BOLOGNA WITH STUDENT EYES
2020

IMPRINT
Bologna with Student Eyes 2020

CONTENTS1INTRODUCTORY WORDS

ISBN 9789491256066

3

2. Executive summary

This publication is made within the framework of the ‘Bologna with Stakeholders Eyes For a Stronger Future of the Bologna
Process’ Erasmus + KA3 Support to Policy reform project (898688 — BWSE FORward — EPLUS2020-EHEA09-2019)9

3. Methodology

12

4. Student participation in higher education governance22

5. Social dimension

33

6. Quality assurance

46

7. Recognition60

8. Internationalisation and mobility

74

9. Structural reforms

88

10. Financing of higher education

98

11. Student-centred learning

106

12. The future of the Bologna Process

113
115

APPENDICES
Bibliography

121

List of commonly used abbreviations

123

List of figures

127

List of BWSE 2020 data collection

Brussels, December 2020 by European Students’ Union (ESU)

This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission cannot be held responsible for any
use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Content
Carmen Romero Rodríguez • Daniel Altman • Gohar Hovhannisyan • Hélène Mariaud • Jakub Grodecki • Martin Paluoja •Martina Darmanin • Monika Skadborg • Nina De Winter • Rajko Golović • Robert Napier • Sebastian Berger • Urša Leban
Project coordination
Gohar Hovhannisyan • Maria Sierra • Robert Napier
Collaborators
The National Commission for Further and Higher Education, Malta
The Ministry of Science and Education, Croatia
The Ministry of Education and Science, the Republic of Armenia
Editing
Caroline Sundberg • Chiara Patricolo • Nicole Butterfield • Nikola Baketa
Proofreading
Ani Hovhannisyan
Design credits
Cover Illustration / Infographics: Stella Komninou Arakelian

INTRODUCTORY WORDS
We close another cycle of the Bologna Process while entering the third decade of it. Throughthis process, we’ve tried to build a shared culture and understanding of cooperation andtrust among participating countries. For more than 20 years we have worked on defining,
promoting, and implementing key commitments. We have agreed on fundamental values
and core priorities.
The European Students’ Union is convinced that the Bologna Process creates a uniqueplatform for its members to make common commitments, respect fundamental values,
and together implement higher education policy for Europe. From the very beginning,
we believed that this platform creates an opportunity for valuable dialogue between the
many diverse higher education systems of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
Today this dialogue is more than ever needed in order to overcome barriers of virtual
collaboration, to build trustworthy recognition processes,
to bring a paradigm shift of student-centered learning, toincrease attention to the social dimension of education, tofoster democratic societies through higher education and in
all of this, to bring positive outcomes to the lives of students.
Our convictions, though, do not always transform into thereality of the EHEA where the voluntary commitments ofmembers sometimes remain formally stated rather thanfactually implemented.
We invite you to take a deep dive into our Bologna With
Student Eyes 2020 results in order to look into the viewsof the European students on the implementation of the
Bologna Process. We hope these findings serve you as agood reference for reflecting on the future steps of the
Bologna Process as we look into the outcomes of the Rome 2020 Ministerial Conference
and prepare to kick-off the next BFUG cycle. We welcome you to engage in follow-up
activities in the framework of our BSWE FORward (Bologna with Stakeholders Eyes For a
Stronger Future of the Bologna Process) Erasmus+ project and together build a stronger
higher education area for Europe.
The 2019-2020 Presidency of the European Students Union
Robert Napier, Gohar Hovhannisyan, Sebastian Berger

Executive summary | 3

2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Bologna Process was initiated to establish a pan-European higher education systemand create more coherence and harmonisation across the European Higher Education Area.
Moreover, ambitious Bologna reforms also aim to facilitate student and staff mobility, makehigher education more inclusive, accessible, attractive, and competitive worldwide. Overthe past two decades, many reforms, including the participation of the European Students’
Union (ESU) as a consultative member have been accomplished by the Bologna Process.

2.1. STUDENTS’ PERSPECTIVE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION
Since 2003, ESU has been observing and evaluating the implementation of the Bologna
reforms through the Bologna with Student Eyes (BWSE) publications. Through BWSE,
students offer a critical reality check on the political commitments and the implementationof Bologna reforms decided upon within the scope of the European Higher Education Area.
Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic, which has already made a huge impact on the activities
of higher education institutions (HEIs), continues to reshape the higher education agenda.
Therefore, now more than ever it is time to rethink the future of the EHEA, and truly foster
innovation, digitalisation, and inclusion.
The chapters of the BWSE 2020 present the analysis of the qualitative and quantitative datasubmitted by the National Unions of Students (NUSes) allowing to present how students
perceive the Bologna Process and its reforms.
The results of the analysis show that students, being immediately affected by the practicalimplementation of the Bologna reforms, often report dissatisfaction and concern due touneven implementation or failure to follow up on some of the commitments undertakenby the EHEA ministers, whereas progress is also reported in certain areas.

2.2. BOLOGNA PROCESS 2018-2020:
LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE ENDEAVOURSThe data for this edition was collected by surveying NUSes on the following areas: student
participation in higher education governance, social dimension, quality assurance,
recognition, internationalization and mobility, structural reforms, financing of higher
education, student-centred learning and the future of the Bologna Process.

4 | Executive summary

Student participation
Over the last three versions of the Bologna with Student Eyes (BWSE) publications, NUSes
have increasingly reported that the Bologna Process is decreasingly considered to be adecisive factor in effectively supporting students’ participation. The student voice within
higher education institutions (HEIs) is alarmingly, becoming more and more silenced,
ignored or not sufficiently empowered. ESU considers it crucial that the principle ofcollegiality is reaffirmed in HEIs through bottom up approaches, such as, institutional
action strategies that aim to empower students and safeguard their academic freedom
and autonomy in representation.
Social dimension
Steadily but surely, through the years, the social dimension of higher education has become amainstream issue of discussion and advocacy among many student unions and an essential
priority for ESU. According to ESU’s responding unions, there is a growing perception that
positive developments are taking place all across Europe, with a social dimension (SD)being considered a highly important subject on both the governmental and HEI levels. The
Principles and Guidelines for Social Dimension (PAG) give a solid ground to start concretely
improving the situation. Moreover, the European Qualification Passport for Refugees also
remains a tool that can practically improve and broaden the accessibility to higher education
for the underrepresented groups. Therefore, ESU strongly welcomes such an initiative andhas been at the forefront to push for broadening its use within the EHEA.
Quality assurance
Since 2018, ESU has seen an increase in the numbers of students participating in its Quality
Assurance (QA) Expert Pool and engaging in training activities on external QA. As one of the
key commitments of the EHEA that seems to mark the highest rates of implementation,
ESU firmly believes that the effective implementation of QA in HEIs is enhanced throughthe engagement of students as equal stakeholders of such processes. However, while
there always is a verbal affirmiration that students should be part of the governance andimplementation of QA, the reality spoken by students reflects differently. In fact, since 2018,
fewer students were reported to be considered equal stakeholders in internal QA processes.
Unfortunately, the same trend is seen in the governance process of QA on the national level
and among QA agencies.
Recognition
Automatic recognition has long been an ambitious goal of the Bologna Process thatstill gathers support from ESU’s student unions. However, this goal is still far from being
achieved due to persisting discrepancies between the implementation of Bologna tools in

Executive summary | 5

EHEA countries. For example, some NUSes report that the lack of national legislation hinders
the implementation of the diploma supplement on the institutional levels. Furthermore,
only half of the respondents think that recognition procedures are transparent and exactly
only half of them consider the approaches to be non-discriminatory.
As for the recognition of prior learning (RPL), only a minority of the unions reports initiatives
that support the RPL procedures, while lack of trust remains one of the main barriers to RPL.
Internationalisation and mobility
Financing for internationalisation and mobility to be accessible to students facing socioeconomic disadvantage remains the most pressing issue in this year’s edition of BWSE. A
clear majority of all respondents indicated that financial difficulties are the number one
barrier for students who would like to undergo a learning mobility period but ultimately
decide against it. The internationalisation and mobility goals cannot be achieved as longas crucial aspects of internationalisation remain underfunded. Therefore, there is a needto set more incremental and inclusive goals for internationalisation in all countries while
partnering with the students’ unions to achieve these goals.
Structural reforms
Despite the implementation of the National Qualifications Framework (NQFs) in most
EHEA countries, students still face difficulties getting their qualifications recognised. The
results of this year’s edition of BWSE show that in most of the countries where NUSes weresurveyed, the three-cycle system is implemented either ‘always’ or ‘in most of the cases’,
while in a very small minority of countries, NUSes point out the need to put further effort
into ensuring that degree programs are truly comparable with similar qualifications ofother EHEA member states.
Financing of higher education
Achieving inclusive, innovative, interconnected and sustainable higher education is highly
dependent on the financing accessible to HEIs. In the past decades, the number of students
in the EHEA has increased significantly, while public funding of higher education has either
stagnated or reduced in many countries in the EHEA. Based on its belief that a person’ssocio-economic background should not serve as a barrier for them to access education,
ESU calls on all stakeholders to commit to this leading principle and consider it in all theirdecisions. Attempting to bridge the public funding gap in higher education, national
governments and HEIs tend to turn to students as a resource to quickly resolve funding
issues. Introducing or raising tuition fees is alarmingly becoming the common choicein many EHEA countries however, ESU emphasizes that this is only an easy way out of acomplex problem that is causing harmful and long-term financial problems for students.

6 | Executive summary

Executive summary | 7

Student-centred learning

Social dimension

Student-centred learning (SCL) has been one of the core topics of the ESU’s advocacy work
since 2010. Today, SCL has a prominent presence in European higher education policy
discussions and is included in different forward-looking and action-setting documents,
however, there is still a noticeable gap of actions and change triggered by these policy
measures on the national and institutional levels. This gap becomes more obvious whencomparing the results of the BWSE 2018 to the 2020 data where little to no improvement
was identified. The analysis of the responses shows that the implementation of SCL is highly
dependent on the level of student participation in the implementation of the Bologna tools.
The latter effectively enables students to have a seat and a say on the table where theirlearning experiences are being shaped and evaluated.

A long and uphill journey needs to be started once the PAGs are adopted by ministers
to closely follow the implementation of this document. A holistic approach to the social
dimension and an aim to create coherent policies from early childhood education tolifelong learning should be ensured. Reliable data should also be seen as a necessary
precondition for an evidence-based improvement of the SD of higher education. The BFUG
should enable the establishment and work of the Advisory Group for Social Dimension in
the next BFUG Operational Program 2020-2023.

Future of the Bologna Process
While the EHEA is, by nature, dynamic it is important to be attentive towards discrepant
speeds of implementation on the national and institutional levels, as this can, if neglected,
fragment and negatively impact the historical achievements and development of the EHEA.
As we enter the 2020-2030 decade in extraordinary times, ESU firmly believes this should
be a decade of completing, testing, and perfecting EHEA members’ compliance withthe agreed commitments. Achieving more ambitious targets for inclusion, innovation,interconnectedness and sustainability in higher education does not necessarily require
us to reinvent the wheel, but may rather require more collective efforts and resources onpolicy-based actions and strategies that will build mutual support, trust and solidarity
amongst the members of the EHEA.

Quality assurance
Multipurpose quality assurance should be utilized as a tool on the national and institutional
levels for further enhancing the transparency and public trust in and amongst higher
education institutions in the EHEA. On the national level, there is a need to create more
incentives for universities to involve students as full members in internal QA, while on theinstitutional level an environment where students and other stakeholders acknowledge
students as full members should be created. The existing barriers to student engagement
should be reflected and addressed. Students’ engagement in QA should be supported
through flexible study conditions and non-academic learning recognition.
Recognition

The outcomes of the new goals of the Bologna Process after 2020 set an ambitious direction
for the EHEA to become more inclusive, innovative and interconnected to be able torespond to challenges and remain competitive. Meanwhile, the following recommendations
should be taken into consideration for ensuring the full implementation of the Bologna
commitments and establishment of new priorities.

National legislation should define a framework for the diploma supplement to be issued
free of charge after graduation. Furthermore, ESU believes that there needs to be more
focus and resources put into creating synergies and harmonisation in the assessmentof foreign qualifications and foreign diplomas, in order to build more trust in automatic
recognition and to reduce discriminatory approaches towards refugee students or non-EU
students. More peer support should be made available for the respective authorities/ bodies
in the EHEA to enhance transparency, accessibility, and time-efficiency of recognition
procedures. A robust exchange of information should be developed among recognition
bodies. The implementation of the Bologna tools should remain a priority and further
supplemented to guide and facilitate automatic recognition. RPL should be seen as astrong enabler of student-centred learning and access to formal education.

Student participation

Internationalisation and mobility

The Bologna Process should be more engaging and crucial for students on the national andinstitutional levels. This can facilitate more transparency in all the related processes. However,
the autonomy of the student representatives and the financial security needed for the student
movement to operate independently must be strongly addressed and taken very seriously by
the higher education community. Students’ participation must be empowered on all levels
through bottom-up approaches and strategies to safeguard students’ rights to representationand decision making in higher education paths as equal partners shaping the future of society.

Increased funding should be ensured for equal access for a larger group of beneficiaries
from all ages and different educational purposes, especially those from disadvantaged
groups who still struggle to access and be successful in mobility programmes. There isa need to make language courses free both for international and local students, while
HEI teachers’ training on teaching in English and on confronting western-centric bias incurricula should also be addressed. The international students’ needs should be understood

2.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

8 | Executive summary

by HEIs and discriminatory practices towards them including tuition fees, access to healthcare, housing, and social services should be dismantled.

Methodology | 9

3. METHODOLOGY

Structural reforms
To foster the involvement of all relevant stakeholders, including students it is important tobetter communicate the reasoning and benefits which come from the full implementationof NQFs and the LRC. Moreover, HEIs across the EHEA should promote and inform learnersof the fact that education can be more effective within the three cycles by creating more
flexibility. The full implementation of the ECTS should give the basis for extensive facilitationof mobility and recognition of learning outcomes in the EHEA, and the ECTS system should
be considered as successfully implemented, only when based on learning outcomes andlearner’s workload.

3.1. BOLOGNA WITH STUDENT EYES – PAST AND PRESENT

Financing of higher education

Comparisons over time have been more and more developed over the years facilitated byonline survey tools that are available now but were not at the beginning of the publication’s
history. The 2020 edition is not exclusively constructed on the data collected through its
survey but draws on the desk research done within the frames of the BSWE FORward(Bologna with Stakeholders Eyes For a Stronger Future of the Bologna Process) Erasmus+
project led by ESU.

