Mutual Recognition of EUR-ACE Labelled Engineering Degree Programmes (Working Document 1)

Transcription

1 Mutual Recognition of EUR-ACE Labelled Engineering Degree Programmes (Working Document 1) At the last LC meeting on Jan 25, 2003, it was agreed that a WG consisting of Mr. T. Dogu (Chair), Mr. D. McGrath and a representative from Portugal (Mrs. S. Telles) would be established to work on a proposal on mutual recognition of engineering degree programmes which have been awarded the EUR-ACE label by different ENAEE authorized agencies. Since a new representative was not named from Portugal, Mrs. S. Telles took the responsibility to contribute to this WG as the Portugal member. We, as the WG members, circulated the following discussion paper among the members of the LC. WG received responses from GA (QUACING), IF (Eng. Council UK), CB (Eng. Ireland), ST (Ordem dos Portugal), JCA and MÜDEK. WG expects responses also from the other members of LC. Responses received by now are listed below: Important Comment: We, as the WG, believe that in order to have such a mutual recognition agreement to be effective, it must be unanimously agreed by all EUR-ACE labelling agencies. GA (QUACING): Agreed, but it is not enough: mutual recognition will be effective only if accepted by the bodies legally in charge of degree recognition in the concerned countries, that not always coincide with the EUR-ACE agencies. IF (EngC): I agree with Giuliano s comment, but the first step must be to establish mutual recognition between agencies, or at least the basis for such an agreement. CB (EI) : I agree with Giuliano s and Ian s comments but I think that what exactly is entailed in mutual recognition needs to be further clarified (see comment after definition below). ST (OE): I agree. JCA : Yes we cannot go around this first step. Definition A mutual recognition agreement between ENAEE authorised agencies means that an agency (the host agency) in one country recognises the substantial equivalence of EUR-ACE Labelled engineering degree programmes from ENAEE authorised agencies in other countries, as though they had been accredited by the host agency in its country. Question: Do you agree with this definition? If not, what modifications do you propose? - 1 -

2 GA (QUACING): I would drop the word substantial in the second line (if I am not mistaken, also the WA does not use it any more). Moreover, insert always the hyphen in EUR-ACE (here missing in the third line) and refer to EUR-ACE authorized agencies (not ENAEE authorized ). DMcGrath: I notice that two comments received are saying that we should replace the phrase "substantially equivalent" with the one word "equivalent". The word "equivalent" has a very strict meaning, as when it is used in mathematics. If something is "equivalent" to something else then the similarity must be 100%. However, the term "substantially equivalent" means that the similarity can be less than 100%. That is why in many existing mutual recognition agreements, including the Washington Accord, the term "substantially equivalent" is used as it is less demanding and allows for flexibility, unlike the term "equivalent". I think in the case of any ENAEE mutual recognition agreement we would want to use the term "substantially equivalent" so that we do have flexibility when comparing different accredited degree programmes. CB (EI): The ENAEE authorised agencies can be divided into at least two categories those whose sole function is the accreditation of (engineering) programmes and those that are (licenced) professional engineering bodies, which also accredit engineering programmes. For the latter group would mutual recognition imply that graduates from approved programmes from other agencies would be entitled to the same professional recognition as graduates from the home agency s country? However, what exactly would mutual recognition mean if the agency was not a licenced professional engineering body? ST (OE): I prefer: A mutual recognition agreement between ENAEE authorised agencies to award the EUR-ACE label means that an agency (the host agency) in one country recognises the equivalence of EUR-ACE Labelled engineering degree programmes from ENAEE authorised agencies in other countries, as though they had been accredited by the host agency in its country. MÜDEK: We do not agree with this definition for the following reasons: a) In certain countries, recognition of substantial equivalency of degree programmes from other countries may be the responsibility of government agencies in charge of higher education and not necessarily the accrediting agencies in those countries. For example, in Turkey recognition of substantial equivalency for the degrees obtained from other countries is the responsibility of Higher Education Council of Turkey. b) The main difficulty in the mutual recognition definition proposed by the WG is the expression substantial equivalence of degree programmes. Each agency uses its own criteria and standards when accrediting engineering programmes. The accreditation criteria and standards used by an ENAEE authorized agency are expected to meet or exceed the EUR-ACE Framework Standards. But this does not necessarily mean that the accreditation standards used by different agencies are substantially equivalent to each other. Hence the accreditation of a study programme by one authorized agency does not necessarily mean that the same programme will meet the standards used by other authorized agencies. On the other hand all the authorised agencies would be expected to recognise that this - 2 -

