QUALITY ASSURANCE

Informal Conference of Ministers of Education from the five new countries

in the Bologna Process Strasbourg, 12-13 December 2006

Prof. Luc E. WEBER, Rector Emeritus, University of Geneva

Chair CDESR, Council of Europe

2

Setting the European sceneStatements of the ministers of education in the framework of the Bologna process

Bologna Declaration (1999): …”Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies”..

Prague communiqué (2001): ….”Ministers called upon the universities and other higher education institutions (HEI), national agencies and ENQUA, in cooperation with corresponding bodies from countries which are not members of ENQUA, to collaborate in establishing a common framework of reference and to disseminate best practice”….

Berlin communiqué (2003): …”At the European level, Ministers call upon ENQUA through its members, in co-operation with the EUA, EURASHE and ESIB, to develop an agreed set of standards, procedures and guidelines on quality assurance, to explore ways of ensuring an adequate peer review system for quality assurance and/or accreditation agencies or bodies, ……..”.

3

Bergen communiqué (2005) “….we urge HEI to continue their efforts to enhance the quality of their activities through the systematic introduction of internal mechanisms and their direct correlation to external quality assurance…

….. We adopt the standards and guidelines for quality assurance in the EHEA as proposed by ENQA. ….

.. We welcome the principle of a European register of quality assurance agencies ….

…….We underline the importance of cooperation between nationally recognised agencies with a view to enhancing the mutual recognition of accreditation or quality assurance decisions.”

4

Two related statements

Communication from the EU commission (2006): “Universities will not become innovative and responsive to

change unless they are given real autonomy …..” “……In return for being freed from over-regulation and micro-

management, universities should accept full institutional accountability to society at large for their results.”

Recommendation 1762 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (30/06/2006)

Art 4. “…The Assembly reaffirm the right to academic freedom and University autonomy…”

Art 11 “Accountability, transparency and quality assurance are pre-conditions…..”

5

Outline

Why quality assurance (QA)?

How to organize QA?

To conclude

WHY QUALITY ASSURANCE?

The public responsibility

The responsibility of HEI

7

THE PUBLIC RESPONSIBILITY FOR QA

Public responsibility for HE&R Collective return Equal opportunity

Public responsibility for QA HE&R is costly Absence of a system of sanctions and rewards Participation to the EHEA (Bologna process)

Public responsibility for QA embraces: Public institutions: direct control Private institutions: indirect control (regulation)

8

The responsibility of HEI

QA is an imperative for HEI The environment is changing increasingly rapidly

Globalization, scientific and technological progress, Bologna process Consequences: increasing competition and necessity to cooperate

European HEI are underfinanced

The governance and leadership of HEI are not up to the autonomy they request and to the poor financial situation?

Limits of a decentralized decision system centered on professors Decision process not favorable to decisions (to change)

Conclusions Public authorities: feel the need to intervene (danger or a vicious

circle) Institutions: it is in their own interest to promote a quality culture

(quality improvement)

HOW TO ORGANIZE QA

HEI are very specific institutions

QA is in a state of adolescence

Strategic choices re. QA

10

HEI are very specific institutions

Missions Keep the knowledge accumulated by society Transfer knowledge Create new knowledge Use knowledge to solve societal problems

Nature of services Teaching: teach how to learn Research: complex and unpredictable processes

11

QA is in a State of adolescence

Origin: A couple of national agencies 20 years ago

Multiple actors, strategies and designations National or branch specific organizations ENQUA, European Network of Quality Assurance ECA, European Consortium for accreditation EUA, European University Association

Impact Low efficiency (accreditation and evaluation) Weak benefit-cost ratio Promote strategic behaviors Still to come: evaluation/accreditation becomes a business

Cause: Too little research; “re-invention” of the wheel Political opportunism; “overactivity”, mistrust

12

A couple of definitions

Accreditation Authorization which applies to:

institutions and/or teaching programs private or public, as well as LLL programs

Aims: to protect the name “University” to guarantee that an institution or a program satisfies a

minimum quality standard to protect the investment made by the students-consumers

Responsibility of the State (regulatory role of the State); Could also serve to assess:

If a program has reached some specified quality level (business, engineering)

The internal quality assurance procedures of an institution The final aim of accreditation is NOT the assessment of

the relative quality level (therefore, it promotes quality only indirectly)

13

Quality assessment or evaluation More ambitious and delicate: goal is to assess the relative

quality of an institution, a teaching program, a faculty or department and/or a discipline in a country research

Necessary for The knowledge society (improving the quality of teaching and

research) The Bologna process (building trust; accreditation will not be

sufficient to secure acceptance in good research universities)

14

Quality culture (quality improvement) Extended ongoing effort on the part of an institution (and

encouraged by the State) to develop the capacity for change through the development of:

Internal quality Strategic leadership

This effort must be supported by external evaluations and monitored (evaluated) externally from time to time

15

Strategic choices re. QA

Formative or summative? Formative: encouragement and support Summative: sanction (yes – no) This choice greatly influences behavior (attitude)

Fitness for purpose or evaluation according to pre-defined criteria?

Pre-defined criteria: positive for very broad general criteria; difficult to generalize in a very complex and diversified environment

Fitness for purpose: Evaluation based on what the institution wants to do

16

Qualitative or quantitative criteria? Quantitative: seems to be ideal, but indicators are not

sufficiently homogenous or relevant (ex. of rankings!) Qualitative: “softer”, however, very flexible; result

depends on transparency of institution and professionalism and independence of evaluators

Institution centered or agency centered? Subsidiarity principle: responsibility of HEI! (Berlin 2003) But, responsibility of the State to make it compulsory

and to control

17

Other open questions?

Link between evaluation and financial support? promote transparency of institution (for its own sake)? or reward performance?

Independence of agency! Basically, 4 possibilities:

State agency, Universities’ agency Joint Sate and universities’ agency Private (for profit?) agency run by a profession or a

foundation None is fully independent from influence (political,

universities’ or financial)

18

Independence of evaluators! Highly desirable! But difficult

Higher education is a small world Increasing obligation to compensate evaluators for their

work will make them more prudent (less disinterested)

Publication of results? At first sight, very desirable (transparency) But danger that evaluation reports are self censored

TO CONCLUDE

(in line with Bologna and ENQUA principles)

20

ENQUA “Standard and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA”. Basic principles

Focus on HE institutions

Universities are responsible to develop an internal quality culture. It implies

Self-evaluation Visit of peers

However, independent agencies (national or trans-national) should

Set the framework (general rules) Control the process in each institution

21

HEI should be proactive that is develop a serious quality culture

Evaluation of teaching is good, but also an alibi not to do more

Quality improvement in academic and administrative affairs should be an essential element of the strategy of change

Public authorities, on the contrary, are too pro-active (intervene too deeply); vicious circle!

Accreditation of programs goes too far; this should be the responsibility of well governed institutions

Accreditation of whole public institutions is an alibi (heavy and costly, superficial and it rarely changes anything)

THANK YOU

I hope it is useful