OIDEACHAIS AGUS SCILEANNA EDUCATION TAKING STOCK: TEN YEARS OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS IN IRELAND. Edwin Mernagh

Transcription

1 A N R O I N N OIDEACHAIS AGUS SCILEANNA D E P A R T M E N T O F EDUCATION A N D S K I L L S TAKING STOCK: TEN YEARS OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS IN IRELAND Edwin Mernagh

2 Contents Introduction 3 Looking back on the Bologna decade 4 The Bologna Process in Ireland achievements and milestones 8 Ireland s role in Bologna and beyond 16 Appendices 1. List of ministerial meetings in the Bologna Process, Correspondences established between the FQEHEA cycles and the NFQ and EQF Levels Explanation of acronyms used in this report 20 1

3 Edwin Mernagh Edwin Mernagh s interest, expertise and experience lie in development processes, particularly in the fields of qualifications systems (including qualifications frameworks and credit systems), in the interface between learning and the world of work and in vocational education and training systems generally. From its establishment in 2001 to 2007, Edwin Mernagh was a member of the development team of the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland. He had a particular focus on the European dimension of the work of the Authority, representing Ireland on committees and working groups in relation to the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) and the European Credit system for VET (ECVET). Since 2007, as an independent consultant, Edwin has worked mostly in an international context. He has continued to assist the European Commission in various initiatives, including the ongoing development and implementation of the EQF: he is a current member of the Commission s EQF Team. He has undertaken several technical studies for the alignment and referencing of qualifications frameworks; the formal referencing of the Irish and UK frameworks to EQF; and a comparison of the Irish and Australian qualifications frameworks. He has also undertaken studies for CEDEFOP on issues related to qualifications systems and vocational education and training, support activities for the development of a Turkish qualifications framework (on behalf of ETF) and collaborative policy analysis activities with OECD. He is a consultant in framework development with the Qualifications Framework Project in the United Arab Emirates. 2

4 Introduction The Bologna Process began in 1999 as an initiative of Ministers of Education who came together in the Italian city which is home to what is claimed to be the western world s oldest university. Established in the 11th century, the word universitas was first used at the foundation of this great institution which numbers Dante, Copernicus, Durer and Umberto Eco among its famous alumni. The Bologna Process is a key feature of contemporary European international education. Ireland has demonstrated strong support from the outset. The timing of the Declaration co-incided neatly with developments that were being initiated in Ireland. In a way, it can be argued that Bologna can be seen as a useful endorsement of the steps being taken in this country to enhance our higher education system. A millennium later, the name of Bologna is still resonating in European higher education circles. This influence is however not confined to within Europe s borders. Today, 47 countries are signatories, from Ireland in the west to Kazakhstan in the east. Many other parts of the world particularly in North and South America, Australia and New Zealand are also paying close attention to this higher education reform process. Ireland was one of the original 29 member states and in this review, Edwin Mernagh charts the progress of the Bologna Process in this country as well as highlighting how the sector has responded to the challenges posed by the aims and objectives outlined in the original declaration and its subsequent refinements. This review was commissioned by the Higher Education Authority (HEA), Ireland s planning and development body for higher education and research, in partnership with the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI) to mark the first decade of participation and to pose some questions for the next ten years and beyond. Although not an initiator of the Bologna Declaration, today the European Commission is playing a key role in assisting in the realisation of the aims and objectives. As the National Agency for the Lifelong Learning Programme: Erasmus, the HEA is active in complementing the work of the Bologna Experts, the Department of Education and Skills, the NQAI, the Union of Students in Ireland, the higher education institutions and their representative bodies and other stakeholders in furthering the advancement of the initiative. This review is timely coming shortly after the publication of Ireland s International Education Strategy This report in its introduction states Ireland s National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) facilitate worldwide recognition of Irish qualifications. In short, Ireland has an opportunity to become internationally recognised and ranked as a world leader in the delivery of high-quality international education. 1 This is but one area that the Bologna Process has played a particularly strong role in stimulating advancement. It is likely that Bologna will continue to leave its mark on other areas of higher education systems in the years ahead. The HEA and the NQAI would like to express their sincere appreciation to Edwin Mernagh for his professionalism and expertise in preparing this document. October Investing in Global Relationships, Ireland s International Education Strategy , Department of Education and Skills, Dublin 2010, p 21. 3

