The Bologna Declaration: Enhancing the ...

Higher Education in Europe, Vol. XXV, No. 3, 2000

The Bologna Declaration: Enhancing the Transparency and Competitiveness of European Higher Education1 MARIJK C. VAN DER WENDE

In June 1999, the Ministers of Education of some thirty European countries signed the “Bologna Declaration”. Its aim is to establish the European area of higher education and to promote the European system of higher education in the world. It proposes the adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees, the establishment of a system of credits, and the elimination of all remaining obstacles to free mobility. This article discusses the potential importance of this Declaration for both the comparability and the competitiveness of European higher education. Particular attention will be paid to the role of the various stakeholders in the process and the possible implications for quality assurance and accreditation systems.

INTRODUCTION The newly elected President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, expressed an ambition to restore the premier position in the world of Europe as a destination for overseas study, a position which it lost to the United States (Prodi, 1999). His view is that, like the worldwide attractiveness of the very diverse cultural landscape of Europe, the diversity of higher education should make Europe an attractive place to study. He underlined that Europe should not always try to enhance its competitive position by copying American models and policies, but rather by promoting the richness of the diversity of its higher education systems and institutions. The same objectives are also to be found in the so-called “Bologna Declaration” (even though the latter came into existence before Mr. Prodi’s presidency). This Declaration states that: We must look with special attention at the objective to increase the international competitiveness of the European system of higher education. The vitality and ef ciency of any civilization is measured, in fact, by the attraction that its cultural system exerts on other countries. We need to ensure that the European system of higher education acquires in the world a degree of attraction equal to our extraordinary cultural and scienti c traditions (p. 2). However, the proposed approach here is less romantic than Romano Prodi’s ideas and more pragmatic in the sense that an increased transparency (i.e., a reduction of diversity) is suggested. The proposed structure is that of the Anglo-Saxon undergraduate and postgraduate degree system.

THE BOLOGNA DECLARATION The Bologna Declaration states that in order to establish the European area of higher education and to promote the European system of higher education in the world, the following objectives will have to be attained: 1 A different version of this article was published in the Journal of Studies in International Education 4 2(2000): 3–10.

ISSN 0379-7724 print/ISSN 1469-8358 online/00/030305-06 Ó DOI: 10.1080/03797720020015890

2000 UNESCO

306

M . C. VAN DER WENDE

—adoption of a system of degrees that are easily readable and comparable in order to promote the employability of European citizens and the international competitiveness of the European system of higher education; —adoption of a system based on two cycles, the rst, three years in duration at least, recognized in the European labour market and in the higher education system as an adequate level of quali cation; —establishment of a system of credits, i.e., development of the European Credit Transfer System as well as credit for experimental learning and learning in non-higher education contexts, provided that such credit is recognized by the university system as a proper means to favour the most wide and diffused student mobility; —elimination of the remaining obstacles to the effective exercise of the right to free mobility and equal treatment with particular regard to: —student access to all services relating to education; —the recognition and valorization for teachers, researchers, and administrative staff of periods spent in a European context doing research, teaching, and/or training, without prejudice to their rights to pensions and social security bene ts; —promotion of criteria and methodologies for quality assessment; —implementation of the necessary European dimensions of the higher education space, particularly with regard to curricular contents, inter-institutional co-operation, mobility schemes, and integrated programmes of study, training, and research. Actions for the attainment of these objectives are planned for the short term and, in any case, within the rst decade of the third millennium and in full respect of the diversity of cultures, languages, national education systems, and of university autonomy. To that purpose, ways of intergovernmental co-operation (when applicable on the basis of the subsidiarity principle) will be pursued. The Bologna Declaration was named after the city in which the Conference on “The European Higher Education Area” took place. It was signed in June 1999 by the Ministers of Education of some thirty European countries. It was a follow-up to the Sorbonne Declaration that had been presented in May 1998 on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of the University of Paris. This Declaration on the harmonization of the architecture of the European higher education system was signed by the education ministers of France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, who called on other Member States of the European Union and on other European countries to join them in this initiative.

HARMONIZATION AND THE POLITICAL REALITY OF EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION Unlike what many people from other regions in the world may think, the role of the European Union in the eld of higher education—and in that of education in general—is extremely limited. The limitation relates to the so-called Subsidiarity Principle, which implies that in the areas which do not belong to the exclusive competence of the Community (e.g., education), community policy will only be developed in areas in which national policy-making is insuf cient (Article 3b of the Maastricht Treaty). In the case of education, the result is that community action will contribute to the quality of education by encouraging co-operation among the Member States and by supporting and complementing their actions if necessary. If the latter occurs, it will be with the full respect of the sovereignty of Member States with respect to the content and structure of their educational systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity (Article 126 of the Maastricht Treaty).

