Transcript QUALITY ASSURANCE Informal Conference of Ministers of Education from the five new countries in the Bologna Process Strasbourg, 12-13 December 2006 Prof.

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
Setting the European scene
Statements of the ministers of education in the
framework of the Bologna process



Bologna Declaration (1999): …”Promotion of European cooperation 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, ……..”. 2




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.”
3
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 micromanagement, 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 preconditions…..”
4
Outline
Why quality assurance (QA)?
How to organize QA?
To conclude
5
WHY QUALITY ASSURANCE?
The public responsibility
The responsibility of HEI
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)
7
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)
8
HOW TO ORGANIZE QA
HEI are very specific institutions
QA is in a state of adolescence
Strategic choices re. QA
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
10
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
11
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)
12
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)
13
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
14
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 predefined 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
15
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
16
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)
17
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
18
TO CONCLUDE
(in line with Bologna and ENQUA
principles)
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
20
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 proactive (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)
21
THANK YOU
I hope it is useful