5 Looking back on the Bologna decade The Bologna Process has brought about a gradual but irreversible change in the higher education systems of Europe since it was initiated following the Bologna Declaration in What exactly is this process? How does it work? Who are the stakeholders that bear responsibility for the changes taking place? Where does the Bologna Process fit into the overall web of European policy development? The Bologna process: what it is. The Bologna Process began in 1999 when 29 countries signed the Bologna Declaration. The Declaration marks a turning point in the development of higher education in Europe: essentially, it affirms a commitment by these 29 countries to reform the structures of their higher education systems in a convergent way. The Declaration set out an action programme designed to attain a clearly defined goal, with a firm deadline and a set of specified objectives. The Bologna Process is the realisation of this action programme: its goal is the creation of a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by The objectives of the Bologna Process, as set out in the 1999 Bologna Declaration: Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate Establishment of a system of credits such as European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) Promotion of mobility by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of free movement... Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance, with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies. Promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education... Over the ten-year period since the Declaration, successive biennial ministerial meetings have refined and extended these objectives and set out guidelines for the Bologna Process in a series of Communiqués (see appendix 1, page 18, for a listing of these meetings and also Thus, in an iterative way, the original agenda has been broadened: for example, the concept of the social dimension of higher education has been introduced and recognition of qualifications is now clearly perceived as central to European higher education policies. At the same time, continuous development has given greater precision to the instruments through which the Bologna Process is activated. The undergraduate/postgraduate degree structure proposed in the Declaration has been modified into a three-cycle system, which now incorporates the concept of qualifications frameworks, with an emphasis on learning outcomes. The system is now underpinned by European standards and guidelines for quality assurance. By March 2010, the cohort of participating countries had grown to 47 and their ministers of higher education marked the launch of the EHEA at a conference in Budapest and Vienna in The most visible element of the Bologna Process, from the perspective of the higher education community generally, is the suite of instruments developed to address the objectives of the 1999 Declaration. Of particular note is the infrastructure of qualifications frameworks now under construction throughout European higher education (see panel, page 5). This comprises national frameworks of higher education qualifications, to be introduced in all participating countries, and a European meta-framework to which national systems can relate, the Framework of Qualifications for the European Higher Education Area (FQEHEA). 4

6 Qualifications frameworks: a key instrument in the Bologna Process. The Berlin ministerial communiqué, in 2003, recognised the key role of qualifications frameworks in addressing the objective of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees : Ministers encourage the member States to elaborate a framework of comparable and compatible qualifications for their higher education systems, which should seek to describe qualifications in terms of workload, level, learning outcomes, competences and profile. They also undertake to elaborate an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area. In response to this call, countries have begun the task of developing frameworks to describe and compare their higher education qualifications. At the European level, following a rapid development process, the Framework of Qualifications for the European Higher Education Area (FQEHEA) was adopted at the ministerial meeting in Bergen in The FQEHEA is an overarching framework comprising three cycles. Generic descriptors for each cycle are based primarily on learning outcomes, and ECTS credit ranges define the volume of qualifications in the first and second cycles. The cycle descriptors were developed from the Dublin Descriptors (a product of the work of the Joint Quality Initiative, ). The European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) originated in the EU Erasmus programme, but it has now become a pillar in the Bologna process, and ECTS credits are a key mechanism in the definition of the FQEHEA cycles. The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area are a compendium of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance for use in the EHEA, and provide the underpinning of trust on which FQEHEA depends. Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance The Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (QA-EHEA) are a compendium of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance for use in the EHEA. The European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) was the driving force behind the development of the standards and guidelines, with support from EUA, EURASHE and ESIB. Their purpose is to enhance processes for quality assurance in higher education at institutional, national and European level by developing shared criteria and methodologies on quality assurance. While not intrinsically a qualifications-related initiative, having a wider relevance to the quality assurance agenda of the EHEA generally, these guidelines are nevertheless an important support mechanism for the EHEA framework of qualifications and their development has been undertaken in a way that is coherent with FQEHEA, as part of the overall Bologna process. The launch of the EHEA in 2010, while fulfilling the commitment made in the 1999 Declaration, does not represent the end of the Bologna Process. It does mark a shift in focus from the development of instruments and protocols to the task of promoting and supporting the implementation of the Bologna reforms in the real world of organisational and administrative structures and practices of higher education. The Leuven/ Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué of 2009 set out the main working areas for the next decade, addressing a much wider and less concrete set of objectives, compared with those of the original Declaration. 5

