Policy Making in Europe: Convergence or Conflict? Accreditation of Higher Education: Comparative Policies in Europe Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme Professor

Policy Making in Europe: Convergence or Conflict?

Accreditation of Higher Education: Comparative Policies in Europe

Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme•Professor of Education Ghent University (B)

•General Director VLIR (B)•Commission on Global Accreditation IAUP

•European accreditation project CRE•‘Comité Proefaccreditering’ HBO-Raad (NL)

•Flemish representative in ‘Commissie Franssen’ (NL)

Vienna, 27 April 2001

Dirk Van Damme - Policy Making in Europe

2

Policy Making in Europe

• Accreditation: what?

• Why has accreditation in Europe become an issue?

• Challenges and principles

• Antecedents and current developments

• Prospects

• Convergence, divergence or conflict?

• Conclusions



3

Accreditation: what?

• public statement based on a quality assessment that certain standards are met– programme or institution

– voluntary bodies, state agencies, sector’s organisations, professional associations, inter-institutional networks

– threshold or excellence standards

– consequences and benefits: public statement, ‘recognition’, licence to teach, financing, credit-transfer and access to postgraduate level, student aid, access to profession, quality label, etc.



4

Why accreditation in Europe? /1

• 80s: in many (continental) European countries statutory recognition of institutions and programs by the state with no external accreditation procedures

• 90s: changing state-institution relations :– more institutional autonomy, decentralisation and

deregulation in exchange to accountability– ‘evaluative state’ (Neave): higher education as public

good leads to public interest in quality, – from input- to output-steering : more use of output-

indicators– contractualisation of relations (e.g. France)



5


• 90s: emergence of quality assurance (QA)– massification and concerns for a potential decline of

standards– diminishing confidence of stake-holders in traditional

academic quality management– increasing demand for more accountability– budget restrictions, pressure to increase cost-effectiveness– more competitive higher education market where quality

becomes an asset and labeling device– emergence of a ‘general’ QA model (Van Vught),

methodological convergence



6


• globalisation of higher education :– global student mobility, competition, diminishing

‘attractiveness’ of European higher education

– new providers : private universities, branch campuses of US universities, franchising and electronic delivery modes

– liberalisation of education services, free trade agreements, US claims in discussions of GATS in WTO

– impact of ‘external’ accreditation : professional accreditation agencies, US accreditation operating in Europe, ABET, Washington Accord, GATE, EQUIS



7

Challenges and principles /1

• problems, needs and challenges :– strong need for transparency in an increasingly complex

and heterogeneous higher education system– continuing problems with recognition of diplomas and

degrees, equivalence issues– problems with credit transfer– integration of internationalisation and quality assurance:

QA is essentially national and domestic, no QA for internationalisation

– need for a stronger and more focused QA system, with stronger regulatory impact on higher education



8


• European accreditation is seen as a possible road to:– make QA systems less domestic, more international– make QA systems more effective (and sanctioning)– provide a solid and ‘trustworthy’ basis for new bachelor

and master degrees– integrate new providers in the system– create more transparency in the HE system– develop a sound basis for credit transfer and recognition

of degrees– improve mobility, cooperation and exchange



9


• principles in establishing European accreditation (< CRE-project):– convergence while preserving diversity– flexibility in adapting to changing environments– respect for institutional autonomy– involvement of all stake-holders, including students– balance of (internal) improvement and (external)

accountability functions– value-added to existing QA systems ; building upon

methodological experiences with QA



10

Antecedents and developments /1

• Various European ways in dealing with ‘recognition’– ERASMUS and SOCRATES programmes– European Credit Transfer System (ECTS)– Lisbon Convention : diploma supplement, from

‘equivalence’ to ‘recognition’ of diplomas and degrees– establishment of information and diploma recognition

networks (NARIC’s and ENIC’s)

• Lack of integration with QA (e.g. ECTS)– initiatives of European Commission, CRE, ACA, IMHE

(IQR) and others on international QA



11


• Bologna Declaration (1999)– goal: “to create a European space for higher education

in order to enhance the employability and mobility of citizens and to increase the international competitiveness of European higher education”

– keywords : transparency, compatibility, flexibility, comparability

– “a European dimension in quality assurance, with comparable criteria and methods”



