London Summit in May.
The Government has set out its view of the Commission's
important role in response to the Committee's conclusions 23 to
28.
57. We regard the creation of a European Higher
Education Area as a continuing project, capable of yielding benefits
at each stage of its development, and one to which adequate time
must be given if the necessary basis of trust is to be established
and understanding are to be both strong and sustainable.
The Government agrees that the creation of the EHEA
is an ongoing project and that, given the number of partners involved,
it is a significant task that will take time. The UK will continue
to support the process and work in partnership to develop an EHEA
based on institutional autonomy and diversity.
18 May 2007
London
Communiqué
Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding
to challenges in a globalised world
1. Introduction
1.1 We, the Ministers responsible for Higher
Education in the countries participating in the Bologna Process,
have met in London to review progress made since we convened in
Bergen in 2005.
1.2 Based on our agreed criteria for country
membership, we welcome the Republic of Montenegro as a member
of the Bologna Process.
1.3 Developments over the last two years have
brought us a significant step closer to the realisation of the
European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Building on our rich and
diverse European cultural heritage, we are developing an EHEA
based on institutional autonomy, academic freedom, equal opportunities
and democratic principles that will facilitate mobility, increase
employability and strengthen Europe's attractiveness and competitiveness.
As we look ahead, we recognise that, in a changing world, there
will be a continuing need to adapt our higher education systems,
to ensure that the EHEA remains competitive and can respond effectively
to the challenges of globalisation. In the short term, we appreciate
that implementing the Bologna reforms is a significant task, and
appreciate the continuing support and commitment of all partners
in the process. We welcome the contribution of the working groups
and seminars in helping to drive forward progress. We agree to
continue to work together in partnership, assisting one another
in our efforts and promoting the exchange of good practice.
1.4 We reaffirm our commitment to increasing
the compatibility and comparability of our higher education systems,
whilst at the same time respecting their diversity. We recognise
the important influence higher education institutions (HEIs) exert
on developing our societies, based on their traditions as centres
of learning, research, creativity and knowledge transfer as well
as their key role in defining and transmitting the values on which
our societies are built. Our aim is to ensure that our HEIs have
the necessary resources to continue to fulfil their full range
of purposes. Those purposes include: preparing students for life
as active citizens in a democratic society; preparing students
for their future careers and enabling their personal development;
creating and maintaining a broad, advanced knowledge base; and
stimulating research and innovation.
1.5 We therefore underline the importance of
strong institutions, which are diverse, adequately funded, autonomous
and accountable. The principles of non-discrimination and equitable
access should be respected and promoted throughout the EHEA. We
commit to upholding these principles and to ensuring that neither
students nor staff suffer discrimination of any kind.
2. PROGRESS TOWARDS THE EHEA
2.1 Our stocktaking report, along with EUA's
Trends V report, ESIB's Bologna With Student Eyes
and Eurydice's Focus on the Structure of Higher Education in
Europe, confirms that there has been good overall progress
in the last two years. There is an increasing awareness that a
significant outcome of the process will be a move towards student-centred
higher education and away from teacher driven provision. We will
continue to support this important development.
Mobility
2.2 Mobility of staff, students and graduates
is one of the core elements of the Bologna Process, creating opportunities
for personal growth, developing international cooperation between
individuals and institutions, enhancing the quality of higher
education and research, and giving substance to the European dimension.
2.3 Some progress has been made since 1999, but
many challenges remain. Among the obstacles to mobility, issues
relating to immigration, recognition, insufficient financial incentives
and inflexible pension arrangements feature prominently. We recognise
the responsibility of individual Governments to facilitate the
delivery of visas, residence and work permits, as appropriate.
Where these measures are outside our competence as Ministers for
Higher Education, we undertake to work within our respective Governments
for decisive progress in this area. At national level, we will
work to implement fully the agreed recognition tools and procedures
and consider ways of further incentivising mobility for both staff
and students. This includes encouraging a significant increase
in the number of joint programmes and the creation of flexible
curricula, as well as urging our institutions to take greater
responsibility for staff and student mobility, more equitably
balanced between countries across the EHEA.