7 The Bologna Process priorities beyond 2010: Qualifications frameworks/three-cycle system Joint degrees Mobility Recognition Every two years Ministerial Conferences are organised (meetings of the ministers responsible for higher education in the participating countries) in order to assess the progress made towards the Process objectives and to decide on any new steps to be taken. To ensure the implementation of the ministerial decisions, the EHEA makes use of several support structures. Quality assurance Social dimension Employability Lifelong learning The EHEA in a global context Doctoral studies and synergies between the EHEA and the European Research Area How the process works The Bologna Declaration is not a reform imposed upon national governments or higher education institutions. Rather, the reform is being implemented through a voluntary process driven by a proactive combination of ministerial decision-making and co-operative activity on the part of the higher education stakeholders. It is not based on any treaties, formal divisions of responsibilities or decision-making protocols. Its success relies on the extent to which ministers implement decided measures at national level and on the buy-in of higher education institutions which have significant autonomy in most participating countries. Although it is voluntary, the Bologna Process has been highly effective in bringing forward measures that radically impact on national higher education and training systems. The members of the Bologna Process comprise the 47 participating countries, together with the European Commission, and a group of consultative members, namely the Council of Europe, UNESCO-CEPES, EUA, ESU, EURASHE, ENQA, Education International and BUSINESSEUROPE (the Confederation of European Business). The main support structure is the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG). The BFUG oversees the Bologna Process between the ministerial meetings. It may establish working groups to deal with specific topics in more detail; it also receives input from Bologna Seminars. The BFUG is composed of representatives of all members of the Bologna Process. The BFUG is co-chaired by the country holding the EU Presidency and a non-eu country, rotating every six months. The vice-chair is the country organising the next Ministerial Conference. A Board oversees the work of the Bologna Follow-up Group. The overall follow-up work is supported by a Secretariat, provided at any given time by the country hosting the next Ministerial Conference. The Bologna Secretariat supports the work of the BFUG and its Board, as well as Working Groups, Networks and Seminars. The Secretariat prepares draft agenda, draft reports, notes and minutes and carries out the practical preparation for meetings. A further task of the Secretariat is to provide up-to-date and reliable information about the Bologna Process (for both European and non-european audiences) and to maintain an electronic archive. The Bologna Process and other European developments The Bologna Process is a reform initiative in the area of European higher education; however, it is unfolding in the context of parallel developments in other areas of education and training, particularly in the context of the EU macro-objective of making a European area of lifelong learning a reality. These 6

8 parallels are, in some instances, direct: a European credit system for VET is being developed (ECVET) that is a close equivalent of ECTS and the EQAVET Quality Assurance Reference Framework fulfils largely the same function as the ENQA standards and guidelines. There are also two overarching European initiatives in relation to qualifications Europass and the EQF that encompass all sectors of education and training. Europass documents elaborate the meaning of qualifications, including those of higher education. The European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) shares many conceptual and operational features with FQEHEA: both are European meta-frameworks of qualifications and both are based on learning outcomes. The policy documents that underpin EQF and FQEHEA frequently refer to one another and set out how they should relate, to the extent that the EQF Recommendation 2 sets out the relationship between EQF levels and FQEHEA cycles (see appendix 2). Operationally, there is formal cross-representation between the governing bodies and co-ordinating agents of these two instruments. It is clear that the Bologna Process is already strongly integrated into the wider matrix of European policy and there is obvious potential for building on the level of synergy that already exists so that these parallel initiatives continue to develop in a coherent and complementary way. 2 The Recommendation of the European Parliament and Council establishing EQF, available at lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm 7

9 The Bologna Process in Ireland achievements and milestones Ireland started from a strong position when joining the Bologna Process in 1999, as the Irish higher education system was already broadly in conformity with the 3-cycle structure that emerged as the Bologna model. Also, some key reforms associated with Bologna were effectively occurring in parallel at the Irish level, where national initiatives were under way that reflected key elements of the Bologna objectives. In other words, the Irish experience is in many ways about a parallel process of national reform, driven largely by national policy objectives rather than a perceived need to comply with an external process. In a similar manner, another significant goal in national policy at the time of joining Bologna was to increase equality in access to higher education. This was reflected, for example, in the Universities Act (1997) charging the institutions with promoting and preserving equality of opportunity and access. The equity of access goal was strongly pursued in Ireland over the ten years from 1999, with the establishment of a National Access Office under the aegis of the Higher Education Authority and the development and implementation of a coherent strategy to increase participation by under-represented societal groups in higher education. 8 The rationalisation and reform of the qualifications system was already a key national goal when Ireland became involved with Bologna. Legislation to underpin a reform strategy, the Qualifications (Education and Training) Act, was enacted in An organisational infrastructure to lead the reform process was put in place by , leading very quickly to the development of the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) as the single, integrated system in Ireland for defining the relationship between education and training awards. The core organisations involved are the National Qualifications Authority of Ireland (NQAI) and the two awards councils, FETAC and HETAC, but other pre-existing agencies were active partners in the reform process, including the Higher Education Authority, the Conference of Heads of Irish Universities (now known as the Irish Universities Association), the Irish Universities Quality Board and the Dublin Institute of Technology. This infrastructure provided Ireland with a centre of knowledge and expertise in qualifications-related fields, as well as a group of dedicated qualificationsfocused agencies, that were a key resource in Ireland s interface with European developments such as the Bologna Process and, latterly, EQF. 3 however, primary responsibility for Ireland s linkage with the Bologna Process lies with the Department of Education and Skills. To advise the Department on policy issues arising out of this linkage, a national steering group has been established. It is chaired by the Department and has nominees of the IUA (formerly CHIU), the Council of Directors of the Institutes of Technology, the Dublin Institute of Technology, the HEA, HETAC and NQAI. These goals are best interpreted as national policy objectives stemming from national concerns, which would have been goals for Ireland without the Bologna Process but which are compatible with it. On the whole, therefore, the early engagement by the Irish higher education community with the Bologna Process could be described as low key as compared with the situation in many other countries, where the challenges of structural reform were immediate and profound. This was due to the largely Bolognacompliant nature of the Irish higher education system, as well as the pre-occupation of most key stakeholders with the parallel developments at the national level. However, looking beyond the overall systemic reform issue, the ongoing challenges have been largely at the more specific level of institutional reform, in the effort to fully implement changes such as the introduction of modularisation, course and specific award descriptors, and transferable credit systems.

