Quality Assurance: European vs. National, Institutional vs. Disciplinary Teacher Education Policy for Europe (TEPE) Network TEPE Colloquium: Quality Assurance and Teacher Education in Europe School of Education – University College Dublin Dublin, 21 – 22 June 2010 Quality Assurance: European vs. National, Institutional vs. Disciplinary Pavel Zgaga University of Ljubljana

2.1 Basic principles of the QA systems in Europe Four main principles of the newly established European quality assurance framework (Bergen, 2005):  the primary role of HE institutions in managing and monitoring their quality;  student participation in internal and external quality assurance processes;  the political independence of quality assurance agencies;  the diversity of national quality assurance procedures.

2.2 QA systems: European - national - institutional European reality: common European standards and guidelines for QA (since 2005) have been implemented within the national QA systems ( ). Bologna Stocktaking 2009: “While the implementation of external quality assurance is proceeding at a rapid pace, development of internal QA systems at HEI s is progressing more slowly, especially because in some countries the internal QA systems are still thought to amount only to writing a self-assessment report for external review.” Trends 2010 reports on “rapid development of (i) agencies in almost all the countries in Europe and (ii) a number of European evaluation instruments for specific disciplines”.  What could these processes mean on a longer run?  How specific disciplines respond this challenge?  What is a specific position of teacher education within them?

2.3. Quality culture in institutions: the issue of diversity Trends 2010: “Institutional quality cultures are more effective when they take into account disciplinary differences and sensitivities.” (See also EUA, Quality culture in European Universities, 2006) “Internal quality processes need not be uniform across institutions or within institutions: they must be adapted to specific activities and promote creativity and innovation in teaching and learning and research.” Finally: “The current plan to develop rankings and performance indicators for higher education must be guided by the same objectives: increase understanding of diversity rather than to standardise it and unleash innovative capacities rather than to inhibit risk taking.”

3.1 EFMD-EQUIS and business education EFMD-EQUIS – the leading international business school accreditation system with the fundamental objective to raise the standard of management education worldwide.  The criteria, policies and processes are determined by the EQUIS Committee while granting of the EQUIS Award is made by an independent EQUIS Accreditation Awarding Body. Members of both are appointed by the Board of EFMD.  122 institutions have been awarded EQUIS, with 34 countries represented among the accredited schools.  EQUIS assesses institutions as a whole (degree programmes, all the activities and sub-units of the institution, including research, e- learning units, executive education provision and community outreach).  EQUIS looks for a balance between high academic quality and the professional relevance. 

3.2 EAEVE and veterinary education EAEVE – The European Association of Establishments for Veterinary Education, founded in 1988 (  The mission of the EAEVE is to support, promote and develop veterinary education in Europe in all its aspects.  The primary objective is to monitor the harmonization of the minimum standards set down in the study programme for veterinary surgeons in European Union Directive 2005/36.  This is enacted through the European System of Evaluation of Veterinary Training, which is managed by the EAEVE but with joint responsibility together with the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe (FVE).  Members are the faculties, schools and universities involved in teaching and research in veterinary medicine and science.  In 2009, from the 110 veterinary educational establishments existing in Europe, 98 are members of the EAEVE.

3.3.1 ENAEE and engineering education ENAEE – European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education (  ENAEE stems out of ESOEPE (European Standing Observatory for the Engineering Profession and Education), which was established on 9 September 2000 with the purpose of “building confidence in systems of accreditation of engineering degree programmes within Europe”, and facilitating “exchange of information”, “voluntary agreements on accreditation of engineering educational programmes and recognition of engineering qualifications” and “the development of standards on the competence requirements of graduate engineers”.  Supported by FEANI (the European Federation of National Engineering Associations) is a federation of national professional bodies representing engineering in European countries. (

3.3.2 Accreditation of European Engineering EUR-ACE – Accreditation of European Engineering Programmes and Graduates (ESOEPE/ENAEE initiative based on a Socrates & Tempus project, 2004/2006) aiming at:  setting up an European system for accreditation of Engineering education,  providing an appropriate “European label” to the graduates of the accredited educational programmes,  improving the quality of educational programmes in engineering,  facilitating trans-national recognition by the label marking, etc. Based on a set of common European standards tested in a number of countries in order to achieve the largest consensus. Several target groups involved: from national and local HE authorities to engineering teachers, professional organisations, employers of engineers etc. A contribution to the European Higher Education Area; possibly paving the way for analogous initiatives in other professional fields. 

3.4 ELIA and arts education institutions The European League of Institutes of the Arts (ELIA), founded in 1990, is the primary independent network organization of major arts education institutions and universities representing all subject disciplines and has a membership of over 350 arts institutions in 47 countries, altogether representing more than 250,000 art students. ELIA stand for, e.g.:  strengthening the position and influence of the arts and higher arts education at regional, national, European and international levels;  upholding and promoting the diversity of cultures and to foster communication between European and non-European cultures viewed as partners in a global cultural society;  encouraging improvement of quality and innovation of higher arts education including curriculum development and staff development at a European level. See

4. Teacher Education: no European QA network (so far) Teacher Education – a nationally regulated area/discipline. Teachers are educated/trained for the national education systems. Huge diversities between national systems of teacher education in Europe: a particular challenge to European convergence process. Huge diversities between national systems of QA. Eurydice survey QA in Teacher Education in Europe (2006):  “In the majority of countries, general regulations on the evaluation of higher education also apply to the evaluation of teacher education.”  “In many countries, specific regulations on the evaluation of teacher education programmes or institutions do not exist, or apply only to a particular stage of initial teacher education (professional training, teaching practice or induction).”

5.1 Conclusion: TEd today In the 1980s and 1990s, Teacher Education in Europe changed its traditional role and position; e.g.: it has been recognised within higher education area and has been involved in European co-operation (e.g Erasmus, etc.). However, TEd can be – still – described as:  a rather young ‘academic discipline’ and, therefore,  possessing relatively lower ‘critical mass’ than most of traditional academic disciplines;  as an area with a double requirement of ‘quality education’;  as a study area under stronger political influence than other traditional professions;  as an area more ‘sensible to national interests’;  as an area only at the beginning of internationalisation process;  but confronted with a demand to contribute substantially to the emerging knowledge society.

5.2 Conclusion: a need for a QA Network in TEd If ‘the role of teachers is crucial’ than the role/position of TEd within HE in general and within our societies at large should be improved. It is necessary:  to enhance quality of TEd as a part of efforts for raising quality culture in higher education in a broader European context;  to develop its own specific quality standards which address particular issues of TEd and support promotion of quality TEd within higher education at large;  to apply the principle that “the primary responsibility for quality assurance in higher education lies with each institution itself” also to TEd institutions;  to strengthen interdisciplinary research in/on education at TEd institutions, including research on quality in TEd and HE;  to promote European co-operation in quality in TEd, similarly as in some other distinguished HE fields/areas.