Degree structure
2.4 Good progress is being made at national and
institutional levels towards our goal of an EHEA based on a three-cycle
degree system. The number of students enrolled on courses in the
first two-cycles has increased significantly and there has been
a reduction in structural barriers between cycles. Similarly,
there has been an increase in the number of structured doctoral
programmes. We underline the importance of curricula reform leading
to qualifications better suited both to the needs of the labour
market and to further study. Efforts should concentrate in future
on removing barriers to access and progression between cycles
and on proper implementation of ECTS based on learning outcomes
and student workload. We underline the importance of improving
graduate employability, whilst noting that data gathering on this
issue needs to be developed further.
Recognition
2.5 Fair recognition of higher education qualifications,
periods of study and prior learning, including the recognition
of non-formal and informal learning, are essential components
of the EHEA, both internally and in a global context. Easily readable
and comparable degrees and accessible information on educational
systems and qualifications frameworks are prerequisites for citizens'
mobility and ensuring the continuing attractiveness and competitiveness
of the EHEA. While we are pleased that 38 members of the
Bologna Process, including Montenegro, have now ratified the Council
of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the recognition of qualifications
concerning Higher Education in the European region (Lisbon Recognition
Convention), we urge the remaining members to do so as a matter
of priority.
2.6 There has been progress in the implementation
of the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC), ECTS and diploma supplements,
but the range of national and institutional approaches to recognition
needs to be more coherent. To improve recognition practices, we
therefore ask the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG) to arrange for
the ENIC/NARIC networks to analyse our national action plans and
spread good practice.
Qualifications Frameworks
2.7 Qualifications frameworks are important instruments
in achieving comparability and transparency within the EHEA and
facilitating the movement of learners within, as well as between,
higher education systems. They should also help HEIs to develop
modules and study programmes based on learning outcomes and credits,
and improve the recognition of qualifications as well as all forms
of prior learning.
2.8 We note that some initial progress has been
made towards the implementation of national qualifications frameworks,
but that much more effort is required. We commit ourselves to
fully implementing such national qualifications frameworks, certified
against the overarching Framework for Qualifications of the EHEA,
by 2010. Recognising that this is a challenging task, we ask the
Council of Europe to support the sharing of experience in the
elaboration of national qualifications frameworks. We emphasise
that qualification frameworks should be designed so as to encourage
greater mobility of students and teachers and improve employability.
2.9 We are satisfied that national qualifications
frameworks compatible with the overarching Framework for Qualifications
of the EHEA will also be compatible with the proposal from the
European Commission on a European Qualifications Framework for
Lifelong Learning.
2.10 We see the overarching Framework for Qualifications
of the EHEA, which we agreed in Bergen, as a central element of
the promotion of European higher education in a global context.
Lifelong Learning
2.11 The stocktaking report shows that some elements
of flexible learning exist in most countries, but a more systematic
development of flexible learning paths to support lifelong learning
is at an early stage. We therefore ask BFUG to increase the sharing
of good practice and to work towards a common understanding of
the role of higher education in lifelong learning. Only in a small
number of EHEA countries could the recognition of prior learning
for access and credits be said to be well developed. Working in
cooperation with ENIC/NARIC, we invite BFUG to develop proposals
for improving the recognition of prior learning.
Quality Assurance and a European Register of Quality
Assurance Agencies
2.12 The Standards and Guidelines for Quality
Assurance in the EHEA adopted in Bergen (ESG) have been a powerful
driver of change in relation to quality assurance. All countries
have started to implement them and some have made substantial
progress. External quality assurance in particular is much better
developed than before. The extent of student involvement at all
levels has increased since 2005, although improvement is still
necessary. Since the main responsibility for quality lies with
HEIs, they should continue to develop their systems of quality
assurance. We acknowledge the progress made with regard to mutual
recognition of accreditation and quality assurance decisions,
and encourage continued international cooperation amongst quality
assurance agencies.
2.13 The first European Quality Assurance Forum,
jointly organised by EUA, ENQA, EURASHE and ESIB (the E4 Group)
in 2006 provided an opportunity to discuss European developments
in quality assurance. We encourage the four organisations to continue
to organise European Quality Assurance Fora on an annual basis,
to facilitate the sharing of good practice and ensure that quality
in the EHEA continues to improve.