10 The Bologna Process Independent Assessment (CHEPS, INCHER-Kassel, Ecotec, 2009) 4, looking at progress in Ireland over the first decade of working on the European Higher Education Area, identifies a number of learning points from the Irish experience that can contribute to practice in other countries: Establishing a legislative basis to back the implementation of reform. Getting an appropriate infrastructure in place as a necessary pre-condition to facilitate a qualifications framework development process. Deciding on a clear development and implementation plan and strategy. Establishing executive agencies (separate to the main Ministry concerned with higher education, if appropriate), in order to create dedicated knowledge centres with the technical expertise required to, for example, develop and implement quality assurance procedures and qualifications reform. The benefit of extensive partnership working with a great deal of formal and informal contact between relevant agencies. Placing priority on developing a clear NQF with widespread buy-in that can then be used to encourage, structure and facilitate wider reforms that follow. Allowing sufficient time for stakeholders to understand and buy into significant changes. Balancing funding-related incentives with legislative force to encourage institutional compliance with national objectives. Degree system reform in Ireland As the Bologna Process began to focus on the need for instruments to support the drive towards a system of readable and comparable degrees, the Irish involvement intensified. The Berlin Communiqué, in 2003, called for the establishment of national qualifications frameworks for higher education in all participating countries; it also led to the setting up of the Bologna Follow-Up Group, with a mandate to develop an overarching qualifications framework for the EHEA. The Irish NFQ was launched about a month after Berlin, so that compliance with that particular protocol was virtually instantaneous! This important milestone was followed in July 2004 by the adoption of the NFQ award types as the generic qualifications for use throughout Irish higher education. At the Bergen ministerial meeting in 2005, the Framework of Qualifications for the European Higher Education Area (FQEHEA) was adopted. As the acceptance and validity of this new overarching framework was clearly dependent on its ability to generate trust and confidence amongst the higher education community, a self-certification process was proposed to be undertaken by each participating country seeking to link its national framework to FQEHEA. The Bologna Follow Up Group invited Ireland to undertake self-certification of the NFQ as a pilot project. The report 5 on this project verified the compatibility of the NFQ with FQEHEA, in accordance with the criteria and procedures set out, including the involvement of two international experts as members of the steering committee for the compatibility process. The report was published in November Ireland was thus the first country to complete this aspect of engagement with the Bologna Process. Subsequently, in June 2009, 4 available at doc1290_en.htm, and through the CHEPS website: www. utwente.nl/cheps/publications. 5 The final verification report certifying the compatibility of the NFQ and the Bologna Framework is available here: nqai.ie/publication_nov2006.html 9

11 a report establishing the referencing of the NFQ to the EQF was published. The NFQ thus forms the first bridge, established in practice, between the two European meta-frameworks of qualifications. The correspondences between the NFQ, EQF and FQEHEA are summarised in a diagram at appendix 2, page 19. While Irish organisations were busily engaged in addressing Bologna criteria at the systemic level, the higher education community at large was facing the challenge of implementing the changes arising out of the Bologna reforms. In the front line were the higher education institutions and the awarding bodies and their various practitioners teachers and lecturers, programme designers and course co-ordinators, registrars and development officers and many more. The award-type descriptors introduced as part of the apparatus of the NFQ, and adopted in 2004 for use throughout the higher education sector, are quite generic: considerable further development is required to elaborate these generic descriptors for specific fields of learning and the ultimate goal is to identify the required learning outcomes not just at the level of the major award but for all programmes, courses, modules and units. This task is being addressed through a myriad of on-the-ground initiatives, with some significant support at systemic level: HETAC has used Framework learning outcome descriptors to set standards from 2003 onwards. It co-ordinated a radical revision of standards throughout the Institutes of Technology in 2003/2004, so that all programmes/major awards were revalidated to meet major award-type descriptors. The award-type descriptors were adopted as the basis for standards in all fields pending the development of standards for specific fields of learning. Standards have since been developed in several fields. The Dublin Institute of Technology has implemented the use of learning outcomes in respect of all of its programmes leading to awards within the National Framework of Qualifications. The Framework Implementation Network (FIN) was set up by the IUA and NQAI in 2007 to provide a collaborative space in which practitioners from the university sector can discuss and propose ways of addressing the challenges of implementing NFQ and Bologna reforms, and communicate these ideas to their colleagues across higher education for consideration. FIN working parties have developed and published 6 practical guides and support materials on themes that are directly relevant to professionals such as programme designers: - The Technical Aspects of Designing Programmes/Awards for Inclusion in the NFQ - Discipline Specific Learning Outcomes: Some Case Studies, Reference Points, Issues and Insights - A guide to Good Practice for the Assessment of Learning Outcomes Establishment of a system of credits The Irish NFQ Framework was introduced without a credit system as such, but it does have associated principles and operational guidelines for the implementation of a national approach to credit in Irish higher education and training. As the implementation of the NFQ has proceeded, and as these principles and guidelines are increasingly observed, arrangements for the use of credit in higher education institutions have converged. By 2008, credit systems, based on ECTS, were incorporated into the programme validation requirements of HETAC and the DIT. Increasingly, all the universities are implementing ECTS, partly in line with the Framework principles and guidelines, but also in response to the Bologna agenda. It is therefore reasonable to assert that credit arrangements compatible with ECTS are now in use throughout the higher education and training system. 6 University awards and the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ): Issues around the Design of Programmes and the Use and Assessment of Learning Outcomes; available at nfqnetwork.ie/a_guide_to_designing_university_awards_ for_inclusion_in_the_national_framework_of_qualifications/ Default.132.html 10

