Presentation on theme: "Bergen Communiqué – results and implications for quality assurance Christian Thune President, ENQA Presentation at ENQA workshop: "AFTER THE BERGEN MINISTERIAL."— Presentation transcript:
Bergen Communiqué – results and implications for quality assurance Christian Thune President, ENQA Presentation at ENQA workshop: "AFTER THE BERGEN MINISTERIAL MEETING: RESULTS AND STOCKTAKING ON SUBSIDIARITY AND CONVERGENCE", Paris, 9-10 June 2005
"Almost all countries have made provision for a quality assurance system based on the criteria set out in the Berlin Communiqué and with a high degree of cooperation and networking. However, there is still progress to be made, in particular as regards student involvement and international cooperation. Furthermore, we urge higher education institutions to continue their efforts to enhance the quality of their activities through the systematic introduction of internal mechanisms and their direct correlation to external quality assurance. We adopt the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area as proposed by ENQA." BERGEN COMMUNIQUÉ (third follow-up meeting of Bologna)
"We commit ourselves to introducing the proposed model for peer review of quality assurance agencies on a national basis, while respecting the commonly accepted guidelines and criteria. We underline the importance of cooperation between nationally recognised agencies with a view to enhancing the mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance decisions.... "We endorsethe follow-up structure set up in Bergen, with the inclusion of...the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA)...as new consultative member[s] of the Follow-Up Group. BERGEN COMMUNIQUÉ (2)
Basic premise: This is the beginning, not the end, of a process, and one size does not fit all. Results and recommendations: European standards for internal and external QA, and for external QA agencies; European QA agencies expected to submit themselves to a cyclical review within five years; Emphasis on subsidiarity with reviews taken nationally whenever possible; European register for QA agencies will be produced; European Consultative Forum will be established. MAIN POINTS IN ENQA REPORT
INTENDED OUTCOME Consistency of QA across the EHEA will be improved by the use of agreed standards and guidelines; HEIs and QA agencies in EHEA able to use common reference points for QA; European register makes it easier to identify professional and credible agencies; Exchange of viewpoints amongst agencies and stakeholders are enhanced through the European Consultative Forum; Procedures for qualification recognitions are strengthened; Move toward mutual recognition is assisted.
Challenges: Currently fundamental differences of view of the appropriate relationship that should be between governments, HEIs and external evaluators. Objective: The standards aim to ensure that the professionalism, credibility and integrity of the agencies are visible and transparent to their stakeholders and to permit comparability to be observable among the agencies and allow the necessary and agreed-upon European dimension. STANDARDS FOR AGENCIES
Standards for Higher Education Challenges: Governments, institutions of higher education and students often have quite different interests - e.g. high level of autonomy versus frequent inspections. Objective: The standards aim to improve the higher education available to students in the EHEA; to assist higher education institutions in managing and enhancing their quality and, thereby, to help to justify their institutional autonomy; to form a background for quality assurance agencies in their work; and to make external quality assurance more transparent and simpler to understand for everybody involved.
EUROPEAN REGISTER Mandate: "We welcome the principle of a European register of quality assurance agencies based on national review. We ask that the practicalities of implementation be further developed by ENQA in cooperation with EUA, EURASHE and ESIB with a report back to us through the Follow-Up Group." Purpose: identification of professional QA agencies without ranking; increase transparency and comparability.
PROPOSED REGISTER STRUCTURE ReviewedNot reviewed Compliance with European Standards Non- compliance with European Standards European national agencies National operators Cross- border operators European non-national agencies Extra-European agencies in Europe
European Register Committee (ERC) Consists of 11 members from ENQA, EUA, ESIB, EURASHE, representatives of European employers, labour organisations, professional bodies and possibly ministries. ERC decides on admissions to the register but will not generally appraise applicants. Rather, it bases its decisions on the reviews done by other organisations. Issues to be addressed: Legal implications Time schedule. EUROPEAN REGISTER (2)
Paris workshop today Establishment of the European Consultative Forum; starting of the development of the European register (legal issues, tasks, composition, secretarial functions, time schedule): 22 June 2005 Consultations with QA networks and other stakeholders: 21 September ENQA General Assembly: September 2005 in Madrid. Bologna Follow-Up Group meetings, with ENQA as a member, as from October The BFUG convenes October = continue in the next years FIRST STEPS