2.14 We thank the E4 Group for responding to
our request to further develop the practicalities of setting up
a Register of European Higher Education Quality Assurance Agencies.
The purpose of the register is to allow all stakeholders and the
general public open access to objective information about trustworthy
quality assurance agencies that are working in line with the ESG.
It will therefore enhance confidence in higher education in the
EHEA and beyond, and facilitate the mutual recognition of quality
assurance and accreditation decisions. We welcome the establishment
of a register by the E4 group, working in partnership, based on
their proposed operational model. The register will be voluntary,
self-financing, independent and transparent. Applications for
inclusion on the register should be evaluated on the basis of
substantial compliance with the ESG, evidenced through an independent
review process endorsed by national authorities, where this endorsement
is required by those authorities. We ask the E4 group to report
progress to us regularly through BFUG, and to ensure that after
two years of operation, the register is evaluated externally,
taking account of the views of all stakeholders.
Doctoral candidates
2.15 Closer alignment of the EHEA with the European
Research Area (ERA) remains an important objective. We recognise
the value of developing and maintaining a wide variety of doctoral
programmes linked to the overarching qualifications framework
for the EHEA, whilst avoiding overregulation. At the same time,
we appreciate that enhancing provision in the third cycle and
improving the status, career prospects and funding for early stage
researchers are essential preconditions for meeting Europe's objectives
of strengthening research capacity and improving the quality and
competitiveness of European higher education.
2.16 We therefore invite our HEIs to reinforce
their efforts to embed doctoral programmes in institutional strategies
and policies, and to develop appropriate career paths and opportunities
for doctoral candidates and early stage researchers.
2.17 We invite EUA to continue to support the
sharing of experience among HEIs on the range of innovative doctoral
programmes that are emerging across Europe as well as on other
crucial issues such as transparent access arrangements, supervision
and assessment procedures, the development of transferable skills
and ways of enhancing employability. We will look for appropriate
opportunities to encourage greater exchange of information on
funding and other issues between our Governments as well as with
other research funding bodies.
Social dimension
2.18 Higher education should play a strong role
in fostering social cohesion, reducing inequalities and raising
the level of knowledge, skills and competences in society. Policy
should therefore aim to maximise the potential of individuals
in terms of their personal development and their contribution
to a sustainable and democratic knowledge-based society. We share
the societal aspiration that the student body entering, participating
in and completing higher education at all levels should reflect
the diversity of our populations. We reaffirm the importance of
students being able to complete their studies without obstacles
related to their social and economic background. We therefore
continue our efforts to provide adequate student services, create
more flexible learning pathways into and within higher education,
and to widen participation at all levels on the basis of equal
opportunity.
The European Higher Education Area in a global
context
2.19 We are pleased that in many parts of the
world, the Bologna reforms have created considerable interest
and stimulated discussion between European and international partners
on a range of issues. These include the recognition of qualifications,
the benefits of cooperation based upon partnership, mutual trust
and understanding, and the underlying values of the Bologna Process.
Moreover, we acknowledge that efforts have been made in some countries
in other parts of the world to bring their higher education systems
more closely into line with the Bologna framework.
2.20 We adopt the strategy "The European
Higher Education Area in a Global Setting" and will take
forward work in the core policy areas: improving information on,
and promoting the attractiveness and competitiveness of the EHEA;
strengthening cooperation based on partnership; intensifying policy
dialogue; and improving recognition. This work ought to be seen
in relation to the OECD/UNESCO Guidelines for Quality Provision
in Cross-border Higher Education.
3. PRIORITIES FOR 2009
3.1 Over the next two years, we agree to concentrate
on completing agreed Action Lines, including the ongoing priorities
of the three-cycle degree system, quality assurance and recognition
of degrees and study periods. We will focus in particular on the
following areas for action.
Mobility
3.2 In our national reports for 2009, we will
report on action taken at national level to promote the mobility
of students and staff, including measures for future evaluation.
We will focus on the main national challenges identified in paragraph
2.3 above. We also agree to set up a network of national experts
to share information, and help to identify and overcome obstacles
to the portability of grants and loans.