12 Mobility Apart from the progress made in relation to the facilitation of international student exchanges though the use of ECTS, the main activity to address the mobility objective has been to encourage the issuing of Diploma Supplements. Almost all of the Irish higher education institutions are now issuing Supplements and most of them recognise Diploma Supplements presented by foreign students applying for courses. The Bologna Process national report refers to this development as a growing concept amongst institutions, although the objective of having Diploma Supplements issued to all graduates universally and free of charge has yet to be achieved. It is clear that progress has been made, due in some measure to the efforts of working/steering groups established by relevant agencies to progress widespread adoption in the sector. As for the principles of the Lisbon National Recognition Convention, some progress has been made in implementing these, although this is more at the national policy and infrastructure level rather than in institutional implementation on the ground. A leading role was taken by the NQAI and key partner agencies in producing an initial outline for a national approach to the recognition of international awards in 2004 and in developing the subsequent National Action Plan for recognition in There is now in place a dedicated NARIC service that operates firmly under the Lisbon Convention and that works increasingly closely with the institutions to spread the Lisbon message. Quality Assurance In relation to quality assurance, Ireland has made significant progress in the development of a supporting infrastructure to advance and develop quality assurance processes across the different higher education sectors. The establishment of the Irish Universities Quality Board (IUQB) in 2002, in which the HEA played a key role, was a key development. Since then, IUQB has established itself as an important voice in the area of quality assurance. Its role generally is to encourage a pro-active approach to quality assurance and to increase inter-university co-operation in instituting quality assurance processes and procedures. In this, IUQB is able to build on often long-standing engagement with quality assurance in separate universities, codified in the 1997 Universities Act. The IUQB conducts regular external reviews of the effectiveness of quality procedures in Irish universities; provides information on quality assurance to stakeholders; promotes quality assurance in Irish universities; partners with the universities on quality assurance and enhancement initiatives; and publishes and promotes national guidelines of good practice on various higher education themes. IUQB operates in line with national legislation and the ENQA Standards and Guidelines. Outside the university sector, HETAC has statutory responsibility for agreeing and monitoring institutional quality assurance processes, as well as having a direct overseeing role for setting standards and validating higher education programmes. The policy put in place by HETAC to support its role in this area is set out in the 2002 publication Guidelines and Criteria for Quality Assurance Procedures in Higher Education and Training. These Guidelines require all providers of higher education and training programmes within HETAC s remit to establish quality assurance procedures and agree those procedures with HETAC. Regular reviews are then conducted by independent panels of experts, operating under the auspices of HETAC. Perhaps the most significant Irish quality assurance initiative in the context of Bologna was the 2003 decision to establish the Irish Higher Education Quality Network (IHEQN), covering all of higher education including the universities, Institutes of Technology and other higher education providers. IHEQN s membership includes the key bodies with a stake in quality assurance in higher education including the Department of Education and Skills, HETAC, IUQB, HEA, NQAI and Irish Universities Association along with institutional representation from universities, 11

