Higher Education in Europe: do we know how socially inclusive it is?

Elisabet Weedon,

Centre for Research in Education Inclusion and Diversity,

University of Edinburgh

www.creid.ed.ac.uk

Overview

The Bologna Process and its relationship with the EU The social dimension in the Bologna Process Participation rates in higher education and labour

market outcomes across Europe – or ‘why is widening participation important?’

Overview of widening participation in European countries – with a focus on access

Access and second chance routes: 3 country Stratification in access – who goes to which institution? Conclusion and reflections

The role of the EU in higher education

Education was not part of 1957 Treaty of Rome Initial emphasis within EEC on vocational training and free

movement of labour > increasing role in higher education through community programmes

Lisbon strategy – especially research (framework programmes funding) and modernising agenda – increased links with Bologna process

EU2020 strategy: 40% of 30-34 year olds to hold tertiary qualification

Cooperation across countries encouraged through Open Method of Coordination (OMC) – not legally binding

The Bologna Process: intergovernmental cooperation

Some key dates:1998 - Sorbonne Declaration – 4 national ministers (France, Germany, Italy and UK)1999 – Bologna Declaration signed by 29 countries 2010 – creation of European Higher Education Area 2012 – 47 countries signed up to Bologna 2007 – social dimension in the Bologna Process ‘clarified’

Initial aims of the Bologna process

Develop comparable degrees based on 2 main cycles (undergraduate/graduate)

Produce system of credits (ECTs) Promote mobility Promote European cooperation in quality assurance Promote European dimension in higher education in

2001 - Prague Emphasis on lifelong learning which included the need

to strengthen social cohesion and promote equal opportunities

European University Association (EUA) (05.06.2014)

The Bologna Process does not aim to harmonise national educational systems but rather to provide tools to connect them. The intention is to allow the diversity of national systems and universities to be maintained while the European Higher Education Area improves transparency between higher education systems, as well as implements tools to facilitate recognition of degrees and academic qualifications, mobility, and exchanges between institutions. The reforms are based on ten simple objectives which governments and institutions are currently implementing. Most importantly, all participating countries have agreed on a comparable three cycle degree system for undergraduates (Bachelor degrees) and graduates (Master and PhD degrees).

Bologna Process: a critique

Undemocratic process which lacks accountability:

It is worrying that many of the most crucial and influential decisions are taken in intergovernmental contexts, where there is a power-shift to the executive at the expense of national parliaments, and that they are implemented by means of soft law – of which the democratic legitimacy is doubtful … (Garben, 2012)

The social dimension in the Bologna process: London 2007

Higher education should play a strong role in fostering social cohesion, reducing inequalities … the student body entering, participating in and completing higher education at all levels should reflect the diversity of our populations. We reaffirm the importance of students being able to complete their studies without obstacles related to their social and economic background. We therefore continue our efforts to provide adequate student services, create more flexible learning pathways into and within higher education, and to widen participation at all levels on the basis of equal opportunity.

Why widening access matters – employment rates by educational level,

2013, percentages

Country differences in 30-34 year olds with tertiary education, selected EU

countries, %

25-64 year olds with tertiary qualification, by gender %

At risk of poverty by educational level, percentage

Widening participation goals: 2010-11 – vague?

Most EHEA countries have general equal opportunities policies assumed also to address widening access for under-represented groups (e.g. relating to financial measures)

Some have targeted policy measures, the most common is disability followed by low socio-economic status

Some countries focus on specific groups based on ethnicity relevant to their particular country

BUT lack of targets for increasing participation in most countries

(Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 2012)

Most frequently captured student characteristics in 2014

Qualification prior to entry (27 jurisdictions) Socioeconomic status (19 jurisdictions) Disability (17 jurisdictions) Labour market status prior to entry (13 jurisdictions) Labour market status during studies (12 jurisdictions) Ethnic/cultural/linguistic minority status (8 jurisdictions) Migrant status (13 jurisdictions)

However, very limited use of such data to monitor change:

‘ … in some national contexts, issues related to diversity are of marginal national and public interest, … data collected is not being analysed or not being published’ (Eurydice, 2014, p. 19)

Who is ‘under-represented’ in which country? Target groups in 2014

(Eurydice, 2014)

Only 9 (EU + associate countries) have some targets:First generation HE (Belgium nl)Male students (Finland)Female students into STEM subjects (Lithuania)Mature students and low SE status (Ireland, France, Scotland, England)General study support (Estonia)Slovenia has not identified specific target groups but intends to do so

Vague and lack of comparability?