Social Dimension
3.3 Similarly, we will report on our national
strategies and policies for the social dimension, including action
plans and measures to evaluate their effectiveness. We will invite
all stakeholders to participate in, and support this work, at
the national level.
Data collection
3.4 We recognise the need to improve the availability
of data on both mobility and the social dimension across all the
countries participating in the Bologna Process. We therefore ask
the European Commission (Eurostat), in conjunction with Eurostudent,
to develop comparable and reliable indicators and data to measure
progress towards the overall objective for the social dimension
and student and staff mobility in all Bologna countries. Data
in this field should cover participative equity in higher education
as well as employability for graduates. This task should be carried
out in conjunction with BFUG and a report should be submitted
to our 2009 Ministerial conference.
Employability
3.5 Following up on the introduction of the three-cycle
degree system, we ask BFUG to consider in more detail how to improve
employability in relation to each of these cycles as well as in
the context of lifelong learning. This will involve the responsibilities
of all stakeholders. Governments and HEIs will need to communicate
more with employers and other stakeholders on the rationale for
their reforms. We will work, as appropriate, within our governments
to ensure that employment and career structures within the public
service are fully compatible with the new degree system. We urge
institutions to further develop partnerships and cooperation with
employers in the ongoing process of curriculum innovation based
on learning outcomes.
The European Higher Education Area in a global
context
3.6 We ask BFUG to report back to us on overall
developments in this area at the European, national and institutional
levels by 2009. All stakeholders have a role here within their
spheres of responsibility. In reporting on the implementation
of the strategy for the EHEA in a global context, BFUG should
in particular give consideration to two priorities. First, to
improve the information available about the EHEA, by developing
the Bologna Secretariat website and building on EUA's Bologna
Handbook; and second, to improve recognition. We call on HEIs,
ENIC/NARIC centres and other competent recognition authorities
within the EHEA to assess qualifications from other parts of the
world with the same open mind with which they would expect European
qualifications to be assessed elsewhere, and to base this recognition
on the principles of the LRC.
Stocktaking
3.7 We ask BFUG to continue the stocktaking process,
based on national reports, in time for our 2009 Ministerial conference.
We expect further development of the qualitative analysis in stocktaking,
particularly in relation to mobility, the Bologna Process in a
global context and the social dimension. The fields covered by
stocktaking should continue to include the degree system and employability
of graduates, recognition of degrees and study periods and implementation
of all aspects of quality assurance in line with the ESG. With
a view to the development of more student-centred, outcome-based
learning, the next exercise should also address in an integrated
way national qualifications frameworks, learning outcomes and
credits, lifelong learning, and the recognition of prior learning.
4. LOOKING FORWARD TO 2010 AND BEYOND
4.1 As the EHEA continues to develop and respond
to the challenges of globalisation, we anticipate that the need
for collaboration will continue beyond 2010.
4.2 We are determined to seize 2010, which will
mark the passage from the Bologna Process to the EHEA, as an opportunity
to reaffirm our commitment to higher education as a key element
in making our societies sustainable, at national as well as at
European level. We will take 2010 as an opportunity to reformulate
the vision that motivated us in setting the Bologna Process in
motion in 1999 and to make the case for an EHEA underpinned by
values and visions that go beyond issues of structures and tools.
We undertake to make 2010 an opportunity to reset our higher education
systems on a course that looks beyond the immediate issues and
makes them fit to take up the challenges that will determine our
future.
4.3 We ask BFUG as a whole to consider further
how the EHEA might develop after 2010 and to report back to the
next ministerial meeting in 2009. This should include proposals
for appropriate support structures, bearing in mind that the current
informal collaborative arrangements are working well and have
brought about unprecedented change.
4.4 Building on previous stocktaking exercises,
Trends, and Bologna With Student Eyes, we invite
BFUG to consider for 2010 the preparation of a report including
an independent assessment, in partnership with the consultative
members, evaluating the overall progress of the Bologna Process
across the EHEA since 1999.
4.5 We delegate the decision on the nature, content
and place of any Ministerial meeting in 2010 to BFUG, to be taken
within the first half of 2008.
4.6 Our next meeting will be hosted by the Benelux
countries in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve on 28-29 April 2009.