13 DIT and other Institutes of Technology and student representation in the shape of the Union of Students in Ireland (USI). IHEQN was established to provide a forum for these stakeholders to meet and seek to establish a common national position on key quality assurance issues, principles and approaches. This, for example, included drafting common principles for student involvement in quality assurance, principles for follow-through on quality improvements and for reviewing quality assurance procedures, and a code of practice for dealing with international students. The role of the network also includes linking in with the Bologna Process, and informing ongoing quality assurance debates and progress at the European level. Bologna Experts The implementation of the Bologna Process is facilitated nationally by seven Bologna Experts who provide a resource to the wider higher education community in responding to the challenges of the Process. The Experts were selected by the national agency for Lifelong Learning Programme-Erasmus in Ireland (HEA) and approved by the Department of Education and Skills in consultation with the national steering group established to oversee the implementation of the Bologna Process. The Experts comprise six senior academics and administrators and one student representative who have been chosen because of their in-depth knowledge in quality assurance, qualifications frameworks and recognition issues in higher education. Broad areas of activity for the Bologna Experts include: Dissemination of the relevance of the Bologna Process and related Irish policy developments to Irish higher education institutions. Promotion of quality assurance. Promotion of knowledge and understanding of qualifications frameworks Promotion of ECTS and Diploma Supplement. Milestones in the Bologna Process in Ireland From the above description of the unfolding of the Bologna Process in Ireland, a number of achievements can be identified that represented significant steps forward or that set in place structures that have proved to be key resources in the promotion of change. These milestones are illustrated in Table 1, page 13, where they can be considered in relation to the key events at the European level in the same years. 12

14 Table 1: Milestones in the Bologna Process Ireland Year Europe 1998 Sorbonne Declaration Ireland joins the process 1999 Bologna Declaration Decision to create a European Higher Education Area (EHEA) 2000 Development of National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) begins Joint Quality Initiative (JQI) begins its work in Dublin 2001 Prague Communique 2002 IUQB is established NFQ is launched IHEQN is established 2003 Berlin Communique Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG) established Objectives are set out: an overarching Framework of Qualifications for EHEA (FQEHEA) and national qualifications frameworks in each country New range of Framework awards adopted for higher education in Ireland BFUG begins its work in Dublin 2004 Dublin Descriptors are introduced by JQI. BFUG begins work on FQEHEA, incorporating the Dublin Descriptors Ireland is asked to undertake pilot referencing to FQEHEA Verification of compatibility of Irish NFQ with FQEHEA final report Framework Implementation Network is established 2005 Bergen Communique FQEHEA adopted London Communique Leuven Communique 2010 Budapest/Vienna Declaration Launch of EHEA Target date for NQFs in all countries 13

15 Ireland s role in Bologna Ireland s participation in the Bologna process has not been confined to the matter of the application of Bologna reforms to the Irish system. Even though the reform required in Ireland was not extreme, Ireland has been at the forefront of the Process and has contributed very strongly, both in representative groups and in the technical development of Bologna instruments and procedures. Ireland was one of the original group of 29 countries that decided to work towards a European Area of Higher Education and that committed to reform their higher education systems in a convergent way. From this beginning, Irish involvement in the representative structures of the Bologna Process has been consistent and committed. Irish ministers and officials contributed strongly to the work involved in the series of ministerial meetings that have been the driving force of the Process. As working parties began to form to explore the technical aspects of the proposed reform, Irish agencies and experts took part and made significant contributions to the agendas of these groups: After the Prague Ministerial Conference (2001), as it became clear that the structure of cycles introduced through Bologna needed to be supplemented by more detail on the outcomes of these cycles, a group of higher education specialists from several countries began to meet under the umbrella of the Joint Quality Initiative. This grouping developed a set of descriptors that have come to be referred to as the Dublin Descriptors as the original draft was finalised at a meeting hosted by the NQAI in Dublin Castle in February This collaborative exercise involved Irish, as well as Dutch, German, Flemish, UK, Spanish, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian agencies. Launched in 2000, Tuning Educational Structures in Europe (TUNING) is a university driven project, which aims to offer higher education institutions a concrete approach to implementing the Bologna Process. TUNING has contributed significantly to the elaboration of the FQEHEA. Irish universities have been active participants in TUNING from its inception. The Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG) was established in 2003, following the Berlin Communiqué, and Ireland was, of course, represented on the BFUG. At a Meeting in Dublin in March 2004, the BFUG approved the establishment of a small Working Group to co-ordinate the development of an overarching framework of qualifications for the EHEA. Irish representatives and experts participated in this Working Group, which drew heavily on the work of the Joint Quality Initiative (who had formulated and further developed the Dublin Descriptors ) and on experiences in countries that had already established qualifications frameworks for their national higher education systems Ireland was a key example. The work of this Group led directly to the formulation of the FQEHEA, which was adopted at the Bergen ministerial meeting in The European Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education was established in 2000 to promote European co-operation in the field of quality assurance. The HEA and HETAC were members and the NQAI was an associate member. This Network played a key role in bringing about the European dimension to quality assurance which is part of the implementation process of the Bologna Declaration. In 2004 the Network was transformed into the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA). HEA, HETAC, IUQB and NQAI are members of ENQA. The European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) was founded by ENQA, ESU, EUA and EURASHE, the European representative bodies of quality assurance agencies, students, universities and other higher education institutions, respectively. Its purpose is to improve the quality of European higher education by allowing students and employers to identify which higher education institutions or study programmes have undergone quality reviews by trustworthy and credible quality assurance. EQAR is a register of quality assurance agencies that substantially comply with the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance. HETAC and IUQB are now on the EQAR register. 14