Tuition-free and accessible higher education needs to be the long-term goal for all
EHEA member states. The availability and funding of student support services should be
improved and better provision of information on funding opportunities for students should
be provided. Moreover, more funding should be allocated to PhD studies and research, andgovernments must monitor and contain commodification policies in higher education.
Student-centred learning
There is a need for a structure to guarantee that the policy discussions on SCL extend
from the European to the national level. Internal QA should enhance the involvementof students and promote their meaningful participation, seeing them as full membersof the processes, while external QA should focus on prioritising the assessment of thoseaccreditation standards which are linked to SCL. Those involved in curricula development
should be retrained to communicate the importance of well-defined learning outcomes. In
parallel, resources should be allocated for building the capacity of students to be involvedin the development of the learning outcomes and the ECTS credits allocated to study
programs and courses.
Future of the Bologna Process
Better communication and peer support need to be available to tackle issues that exist at
the local and institutional levels that are still hindering the implementation of commitments
and respect to fundamental values. Moreover, the BFUG should enable the establishment
and work of the Advisory Group for SD in the next BFUG Operational Program 2020-2023.
Greater focus for SCL is necessary to provide students with flexibility and a sense of ownershipof their education. The digitalisation of education has to be given the necessary resources tobuild capacity of both students and staff and to ensure access and opportunity to all.

ESU has been reviewing the implementation of the Bologna Process since 2003, usinga range of methodological approaches through the Bologna with Student Eyes (BWSE)
publication, launched prior to each ministerial conference.
Bologna with Student Eyes explores the perception of implementation amongst ESU’s
members operating in EHEA countries and seeks to bring attention to the students’priorities and recommendations for the future of the Bologna Process.

3.2. METHOD
Selection of method
Bologna with Student Eyes follows the common EHEA trend of a stock-taking report inorder to commend and critique policy. Stocktaking that has been captured via an online
survey for the most recent years of the publication’s history. The 2020 edition is exclusively
based on quantitative material with a few cases of follow up discussions with NUSes
presenting perceptions of significant nature to them. The selected method enables for
future publications to compare the development and attitudes of the National Unions ofStudents over time, in the same manner as this publication.
Online survey
The Survey of 2020 has been based on the survey of 2018, with some questions being
replaced; added, deleted. Some questions remained untouched, in order to ensurecomparability over time. The questions that were added came about by following new
developments within a certain field and our thirst to learn more. Those questions that were
replaced were based on the changing nature of the Bologna Process,. Those questions thatwere deleted had already been covered by questions posed to national unions as part of the
ESU questionnaire for the Bologna Implementation Report survey. Questions were likewise
deleted if it was assumed to be outdated or not in accordance with ESU priorities.

10 | Methodology

The Survey was developed through Survey Monkey between August-October 2019 inten different stand alone sections; these were General questions about the Bologna
Process, Student Participation in Higher Education Governance, Social Dimension,
Quality Assurance, Recognition, Mobility & Internationalisation, Structural reforms and the
Financing of Higher Education.
Replies were collected between November 2019- February 2020. At the point of closure of
the Survey, those answers only containing contact details and/or lacking a grand majorityof answers were deleted and the NUS was asked to fill out the survey once more. After thecleaning there are now between 37 to 40 NUSes answering each part, from 40 EHEA countries
from Iceland to Armenia covering all EHEA countries where ESU members are operating. For
further reference to the NUSes contributing, see annex BWSE 2020 data collection.
Analysis of the data
Access to the original dataset of 2018 and 2020 was given to the authors in February 2020.
The Authors were made aware of the differences in questions in the Survey on 2018 and2020 and deviations in reply rates. Analysis of the dataset has been carried out separately
by each author(s).
Furthermore, within the frames of the BSWE FORward project researchers were hired insummer of 2020 to do a desk research and cross-check the findings of the BWSE 2020
survey with the data available on the web. The authors of the chapters were provided withthe findings of the researchers.

3.3. PROCESS
Preparation
The coordination of the work was divided into three different parts:
1. Coordination of the survey revision and collection of responses
2. Coordination of the project application of the BWSE FORward project
3. Coordination of analysis of the results, preparation of the publication
The Presidency members of the 2019-2020 Executive Committee team have worked on thecoordination tasks.
Membership capacity building - getting ready for the survey
The Executive Committee of ESU started to work on revising and adjusting the BWSE survey
in the summer of 2019. To ensure both the survey and the publication were as user-friendly
as possible a training activity was set up. Hence, sessions during the 38 and 39 European
Students Conventions ware dedicated to discuss the survey and the publication between
the members of ESU and the Executive Committee and one session at the European

Methodology | 11

Students’ Union’s Board Meeting 77 seminar 2-3rd of december 2019 was dedicated to
discuss the survey tool.
To ensure support for the NUSes to answer the survey, every NUS member of ESU operating
in an EHEA country was provided with a “BWSE Buddie” from the Hacks team of 2019-20
with regional or national expertise specifically helpful for the NUS. In addition, consultationsof the survey with the NUSes were made available for greater understanding of overarching
concepts and questions.
Authors
The following chapters should be understood as thematic articles based on the samedataset with a common outline written by one or various authors. The authors wereappointed on the basis of their policy expertise within ESU. The authors are responsible for
their material and the conclusions are drawn from the trends they have captured.

3.4. CLOSING REMARKSThe result of this publication will make a change. No country wishes to have a bad review
from the majority population at their Higher Education Institutions; the students. Thispublication aims to clarify the position of students and showcase where more student’seyes are needed in order for a change. With the ambition of enabling replication of thestudy and measure positive development in the future, the Bologna with Student eyes
survey will be sent out again in 2024 prior the Ministerial Conference.

Student participation in Higher Education Governance | 13

4. STUDENT PARTICIPATION IN
HIGHER EDUCATION GOVERNANCE
4.1. INTRODUCTION
Since its beginning, the Bologna Process has recognised students as crucial stakeholders
who should take part in shaping their education. The Prague Communiqué declared thatstudents are to be considered full members of the higher education community (Prague
Communiqué 2001). Onto 2018, The Paris Communiqué included students’ participation as
one of the fundamental values of the process (Paris Communiqué, 2018).
As members of this community, students involved in the governance of higher education
actively and evidently contribute to the development of policies as they are the ones
benefiting directly from this public good, while also contributing to raising awareness on
how different approaches can be implemented to achieve common goals. Having said this,National Students Unions all over the European Higher Education Area have been facing
challenges to developing their activity as formal representatives of students as well as otherdifficulties including external pressure and threats for raising their voices.
Whilst the Bologna Process has accomplished many things over the past two decades,
including the participation of the European Students’ Union as consultative member, overthe last three versions of Bologna with Student Eyes, NUSes have increasingly reported
that they don’t consider the Bologna Process as a decisive factor in effectively supporting
students’ participation. The past editions of BWSE pointed out an overall decrease in student
participation in the formal decision-making-bodies particularly at the institutional andfaculty/department levels. Today’s situation remains the same or occasionally has worsened.
It is important not to forget, but rather to draw on the successes of the involvement of student
representatives in the Bologna-initiated policy processes such as Quality Assurance, but also
from the EHEA’s political endorsement that first led to improved student participation innational-level higher education policymaking (Klemenčič, M., 2012). As governance reforms
sweep across Europe, ESU considers it crucial that a more sustainable and prosperous
model of student participation be achieved, through continuous political endorsement andlocal action strategies that safeguard and promote student participation from the bottom
up. This is rooted in that students’ participation is not only fundamental for the well-beingof democratic institutions but also for our democratic society as a whole.

4.2. MAIN FINDINGS
Legislation vs. enactment
As seen in Figure 4.1., in 29 countries, NUSes benefit from legislation that demands student
participation both at the national and institutional level. Some countries that do notguarantee participation at both levels have laws concerning the institutions and overall 7
countries fall into this category. Fewer countries (22) stipulate regulations or legislations
for student participation at the programme level, which may be due to the autonomous
prerogative of institutions to decide on these issues. On paper, student participation seems
well embedded in the EHEA; however, in practice the enactment is not unanimously
celebrated by student representatives. Within the countries that have a legal provision
on both national and institutional levels, 25 out of 39 NUSes (64%) are satisfied with theenactment of this legislation, while 8 NUSes (21%) have mixed opinions and 6 NUSes (15%)
are left dissatisfied, as seen in Figure 4.2.

Legislation ensuring a minimum level of student participation in EHEA countries
HEI LEVELNATIONAL LEVEL

80

77.5%

7.5%

Very dissatisfied

21%

Satisfied

40

22.5%

20
0

Dissatisfied

60%

60

Figure 4.2.
Satisfaction withthe enactment oflegislation

Satisfaction with the enactment of legislation

PROGRAMME (COURSE) LEVEL

95%

100

Figure 4.1.
Legislation ensuring
a minimum level ofstudent participationin EHEA countries

YES

NO

30%

2.5%
YES NO/DON’T
KNOW

10%
YES

NO

DON’T KNOW

This indicates that what defines student participation, and how it is enacted is often
understood differently amongst students and the governmental and institutional
leadership. Our unions recognise the following threats to democratic student participationon the national and institutional level:y Students are not able to elect their own representatives on higher education governing
bodies, or the procedure is lacking transparency;y Student participation is constrained to minor decisions or reduced to a consultative role;y Student representatives make up too small a minority in decision-making bodies tohave any “real” influence or impact.

64%

Very satisfied

14 | Student participation in Higher Education GovernanceA declining Bologna effect
The European Students’ Union considers student participation in higher education
governance to be one of the core values in European higher education and a prerequisite
towards the democratic governance of public institutions by all politically significant
constituencies. With the fundamental values high on the agenda of the Bologna Process,assessing the effect it has had on student representation over the past years is a required,
yet unfortunately often overlooked exercise by many stakeholders. On the one hand,
many unions point out that the Bologna Process has been instrumental in guaranteeing
students’ participation in quality assurance processes. However, beyond quality assurance
processes, over the past 3 versions of BWSE, fewer and fewer NUSes consider the BP as adriving force for student involvement particularly at the local and institutional levels. While
this does not paint an optimistic picture, it should indicate the opportunity and urgent
need for support. While our NUSes from Luxembourg, Lithuania and Armenia indicate thatthe Bologna Process has been an essential driving force for student participation in theircountries, 12 unions say that there has been some influence, 22 claim that there is very little
or no effect to be seen. The decline is evident over the past 3 cycles of the Bologna Process.
Back in 2018, 2 unions said they felt a significant positive impact on student participation,
while in 2015 and 2012 it was higher with 10 and 14 unions respectively (Bologna With
Students’ Eyes 2012, 2015, 2018).
As two NUSes (FZS and VSS-UNES-USU) highlight, for many students that need to work to afford
studies and living costs, it is often problematic to participate and engage in higher education
governance structures while combining their studies and work, leaving such involvement for
students that may be coming from a more privileged background. Furthermore, the unions
point towards the commodification of higher education as a growing threat to student
participation, that reduces the responsibility and focus of the educational community tofoster democratic culture, social consciousness and active citizenship amongst the student
body and community as this is not considered an asset desired by the job market.
Lack of democratic student representation
Over and above legislative measures regulating the presence of students in such bodies,
further commitment is required towards supporting students’ participation and their active
contribution at all levels of decision-making. In 2015, the Yerevan Communiqué welcomed
the importance of supporting and protecting academic freedom and representation of
students and staff as part of their rights as full partners of higher education governancestructures. However, in the 2018 BWSE publication, the lack of real, democratic student
representation and lack of transparency in the selection of student representatives wasprominently highlighted by the respondents. After two years, our NUSes highlight that thesituation has not improved at all, and in fact more seem to have given examples of the lackof transparency that surrounds the process, as well as of the interference that exists at thenational and institutional level on students’ representation.

Student participation in Higher Education Governance | 15

In Belarus, democratisation in higher education is not only non-existent as representative
bodies in higher education are created and chosen by the administration, but also students
face oppression such as expulsion and detainment for expressing an independent opinion.
Our NUS in Armenia describes how universities have a tendency of including students
in decision-making bodies who represent the same views as other stakeholders withinthose bodies. In Serbia, our NUS reports that even when the students’ representatives areelected and not chosen, there are still instances where members of the HEI leadership still
try to interfere with the process by endorsing some candidates over the others. Another
NUS (FEF), also speaks of and mirrors the views of other unions that there exists “constantpressure, threats, or consequences on the student representatives’ studies, particularly
at the local level, because of their daily work to defend students interests in balance withinstitutions’ interests or private operators interests.”
ESU strongly condemns such behaviour from any level and stands firmly against tokenism
in student representation. As one of the fundamental values of the Bologna Process
reiterated in the 2018 Paris Communiqué is to defend student participation, it is evident
that more tangible support is required to foster democratic, transparent and independent
student participation through tangible measures aimed at training student leaders andempowering students to take an active role in shaping and governing higher education as
independent movements.
No influence where it matters
Higher education laws, policies and strategies are constructed in multiple steps andprocedures, but the process can roughly be grouped into the preparatory stage (initiation,planning, consultation and development stages) and decision-making and implementation
phase. Student participation within decisionI DON’T KNOW
making bodies is more often than not considered
as little more than rubber-stamping, wherestudent representatives are not able to have any
real influence in changing final outcomes. ESU
NOT AT ALL
firmly believes that student representatives should
be more systematically and consistently involved in
the preparatory, decision-making and monitoringprocesses of higher education laws, policies andstrategies. Unfortunately, just 30% of NUSes take SOMEWHAT
part in both preparatory stages and decisionmaking, while 61% report that they are somewhat
involved in either one of the two processes, as seenin Figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3.
Student representationin the decision-making
and preparatory
processes of higher
education policies

YES
In all bodies bothdecision-making
and preparatory
YES
But only indecision-making
YES
But only in preparatory