THE BOLOGNA DECLARATION

307

These limitations, and the political sensitivities of the Member States regarding Commission proposals on issues such as educational content, quality, and structure, gave rise to a situation whereby the idea of harmonization was an avoided area in the European debate on higher education. A proposal for the harmonization of systems could therefore only arise at the level of national governments. When such a proposal nally came, it was nevertheless quite unexpected. In the Sorbonne Declaration, the idea of harmonization referred to the architecture of the European higher education system, to the overall framework of degrees and cycles, and not to the content or structure of curricula. And although the word “harmonization”, as such, does not appear in the Bologna Declaration (only “convergence” is mentioned), there is still a great deal of discussion and misunderstanding about this concept. Misunderstanding is to some extent understandable, since the Bologna Declaration includes a somewhat vague paragraph on “European dimensions of the higher education space, particularly with regard to curricular contents …”. Moreover, the background documents prepared for the Bologna meeting suggest that the change in the degree system should be more than a mere re-packaging of existing curricula. Thus, the introduction of new curricula with a guaranteed level and formal accreditation (“European quality labels”) was proposed (Haug, 1999). Sceptics of Europeanization are obviously alerted by phrases of this sort, even though any real fear of a top-down driven imposition of European contents and standards would not be justi ed by the political reality of European higher education. Bottom-up forces can only drive the process. Inter-institutional co-operation and national-level governmental action will be crucial, since it is the individual Member States of the Europe Union and a large number of other European countries that signed the Declaration. They did not thereby grant any new or extra authority to the European Commission for the implementation of the European higher education space. Subsidiarity thus remains the guiding principle. The importance of actors at national and institutional levels in the process is underlined by the fact that the introduction of a Bachelor’s degree/Master’s degree structure had already taken place in several European countries (e.g., Germany, Finland, and Denmark) before the Sorbonne and Bologna Declarations had been signed. Moreover, a willingness to increase the transparency of European higher education was already an issue in national agendas for other reasons. In some cases, the motivating factor was a wish to attract an increased number of foreign students (from beyond Europe); in others, to reduce drop-out rates and the costs of student support by offering shorter degree programmes. The willingness of institutions to adopt such reforms is another crucial factor. Experiences have been more positive in countries in which the institutions concerned felt that the changes enhanced their status (e.g., the Fachhochschulen of Germany), or enabled them to better compete for students than in countries in which the institutions were opposed, for instance, in Denmark (Beverwijk and van der Maat, 1999).

CONVERGENCE OF EXISTING HIGHER EDUCATION STRUCTURES The concept of convergence also needs some further exploration. A background study, which was carried out in preparation for the Bologna meeting and commissioned by the European Commission, included a survey of existing European higher education structures. It concluded that at present there are even more structures than countries in Europe. In some cases, there were up to a hundred different academic quali cations found within one single country. It was pointed out, in this respect, that “a potential European framework of

308


quali cations cannot be less complicated then the most complicated of the national systems included in it” (Haug, p. 2). Furthermore, it was found that there is in fact no convergence in Europe towards a three-year undergraduate type of degree. Bachelor-types of degree programmes tend to vary in duration between three and four years. There is, however, a high degree of convergence towards duration of about ve years for Master’s degree-level studies; however, there is no eight-year standard duration for doctoral degree programmes. The conclusion was that a rigid uniform model would not be desirable or feasible for Europe, but that the following could serve as a broad frame of common reference: —First degree level of between three or four years of ECTS credits; —Master’s degree level of about ve years of ECTS credits; —Doctoral level: variable (about seven to eight years in total). The proposed structure corresponds to recent reforms undertaken in Germany and Austria in which new Bachelor’s degree/Master’s degree curricula have been introduced alongside existing programmes, and with developments in such countries as Italy, France, Finland, Denmark, and The Netherlands. However, it should be remembered that in many of these countries there are still huge differences between the of cial and the real duration of studies (many students take seven years to complete a four- or ve-year curriculum). Besides, the model does not pay any attention to the large number of higher education students (e.g., in further education) who are enrolled in all types of short courses with a duration of between one and two years.

Harmonization and the Diversi cation of Higher Education The existence, and in some cases the introduction (e.g., Austria), of a binary system and the fact that the Bachelor’s degree/Master’s degree structure has been introduced in some countries alongside the existing system, imply an increasing diversity in the higher education systems. But also, other forces create an increasing diversi cation of higher education curricula. In particular, the diversifying student population (more adult learners), the lifelong learning agenda, and the need for more exibility lead to an increasing diversi cation of quali cations. This result seems to be in con ict with the harmonization effort. Consequently, compatibility is probably the greatest challenge: serving the increasingly diversifying needs within the system while ensuring compatibility at the supranational level. Such an effort calls for sophisticated credit transfer and accumulation systems reaching from pre-tertiary to postgraduate level, which are not yet always in place at the national level. The question of compatibility also demonstrates the importance of co-ordination at the national level as well as at the European level.