16 The Irish willingness to commit to Bologna was again emphasised when, in 2005, the Irish authorities acceded to a request from BFUG to undertake as a pilot project the self-certification of the compatibility of the Irish NFQ with the FQEHEA. This was the first exploration of the criteria and procedures devised for the referencing of national frameworks to the Bologna framework. The results of the project were published in 2006, so that Ireland became the first country to reference its system to FQEHEA. Ireland has also taken a proactive role in the development of the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF). Among Irish priorities in this commitment was the need to ensure clear compatibility between the EQF and FQEHEA, and this objective was achieved as the EQF Recommendation sets out formally how the two frameworks inter-relate. It may be observed that Ireland has been able to make an exceptionally strong contribution to aspects of the Bologna Process. That this was possible is partly due to the coincidence of Irish qualifications system development with the development phase of Bologna. Agencies had been put in place in Ireland whose remit was specifically focused on qualifications systems and these organisations had available people with current expertise and familiarity with the discourse in effect, specialists in qualifications systems development. Taking into account the availability of expertise and resources, and also the willingness of the Irish authorities to get involved at key points in the Bologna Process, it is not surprising that much of the philosophy and many features of the Irish approach to qualifications frameworks are reflected in elements of the Bologna infrastructure. 15

17 2010 and beyond It can be said with justification that Ireland has been a leader in the development phase of the Bologna Process, and that systemic alignment with the Bologna reforms has been achieved. What about the consolidation and implementation that now ensues? What about the new, less tangible priorities set out for Bologna in the Leuven Communiqué? Can Ireland again show a lead in making the Bologna changes real and lasting, in inserting concepts such as the use of learning outcomes into the fabric of higher education? What are the areas of future development where Ireland might want to make a contribution at the European level? Looking first at the issue of consolidating the implementation of the Bologna reforms in Ireland, the 2009 Bologna Process Independent Assessment identifies a notable challenge remaining in the need to deepen and consolidate the reforms at the level of individual institutions. We may follow the source of this challenge further into the heart of the higher education system, where we encounter the issue of how to achieve real implementation of the learning outcomes approach at the level of the discipline or programme. This is not a matter of arranging a systemic commitment: it involves devising ways of supporting higher education practitioners to work out how to accommodate learning outcomes in their areas of practice. The FIN network has pioneered solutions to this issue, having already supported groups of practitioners to collaboratively develop tools for designing programmes and awards for inclusion in the outcomes-based NFQ and for designing appropriate assessment procedures for use in this context. The collaborative approach that underpins FIN, and the techniques and procedures developed by the network groups, provide models that could have wide application internationally. A further example of the need for further progress in consolidating the systemic reforms at the institutional level is found in the Mobility agenda, in relation to Diploma Supplements. While it is now the case that Irish higher education institutions are issuing Diploma Supplements to graduates who request them, it is by no means universal that Supplements are issued to all graduates automatically and free of charge, as was intended in the Europass policy. The apparent lack of any strong demand for Supplements from graduates or employers suggests that the mobility strategy within the Bologna Process may need to be reviewed at both national and European levels. Another issue arises out of the generic nature of the compatibility established between the Irish NFQ and FQEHEA: while this compatibility has been firmly and thoroughly established, it relates award types in the Irish framework to the Bologna cycle descriptors. It is another matter entirely to assert that all individual Irish awards, and their related programmes, are accurately aligned to the generic types for which compatibility has been established. Strategies to address this issue may require action in several areas: in relation to award and programme design; in relation to quality assurance procedures; and, at the systemic level, in relation to the development of a coherent listing or repertoire of awards in the NFQ. The Irish authorities have already identified as a priority, for attention at both national and European levels, the need to bring together the framework, credit and quality assurance aspects of the reform process. While each of these initiatives has its own particular objectives and context, it is clearly desirable that they should operate in a coherent and complementary way so that they contribute 16