3 study programme meets the relevant (first or second cycle) EUR-ACE Framework Standards requirements In order to resolve the above-mentioned difficulties created by the mutual recognition definition proposed by the WG, we propose the following alternative definition for Mutual Recognition of EUR-ACE labelled programmes: Mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labelled programmes among authorised agencies means that an agency (the host agency) in one country recognises that EUR-ACE labelled degree programmes from ENAEE authorised agencies in other countries meets or exceeds the EUR-ACE Framework Standards requirements at the relevant first or second cycle level. JCA : Mutual Recognition can be understood at Agency level, at degree level and at individual level. As we would like to differentiate assessment and accreditation. The first step that can be considered is assessment at the agency level; an Eur-Ace authorized agency has often a set of standards in addition to the EUR-ACE standards. At Agency level mutual recognition could mean in practice that Agency A accepts the programme assessments carried out bt Agency B. More precisely Agency A would recognize as experts the experts working for Agency B and would accept the assessment documents produced by Agency B. Agency A would only assess on its additional criteria. It could even delegate this assessment tto Agency B. At programme level and at individual level what could be the effect of mutual recognition in country like France where the engineering profession is not regulated? This means that for recruitment purposes a company is free to determine which level of academic training and which prior experience is required for a particular appointment. A possible approach in this case could be that CTI could issue on request a kind of certificate-in French- stating that For First Cycle Programmes: Programme X was awarded the EUR-ACE label, an European label for degree programmes in Engineering. The awarding criterion for these were defined by the CTI together with 8 other European Accreditation agencies. The level of this degree corresponds to that of a licence in the French system. For Second Cycle Programmes: Programme X was awarded the EUR-ACE label, an EUROPEAN label for degree programmes in Engineering. The awarding criteria for these were defined by the CTI together with 8 other European Accreditation agencies. The academic level of this degree corresponds to that of a Diplome d ingénieur/master in French system. Holders of this degree meet the academic requirements to apply for doctoral studies or to apply for a position a Ingénieur in the industry Expected benefits of mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels (a) Engineers work globally and carry out projects all over the world. If their engineering qualifications are recognised/accepted in the countries which are - 3 -

4 outside their home countries, their ability to carry out their work effectively will be easier. CB (EI): Does the award of the Label not achieve this anyway? What would be the additional benefit of mutual recognition? (b) The requirement for countries to recognise external qualifications means that the educational standards of all engineering qualifications will have to be maintained at a globally recognised level. CB (EI): Do the EUR-ACE Framework Standards not ensure a common educational standard for all EUR-ACE Label qualifications? (c) In the EU, the Directive requiring member states to recognise each other s qualifications when these relate to regulated professions, will be more easily implemented in the case of engineering, when there is mutual recognition of engineering education programmes through the EUR-ACE labelling system. Similarly, the Engineering Professional Card will be facilitated. CB (EI): Is there not de facto recognition through the EUR-ACE Label award? (d) At present, the only benefit associated with EUR-ACE labelled programmes is in relation to the exchange of ideas and the professional standard of such programmes, as they are regarded as being in accordance with the opinions of the engineering profession. Mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels will facilitate mobility and also licensing professional engineering practice within EU. CB (EI): I would have thought that common professional standards would have been a major benefit of the EUR-ACE Label. Also I do not see how mutual recognition will enhance mobility, over and above what already exists. I do not understand how mutual recognition by the EUR-ACE labelling agencies will facilitate the licencing of professional engineering practice, when a number of the agencies are not professional engineering bodies and do not licence professional engineering practice. Question: Do you agree with these statements, describing some of the benefits of mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels? Do you propose any other benefits of such an agreement for mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels? GA (QUACING): I substantially agree... (pardon my joke) CB (EI): I think that most of the benefits suggested already exist through the labelling system and because of the accreditation body/engineering professional body dilemma, I am not sure if the additional benefits suggested can be achieved. ST (OE): I agree. MÜDEK: The statement in paragraph (d) seems to underestimate the benefits associated with EUR-ACE labelled programmes. In fact there are various tangible benefits provided some of which are listed below : - 4 -