16 | Student participation in Higher Education GovernanceToo few seats provided
Influencing and changing decisions as a student representative is easier said thandone when students find themselves outnumbered by a more prominent majority ofexperienced academics and staff. Here, it is important to take into consideration the higher
turnover for student representatives within education systems than other stakeholders. As
a consequence of all these, students tend to find themselves eclipsed in such governing
bodies, risking that their role would be increasingly diminished.
The vast majority of legislation on student participation sets a minimum standard ofrepresentation. By setting minimum levels, most systems provide institutions with the
choice to go above the baseline and become national best practice on student participation,
but this is rarely the case. Within HEIs, 3 out of 40 NUSes state that student representationin decision-making bodies is above 25%, while half the respondents (20) remark thatthe representation is between 15-25% and 9 NUSes point out that the representation of
students is under 15%, as seen in Figure 4.4. In view of these differences between countries,
representative student organizations continue to argue a case for more participation formal as well as actual, while working towards recognition of student representation andorganising student training activities.
In France, as reported by our NUS FAGE, students are allowed by law to either take anacademic leave or to ask for ECTS recognition of their engagement when they are elected
or involved in a student organisation (Articles D611-7 à D611-9). The implementation of
the law is not perfect yet, but most universities are working towards it. In this regard, ESU
wants to foster the recognition of student participation not just as an important activity fordemocratic institutions such as HEIs but also the necessity of recognising their rights aswell as their duties as students’ representatives.
Differences between national and institutional levels
Among European countries, a wide spectrum exists in the way that legislation specifies theroles, responsibilities, and composition of higher education governing bodies on different
levels. Based on these legal provisions, students may enjoy full voting rights on all issues
within decision-making bodies otherwise they may simply fulfill a consultative role.
At the national level, while 76% of total respondents confirm there are legal provisions
guaranteeing students’ participation in decision-making bodies, 38% of total respondents
report that they are present only for consultation, not for decision making. In Iceland andDenmark our NUSes (LÍS and DSF) report that they are working to guarantee students’participation in decision-making processes around higher education reforms as it is rare tohave students included.
Similarly, at the institutional level where 95% of total respondents confirm the presenceof legal provisions demanding students’ participation, 28% of total respondents say they

EHEA country with no ESU member

No information available

Under 15%

15%-20%21%-25%are present for only consultation. In Ireland, our NUS reports that the National Student
Engagement Programme (NStEP) plays a key role in the sector in supporting cooperation
between staff and students to improve student engagement processes at an institutional
level. In Switzerland, appropriate participation rights of all members of higher education
institutions (including students as the largest group) are a prerequisite for the accreditationof a higher education institution (Article 30 Federal Act on Funding and Coordination of
the Swiss Higher Education Sector). Most universities in Switzerland have a legal basis andMore than 25%
Map 4.4.
Average percentage
of students
represented in HEI
decision-making
bodies in the EHEA

18 | Student participation in Higher Education Governanceinstitution-specific agreements that contain important provisions on students’ participationrights. In 2019, the Student Delegation of the University of Luxembourg was formed as apermanent student body to increase student participation, as a response to the university’s
reassessment in 2016 which pointed out that student representation in decision-making
bodies is lacking. The regulation also states that students can be present in different
university bodies, but it does not specifically state if they have voting or advisory rights.
Disturbingly, the perception of the role of the students declines at the faculty level as 53% ofunions claim students are viewed as equal partners, 30% say they have only a consultatoryrole and 13% say they are not perceived as a partner. An even more disappointing trend isseen at the programme level. While 1 respondent (3%) reports that students are the main
partner, only 25% of unions state that students are viewed as equal partners, while 48%
indicate that students have a consultatory role and 13% claim students are not viewed as
partners or are excluded from decision-making processes. In Romania, our NUS (ANOSR)
reports that few HEIs permit the involvement of student representatives even as observers
at department level, as legal provisions state that students can be represented, but in
effect, this means that it is not mandatory. On the other hand, a good practice example
was reported by our NUS (SKRVS) in the Czech Republic, where a programme council isdefined by the inner regulations of the university that includes a previous student of the
programme for more evidence-based discussions. In Italy, our NUS (UDU) is working on
increasing the establishment of joint committees (constituting of students and professors
equally) in decision-making processes as they offer better environments for constructive
discussions and are more likely to find good solutions.
The 2012 Bucharest Communiqué addressed how many of the Bologna Process reforms
happened thanks to the involvement of staff and students. ESU considers the role ofstudents essential in the continuous evolution, transformation and reform of higher
education, particularly at the faculty and programme level where decisions have the mostimpact on the students.
Financial impact on autonomy of student representation
One of the main challenges of student representation across the EHEA lies in the financing ofstudent unions, whether at local or national level. Indeed, two trends can be highlighted: thefirst one being students unions not receiving any funding from HEIs or the government andthe second being the opposite, students unions receiving funding from these stakeholders.
In both cases, this raises the question of the independence of said student unions.
In the first situation, when student unions do not receive any kind of public funding, thechallenge is that even though the independence from such structures is ensured, theefficiency or the activity of the student union can be hindered due to the lack of funding.
In the second case, student organisations receive funding from HEIs or the government.
Even if in some cases this funding is guaranteed by law, which allows the SU to function

Student participation in Higher Education Governance | 19

Can students’ unions/representatives operate independently?
Figure 4.5.
Legislation ensuring
a minimum level ofstudent participationin EHEA countries

National/
regional level
HEI
level

Always/fully independently
Very often/mainly independently

Facultylevel

Sometimes independently, but pressure still exists
Rarely/mostly not independently

Programmelevel

Never/not independently
0

20

40

60

80

100

I don’t know

and lead their activities, a number of unions including those from Estonia, Sweden, Norway,
Slovakia and Belgium have reported that the autonomy of student representation is underpressure by the financing bodies. In Montenegro, our NUS reports that when the relations
between the SU and the university management are not the best, the budget of the union
tends to be lower. In Romania, the situation is even more negative as our NUS states that atuniversity and faculty level, unions that receive funds from the institutions are mostly under
their control due to this financial link.
The situation is confirmed by the quantitative answers to the survey to our members,
as seen in Figure 4.5. At the national level 57% of respondents stated that they operate
independently, 25% often operate independently, 13% sometimes and 5% rarely operate
independently. At the HEI level, 30% of respondents stated that they always operate
independently, 30% often operate independently (30%), 28% sometimes and 10% rarelyor never operate independently. If these numbers are not striking, the situation changes
drastically when evaluating the faculty and programme level. Indeed, at the faculty andprogramme level a mere 23% function fully independently.
This data that ESU has collected through its members reveals that the more local the level,
the less independent the student representation. Such situations were already describedby our members in 2018, and no improvement seems to have taken place ever since. ESU isconcerned by these practices, as students’ representation, even when fully or partially fundedby other stakeholders, should be autonomous and independent. Student representatives
should in no case be bullied or pressured to conform to the opinions of any other stakeholder.

20 | Student participation in Higher Education Governance4.3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The whole picture of Student Participation in the EHEA is not as exciting as it should be:
despite many countries’ efforts to comply with the Bologna Process’ requirements, thestudent voice within the higher education Institutions—the very first place where it shouldbe heard and where it should get affirmed as a fundamental tool for democracy—is being
silenced or ignored or not sufficiently empowered way too often.
Student Participation is not just a tool for students to complain about classes that they
dislike, it is a fundamental way to shape learning paths and therefore to shape the society of
the future. Too many times the student perspective is being sacrificed in the name of profit
and, as a consequence, many students lose their will to participate in their communities’
lives and every time someone loses their will to be heard and to be an active member ofsociety, our democracy loses ground.
It is crucial, especially in the current political framework of distrust towards the authorities,
be them political or scientific, and raising populism with its easy—but too often unjust—solutions to societal problems, that we protect democracy at its basis, by empowering
student participation and ensuring that the student voice is independent and autonomous
at every level. A society is not as free and democratic as it values itself when its students are
not able to freely express themselves. The fundamental role of student participation must
be recognized.
Recommendations
The Bologna Process should be more engaged and crucial when it comes to foster students’participation in the national context.
y The first step towards fostering students’ participation is, for sure, making sure that all
related processes are extremely transparent: from the way elections are held, to what
happens within decision-making bodies the students and the community need to be
informed and well aware of the processesy The student voice needs to be autonomous from every power and every influence atany possible level. The issue of autonomy of student representatives must be strongly
addressed and taken very seriously by the HEIs, not only to avoid the needed economic
support to turn into a tool for controlling them but also to avoid possible threats to thestudents’ careers in case of differing opinions
y Students’ participation must be recognised in its crucial democratic value by the wholesociety, and the efforts that student representatives put into their roles must as well berecognized and emphasized in their learning pathsy A crucial step in fostering students’ participation is to ensure representation to all diverse
voices within the student body, safeguarding the role, engagement and enrolling ofunderrepresented groups

Student participation in Higher Education Governance | 21

y Technically speaking, students’ participation must be ensured at all levels, which means,
not only at the decision-making level—which is the level where students representation ismore often present—but also at the preparatory level, to ensure a participatory approachto the shaping of higher education paths as well as the shaping of future society

REFERENCES• EHEA (2001). Towards the European Higher Education Area: Communiqué of the meeting of European
Ministers in charge of Higher Education in Prague on May 19th 2001. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/
Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2001_Prague_Communique_English_553442.pdf• EHEA (2018). Paris Communiqué, Paris, May 25th 2018. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/
ministerial_declarations/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf• EHEA (2012). Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area,
Bucharest 26-27 April. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/
Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdf• EHEA (2015). Yerevan Communiqué, Yerevan, 14–15 May. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.
info/file/2015_Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf• European Students’ Union. (2012). Bologna with Student Eyes 2012. ISBN 978-94-91256-12-7. Retrieved from:https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BWSE2012-online1.pdf• European Students’ Union. (2015), Bologna with Student Eyes 2015: Time to meet the expectations from1999. ISBN 978-94-91256-01-1. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/
BWSE-2015-online.pdf• European Students’ Union. (2018). Bologna with Student Eyes 2018: The Final Countdown.
ISBN 9789491256059. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/
BWSE-2018_web_Pages.pdf• Klemencic, M. (2012). Student Participation in European Governance. International Higher Education, (66).
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2012.66.8590

Social dimension | 23

5. SOCIAL DIMENSION

that positive developments are taking place all across Europe, with SD being considered amoderately to highly important subject on both the governmental and HEI levels in ⅔ ofthe countries that participated in the survey, while being assigned no importance in only
10% of cases in relation to governmental prioritization and slightly less than 10% in relation to
HEIs (see Figure 5.1). This signals a possible steady rise in the prioritization given to the social
dimension by some of the relevant stakeholders since 2015.

5.1. INTRODUCTION
The social dimension of higher education has been reiterated as a priority within many
previous Ministerial Communiqués. The London Communiqué defined the social dimension
as “the societal aspiration that the student body entering, participating in and completing
higher education at all levels should reflect the diversity of our populations”. This definition
clearly outlines the link between the student population and society, which is an inseparable
one, as the two coexist together within the larger community. The Paris Communiqué of 2018
reaffirmed the goal “to improve access and completion by under-represented and vulnerable
groups”. This, however, remains an aspiration that is still very far from being achieved.

The perception that stakeholders increasingly prioritise SD should not be seen as an indicatorof improvement in the actual lived experiences of students across Europe. While it is easy
to state one’s commitment to the social dimension, actions to improve access, retention,
diversity, equity, and well-being in higher education still lag behind written commitments inmost countries, and even face ideological opposition from governments that have nominallytaken on commitments they don’t intend to fulfil. To exemplify this chasm between promises
given and policies being carried out, national unions of students state that there are nonational targets in place at all in half of the responding countries. Only 6 out of 39 countries
have national targets in place to enhance participation of underrepresented groups in HE,
with another 9 countries having targets in place which are not being followed.

Steadily but surely, through the years, the social dimension of higher education has
become a mainstream issue of discussion and advocacy among many student unions
and an essential priority for the European Student Union. The reflection of the diversityof the society in the student body is a fundamental indicator of the fairness, equitability,
and accessibility of any higher education system. Thus, it is heartening to see the gradualbut steady increase in the perception that stakeholders on different levels, from national
governments to Rectors’ conferences to teacher unions to local student unions, prioritise
SD in their work. According to ESU’s responding unions, there is a growing perception

Social Dimension as a priority for stakeholders
Figure 5.1.
Social Dimension
as a priority forstakeholders

The Government
HEIs

An important and new data point to emphasise in relation to this is the extent to which
the social dimension of HE is being focused on at the level of local student representation.
National unions of students report that SD is dealt with as an essential or high priority for
local student representation in 30 out of 39 countries. This statistic, while being measured
within this survey for the first time, indicates a broad agreement among the students ofEurope that the significance of a broadly accessible higher education system and a diverse
student body is an essential value and of high priority, and that there is a willingness to fightfor it together.

5.2. MAIN FINDINGS
Data collection
ESU firmly believes that effective policies for widening access to HE should be based oncontinuous national data collection efforts that can highlight the requirements for student
populations to reflect the heterogeneous social profile of society at large.

Rectors conference orequivalent
Essential priority

Rectors conference orequivalentHigh Priority
Somewhat Important

Other National
stakeholders within HE

Low ImportanceNot important

Local Students’ Union

I don’t know
0

20

40

60

80

100

In this study, the majority of NUSes (64%) mentioned that students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are mostly considered underrepresented in HE by their national
governments, followed by students with physical disabilities (46%), students from minority
ethnic backgrounds (41%), and students from immigrant backgrounds (36%). Based ondata gathered from the 2019 EUROSTUDENT publication, “students with parents without
tertiary degrees are the most underrepresented group in all EUROSTUDENT countries”.
Keeping intersectionality in mind, the social conditions of one individual may overlap withmore than one underrepresented group.