Routes into higher education: Bologna countries

Traditional route: achievement of upper secondary qualification Second chance routes include:

recognition of knowledge and skills outside formal learning contexts (APEL);

Preparatory/bridging programmes – mainly for those who did not complete upper secondary qualification (e.g. Access to HE in UK)

In 2012 22 Bologna countries offered alternatives (out of 47) – mainly western and northern Europe (~same in 2014)

Influenced by school system: comprehensive vs stratified Stratified systems in the past – low levels of participation among

those not in academic stream

Alternative routes: recognition of competences in 3 countries

Germany:Upper secondary certificate – limited entry based on subject (fachgebundene Hochschulreife) or Fachhochschulreife Entry to HE based on accreditation of prior learning, work experience and/or special examination

Sweden:Adult ed. at upper secondary (Kommunal vuxenutbildning) Other education (Annan utbildningsform) Work experience (25:4) (Arbetslivserfarenhet) – discontinued Recognition of competences (Validering av reell kompetens)

Norway:Accreditation of competences

Access to HE by alternative routes (Orr & Hovdhaugen, 2014)

Germany: Accreditation of prior experience recent and used by: 0.8% of all students; 3.1% of low ed background and 5.9% of delayed transitions students

Sweden: Work experience (25/4) (now abolished) was used by:5.2% of all students; 8.7% of low ed background and 7.7% of delayed transitions students;

Recognition of competence was used by:2.5% all students; 2.7 of LE background; 3.7% DT

Norway: Accreditation of competences was used by:8.5 of all students; 16% of low ed background students and 23.6% of delayed transitions students

Note: Low educational background = parents with no more than lower secondary = proxy low social backgroud; delayed transition = 2 year gap min school – HE = proxy for lifelong learner

Second chance routes: useful in widening access?

All students Low ed. background Delayed trans.

Germany: traditional 82.7 72.2 74.7

Upper secondary – limited entry 3.4 5.8 3.8

Upper secondary – limited entry 13.1 18.9 15.6

Accreditation of prior learning 0.8 3.1 5.9

100 100 100

Sweden: traditional 71.5 58.8 58.1

Adult education 17.0 27.0 25.0

Other education 3.8 2.5 5.5

Work experience (abolished) 5.2 8.6 7.7

Recognition of comp. 2.5 2.7 3.7

100 100 100

Norway: traditional 91.5 84.0 76.4

Accreditation of competence 8.5 16.0 23.6

100 100 100

Lessons from the case studies?

Germany: although the proportion using 2nd chance route is low it reaches the intended target – highly stratified systems challenge existing routes to a greater extent than those less stratified

Sweden: higher proportion but one scheme discontinued and not as effective at reaching target group – less stratified but mainstreamed the different options – less effective in reaching intended target

Norway: highest proportion using the route and (out of the 3) the most effective at reaching the target group – but system of accreditation ‘burdensome’ and therefore used most by ‘recruiting’ institutions and for CPD (e.g. nursing)

To what extent are WP students channelled to certain institutions – leading to stratification in higher education institutions?

Access and type of institution: Austria (see Weedon & Riddell, 2012)

Type of institution

Low socio-economic

status

Middle socio-economic

status

Upper socio-economic

status

High socio-economic

statusScientific Universities 18.1% 30.2% 33.1% 18.6%

Universities of Fine Arts 15.1% 25.1% 39.8% 19.8%

Universities of Applied Sciences

23.4% 34.8% 31.9% 9.9%

Teacher Training Academies

20.9% 34.4% 35.6% 9.1%

Type of institution attended: Flanders, 1976 cohort, (see Weedon &

Riddell, 2012)

Type of institution Low socio-economic

status

Middle socio-

economic status

High socio-economic

status

Total

University 2.1 6.8 23.3 9.8

4-year college 1.7 3.8 8.8 4.5

2-year college 13.7 28.2 27.7 24.4

No tertiary education

82.4 61.3 40.1 61.3

Total 100 100 100 100

Conclusion and reflection

There are substantial differences in employment rates and ‘at risk’ of poverty between most and least qualified – more so in some countries than others – widening access is important!

Bologna Process shows commitment to widening access, supported by certain EU measures but there is limited evidence for any substantial progress

Case study examples of alternative routes show some success in widening participation but a country’s compulsory education system has a strong impact on access to higher education

Mainstreaming of alternative routes can lead to advantages for non-target group – as in Sweden

Conclusion and reflection cont.

There is variation in target groups for widening access and in data gathered – to what extent does this affect comparability of data?

How accurate are the data? For example, Scottish data published in Eurydice 2014 does not seem to tally with data published by HESA and SFC

Some evidence of stratification in access with widening access students more likely to access low prestige institutions – is this due to globalisation and league tables etc.?

Future challenges clearly remain in equalising access to education perhaps particularly at a time of resource scarcity and economic crisis! Can we have equity with efficiency or have we moved to an era where the economic agenda trumps the social agenda?

ReferencesEducation, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency 2012) The European Higher Education Area in 2012: Bologna Process implementation report, Brussel: Eurydice

Eurostat: Data in tables on slides 9, 10, 11 and 16 are publicly available from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2014) Modernisation of higher education in Europe: access, retention and employability, 2014, Eurydice report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Garben, S. (2012) The future of higher education in Europe: the case for a stronger base in EU law, London School of Economics: LEQS Paper No 50/2012

Orr, D. and Hovdhaugen, E. (2014) ‘Second chance’ routes into higher education: Sweden, Norway and Germany compared, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 33, 1, pp. 45-61

Riddell, S. and Weedon, E. (2014) European higher education, the inclusion of students from underrepresented groups and the Bologna Process, International Journal of Lifelong Education, Vol. 33, 1, pp. 26-44

Weedon, E. and Riddell, S. (2012) Reducing or reinforcing inequality: assessing the impact of European policy on widening access to higher education, in Riddell, S., Markowitsch, J. and Weedon, E. Lifelong learning in Europe: equity and efficiency in the balance, Bristol: Policy Press