5 In European countries where the engineering profession is regulated, EUR- ACE labelled programmes meet the educational requirements for becoming a Registered or chartered engineer. The EUR-ACE label facilitates graduate mobility as promoted by the EU Directive on Recognition of Professional Qualification. The EUR-ACE label is the educational standard for the professional card as promoted by FEANI. FEANI automatically includes EUR-ACE labelled programmes in its Index which lists educational requirements for the Eur Ing title. Note that the above mentioned benefits are also currently quoted in the ENAEE web pages. Difficulties/problems for mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels (a) In the case of First Cycle programmes, there is significant variability in relation to certain programme characteristics as follows: -The duration of first cycle programmes varies between three years (180 ECTS credits) and four years (240 ECTS credits) throughout the EUR-ACE system. -The entry standard of the more applied or practical programmes are at a relatively low level in subjects such as mathematics and science subjects compared to the higher standard in relation to the entry requirements of the more theoretical programmes. Many of the more theoretical first cycle programmes lead directly, without further studies, to a second-cycle Master degree programme, while in the case of first cycle (Bachelor) applied programmes, students are required to carry out additional bridging studies before being eligible for admission to second cycle (Master) degree programmes. -The above factors result in variability between the programme content and academic standard (in relation to mathematics, basic sciences, basic engineering sciences relevant to the specific discipline, general education component complementing the technical content and major design experience) as between first cycle engineering degree programmes. GA (QUACING): I agree, but an analogous variability occurs in SC (Master) programmes: see point (b) below. IF (EngC): This is an important matter, and I agree with Giuliano that it can also apply to SC, although perhaps not so obviously as to FC programmes. I think the issue is this. Do we authorise an Agency to award the EUR-ACE Label if the Agency s standards do not meet, to an acceptable standard, all the requirements specified in the EUR-ACE Framework? Our immediate response is that such an Agency would not be authorised to award the EUR-ACE Label to accredited programmes. Such a programme could well be accredited because it has satisfied all the accreditation requirements of the Agency concerned. However the standards of such an Agency could reflect local circumstances to accredit programmes such as, for example Engineering with Business Studies, in which engineering topics have been omitted in order to accommodate Business Studies. The academic standard of - 5 -

6 the engineering could be fully consistent with the standards in the EUR-ACE requirements except for the omission of one or more specified topics. Such programmes could well meet local needs, be popular with students, and produce graduates that are welcomed by industry. IF (EngC): I think there are three option, all of which have disadvantages: 1. We do not authorise Agencies whose standards for accreditation do not require that all the EUR-ACE Framework requirements are satisfied. However to do so would exclude from the award of the Label many other programmes accredited by the Agency, which may be the nationally recognised agency, that fully meet all the Framework requirements. Such programmes could of course seek accreditation by another authorised Agency. 2. We relax our criteria and authorise agencies that have requirements which do not fully satisfy those of the EUR-ACE framework. The drawback to this option is that our published standards are compromised, and potentially there could be very difficult decisions to be made about the flexibility of interpretation. 3. We authorise the Agency to award labels to those accredited programmes that satisfy the requirements of the EUR-ACE Framework, and forbid the Agency to award Labels to those accredited programmes that do not satisfy the requirements. This might complicate matters. Any other ideas? JCA: The third option seems the best to me. The CTI does not award the EUR-ACE label to all programmes that it accredits. I observed similar practice in other countries. Conversely there may be the case already mentioned of programmes meeting all EUR-ACE criteria, accredited by an authorized Agency in a country, but not meeting all the additional criteria required by another authorized Agency in another country. CB (EI): The EUR-ACE Framework Standards clearly cover the requirements of all First Cycle programmes and such variability in outcomes should not exist. (b) It is important to state that the definition of the learning experience involved in engineering degree programmes comprises entry standards (input), the curriculum content and standard (process), programme duration (process) and the programme outcomes (output). All four are required and programme outcomes alone cannot define this experience. GA (QUACING): Agreed: but note that the duration of Master programmes varies between four and six years; some lead immediately to professional activities (e.g. in France), some require formal professional training (e.g. in U.K.). I underline that Integrated Master Programmes (i.e. programmes leading directly to a SC degree) must be comprised in these considerations. CB (EI): It is the programme outcomes that will determine the output standard of the graduates. The input and processes should be such as to ensure the achievement of the programme outcomes (c) Some of the ENAEE authorized agencies are also signatories to the Washington Accord with their four or five year programs. Equivalency of 180 ECTS and