24 | Social dimension

Social dimension | 25

Data collection and analysis through one holistic entry point such as EUROSTUDENT as
this allows for reliable, multilateral assessments and international comparisons of thesocial conditions of students in the EHEA. This enables more concentrated and collective
efforts in strengthening the social dimension of higher education by highlighting thestrengths and identifying the weaknesses of national educational systems. Achieving real
diversity and inclusion in higher education requires that higher education institutions
then complement national data collection exercises with frameworks and strategies
for enhancing participation of students in accessing, transitioning and completing HE,
particularly students from vulnerable, disadvantaged, and underrepresented groups.
With an enhanced emphasis on data collection, careful attention must also be paid to protect
the right to privacy and the security of every individual’s data to prevent misuse. This means
putting in place mechanisms that ensure anonymity and proper data handling and protection.
National strategies for widening accessIn the 2012 Bucharest Communiqué, the educational ministers agreed to adopt national
measures for widening overall access to quality higher education. In Finland, for example,
our NUS reports that the government is developing a National Access Plan for higher
education, which aims to increase the participation of students from underrepresented
groups, such as students with immigrant backgrounds, disabilities, learning difficulties, orchronic diseases, and students from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds in HE.
There are also continuous efforts to decrease gender segregation in education and in thelabour market.
NUS Scotland contributed as a full member to the “Widening Access Commission”
established as part of the Scottish government’s 2014-2015 work programme. The
implementation of the Commission’s framework for enhancing access and fairness inhigher education was monitored by an Access Delivery Committee that also included NUS
as full members of the group. The commission serves as a positive example for student
participation. The NUS in Ireland reports that one of the most significant issues that
Ireland faces in meeting its National Access Plan is that institutional services don’t link up
effectively and share data and information across institutions. This makes it very difficult
when attempting to map or understand the experience of specific students attempting
to access different support mechanisms or resources. While NUS in Ireland (USI) welcomesand participates in this, increasing financial investment for data collection and sharing isrequired to see this strategy make sufficient progress.
As seen in Map 5.2, the process of adopting and implementing the National Access Plans(NAP) on the social dimension of HE looks to be stalled in major ways, with a NAP in place in
only 9 out of 38 countries according to the ESU members. Moreover, the NAPs are viewed as
poorly implemented in 8 of those countries. Additionally, NAPs are being developed in only 4other countries, while in 21 countries these plans are only being debated or not brought up atall. In Belgium (FEF), the NUS reports that although a policy exists to increase participation of

EHEA country with no ESU member
No information available

No, it is not being debated
No, BUT it is being debated

The NAP is being developed at the moment
Yes, BUT the NAP is poorly implemented

students with disabilities in HE, this is not really fulfilled. In Slovenia, the SSU reports that they
are working on the Rules on the Procedures and Manner of Exercising the Rights of Students
with Special Needs and Students with Special Status in Higher Education.
The goal of NAPs, that is to widen access and foster equity and inclusion in higher education
is a public responsibility of higher education systems as a whole. As this serves as a public
good, targets for access, equity and inclusion in higher education can see better success

Yes, the NAP is very well implemented

Map 5.2.
Implementation of
National Access Plans

26 | Social dimension

if public stakeholders are engaged in the design and implementation of national andinstitutional policies and strategies. As suggested through the proposed Principles &Guidelines, community engagement should be a process whereby higher education
institutions engage with external community stakeholders to undertake joint activities thatcan be mutually beneficial. Like social dimension policies, community engagement shouldbe embedded in the core missions of higher education systems. Such engagement provides
a holistic basis on which universities can address a broad range of societal needs, including
those of vulnerable, disadvantaged, and underrepresented groups, while enriching theirteaching, research, and other core functions.
As one of the most underrepresented groups in higher education, students with migrant
and refugee backgrounds face a number of challenges accessing higher education.
Refugees, in particular, face significant challenges to accessing higher education. In fact,by the end of 2018, only 3% of young refugees were enrolled in higher education, comparedto the global average of 37% for non-refugees. In this regard, community engagement
between higher education institutions and relevant external stakeholders (such as NGOs,
banks, and immigration offices) could be a way to address and mitigate the most significant
barriers that exclude people with refugee backgrounds from higher education in the EHEA,
such as the prolonged, bureaucratic, and ambiguous processes for achieving international
protection status, visa and work permits, financial insecurity and insufficient funds, andinadequate language support.
Recognition processes
Recognition of qualifications, degrees and prior learning plays an essential role in one’s
academic journey as it is the first and most important step when talking about theaccessibility to continuing higher education. It has become more evident how important
recognition of prior learning (RPL), either formal or informal, can be for enhancing accessand equitable participation of non-traditional learners in higher education. Moreover, RPL
also connects closely with lifelong learning and flexible pathways. Lately, RPL for people
with migrant and refugee backgrounds has gained more popularity, with the European
Qualifications Passport for Refugees providing an essential tool to enable access to further
studies for those without official documentation of their educational background.
Public student support systems
Student support systems are the means through which access and success within higher
education are ensured. The term covers a variety of support mechanisms that vary from
grants, scholarships, and other monetary allowances received by those enrolled in higher
education, to concrete material necessities such as housing, transport, and infrastructure(libraries, university premises). Support systems also include services such as counselling,catering, and everything that is provided to students to help them sustain their basic needs,
without which studying is not possible.

Social dimension | 27

Undoubtedly, student support services are the cornerstones of higher education systems
that discriminate less and allow individuals from very diverse backgrounds to enroll andcomplete the studies of their choice. In order to obtain such higher education systems, it is
crucial for these support services to be sufficiently and publicly funded as well as accessible
to all. Their adequate funding and governance can contribute to a society with reduced
inequalities where equal opportunities become a reality for everybody, whatever theirbackground, and not only for the most financially privileged.
That is why when studying the social dimension of higher education within the Bologna
Process, it is imperative to also tackle the topic of student support services and how they
have evolved.
Student retention measures
Inclusion and accessibility are very often—and rightly so—associated with the social
dimension of higher education. However, being able to enroll in higher education is merely
one of the steps towards more equity. Moreover, it is pointless without sufficient measuresthat aim to allow students from all backgrounds to complete their studies. That is why it isimportant to also analyse student retention mechanisms that are in place across the EHEA
that focus on preventing high dropout rates. It is, however, necessary to keep in mind thatsuch measures must be designed with the goal of truly supporting students to complete
their study of choice and should not only be driven by the sole objective of having reduced
drop out rates at all costs without guaranteeing the quality of what is taught and learnt.
Compared to 2018, ESU member unions have noted an increase in the number of countries
that have established national dropout prevention measures where 24 out of 39 respondents
identified existing measures in comparison to only 22 in 2018. Similar to previous years,
the most popular measures taken to improve retention appear to be counselling (20countries), as well as additional financial support (17 countries), and flexible learning paths(12 countries). Even if measures are in place, not only at the national level, but also within
the higher education institutions, students unions are generally disappointed in them, withover half of the respondents expressing dissatisfaction, and only 5 out of 39 saying they weresatisfied with these measures.
As stated both in 2015 and 2018, understanding the reasons behind student dropout is ofhigh importance. This concern is also outlined in the Principles and Guidelines: systems
should develop a strategy for data collection and the use of these data for identifying
reasons for dropout and understanding completion rates, as well as implementing relevant
policy changes in accordance with the information gathered. Without such an analysis, it
is not possible to develop measures that truly tackle the challenges and are really effective.
Financial troubles and the rigidness of education systems that lack flexibility for working
students to keep up with their studies are the most commonly mentioned problems that,
according to the NUSes, need to be tackled to reduce dropout rates in the EHEA. In this28 | Social dimension

regard, another main policy change that could be made is the possibility of flexible learning
paths. Flexible learning paths should be considered an important tool for students toremain within higher education while being able to cope with their other responsibilities,
such as care duties, working duties, thus promoting both diversity in learning and diversity
in student populations.
Financial support schemes
Although the social dimension of higher education cannot be solely defined in terms offinancial support to the students, it is undeniable that this parameter plays an importantrole when it comes to increasing accessibility to studies.
Grants and scholarships are central to higher education systems that aim to be inclusiveof a broader diverse body of students, especially of those from lower socio-economic
backgrounds. Lack of adequate financial support leads to situations where students face
no choice but to take a (very often time-consuming) job outside of their studies to be able
to sustain themselves, or they are pushed into precarious positions where fulfilling basic
needs such as housing and food become a daily struggle. For instance, FAGE, one of ourFrench members, reports distressing figures about the precarity of the student populationin the country, stating that “[...] half the students have to skip meals, 1 out of 3 alreadycannot afford medical care themselves and another 20% are living below the poverty line”.
These numbers are sadly illustrative of the deterioration of students’ living conditions, to apoint where one cannot afford to live decently.
Financial support systems do exist in many countries. However, even when they do, theyremain in too many cases either not accessible enough or not sufficient with regards to thecost of living. For example, as our Danish member, DSF, reports, even if over the past years
no significant cuts were made to funding and the grants generally remained the same, thefact that they are not indexed according to the rise of the cost of living makes them less andless sufficient to cover all the basic expenses that students may encounter. This state of playis also described by other member unions, such as Ireland and France.
In addition, in some occurrences, despite an existing grant system, very few students
are eligible for such grants due to the consideration of low thresholds of revenue, whileothers are simply blocked from accessing financial support. In this regard, the exampleof Italy is striking, as this was already reported in 2018, “due to the underfunding, many
students that would be entitled to grants and housing are given none”, reports UDU.
As of 2019, 5% of the students entitled to a student grant were given none due to lack offunding; furthermore, 10% of those eligible for student housing were given none due tolack of student accommodation - the percentage of students that in Italy are given student
accommodation is 10% of the total student population.
An alarming trend has continued to grow in the last few years. An increasing number of
National Students Unions note that governments have a tendency to move backwards in

Social dimension | 29

terms of grants, and instead try to implement more measures to promote loans. This is thecase for instance in Finland, where cuts were made to the budget that allocated grants inorder to leave more space for loans. For the ESU, this trend is not acceptable. Grants must be
the main way to invest in the future of citizens of a given country and must be sufficient toallow students from any background to study. Grant-supported systems, combined with theabsence of all tuition fees, are the only way to have a truly equitable higher education systemand provide equal chances for all, not only to the more privileged. The combination of grants
with other types of open and accessible support measures is of crucial importance.
Housing and transport
Housing was described as the number one problem according to our members in 2015 and2018. Unsurprisingly, this is still the case in 2020, with 24 of our members reporting it as one of
the main challenges. Housing is an essential part of a student’s life. However, all over Europe
housing is becoming more and more expensive and less affordable for students. When
grant systems are in place, more than often the amount received by the students is notenough to be able to afford decent housing, and this leads to many students having to takea job to merely survive, which results in less time to allocate to the content of their studies.
Moreover, student housing projects are becoming increasingly rare. The ESU stands infavor of all students having access to good quality housing and a room for themselves. Thisis essential for students to be able to be independent and to study in good conditions. In
addition to secure housing, students should also be able to easily access their place of study
from their residence. Unfortunately, transportation can prove to be of great cost for students,
even when student discounts exist, which can become yet another financial burden.
Moreover, transportation connections need to exist to the higher education premises ina given city, allowing students to easily commute to their institution, but also to any otherplaces that are linked to a student’s activities (library, study rooms).
Mental health and well-being support
When debating the success of students within higher education it is crucial to acknowledge,
support, and promote the necessity of mental health and well-being of students on different
levels of higher education. According to the ESU’s Mental Health Charter to be adopted inits’ upcoming Board Meeting, the first and most important step is to raise awareness ofmental health and decrease the stigma that still subtly exists in every layer of our society
including higher education institutions. Mental health support services, the organizationof supportive environments on campuses and the integration of mental health topics inthe creation of curricula are of great importance. Apart from study-related stressors thathave a direct impact on students’ mental well-being, it is equally important to highlightthe importance of indirect stressors such as the lack of financial support or appropriate
housing, problematic family environments and/ or caring responsibilities. All of these30 | Social dimension

factors can cause feelings of instability or uncertainty, harming their mental health, andconsequently cause huge obstacles to successfully perform in their studies.
According to the gathered survey data, 9 out of 39 (Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, Ireland, Armenia,
Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Spain) national unions of students have reported that students
with psychological disabilities or mental health issues are still underrepresented in theirnational higher education systems. This implies that awareness and discourse on mental
health are still lacking, and that measures to support students who deal with mental healthproblems are not yet prioritised and adequately resourced in many countries.
The social dimension of student mobility
Mobility is an overarching topic that overlaps with the social dimension of higher education,in particular in relation to access to mobility programmes and the living conditions ofinternational students.
Mobility programmes, and especially the ERASMUS+ programme, are welcoming more
and more students every year. Yet, the population of mobile students does not reflect thediversity of the societies that they come from. In fact, students from under-represented
backgrounds or from marginalized groups only make up 7% of the total participants in
ERASMUS+. Even if this statistic is alarming, this number is not surprising in the context
described previously in this chapter.
This state of affairs is not new and was already acknowledged in 2015 in the YerevanCommuniqué, which stated, “We will enhance the social dimension of higher education,
improve gender balance and widen opportunities for access and completion, includinginternational mobility, for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. We will provide
mobility opportunities for students and staff from conflict areas, while working to make itpossible for them to return home once conditions allow”. Regrettably, five years after thiscommitment was made, little to no progress was made, and mobility remains nothing
more than a faraway dream for less privileged students.
International students are also often second class students in the receiving country. For
instance, only 7 of our members, out of 38 respondents, noted that grants and support
systems are equally accessible to foreign students. Twenty-six NUSes highlight thedifferentiation between national and international students when it comes to tuition
fees. Very often, HEIs raise tuition for international students to enormous amounts thatstrongly restrict access to higher education. For instance, in Ireland, students from outsideof the EU may have to pay more than 10 000 Euros per year to enroll in a higher education
institution.Limited access to financial support mechanisms in the host country, combinedwith the difficulties linked to being a foreigner, leads to situations where it becomes
extremely difficult for international students to find and afford housing. Internships andwork placement are unequally accessible as well according to our member organizations.

Social dimension | 31

In order for the situation to change, HEIs in host countries must ensure that grants andother financial support mechanisms are also available for international students, and thatthe latter are not discriminated against and forced to live in precarity. In the case of Erasmus
grants, these need to provide enough for students to sustain themselves and be alignedwith the cost of living of the region of the host country, while still guaranteeing a minimal
income. Without such measures, mobility will continue to be limited to students with
sufficient support, in particular those from more privileged backgrounds.

5.3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
We need to acknowledge that within the EHEA there seems to be increasing awarenessand information about the social dimension of higher education. With that being said, thesituation remains far from perfect, and work on the social dimension of higher education
is far from complete. The Principles and Guidelines to Strengthen the Social Dimensionof Higher Education in the EHEA give a solid ground to start concretely improving thesituation. Through this tool, the EHEA should primarily ensure that the social dimension
becomes central to higher education strategies on the system and institutional level, as wellas on the EHEA and the EU level.
Secondly, it is important to ensure a holistic approach to the social dimension and aim tocreate coherent policies from early childhood education to lifelong learning. This requires
more connectivity between the work of those responsible for higher education and otherministries and sectors, which can only bring about change in a joint effort. Reliable data
should also be seen as a necessary precondition for an evidence-based improvement of thesocial dimension of higher education.
Recommendations
Once the PAGs are adopted by Ministers, a long, uphill journey needs to start, which willclosely follow the implementation of this document. The social dimension requires more
peer support at this point, as we still see significant discrepancies in the level of policy
development and implementation within the EHEA. The current Advisory Group hassuggested that within the next cycle of the Bologna Process, work on the social dimension
continue to be a priority, by introducing a Peer Support Group in parallel with the ThematicCountry Reviews for the Social Dimension, as this collaboration could ensure that therelevant areas for peer support are identified and acted upon.
Furthermore, it is crucial that the BFUG enables the establishment and work of the Advisory
Group for Social Dimension in the next BFUG Operational Programme 2020-2023. The
main objective for the new mandate of the Advisory Group for Social Dimension shouldbe (a) the development of a system of monitoring of the Principles and Guidelines and(b) defining indicators and benchmarks for the principles for SD.