12


• diverging national developments, e.g. :– Germany : accreditation for new B/M degrees, with meta-

accreditation by Akkreditierungsrat– Netherlands : establishment of public accreditation agency;

experimental accreditation by non-university sector– Finland : public accreditation council for institutional

accreditation of polytechnics and continuing professional courses

– UK : public statements by QAA as final part of QA process– CEE countries : mostly state-run accreditation agencies

that give ex ante authorisation to programmes or institutions



13


• emerging networks on the European level :– European network of QA agencies established in 1999

and supported by European Commission: ENQA– networks of institutions establishing their own

accreditation (e.g. ECIU)– professional accreditation networks in engineering,

medicine, veterinary sciences, etc.– the EQUIS model developed by EFMD in management

education

• networks and initiatives on the global level :– IAUP, INQAAHE, CHEA



14


• CRE-project (July 2000 - February 2001)– an analysis of the needs, principles and possibles options

for supra-national accreditation in Europe

– conclusions (Lisbon seminar, February 2001):• need to strengthen QA systems in view of the Bologna process, to

ensure transparency, compatibility and credibility of B/M degrees

• strong resistance to a centralised European accreditation system with a single, imposed set of criteria; no ranking or uniformity

• accreditation is a possible avenue, when ownership remains on institutional level, bottom-up, building on existing QA models

• need for a European ‘platform’



15


• Salamanca Convention (March 2001) - theme 5– the need for supra-national quality assurance procedures

in a transnational HE context– support for accreditation from stakeholders and students;

hesitation among some institutions and disciplines– purily national accreditation systems and intrusion of

‘foreign’ accreditation perceived as problematic– increasing awareness of reality of ‘multiple accreditation’– still highly confused debate– a European platform is desirable, fostering mutual

acceptance of QA and accreditation systems and decisions



16

Prospects

• In many countries accreditation is on the agenda (cf. Haug & Tauch, Trends II)

• Experiments and plans for national accreditation in many countries (Italy, Spain, Norway, Netherlands, Flanders, etc.)

• Prague Ministerial Conference (May 2001)• Initiative for supra-national accreditation agency

from Dutch & Flemish education ministers with strong interest from other countries

• EUA-platform



17

Convergence or conflict? /1

• Convergence:– necessity to give strong (international) credibility to new

degrees by QA and accreditation procedures– necessity to solve issues of recognition and certification;

need for transparency, comparability and compatibility– necessity to confront issues related to new providers and

new delivery modes– build further on existing QA procedures and experiences



18


• Divergence:– still very complex higher education systems– differences between binary and unified systems of higher

education– differences between systems with national qualifications

frameworks vs. institutional autonomy in curricula– very substantial differences in shaping national

accreditation models



19


• Topics of debate or conflict:– quality benchmark levels and accreditation criteria;

differentiation and ranking: towards a divided Europe?

– accreditation as a way to erode institutional autonomy?; resistance to public accreditation agencies (state) and involvement of stakeholders (economy)

– ownership of accreditation: state-controlled or institution-controlled?; role of external stakeholders?

– must other accreditation systems (professional, inter-institutional, etc.) be subjected to public accreditation?



20


• Topics of debate or conflict (cont’d):– balance between national and supra-national accreditation

systems

– freedom of accreditation, ‘meta-accreditation’ and control

– danger of conservative effects by the impact of common, ‘trustworthy’ standards; negative impact on innovation of higher education?; standards must be challenging

– danger of increasing homogeneity, balance/tension between transparency and differentiation



21

Conclusions /1

• With accreditation state-institution relations but also national-international balances enter new phase

• Issues concerning ‘trust’ and credibility move from institutions to national QA and accreditation systems to supra-national level, but still strong opposition to substantial transfer of competences to ‘Europe’

• Extending ‘space’ of European HE lowers quality benchmarks and standards, downward levelling when moving from centre to periphery



22

Conclusions /2

• Marketisation of higher education: is accreditation a potential source of stability/‘conservatism’ in a restless environment?

• Is a strengthening or recognition of the public good dimension of higher education?

• Diverging interests: students - programmes - institutions - national HE systems - stakeholders - national authorities - international ‘space’

• Underestimation of substantial methodological issues

Documents

Policy Making in Europe: Convergence or Conflict? Accreditation of Higher Education: Comparative Policies in Europe Prof. Dr. Dirk Van Damme Professor