7 ECTS EUR-ACE labelled programs may have the potential to create problems in relation to Washington Accord. GA (QUACING): I find this statement very much disturbing. ENAEE should not be concerned with problems created to the WA, just as I do not believe WA is concerned with problems created to ENAEE. Dialogue is one thing, substantial subordination another. CB (EI): This problem already exists. Introducing mutual recognition will not necessarily improve or change it. Question: Do you agree with these statements, describing some of the problems/difficulties of mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels? Do you propose any other problems/difficulties of such an agreement for mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labels? GA (QUACING): I have already implicitly answered. I agree with the statements, but see analogous difficulties in mutual recognition of FC and SC degrees. CB (EI): There is also the problem, mentioned above, of accreditation only agencies and licenced professional engineering agencies. ST (OE): I agree. In the case of Second Cycle programmes, there is also variability in relation to certain programme characteristics, the duration for example. But the authorized Agencies just award the EUR-ACE label to the programmes that satisfy the EUR-ACE requirements. I think point (c) it will not be a problem because ENAEE and WA are not related. MÜDEK: We agree with these statements. Suggestions of WG a) Due to the variability of durations, programme content and academic standards of first cycle programs and considering the difficulties/problems outlined above, mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labelled first cycle degree programmes is not possible at the moment. CB (EI): As mentioned above, this variability of academic standards should not occur as all First Cycle programmes should meet the EUR-ACE Framework Standards for First Cycle programmes (b) In relation to the mutual recognition of Second Cycle EUR-ACE labelled (Master) engineering degree programmes (and 5 year combined programs) there is greater consistency between the characteristics defining the learning experience. In that respect mutual recognition should be possible. Question: Do you agree with these proposals? If not why and what is your suggestion? - 7 -