32 | Social dimension

Lastly, the European Qualification Passport for Refugees also remains a tool that canpractically improve and broaden accessibility to higher education for this underrepresented
group. ESU strongly welcomes such an initiative and has been at the forefront to push forbroadening its use within the EHEA.

Quality assurance | 33

6. QUALITY ASSURANCE
6.1. INTRODUCTIONREFERENCES• EHEA (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world, London, 18 May 2007.
Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2007_London_Communique_English_588697.pdf• UNHCR (2018). Stepping up: Refugee education in crisis. Retrieved from: https://www.unhcr.org/steppingup/wp-content/uploads/
sites/76/2019/09/Education-Report-2019-Final-web-9.pdf• EHEA (2015). Yerevan Communiqué, Yerevan, 14–15 May. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/70/7/
YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf• European Students’ Union (2019). Social Dimension Policy Paper 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/01/Social-Dimension-Policy-Paper-2019.pdf• EHEA (2018). Paris Communiqué, Paris, May 25th 2018. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/
EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf• Salmi, J. (2018). Social Dimension Within a Quality Oriented Higher Education System. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie (Eds.),
European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies (pp. 141–154). Springer International Publishing. Retrieved
from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77407-7_10• EUROSTUDENT (2020). The Social Dimension of Student Life in the European Higher Education Area in 2019: Selected indicatorsfrom EUROSTUDENT VII. Retrieved from: https://www.eurostudent.eu/download_files/documents/Eurostudent_brochure_WEB.pdf• BM77: Resolution on Improving the Accessibility of Higher Education for people with refugee backgrounds and seeking asylum.
(2019). ESU Online. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/?policy=bm77-resolution-on-improving-the-accessibility-of-highereducation-for-people-with-refugee-backgrounds-and-seeking-asylum• European Qualifications Passport for Refugees. (2020). Council of Europe. Retrieved from:https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/
recognition-of-refugees-qualifications• Student debt doubles in a decade. (2019). Yle Uutiset. Retrieved from: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/student_debt_doubles_in_a_decade/11073924• Prager, A. (2019, April 26). Solutions from Vienna to address Europe’s housing crisis. www.Euractiv.com. Retrieved from: https://www.
euractiv.com/section/middle-ground-politics/news/solutions-from-vienna-to-address-eu-housing-crisis/• Launch of the ‘Social Inclusion and Engagement in Mobility’ project | ESN.org. (2019). Erasmus Student Network. Retrieved from:https://esn.org/news/launch-%E2%80%98social-inclusion-and-engagement-mobility%E2%80%99-project• Tuition Fees and Living Costs for Studying in Ireland in 2020—MastersPortal.com. Retrieved from: https://www.mastersportal.com/
articles/1708/tuition-fees-and-living-costs-for-studying-in-ireland-in-2020.html• #Erasmus500: Towards a truly European grant. (2020). ESU Online. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/?news=erasmus500towards-a-truly-european-grant

The implementation of Quality Assurance (QA) as a key commitment of the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) was followed under a newly established peer support structureduring the 2018-2020 cycle of the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG). This structured peerbased support platform served as a space for member countries to share their experiences,
implement projects and drive changes in their quality assurance systems. ESU sees this as astep forward to foster the practical implementation of QA related EHEA policies which havecome through many different communiqués.
As we remember, the Berlin Communiqué stated in 2003 that the quality of higher
education has proven to be at the heart of the setting up of EHEA and the QA is one of thefundamental priorities of it. A milestone for creating a common language of QA among
the EHEA countries was the adoption and then the revision of the European Standards
and Guidelines (ESG), which underlined that quality assurance responding to diversity andgrowing expectations for higher education requires a fundamental shift in its provision (ESG
2015). The most recent Paris Communiqué from 2018 reiterated that QA is key in developing
mutual trust as well as increasing mobility and fair recognition of qualifications and study
periods throughout the EHEA (Paris Communiqué, 2018). The ministers recognised theprogress made in implementing the ESGs and committed to removing the remaining
obstacles to their implementation in national legislations and regulations. The Communiquéalso addresses the need of enabling and promoting the use of the “European Approachfor Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes” in higher education systems promoting thedevelopment of the Database of External Quality Assurance Results (DEQAR).
In this chapter we look into the specific aspects of QA - both internal and external, and we
demonstrate how students see the implementation happening so far. We reflect upon
indicators such as the involvement of students as full members or information sources,
their role in decision-making bodies on institutional and national levels, existence of QA
pools, as well as their perspective about the European level developments particularly inthe context of EQAR.

34 | Quality assurance

Quality assurance | 35

6.2 MAIN FINDINGS

among HEIs and national systems are selected by consequently 59% and 46% of the
respondents. The 44% of the respondents assign a purpose to QA also for increasing theemployability of the graduates which again is related to the concept of trust and recognition,
because if the employers do trust in and recognise the qualification of graduates, theiremployability gets an increase.

The purpose and focus of quality assurance
The ESGs as a commonly agreed and accepted tool for supporting the implementation
around the EHEA, define the dual purpose of quality assurance processes: accountability
and enhancement (ESG 2015). The Yerevan Communiqué from 2015 empowered this multipurpose QA by underlining its roles in learning and teaching. ESU believes that indeed,
quality assurance of higher education should have multiple purposes. Our member National
Students’ Unions (NUS) have indicated what the main aims of quality assurance are in
recent years according to them, to see how this corresponds with the aims of multipurpose
QA as stated in the revised ESG’s (see Figure 6.1.)

Figure 6.1.
What is the purpose of
Quality Assurance?

What is the purpose of Quality Assurance?
Enhancing study conditions

72%

Holding higher education institutions' accountable

Less than half of the responding unions - around 46% - state that the students are involved
in internal QA with voting rights and as full members of the bodies of internal assessment
processes. Compared to 2018 this indicator has fallen by around 14%. 19% of the student
unions indicate the students are only involved as a source of information and here again, we
see a decrease compared to the numbers of 2018 where 26% of the respondents indicatedinvolvement of students as a source of information. Around 5% of the respondents (2unions) state involvement of students in the follow-up actions or only as observers.

64%

Building trust between HE stakeholders

59%

Improving recognition processes

46%

Increasing employability of graduates

44%

A tool for public control of higher education

41%

Promoting mobility

38%

Other

15%
0

0.2

0.4

Already in 2018, the student unions responded that for them the purpose of QA mainly lies
in Enhancing study conditions, building trust, provision of information/transparency andholding higher education institutions accountable. Similar to that in BWSE 2020, among
all responses, enhancing study conditions (79%) has the highest selection which shows thetrust towards using the QA as a constant improvement tool amongst students.
Next, 72% of the respondents see the purpose of QA in ensuring transparency and the 64%
sees QA as an accountability tool. Building trust and improving the recognition process

0.6Internal QA
36 out of 38 respondents state that their students are involved in internal QA. Only one
union, namely NUIS (Israel)states there is no involvement in internal QA, and one union
from Bosnia & Herzegovina (SURS) could not confirm students’ involvement.

79%

Provision of information/ transparency

When it comes to discussing the focus of QA procedures to understand how the QA supports
the higher education system in the country, by far we see most of the countries combine
both institutional and programme accreditation approaches - 71% of the respondents say
so. This is 6% more than in 2018. ESU promotes this development, the various systems ofhigher education around Europe require a diversified approach to QA which can meet thedifferent needs.

0.8

Notably, the 2020 results show an increase of unions that state that there is a diverse
approach towards student engagement in internal QA in their country and it is hard togeneralize the answer with a selection of one of the options. 11 of the unions stated thatthe level and way of involvement highly differs per institution, faculty and programme,
therefore it is difficult to generalize. The role of students and their involvement in internal
QA varies highly. In some cases, NUSes stated in the survey, that students are involved ininternal QA through all of the above-mentioned options (UK and Latvia). Unions from a few
countries, namely Germany, Ireland, Slovakia Sweden and Switzerland state that the scopeof students’ involvement is determined by internal regulation set by HEIs.
External QA
For the students’ involvement in the external QA the ESGs adopted in 2015 are a firm
guarantee. Accordingly, the majority of respondents of our survey (over 87%) reported
that students are in some way included in external quality assurance. The roles they may
have, though, vary - from full members of the panel till less committed ways of student
engagement. According to the rest of the responses, this involvement is limited to either

36 | Quality assurance

being an observer or a source of information. In some countries students can take theposition of a chair or a secretary in external review panels. The involvement of students
within external quality assurance processes seems to be ensured by agencies’ compliancewith the 2.4 standard of the ESGs, however, the meaningful participation of students varies
amongst the countries.
87% of the unions report that students are involved in external QA, which is notably 8% higher
than in 2018. Even though this is a very positive development, it is still disturbing that 4 of theunions report that in their countries students are not involved in external QA, and one union
doesn’t know. Responding unions that state they are not involved in external QA are from
Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, Serbia (one union out of two members) and Belarus.
When looking more closely at how the students are involved in external QA we see thatmost of the countries involve their students as full members within the external review
panel. Three of the unions, namely unions from the Czech Republic, France and Israel are
only involved as an information source. The status of full membership is the 1st step towards
meaningful and even participation of students in external QA therefore guaranteeing itwith the regulations is a priority.
Governance of QA agencies and national decision-making
In the following question the NUSes were asked to indicate the role students have in
QA agencies (indicating the highest role possessed: full members, observers, members
in consultative bodies, planners). According to the answers provided, 74% (4% increase
compared to 2018) of student unions reported that students are involved in the governance
of QA agencies. 23 out of 28 unions, who reported involvement of students in the governance
of QA agencies, indicate students are full-members of decision-making bodies, while four
unions stated that in their countries students are members of consultative bodies. Amongthese 28 two unions selected more than one option—involvement in governance andadministrative bodies (ANOSR, Romania) and involvement in governance and planning of
the programmes (SKRVS, Czech Republic). The role of students as an observer was the case in
Switzerland and Sweden. Gathered responses show that there is still room for improvement,
especially for those not involved in the governance of QA agencies at all (26% of respondents).
Next, we look into how students are consulted on the national level decisions by the government
about the QA matters. Twenty respondents (53%) affirmed that they are being consulted onnational level decisions, while the number of unions who reported not being consulted is
13 (33%). 6 members mention they don’t know if the government consults students on thenational level or not, which can mean that in the recent time there was no such a case of aconsultation. The ways of consulting students differ between countries. Usually, students are
members of consultative bodies (through QA agencies or led by a ministry), and they provide
direct feedback as national unions of students, attend consultation meetings and workshops
for the sector, etc. Some unions reported that there is no regular consultative process applied.

Quality assurance | 37

Instead, the students are consulted only at those times when governments change laws
and are obliged to get stakeholders’ opinion. As in other cases, here again, unions indicatedthat even while being consulted, the students’ voice is not being heard or valued, usually, theconsultation is being conducted at a late stage of the law-making process when negotiation
around the major changes is no longer possible.
Expert pools
The student expert pools play a crucial role as incentives for the preparation of independent
student experts, as well as for promoting peer learning, cooperation and meaningful
engagement of students primarily in external QA. Student experts are usually connectedwith their student unions in universities, which often brings an indirect impact on internal
QA as well through students’ activities at universities.
Training activities provided in the scope of the expert pools not only equip students withgeneral knowledge about QA procedures but also serve as a motivation for transferring
their knowledge to other students involved at the local level. As we know, due to the limited
student life cycle, students usually become quality assurance experts for a shorter period incomparison to other stakeholder representatives. However, this shouldn’t be an excuse forinsufficient investments into the capacity building of students. Well-organised recruitment
and training process is essential for ensuring a smooth transfer of knowledge and skills thatare required from student experts in the assessment panels. Structured student expert
pools play a crucial role as a platform where students and QA agencies can cooperate.
Looking into the data we received on this topic (Map 6.2.), 27 respondents reported about
the inclusion of students in quality assurance expert pools, while 10 stated that such pools do
not exist or they do not include students. This is an improvement compared to 2018 results,
where only 19 unions stated there were specific student expert pools, and 13 unions statedthat these do not exist. Out of the 27, ten unions say the pool is operated by the national
student union, and in 12 the responsibility belongs to QA agency. The rest of the answers
stated that there is a joint approach for managing the pools by an NUS and QA agency. For
example, in Ireland the pool is operated through a programme which is co-run by USI, QQI(Quality and Qualifications Ireland) and HEA (Higher Education Authority). In the case of
Slovakia the student expert pool is currently being established with the cooperation of theNUS, national authorities as well as ESU.
Obstacles to student involvement in QA
There are many obstacles that have a negative impact on students’ involvement in quality
assurance. For all levels (state policies, national QA agencies and HEI’s) thorough andconsistent work should be dedicated to ensuring equal, fair and meaningful engagementof students. The position of students has been empowered on the policy level and throughthe QA standards starting from the ESG 2015, but the meaningful involvement in practiceQuality assurance | 39

is not yet a reality. The chart below (Figure 6.3.) presents the obstacles that respondent
student unions find significant for students’ involvement in QA processes.
The majority of respondents (74%) stated that the lack of information on quality assurance
amongst the students’ representatives is the main obstacle to their involvement. It is
unfortunate to see that we have an increase here of 7% compared to the 67% reported
in the BWSE 2018. The provision of information plays a crucial role in quality assurance
processes. The lack of relevant information causes either the exclusion of students ordiminishes meaningful participation. Moreover, it harms the involvement of any
stakeholder group, causing inequalities in the information held. When students lackinformation about procedures, programmes or are not supported enough to be involvedin the decision-making process, they are left out of having any ownership and enthusiasm
and consequently are not able to ensure a meaningful students’ perspective in the quality
assurance processes.
Next, 46% of respondents reported that participation in quality assurance processes is notwell facilitated and recognized by HEIs and nearly 36% of NUS stated that lack of tangible
results harms the belief, confidence and trust in a quality assurance process and this results
in resistance from students to be meaningfully active in quality assurance, as they areconvinced that their engagement will be fruitless.
33% of students’ unions reported that students do not feel that they are seen as full membersof their academic communities. While analysing the responses to all the above-mentioned

Figure 6.3.
What are the mainbarriers of students’
involvement in QA
processes?