18 effectively to the overall Bologna agenda. In Ireland, this priority is evident in the strategy now under way to amalgamate the functions of several agencies that have hitherto been responsible for various aspects of the qualifications system: NQAI, FETAC, HETAC and IUQB. At the European level, this concern is reflected in a current project in the European Commission that is seeking ways of enhancing the synergy between the now wide range of initiatives that are based on the learning outcomes concept including FQEHEA, ECTS and the ENQA standards and guidelines. In addressing any or all of these issues, and in the ongoing implementation of the Bologna reforms generally, it is necessary to address the question: How fast can we move with the change agenda? Are the timeframes and deadlines set by the Process realistic? It is undoubtedly the case that the development work undertaken in the first decade of Bologna has been rapid and efficient. As the process now shifts into the implementation phase, where it encounters a vast range of stakeholders and institutions with widely varying operating systems and approaches, the rate of progress must surely be slower. A view emerging from the Irish experience is that it is more important to deliver real change, even if it takes longer to achieve, than to accept quick compliance that is not embedded properly in the practice of the higher education community. Finally, looking at both the Irish and European dimensions of the Bologna Process, it is now apt to consider whether the apparatus that enabled the development of the frameworks, and the adoption of the three-cycle degree system, is suitable for the upcoming tasks arising out of the 2010 objectives. Given the softer focus of these objectives, it may well be difficult to generate action lines that will result in clear progress in a two-year plan-and action rotation. Even with recent adaptations, is the rolling secretariat the most appropriate model to support the BFUG in the future? In the Irish context, the roles of key organisations such as NQAI and HETAC are already evolving and it is necessary to plan for the co-ordination of a different range of tasks and put in place ways of evaluating progress towards less tangible targets. 17

19 Appendix 1: List of ministerial meetings in the Bologna Process, The Sorbonne Declaration was signed, in 1998, by the ministers of four countries namely, France, Germany, UK and Italy. The aim of the Declaration was to create a common frame of reference within the intended European Higher Education Area, where mobility should be promoted both for students and graduates, as well as for the teaching staff. Also, it was meant to ensure the promotion of qualifications, with regard to the job market. The aims of the Sorbonne Declaration were confirmed in 1999, through the Bologna Declaration, where 29 countries expressed their willingness to commit to enhance the competitiveness of the European Higher Education Area, emphasising the need to further the independence and autonomy of all Higher Education Institutions. All the provisions of the Bologna Declaration were set as measures of a voluntary harmonisation process, not as clauses of a binding contract. As follow-up to the Bologna Declaration, Ministerial Conferences have taken place every two years, the ministers expressing their will through the respective Communiqués. With the Prague Communiqué, in 2001, the number of member countries was enlarged to 33, and there was also an expansion of the objectives, in terms of lifelong learning, involving students as active partners and enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of the European Higher Education Area. The participating ministers committed themselves to ensure the further development of quality assurance and the development of national qualification frameworks. The topic of social dimension was first introduced in the Prague Communiqué. Following the Ministerial Conference in Berlin, in 2003, the Berlin Communiqué enlarged the number of countries to 40 members. The main provisions of this Communiqué dealt with an expansion of the objectives, as well as the promotion of quality assurance. Another important aspect of the Berlin Communiqué is that it referred to establishing the follow-up structures supporting the process: the Bologna Follow-up Group, the Board and the Bologna Secretariat. With this Communiqué the Ministers also agreed that there should be created a national followup structure in each of the participating countries. The Bergen Communiqué, of 2005, marked a shift from future plans to practical implementation; in particular it was marked by the adoption of an overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education Area and with a commitment to elaborating national qualifications frameworks by 2010 as well as to having launched work by 2007; the adoption of guidelines and standards for quality assurance and the request that ENQA, the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB elaborate further proposals concerning the suggested register of quality assurance agencies; the further stress on the importance of the social dimension of higher education; the necessity of improving interaction between the European Higher Education Area and other parts of the world (the external dimension ); the growing importance of addressing the development of the European Higher Education Area beyond In the London Communiqué, of 2007, the number of participating countries was enlarged to 46. This Communiqué focused on evaluating the progress achieved by that time, concerning mobility, degree structure, recognition, qualifications frameworks (both overarching and national), lifelong learning, quality assurance, social dimension, and also set the priorities for 2009, these being, mainly, mobility, social dimension, which was defined here for the first time, data collection, employability, EHEA in a global context and stock taking. For 2010 and beyond, it was stressed that there is the need for further collaboration, seeing it as an opportunity to reformulate the visions and values. 18

20 In the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, of 2009, the main working areas for the next decade were set, with emphasis on: social dimension, lifelong learning, employability, student centred learning and the teaching mission of education, international openness, mobility, education, research & innovation, as well as data collection, funding of the HE and multidimensional transparency tools. These main working areas show a new orientation of the Bologna Process, towards a more in-depth reform approach, thus ensuring the completion of the Bologna Process implementation. The following Ministerial Conference took place only one year after the aforementioned, in March It took place in Budapest-Vienna and it was an Anniversary Conference, celebrating a decade of the Bologna Process. On this occasion, the European Higher Education Area was officially launched, so that, in terms of a common European framework for higher education, the objective set in the Bologna Declaration was accomplished. Appendix 2: Correspondences established between the FQEHEA cycles and the NFQ and EQF Levels Irish NFQ FQEHEA (Bologna) EQF 10 Third Cycle 8 9 Second Cycle 7 8 First Cycle 6 7 First Cycle 6 6 Short cycle within the First Cycle