8 GA (QUACING): I strongly disagree with statement (a).i have already pointed out that analogous difficulties arise for FC and SC degree programmes. I add that the alternative (FC or SC) labelling is the main characteristic of the EUR-ACE accreditation system: to renounce to it would make EUR-ACE fully equivalent to other accreditation systems (e.g. WA). I would therefore go ahead with looking for mutual recognition of both FC and SC EUR-ACE labels. CB (EI): I would agree with Giuliano. ST (OE): I think is important that the mutual recognition it will be done at the FC and SC levels. Because the EUR-ACE label also award at the two levels. MÜDEK: (a) We agree that mutual recognition of EUR-ACE labelled first cycle programmes will be very difficult if the definition of mutual recognition proposed by the WG is used. For example, currently there are four ENAEE authorised accreditation agencies (AEER, Engineering Council, Engineers Ireland, MÜDEK) which are also Washington Accord signatories. EUR-ACE labelled second cycle programmes from AEER, Engineering Council (EC) and Engineers Ireland and EUR-ACE labelled first cycle programmes from MÜDEK are mutually recognized under the Washington Accord. Hence recognition of substantial equivalence of the first cycle programmes accredited by MÜDEK with first cycle programmes accredited by the above three agencies would create an absurd situation where a first cycle and a second cycle programme accredited by the same agency (e.g. EC) are substantially equivalent. (Note that fist cycle programmes accredited by EC are recognised under the Sydney Accord and not under the Washington accord, a fact that creates further complications for mutual recognition of first cycle degrees between EC and MÜDEK.) On the other hand, if the alternative definition of mutual recognition proposed by MÜDEK in response to Question 1 above is adopted, then a level of mutual recognition at the first cycle level may also be possible. (b) We agree that a level of mutual recognition of second cycle EUR-ACE labelled programmes may be possible even if the definition of mutual recognition proposed by the WG is used. On the other hand, restriction of mutual recognition to only second cycle may diminish the value of the first cycle labels in the eyes of the stakeholders. Hence we would like to iterate our proposal to define the concept mutual recognition as compliance with (i.e. meeting or exceeding) a common set of standards. Some other comments of WG members (a) The basis for establishing successful mutual recognition agreements is generally believed to be dependent on mutual trust and confidence between participants. Within ENAEE, this trust and confidence must be between members of the Label Committee (LC) in respect of the way their respective agencies carry out their accreditation work and how the EFS criteria and Standards for Accreditation - 8 -

9 Agencies are implemented in each agency s jurisdiction. We are at a good time for further developing this trust as a large number of agency reviews are about to be carried out by the LC. If mutual recognition is to be established at any level within ENAEE it is essential that these reviews are carried out rigorously. If this happens, mutual trust and confidence will be facilitated. CB (EI): I would hope that all reviews to date have been carried out rigorously!! (b) The above comments relate only to mutual recognition between EUR-ACE labelled degree programmes. The ultimate goal must be mutual recognition as between these programmes and those in the International Engineering Alliance (IEA) i.e. Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords, as appropriate. However, there are significant and fundamental differences between EUR-ACE labelled programmes and those within the IEA. The first step must be mutual recognition between EUR-ACE labelled programmes. Further international recognition must be considered as a longer term goal. However, the dialogue, in relation to engineering education and accreditation matters which currently exists between the IEA and ENAEE, must continue. ST (OE): I agree (c) EFS and the Standards for Accreditation Agencies may be reviewed with a view to enabling further mutual recognition at the First Cycle level. The inconsistencies in the learning experience characteristics of the current EUR- ACE labelled first cycle degree programmes may also be reviewed. ST (OE): I agree Questions: Your other comments are appreciated. GA (QUACING): I agree with the above comments, but add that there must be trust and confidence not only between members of the Label Committee but throughout ENAEE: therefore, in statement (a) the Administrative Council and the General Assembly must be quoted besides the LC. CB (EI): I am not sure that the three issues that I mentioned at the beginning have been thoroughly dealt with in the report. 1. What are the benefits of the proposal? 2. What additional administration workload and costs would be involved in implementing the proposal? 3. What effect, if any, would the proposal have on the awarding of EUR-ACE Labels? MÜDEK: (a) The statement made by the WG in this paragraph implies that the review process conducted by the Label Committee when checking the compliance of the applicant agency to EFS and the Standards for Accreditation Agencies lacks the necessary rigor. We do not agree with this view. As an agency which has participated in the LC review and decision process since 2008, we can confidently state that the review process currently practiced by the LC when - 9 -

10 checking the compliance of the applicant agency to EFS and the Standards for Accreditation Agencies is always conducted with the necessary rigor. On the other hand MÜDEK would agree on the need to periodically review and update the criteria used by ENAEE for authorisation of agencies. (b) We agree that there are certain differences between the EUR-ACE requirements and the requirements for the three different international accords of the International Engineering Alliance (i.e. Washington, Sydney and Dublin accords). We also agree on the need to continue the dialog between ENAEE and International Engineering Alliance (IEA). In the mean time we should also closely follow the developments that are taking place within the IEA regarding the standards and procedures used by these accords. WG Members: T. Dogu, D. McGrath, S. Telles