What are the main barriers of students’ involvement in QA processes?

EHEA country with no ESU member
No information available
There is no Experts' Pool with student involvement
An Experts' Pool with student involvement is being implemented
Yes, the student-involved Experts' Pool is run by the agency(ies)Yes, the student-involved Experts' Pool is run together by the agency(ies) and the NUS
Yes, the student-involved Experts' Pool is run by the NUS

Map 6.2.
Structured student
expert pools playa crucial role as aplatform wherestudents andQA agencies cancooperate

There is a lack of info about QA among
the student body
Participation in QA is not facilitated/not recognized(permission to skip lectures, move exams, etc.)
Students think that these processes are uselessbecause they don't have consequences
Students are not seen as full members of theacademic community
No space for meaningful participation/inclusion,
only a formal one, in a tokenistic way
The QA processes are not transparent enough & thereports are not published in a clear & accessible way
There is no training focused on quality assurance

74%
46%
36%
33%
26%
23%
18%

Selection and nomination procedures
are not transparent
Other

15%

38%

15%
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

40 | Quality assurance

Quality assurance | 41

Do you agree with foreign QA agencies registered by EQAR
to perform reviews in your country?

questions, it may be observed that lack of equal position of students is experienced at all levelsof quality assurance, from institutional involvement to the participation in review panels.
Through the open answers in the survey some of the respondents highlight the lackof quality culture within the HEIs which is seen as an overarching indirect barrier formeaningful student engagement. The internal QA systems should stimulate all internal
stakeholders to participate in a dialogue, to evaluate and discuss the quality of learning andteaching. It is particularly important to involve students in such discussions from the earlystage of their enrollment in HE.

One of the main reasons for establishing EQAR was to increase
the trust in the QA outcomes between countries. The unions were
therefore asked if they agreed with foreign QA agencies registeredby EQAR to perform reviews in their country (see Figure 6.5.) Thissame question was asked in 2018 as well where 42,5% responded
that foreign agencies should be allowed in the country, but theirconclusions had to be reviewed by the national agency. The sameanswer is now selected by 35.9% of the respondents. Another option for the same question suggested to automatically recognize
the decisions of foreign agencies and 25% of the respondent supports this in comparison to the 20% of BWSE 2018 results.
6 unions (15.38%) would only recognize their decision withadditional requirements and 2 unions (5.13%) would not want thisat all. Overall, we notice that the trust towards foreign agencies
is increasing among the ESU member unions as many of themnow prefer to have automatic recognition of QA procedures
done by foreign agencies.

Yes, but only if there is no QA agency in our country
providing those evaluations

17.95%

Yes, but with additional requirements

15.38%
17.95%

I don’t know
0

Figure 6.4.
How many NUS
members support
the existence of adatabase?

62%

full support for
the existenceof database

11%

5.13%

No, not at all

How many NUS members support the existence of a database?

NUS is not sureor don’t know
about theexistence of
database

35.9%

Yes, but their decisions should be evaluated by a national QA agency

EQAR
ESU has promoted many of EQARs initiatives over the last 12 years. It can be seen in Figure
6.4., that 75% of our members fully (62%) or partly support (13%) the existence of a database inwhich all QA agencies are registered that work according to the ESGs. Nobody from the respondents opposes the idea of having the European register, but the other member unions
are not sure (11%) or do not know (14%) about the existence of this database. This means there
is work to do for EQAR’s promotion, but there is no lack of credibility. These numbers do notshow a significant change compared to 2018.

25.64%

Yes, and their decisions should be automatically recognized

One of the respondents mentions that the extensive time of the selection process for student
experts is a big barrier. Particularly in the case of last year’s students, this becomes problematic,
as they have limited time to get involved with QA procedures as student experts. Other barriers
mentioned by NUSes are e.g. not accessible QA reports, the lack of training opportunities andnot transparent QA processes.

25%

Figure 6.5.
Do you agree withforeign QA agencies
registered by EQAR
to perform reviews inyour country?

25

50

75

100

This leads us to the question of what impact EQAR has already made. In the multiple
choice answers (see Figure 6.6.) we see that the impact of EQAR mainly comes down toincreasing transparency (45.95%) and enabling cross-border QA (40.54%). This is more orless comparable to the answers received in BWSE 2018.
If we look at the future of EQAR our unions are very positive and see an important role for
EQAR. We asked the respondents if they would support further development of EQAR in

What impact has EQAR already made?
Increased transparency of the qualityof higher education for students

100

80

Enforcing the ESG
Enabling the cross-border QA

60

Giving higher education institutions
the possibility to choose any QA agency
from the register

40

Opening national QA systems for agencies
from abroad
Other

20

support the database
to some extent
0

Figure 6.6.
What impact has
EQAR already made?

42 | Quality assurance

providing information about quality-assured higher education provision in EHEA and 41%
agree to this fully. 38% of the unions support the idea with some concerns and 21% is not sure.

6.3. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a key commitment of EHEA, QA seems to be one of the areas that witnesses at least
some progress in implementation. The reason for this is of course the structure that exists
around QA – the ESGs, QA agencies with registration to EQAR, external review experts,
etc. These same structures are of utmost importance for us related to the topic of student
engagement—not only in QA procedures but also in HE governance and decision-making,as we believe that students’ engagement in QA is a core step to promote all the otherengagements too. Therefore the meaningful student participation in QA—both internaland external is always in the center of our work.
This chapter helps us to reflect once more on the specific aspects of QA procedures wherethe voices of students can indicate developments and alarm about the need for stronger
commitment and better communication. Noting as a positive step the work of 2018-2020
BFUG’s Thematic peer group on QA in the introduction, we then discuss the purpose of
QA to set a common understanding of what students think the QA should do. Enhancing
study conditions, ensuring transparency and accountability in HE, as well as the trust
building among HE stakeholders are the most-selected options among our membershipwhich means that students want to experience, see and trust the outcomes of the QA.
Next, we see that compared to the previous year more countries are applying a combined
approach of both institutional and programme reviews. This can be seen as a positive
development as usually the combined approach can better address the diversity of institutions.
Moving to the internal QA, unfortunately, we record a regress compared to 2018 as fewer
student representatives say that there is student involvement as full members. Furthermore,
we also see responses about diverse approaches being applied within a country which makes
it hard to identify a general type of student engagement in internal QA country-wise. This isa concerning development for us. Diversity of HEIs and universities in no way should imply adiversified approach to engaging students. Students are students in every mode and form of
higher education and their meaningful and equal involvement is first of all a benefit for thequality of education—whatever form it has. Involving students should be embraced on all thelevels and from all the bodies—from policymakers to practitioners in academia.
This smoothly leads us to the next part where we address the external QA and witness astrong majority of respondents stating students’ involvement. Considering this information
with the lack of involvement in internal QA (as stated in the previous paragraph) proves thepoint that implementing strong involvement in external QA through European standards
does not necessarily guarantee student engagement in the internal QA. Furthermore, we
also see that there are still some countries where students are not involved in external QA at
all or are involved only as an information source. Ensuring students’ participation in external

Quality assurance | 43

QA through embedding standards on this is a prominent step countries should make forhaving an enhanced QA system.
Another aspect of being involved in QA, particularly from the perspective of the national
student unions, is the governance on the national level. Here we consider two indicators– involvement in the governing bodies of QA agencies and on national level discussions(mostly with the ministries or other state bodies). Though there is some affirmation thatstudents are part of the governance – on the QA agency and national level, we also read a
lot of comments from national student unions that often students are not taken as equal
members, they are not treated as equal members when it comes to receiving informationand feeling a part of a process, and they feel their participation is token. This is not only
a structural problem, this is an issue of mindset too. Many of the times decision-makers
remember about the students only at the very last point and even if they would want to
involve them maybe at that stage, this turns into a token participation as students join at theend of the process to just say something without ownership and meaningful contribution.
This is a dangerous disease that we all should work to get rid of.
On a positive note, compared to 2018 we see some improvement in the numbers of expert
pools where students get a chance to have training about external QA. However, it is still acase for part of the countries only. This practice is especially useful when it’s co-managed by
the national student union and/or in cooperation with the national QA agency. The working
process itself brings the atmosphere of collaboration, and further it motivates students totake initiatives as (co)managers of the expert pool and promote good practices of student
engagement among students.
Building and utilization of QA expert pools in a collaborative manner requires resources andcommitment to be in place from the side of QA agencies, national decision-makers andother beneficiaries. All the EHEA countries should have in place a collaborative structure fortraining, selection and appointment of the QA student-experts.
To understand the disengagement that is in place for internal or external QA, involvementon the national level, etc it is important to reflect on the barriers of student engagement thatnational student unions identify. The lack of information available for broader communitiesof the students is the highest barrier identified and the number of respondents here ishigher than in 2018 unfortunately. Improving communication about QA should be a priority
for QA agencies and QA offices at universities. Targeted communication tools should be
developed to inform and engage students in the mission of QA.
Another major challenge is the lack of recognizing QA activities done by students.
Universities can develop many mechanisms for this and this should be a tool to facilitate
motivation and eagerness among students for participation. All these barriers highlight tous how much continuous work there still needs to be done, there should be clear actions
and strategies for promoting student engagement in QA.

44 | Quality assurance

Quality assurance | 45

Recommendationsy Promote a multipurpose quality assurance on the national and institutional levels in
EHEA. Utilize QA as a tool for enhancing the quality culture of higher education and forincreasing the transparency about—and trust towards it
y In all EHEA countries apply a combined approach of institutional and programme
accreditations to meet the diverse needs of higher educationy On the national level create incentives for universities to involve students as full members
in internal QA. On the institutional level create an environment where students andother stakeholders acknowledge students as full membersy Through the ESG 2015 embed the involvement of students as full members in theexternal QA procedures throughout the whole EHEA. Reflect this in policies on thenational and institutional levels
y Require the national QA agencies to include student representatives as full members of
the governing structures and decision-making bodies
y On the national level sustain a regular dialogue with students about the QA policies anddevelopments. Involve national students’ representatives from the very beginning ofpolicy initiatives and not only at the very end
y Across EHEA establish and use a QA pool to student-experts in countries with the
purpose of enhancing the capacity of students through training in external QA, and use
these trained students to promote engagement among other groups
y Regularly reflect on existing barriers of student engagement. Ensure the QA agencies
and university QA offices implement outreach strategies directed to awarenessraising among wider groups of students about QA. Communication should be timely,
comprehensive, accessible and user friendly
y Recognise and support student engagement in QA through flexible study conditions
and non-academic learning recognition. This can include but is not limited to allocating
ECTS, implementing extra-benefits and allowing flexible study timing for QA-related
activities of studentsy Stress and encourage the impact of EQAR on ensuring transparency and cross-border
QA among the EHEA countries

REFERENCES• EHEA (2018). Paris Communiqué, Paris, May 25th 2018. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/
ministerial_declarations/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdfESGs:
https://enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf• Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG).(2015).
Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from: http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf• European Students’ Union (2018). Bologna with Student Eyes 2018: The Final Countdown. ISBN
9789491256059. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BWSE-2018_web_
Pages.pdf• European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2018). The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna
Process Implementation Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved
from: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/european-higher-education-area-2018bologna-process-implementation-report_en

Recognition | 47

7. RECOGNITION
7.1. INTRODUCTION
Through the Bologna Process, as well as through other initiatives such as the Lisbon
Recognition Convention (1997), recognition of qualifications and degrees has developed
into an important discussion topic among different stakeholders of the higher education
community. Both on EHEA and global levels we have followed insightful developments on
this topic during the past years.
In November 2019, after meetings and consultations for a few years, the General Conferenceof UNESCO adopted the Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning
Higher Education and now it’s in the process of ratification, acceptance, approval, or
accession by the states.
On the level of EHEA, we saw through the Paris Communiqué in 2018 that Ministers
commit to implement the Council of Europe/UNESCO Lisbon Recognition Convention
and its Recommendations, in particular on the recognition of qualifications held byrefugees, displaced persons and persons in a refugee-like situation. They urged the adoptionof transparent procedures for the recognition of qualifications, prior learning and study
periods, supported by interoperable digital solutions. Following this, in September 2018,
the BFUG formally established the Thematic Peer Group B on the Lisbon Recognition
Convention (TPG B on LRC) to function until the next Ministerial Conference in Rome 2020.
This group has been discussing topics such as establishing the legal framework to allow
full implementation of the LRC, establishing the distribution of work and responsibilities
among the competent institutions to carry out transparable and fair recognition procedures,
achievement of automatic recognition, recognition of other forms of education, qualifications
held by refugees and the importance of digitalization in the area of recognition procedures.
The group has had meetings, thematic seminars and peer learning activities that enabledsharing of knowledge and experiences between the key stakeholders.
In parallel to these international developments, of course, recognition procedures do notstop on local and national levels and they leave direct consequences and experiences forstudents. In this chapter we look into those experiences, presenting to the reader findings
about recognition of qualifications and credits, automatic recognition and recognition ofprior learning.

7.2. MAIN FINDINGS ON IMPLEMENTATION
Recognition of qualifications and credits: European Diploma Supplement (EDS)The Diploma supplement is one of the most important documents introduced by theEuropean higher education institutions as it provides a unifying document that enables
and promotes the flexibility and diversity of the European higher education system.
Furthermore, it represents a document that connects three bridges; the Lisbon Recognition
Convention, the Bologna Process, and the Europass. It’s a tool that provides higher
education institutions, employers, recognition authorities and other possible stakeholders
with a common understanding of skills and competences, that students gained throughHE. Every student should be entitled to this document after finishing the studies, as it isa proof of learning outcomes and achieved qualifications that the students have gained
during higher education. It should also include the nature, level, context, content and statusof an individual`s study programme. It should be given automatically upon graduation andshould be free of charge. We asked our membership about this and 65% (24 out of 37) of
responding national unions of students have reported that there is a national legislation for
European diploma supplement in their respective country, 13% of respondents replied of
not having any official legislation on European diploma supplement and 22% don’t knowof such a legislation. Out of the 24 respondents who confirmed that students do receive
European diploma supplements right after they finish their studies, 18 mentioned thatthose are free of charge.
Assessment and final decision on foreign diplomas/qualifications/credits
20 unions out of 34, making up for 58% of the total) reported that the assessment of foreign
diplomas is done by recognition authorities. In 5 out of those 20 cases, the task is sharedwith higher education institutions while in 3 cases out of those 20 the competence is shared
between the recognition authority and the national government. The national governmentis the sole responsible for the assessment of foreign diplomas in 24% of the cases and in only
one case it shares the competence with higher education institutions. In the remaining 15% ofcases, higher education institutions are solely responsible for the assessment.
When it comes to making the final decision of recognition after assessing the diplomas,
all three entities have received an equal amount of selection by the respondents —around
40% as this is a multiple choice question. The numbers are not surprising and similar to the
BWSE 2018 data.
Regarding the assessment of foreign qualifications, 14 out of 29 respondents have reported
that the recognition authorities are responsible for assessment, 13 out of 29 have named
higher education institutions and only 9 out of 29 have stated that National governments
are assessing the foreign qualifications. This means of course that in some cases the
responsibility is shared: in two cases the recognition authorities share it with national
governments and in 5 with HEIs. Regarding the final decision of the assessment of the

48 | Recognition

Recognition | 49

foreign qualifications, the share is almost equally distributed between three entities acrosscountries (around 40% as multiple options are possible).

improved since the share of the unions have been increasing over the last couple of years: in2018 37% of the unions have agreed with procedures being transparent and 42% saw themas non-discriminatory.