The Socio-economic Context and the Role of the Various Actors It should be borne in mind that the rst purpose of the new system of degrees is to promote the employability of European citizens (see above). The current 10 percent unemployment rate in the European Union and the low level of labour market mobility present a clear rationale for such an effort, for the current situation reduces the competitiveness of Europe in the global economy. One of the main obstacles to mobility is the diversity of quali cations and the lack of transparency. Potential employers, who wish to recruit from other Member States or throughout the European Union as a whole, are rarely in a position to make valid

THE BOLOGNA DECLARATION

309

comparisons of quali cations. It was found that the existing conventions on the recognition of academic degrees and the structure of European information and recognition centres (the NARICs and ENICs) do not focus suf ciently on the effectus civilus of degrees and are thus insuf cient in linking intellectual power to employability. Therefore, another main challenge of the Bologna initiative will be to move beyond academic recognition towards competence appraisal, as employability rather than instruction is becoming the keyword for the development of a competitive Europe (Barblan, 1999). This effort calls for the active involvement of labour market partners, employers, and professional organizations, and their future employees, the students, in the process. Only such a broad involvement of non-academic actors in the implementation process can make the initiative a success.

INCREASED TRANSPARENCY FOR MORE INTERNATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS The second purpose of the new degree system is to increase the international competitiveness of the European system of higher education. This objective is based on the regrettable fact that Europe has lost its number one position in the world as a destination for study abroad. Another motive is the threat that is felt from non-traditional and non-European providers of higher education that enter the European market, by means of branch-campuses, virtual universities, and the like. Increased transparency would, in principle, enhance the position of Europe on the world market for higher education. However, it is not yet clear to what extent this really represents a European concern. The European Commission has so far not demonstrated any systematic interest in the balance of student ows from and to the European Union as a whole. Adequate statistics are not available. The focus has been, hitherto, on intra-European mobility. Activity here will also depend strongly on the interests and initiatives of individual European countries. Some of them have already demonstrated a strong interest in attracting students from beyond Europe, e.g., the United Kingdom and, more recently, also, The Netherlands, Germany, and France. Other countries, however, are still facing a dearth of places for their own students. These countries (e.g., Greece) are exporters of students. Another important issue that is related to the capacity of a country to attract foreign students is the language of instruction. The countries mentioned above either have a lingua franca as their mother tongue, or are willing to adopt such a language for certain courses. Consequently, the success of the Bologna initiative in increasing the competitiveness of European higher education in terms of attracting more students from beyond Europe will depend strongly on the convergence of national agendas and initiatives and on the responsiveness of higher education institutions to this convergence.

Implications for Quality Assurance and Accreditation The Bologna Declaration includes a phrase on “the promotion of criteria and methodologies for quality assessment”. The European Commission, in the recent past, aimed at initiating co-operation in this area, as has been the case in certain EU countries. In some of these, systems for quality assurance have not yet been (fully) developed, while in other countries sophisticated systems are in place. Community action has not been very successful so far in this area. Aside from cultural and system differences, national governments consider quality assurance to be one of their core responsibilities. The introduction of a more convergent degree system would, however, lead immediately

310


to a need for comparable quality standards and, according to many experts, for the setting of minimum standards or requirements for the envisaged degree levels. It can therefore be expected that in the coming years the Bologna initiative will bring accreditation to the centre of the higher education debate in Europe. For the time being, bottom-up initiatives are driving developments in this area. The introduction of Bachelor’s degree/Master’s degree programmes in Germany has led to the initiative to establish an accreditation council. Comparable proposals are currently being developed in The Netherlands. The government of the latter country envisages co-operation with Germany and probably the United Kingdom in this respect. Other demonstrations of bottom-up initiatives are coming from European professional organizations and from networks of European higher education institutions. In addition, international accreditation is nding its way in Europe (e.g., ABET accreditation). Therefore, one can only conclude at this point that multiple accreditation will become more widespread in Europe. Also, with regard to accreditation, the clients and customers of higher education, i.e., students and employers, will play an important role. It is therefore signi cant to mention that the rst European conference on the impact of the Bologna Declaration on the accreditation of higher education in Europe was organized by the National Students Unions of Europe (ESIB) with the sponsorship of one of the leading consultancy rms in the world. The conference announcement stated the importance of co-operation among governments, higher education institutions, employers, and students in the process.

REFERENCES BARBLAN, A. The Sorbonne Declaration—Follow-up and Implications: A Personal View. Geneva: Association of European Universities/CRE, 1999. BEVERWIJK, J., and VAN DER MAAT, L. “Introducing the Undergraduate–Graduate Structure: Reforming, Adding, and Renaming”, Paper presented at the 21st EAIR Conference, Lund, August 1999 (unpublished). HAUG, G., “Trends and Issues in Learning Structures in Higher Education in Europe”, Background paper commissioned by the European Commission DG XXII for the Bologna Meeting of 18–19 June 1999 (unpublished). PRODI, R. Idea dell’ Europa. Rome: Il Mulino, 1999.