On the other hand, the assessment of foreign credits is being primarily done by thehigher education institutions (76%), as opposed to recognition authorities with 15% ornational governments with 9%. (Only in 4 cases the task is shared between HEIs andrecognition authorities and in just one the HEIs share it with the ministry. The ministry andthe recognition authority work together on the assessment of foreign credits only in twocases.) The final decision is again in the majority of the countries responsibility of the higher
education institutions (81%) and is less often left to the recognition authorities or national
governments. This could be easily explained since the recognition of the credits is moretime efficient and simpler when done by the higher education institution, in comparison
to the assessment of diplomas or qualifications, which both take more time and are way
more complex.

Unfortunately, regarding the complexity of the procedures there is no positive development,
the figure is very similar to the one from the BWSE 2018 report, where 18 out of 42 unions(43%) reported of recognition procedures being complicated from the student perspective.
This is not to be underestimated: while procedures can be built in a transparent and nondiscriminatory way on paper, if they are too complex to be understood by those who needthem, then they become unjust de facto.
A bit more than half of the responding unions (57%) expressed agreement that it isfairly simple for a student to proceed with degree recognition and recognition of credits
gained within enrolment in a mobility programme (Erasmus) in their countries, however,recognition of the credits gained through enrolment outside of mobility is still a burden
for many, since 38% of the respondents have expressed dissatisfaction about the credits’recognition procedures. Few unions are still generally reporting obstinate problems whenit comes to the recognition of credits obtained during study exchange, such problems
with credit equivalence have been reported by NUSes from the Czech Republic, Republicof Moldova, Slovakia and Germany. This suggests that complexity of processes in this area
remains a barrier for many students on the way to their educational goals and this area has
not improved much over the last couple of years.

Transparency, simplicity and non-discrimination
Recognition procedures are often highly important for students on their academic pathand for many serve as a stepping stone to higher education, that is why it is of extreme
importance that all procedures and processes are transparent, simple and discriminationfree. As seen in Figure 7.1, NUSes mostly agree that the recognition procedures in theirrespective countries are transparent (15 unions or 41% of the total) and non-discriminatory(19 unions or 52% of the total), however, the situation is not similar when it comes to simplicity
since the unions are split in half. 14 unions out of 37 respondents think that procedures are
too complex, on the other hand, 12 out of 37 indicate the simplicity of the procedures, 9of the unions are undecided and two unions did not know the answer. In comparison to
the BWSE 2015 and 2018, the perceived transparency and fairness of the procedures have

To what extent does your NUS agree that the recognition procedures aretransparent / simple / non-discriminatory?

Figure 7.1.
To what extent does
your NUS agree
that the recognition
procedures are
trasnparent / simple /non-discriminatory?

Transparent

Strongly agree

SimpleAgree
Neither agree nor disagree
DisagreeNondiscriminatory

Strongly disagree
0

20

40

60

80

100

Time limit

I don’t know

Besides administration issues that are heavy for many students applying for recognition
procedures, there are sometimes also problems with the time frame. 22% of the responding
unions indicate not having any fixed time frame for recognition processes. The majority of
the respondents are not aware whether any time frame exists (41%) and in some of thecountries, the procedure itself takes from 1 to 6 months (37%). Only 7 out of 37 (19%) have
responded that recognition procedures last up to one month.
Despite the majority (approximately 57%) have agreed that the recognition of credits
obtained within a mobility programme is pretty effortless for a student, there are some
NUSes who do acknowledge that there are still problems arising when it comes to matching
the credits of a study programme at home and host universities during the mobility.
There are some cases reported by our NUSes, that show how much recognition of education
qualifications can complicate and even unnecessarily prolong an individual’s academic
goals, as time limit seems to be problematic in Bulgaria and Italy, as reported by NUSes, as
this can make starting a new study year abroad very difficult due to overlapping of the timeframes of academic years in different countries.

50 | Recognition

Another arising concern tends to be the possibility for recognition of PL for non-EU citizens
or refugees. NUS from Switzerland reports that since RPL is done autonomously byuniversities, this can mean different approaches and criteria for asylum seekers or student
refugees, giving them unfair circumstances when entering HE. Likewise, NUS from Icelandis also reporting difficulties in the area of recognition of qualifications for non-EU students
while entering HE.
Automatic recognition
Automatic recognition has been one of the many golden goals of the Bologna Process,aiming to improve and unify diversity throughout the European Higher Education Area.
The term has been firstly mentioned in the Bucharest Communiqué in 2012, so fairly to say
almost a decade ago. As stated in the EHEA Pathfinder Group on Automatic Recognition
from 2015 automatic recognition means that “to the automatic right of an applicant
holding a qualification of a certain level to be considered for entry to a programme offurther study in the next level in any other EHEA country”. This Bologna goal aims to give
students endless opportunities to create and develop their individual academic growth
in a personalized way, creating less-complicated, effective, non-discriminatory and timeefficient recognition procedures, boosting their motivation to thrive and search for the best
academic path.
The internalization of higher education has brought a lot of changes and possibilities forstudents, as well as for teachers. Mobility programmes have gained popularity among
students, increasing the number of short-term exchanges and full degree mobilities. Thisaffects also the labour market and higher education area, creating a more competitive
atmosphere between HEIs, which can also lead to positive effects, such as increased qualityof HE programmes. However, even though a little rivalry between HEIs is healthy, it is crucial
not to forget the essential focus - the students and their education. Therefore, unsuccessfulrecognition either of credits or diplomas should never be the sacrifice a student shouldpay, only due to prejudices or distrust HEIs still have between one another. Besides, it
is important to emphasize that automatic recognition could be seen as the main andend-goal of the Bologna Process, as it does represent everything that the process in the
EHEA stands for: mutual trust and common tools. We can expect that only when the full
implementation of all Bologna tools will be in place in all EHEA countries, then common
perception of trust will start developing, allowing automatic recognition to become a realpossibility. If the most important Bologna goals are only implemented on paper, then we
definitely cannot expect automatic recognition in the EHEA anytime soon.
Since the beginning students have been in favour of this idea, firstly confirming this in the
BWSE survey in 2018 with the vast majority of the unions being fully or partially supportiveof this idea. Not much has changed since 90% of the respondents have again confirmed to
fully or partially support the idea of automatic recognition and no-one is against. Besides,

Recognition | 51

31 out of 37 respondents have stated that automatic recognition is either essential, of highimportance or moderate importance for their NUS.
Even though students might seem excited and supportive about the idea of automatic
recognition, unfortunately, the reality is still far from desired. As reported in the survey,
27% of the countries still do not have any form of automatic recognition. Only 16% of the
respondents replied to have automatic recognition in place for neighbouring countries andonly 27% automatically recognize degrees from countries with fully implemented Bologna
tools. In Montenegro, as reported from the NUS, they do automatically recognize diplomas
issued before 2008 from Yugoslavia and Serbia, Austria according to our NUS automaticallyrecognizes degrees from EU, EEA and Switzerland. As seen from the answers, the mostpopular are bilateral agreements, as 38% of the respondents have replied to have them inplace. The diversity between the countries across the EU is pretty evident when it comesto automatic recognition, as each of them found different ways to subtly implement someform of automatic recognition in place. However, it is essential to add that this Bologna
commitment is already in place through various regional agreements that exist in some
European regions, e.g. Estonia-Latvia-Lithuania, Benelux, Nordic agreement.
Main barriers for implementing automatic recognition
As seen in Figure 7.2, one of the substantial barriers students see to automatic recognition is
the fact that not all EHEA countries have fully implemented Bologna tools and reforms (49%of respondents), this is closely followed by the lack of trust between EHEA countries (41%of respondents) and is undoubtedly directly connected to the first reason. Furthermore,
one of the main barriers on the way to automatic recognition are also concerns regarding
regulated professions (46% of respondents), lack of transparency and information within
the EHEA (19% of respondents) and lack of interest by the government to make automatic
recognition a reality (35% of respondents). Besides the main given options, a barrier has
also been highlighted by NUS from Luxembourg, stating that the lack of engagement ofdifferent stakeholders is harmful while they [the stakeholders] would help in the demandof automatic recognition of diplomas at national level. 6 out of 37 (16%) unions have statedthat they do not understand why automatic recognition is not implemented yet in theircountries and 3 out of 37 (8%) have stated cultural differences as the main problem on theway to it.
NUSes from Austria and Poland pointed out that automatic recognition could, besides obvious
easier accessibility, also mean less stress for students, as they wouldn’t need to encounter timeconsuming and bureaucratically complicated recognition procedures. Besides, NUS from
Luxembourg strongly believes that automatic recognition should be prioritized at national
level, as this would also immensely benefit students to avoid precarity and easily and quickly
access the job market after graduation in their home countries, as they wouldn’t need to wait
for unnecessary long and complicated recognition procedures. NUS from Bulgaria has also
supported this thesis, as they would like to see changes in the simplicity of the process.

52 | Recognition

Recognition | 53

According to your NUS, what are the main barriers for implementing automatic recognition ofdegrees within EHEA?
Not all EHEA countries have a consistent
implementation of Bologna tools/reforms

48.65%

Some concerns regarding regulated
professions

45.95%

Figure 7.2.
According to your
NUS, what are themain barriers for
implementing
automatic recognitionof degrees within
EHEA?

40.54%

Lack of trust between EHEA countries
Lack of interest by the government inmaking this happen

35.14%

Lack of transparency and information
within EHEA

18.92%

None, we do not understand why it is
not in place yet

16.22%
10.81%Other
I don’t know

8.11%

Cultural differences

8.11%
0

10

20

30

40

50

Successfully implemented automatic recognition would also positively affect the mobilityof students, as this would allow the accessible and smoothest possible transfer between
different HEI across Europe, as stated by NUSes from Georgia, Ireland and UK. This would,
as highlighted by NUSes from Iceland and Romania, also result in a more diverse student
population and a valuable change of atmosphere in the academic environment. NUS
from Croatia has expressed some concerns, since they don’t have a policy on substantial
differences, which would make the entire process more transparent and set the quality
standard for the recognition.

EHEA country with no ESU member
No information available

Recognition of prior learning

No, no work has been done in order to enable RPL

Recognition of prior learning has become important in the Bologna Process in 2005, when
it was mentioned as one of the important goals in the Bergen Communiqué. Later it wasagain set as a commitment in the Yerevan Communiqué in 2015, stating that obstacles
to recognition of prior learning should be removed in order to improve the accessibility
to HE, besides higher education institutions as central stakeholders should improve theircapability and mechanisms to recognize skills and competences that students have gained
through formal and informal prior learning. In the latest communiqué, Paris CommuniquéNo, not yet, but some initiatives are being developed
Yes, there are some initiatives
Yes, there are established systems

Map 7.3.
Is the Recognitionof Prior Learning(RPL) possible in yourcountry?

54 | Recognitionin 2018, ministers have committed to adopt transparent procedures also when it comes torecognition of prior learning.
Undoubtedly, the recognition of prior learning is of extreme importance for students, since
it can have an immense impact on achieving desired educational goals. That is why ESU
has always shown great support for this manner, besides recognition of prior learning
should not only be done for the purpose of accessibility or entering the labour market,
but should be also seen as an additional and supportive part of the academic knowledge
gained through higher education.
However, the results from the survey are again not that optimistic. As seen in Figure 7.3.,
only 7 out of 37 unions are reporting of having well-established systems in the area ofrecognition of prior learning and 12 out of 37 have some initiatives in place on the national
level, but not yet fully developed. Even though this measure was set as one of the Bologna
goals almost 15 years ago, there are still 17 respondents that have reported that theircountries do not possess at the moment any kind of structure that makes the recognitionof prior learning possible, among those 17, only 7 mention a slow start with few initiatives
towards RPL. The result is pretty discouraging on its own already, however adding up thefact that the number of the positive feedback has decreased from BWSE in 2018 makes it
absolutely disappointing, since in the previous BWSE report 62% (27 NUSes out of 43) of
the respondents have reported to have either well-developed systems or well-developed
initiatives in place, when this time only 51% of the respondents have reported of positivechanges. It is quite obvious that some well-planned actions and strong collaboration
between essential stakeholders will be needed in order to achieve what was set in YerevanCommuniqué in 2015.
In countries where recognition of prior learning is in place and well functioning, it is mostly usedeither to cover part of the studies (56%), or to gain access to higher education (40%) or to proceed
to the next cycle in education (40%). Three countries, to name Croatia, Luxembourg and France
have stated that recognition of prior learning is also used to obtain a full degree. NUSes from Italy
and Armenia report that RPL is also used for the purpose of lifelong learning.
Based on the reports of our unions, Figure 7.4. shows that the three biggest barriers to therecognition of prior learning are (1) limited information and a lack of trust among mainstakeholders (50%), (2) lack of interest by the government in making RPL a reality (50%) and(3) lack of trust in the validation of qualifications (47%). Inability of tight cooperation between
stakeholders at the national level on the topic of recognition of prior learning seems tobe problematic and reflects a lack of trust among stakeholders. Since higher education
institutions and other important stakeholders are apparently not involved enough, this also
reflects on the government who lacks interest to regulate this area. Another important barrier
acknowledged by the students is the lack of resources, as 31% of the unions have stated this still
being a problem, together with 17% of the participants answering that the cost of recognitionof prior learning is also an obstacle. Besides, 19% of the unions have replied that one of the

Recognition | 55

According to your NUS, what are the main barriers for barriers for recognition of prior learning?
Limited information and a lack of trust
among main stakeholders

50%

Lack of interest by the government
in making this happen

50%

Lack of trust in the validationof qualifications

47.22%
30.56%

Lack of resources
None, we do not understand why it is
not in place yet

19.44%

NQF have not been implemented or theirpotential hasn't been used fully for RPL

19.44%
13.89%

Cost of RPL
Legislation limiting it or not allowing it

11.11%

Other

11.11%
0

10

20

30

40

50

possible obstacles may be also the fact that National Qualification Frameworks (NQF) havenot been implemented or their potential hasn’t been used fully for RPL, additionally 11%
stated that limited or non-existent national legislations add to the problem.
Not much has changed, when comparing it to the results from the BWSE 2018 survey as lack oftrust is still predominating in this area and keeping recognition of prior learning from becominga reality for all students across EHEA. However, surprisingly, trust in governments to focus on thisproblematic area in HE has decreased, as already half (50%) of the respondents replied of nottrusting their authorities to be doing a sufficient job, which is surely very discouraging since in2018 only 12 unions out of 38 (32%) have stated this as problematic. This is a very worrisome trend.
As stated in the latest Paris Communiqué, special focus should be paid to the transparencyof the recognition procedures for prior learning. This is why it is even more worrisome that
our NUS from Denmark reports that procedures of prior learning tend to be biased towards
benefiting students from more privileged social backgrounds, as they seem to present previous
experiences in better ways and have more developed social networks, giving them more options
to get accepted into desired programme.

Figure 7.4.
According to your
NUS, what are themain barriers forbarriers for recognitionof prior learning?

56 | Recognition

Successful and unsuccessful best practices
There are, however, also some good examples of successful systems of recognition of priorlearning. NUS from Croatia has highlighted the example of the University of Rijeka as supporting
student motivation through engaging them in additional learning modules outside HEI, which
is being recognized as a valuable additional education, consequently supporting the importanceof extracurricular work as an addition to formal education. Similarly, NUS from Germany reports
about a good-working framework for RPL established by some universities of applied sciences,whereas universities are often declining any form of RPL. They report that many students do
not even try to get RPL as it seems impossible and very bureaucratic. NUS from Ireland has
highlighted Cork Institute of Technology as a great example of best practice in this field as they
have a well-established system of RPL and have just recently celebrated 20 years of practice.
Another arising concern tends to be the lack of possibility for recognition of PL for non-EU
citizens or refugees. NUS from Switzerland reports that since RPL is done autonomously byuniversities, this can mean different approaches and criteria for asylum seekers or student
refugees, giving them unfair circumstances when entering HE. Besides student refugees, who
do not get prior education recognized, have to undergo an additional exam to prove learning
outcomes. Likewise, NUS from Iceland also reports difficulties in the area of recognition ofqualifications for non-EU students while entering HE. However, NUS from Italy reports that there
are already some initiatives to use Refugees Passports as an efficient tool to enroll refugees andasylum seekers in HE.
What could be done in order to remove those barriers
As stated from NUSs from Georgia, Slovenia Germany, Poland, Italy and Austria there isa great need to raise the awareness of the importance and benefits of RPL for HEI andstudents themselves and to encourage universities to implement these procedures asa constant. NUS from Luxembourg has highlighted that extracurricular work, such as
voluntary work is not recognized as valuable education and there is a need for this area tobecome more visible and regulated. Besides it is necessary to change the approach andperspective on what education means and how and where knowledge can be gained. This
could be done through tighter collaboration of key stakeholders, as NUS from Iceland isreporting, there is a need to increase cooperation between Recognition of Prior Learning
institutions, the government and the higher education institutions in order to remove thosebarriers on a way to RPL.
NUS from Serbia is planning to start and support a national legislative creation process.
Similarly, NUSes from Italy, Romania and Poland feel that their higher education system islacking decent procedures and guidelines to introduce and promote RPL among HEI. NUS
from Switzerland is putting the highlight on the creation of fair and efficient recognition
procedures for refugees and asylum seekers, as this is at the moment not done in a properway, consequently holding these students from enrolling into a quality tertiary education.
NUSs from Croatia and Armenia are demanding more flexibility, as the HE system in

Recognition | 57

general still seems very rigid and unwilling to recognize any other form of gaining learning
outcomes. Another important point that has been brought up from NUS from Ireland,
it is mandatory to adapt the language terminology in order to increase the accessibilityof the information on RPL for students. NUSes from Luxembourg and Estonia are also
calling for more financial aid, that could help make RPL easier, more accessible and overall
more visible on national HE level. NUS from Armenia reports that they expect some majorchanges in the area of HE, therefore they believe there will be positive changes in therecognition field as well.

7.3. CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Throughout the main findings presented above, we see that there are multiple differences
and challenges in how the recognition as a key commitment of the EHEA is being
implemented —depending on both the level/authority of decision-making for recognition,
as well as conditioned by the essence of the credentials (qualifications, prior learning,credits, etc.) that need to be recognized.
It is concerning to see that for the diploma supplement we still receive reports about missing
national legislation for it. National authorities bear the responsibility to give a common
framework for the universities to use it while issuing the diploma supplement to students.
National legislation should guarantee the right of students to receive the diploma supplement
after graduation and free of charge, as well as it should be a reference point for students when
they have problems either with the reception of the diploma supplement or with its content.
When we look at the assessment of foreign qualifications and foreign diplomas,
embracement of different approaches among countries is visible and that is anunderstandable reality. The priority is to have less bureaucratic, more accessible andefficient procedures that will support students rather than create extra hurdles for them.
Most importantly, there should be no discriminatory approach in place conditioned by thedifferent bodies that implement recognition procedures.
We see that the recognition of foreign credits is being mainly done by the higher
education institutions, which hopefully makes the procedures more easier for students.
The recognition framework should work equally well and fair for all students in a certain
country—independently from which university they are.
When we ask about transparency and non-discriminatory approaches, we see that only
half of the respondents think the recognition procedures are transparent and exactly
only half of them consider the approaches to be non-discriminatory. There is also still a
big share of respondents who consider the recognition procedures to be complex andtime-consuming. These all are worrying realities as such a perception among the student
community means they not only face issues but are mostly sceptical to trust and apply
for recognition procedures as they are aware of the complexity and lack of transparency.
More difficulties persist when it comes to the recognition of credits earned outside of the58 | Recognition

Erasmus mobility experiences which signifies that such higher education institutions do
not have a well-developed recognition procedure but rely only on the framework given by
the ERASMUS+ programme. We are sad to see this picture as in this area there was little if
any improvement tracked during the recent few years.
Next, looking into the timeframes that apply for the recognition procedures, we see a lackof clearly defined timelines that would help students understand what are the stages ofprocedure they are involved in. This adds up to the issue of transparency and doesn’t enable
the most accessible information about recognition procedures. Recognition timeframes
become extremely important when they are combined with admission deadlines forstudents who want to continue their studies. Artificially prolonged and bureaucratic
procedures may result in a situation where a student has to wait for a whole year tomeet the next admission deadline. All these aspects need to be taken into account byrecognition authorities/offices while developing the procedures. There should be at leastan individualized approach to understand the needs of students in relation to the timing.
We also see much longer procedures being applied for refugee students or non-EU students.
The authorities should do their utmost to ensure swift and efficient recognition procedures for all
students utilizing the potential of the ENIC-NARIC network and other European networks whereapplicable, as well as proactively contacting relevant authorities from third countries.
All these issues are being reflected in the automatic recognition processes of course. Somecountries have bilateral or regional agreements to ensure that automatic recognition is inplace. However, the whole purpose of the Bologna Process is to ensure trust and automatic
recognition, and it is concerning that in order to achieve this goal countries are setting up
agreements with a few others. All the EHEA countries should be carefully looking into how
they are implementing the Bologna tools to enable automatic recognition. Most importantly,
we see a need to make automatic recognition a political priority on national levels.
We see a discouraging regress when it comes to the recognition of prior learning. Only aminority of the unions report initiatives that support the RPL procedures, which extremely
hurdles the flexibility of the learning process damaging a possible student-centeredapproach, as well as access to further education for those from disadvantaged backgrounds
who for some unfortunate reasons do not possess formal qualifications or credentials. It isalso concerning to see that the lack of trust is one of the main barriers for RPL and there is amajor lack of trust among our respondents towards how well the governments are dealing
with this. This lack of trust has unfortunately increased during the past years.
Recommendationsy National legislations should define a framework for diploma supplement for it to beissued free of charge after graduation. This framework should be well-communicatedamong students and serve as a reference point for any time when they have issues withthe diploma supplement

Recognition | 59

y Recognition procedures should never be used to discriminate against students froma certain country or other backgrounds. Furthermore, national authorities should
guarantee that within their country students from different universities have the rightto undergo the same recognition procedures. Higher education institutions should be
provided with platforms where such information can be exchanged and discussed toensure all students are treated equally welly Transparency, accessibility and time-efficiency of recognition procedures should beunder constant review of respective bodies/authorities
y Steps of procedure and respective time frame should always be clearly communicated to
students by recognition offices/national authorities. The individual needs of students should
always be inquired and taken into consideration while implementing the proceduresy A robust exchange of information should be developed among recognition bodies. The
information and communication technologies of the 21st century should be fully utilized
to make more efficient and less bureaucratic recognition proceduresy The implementation of Bologna tools should be a priority to make automatic recognition
happen. Furthermore, automatic recognition should be a political priority
y RPL should be seen as a strong enabler of student-centered learning and access toformal education for those who have been disadvantaged

REFERENCES• UNESCO (2019). Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education, Paris, 25 November 2019.
Retrieved from: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=49557&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html#STATE_PARTIES• EHEA (2018). Paris Communiqué, Paris, May 25 th 2018. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/
EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf• EHEA (2012). Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area, Bucharest 26-27 April. Retrieved
from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdf• EHEA Pathfinder Group on Automatic Recognition (2015). Report by the EHEA Pathfinder Group on Automatic Recognition: To
present to Ministers of the European Area of Higher Education for the Bologna Ministerial Conference 14-15 May 2015 Yerevan,
Armenia. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/72/3/EHEA_Pathfinder_Group_on_Automatic_
Recognition_January_2015_613723.pdf• EHEA (2005). The European Higher Education Area - Achieving the Goals: Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers
Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_
declarations/2005_Bergen_Communique_english_580520.pdf• EHEA (2015). Yerevan Communiqué, Yerevan, 14–15 May. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/70/7/
YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf• European Commission (2017). Study to support the revision of the diploma supplement and analyse the feasibility of its
digitalisation at European level: Final report. Retrieved from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1ae19aac-6a9a11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1

Internationalisation and mobility | 61

8. INTERNATIONALISATION
AND MOBILITY

Spending a semester or a year abroad is a driver of academic, social and intercultural skills
development but can only live up to its full potential when accessible to everyone. ESU
firmly believes that continued investment in the Erasmus+ programme is needed in orderto reach the European wide target of 20% mobile students. Increased investment in the
Erasmus+ programme will contribute to societal progress by promoting shared civic values
and active citizenship through mobility, volunteering and cooperation projects.

8.1. INTRODUCTION

Is your NUS satisfied or dissatisfied with the resources allocated towards reaching the target goals?

“Internationalisation can be a tool for achieving higher quality education, personal
development and intercultural competences of students, social cohesion and peacefulcoexistence of people, as well as national and global sustainable development. It is importantto keep in mind that internationalisation is a tool for increased added value of education, notan end in itself.”
A lack of financing for internationalisation and mobility remains the most pressing issue inthis year’s edition of BWSE. It is important to remark though that students do not equally
feel the consequences of underfunding in the sector. Mobility remains a privilege forstudents that enjoy the necessary financial support from other sources, leaving prospective
mobile students from lower socio-economic backgrounds behind. Increased funding for
the Erasmus+ programme is desperately needed in order to finally overcome the gap andmake mobility a reality for all. In order to achieve this goal, however, a policy change isneeded not only when it comes to finance. As this chapter shows, the Bologna Process still
has a long way to go to make mobility truly inclusive.

8.2. MAIN FINDINGS
Financing mobility and internationalisation
Increased funding is crucial to ensure more equal access for a larger group of beneficiaries
from all ages and different educational purposes in order to respond to the high demand ofsmaller organisations and individual citizens, especially those from disadvantaged groups
who still struggle to access and be successful in the current programme.
The clear majority of all respondents indicated that financial difficulties are the number
one consideration for students who would like to undergo a learning mobility period
but ultimately decide against it. On the European level, funding for education within theMultiannual Financial Framework should be increased so that the funding allows fora realistic realisation of the set goals. This entails promoting and supporting individual
mobility, providing capacity building opportunities for all levels and stakeholders
involved in education and safeguarding the functioning of international organisations.
Within the Erasmus+ programme, targeted grants should be offered to students fromunderrepresented groups to widen participation.

52,17%

Very satisfied

Dissatisfied

0%

Satisfied

8.7%
8.7%
26.09%Neither

4.35%

Very dissatisfied

I don’t know

When being asked whether national unions of students are satisfied with the current
resources allocated towards reaching targeted mobility goals, only 2 countries indicatedthat they are happy with the given provision of funding. As seen in Figure 8.1., 60 % of all
respondents made clear that they are dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. The data clearlyshows that there is a pressing need for countries to rethink current models and prioritiseeffective measures to reach the targeted goals.
Internationalisation strategies
The picture concerning national strategies for internationalisation of HE in Europe is mixed.
While national strategies exist in 18 countries, only one union considered them to be well
implemented and working, with the rest citing deficiencies. In 5 countries, a national
strategy is in the process of being developed, with 2 NUSes being directly involved in its
development, 1 NUS being somewhat involved, and most worryingly, in cases of Moldova
and Ukraine, both NUSes not being involved in this process at all. In the case of Romania,
there has been a deadlock in developing a national strategy, which the NUS has been
criticising for years. The government’s unwillingness to develop a comprehensive system
has led to piecemeal implementation by some HEIs which are attempting to increasemobility and are granted additional funds based on their success, but this outcome isconsidered very much lacking by the NUS. In some countries, such as Iceland, Norway,
Czechia and the UK, internationalisation targets have not been set nationally, but are being
pursued by HEIs and collectives of HEIs individually - in many cases very effectively. This

Figure 8.1.
Is your NUS sattisfied
or dissatisfied with theresources allocatedtowards reaching thetarget goals?

62 | Internationalisation and mobility

Internationalisation and mobility | 63

shows another approach to strategic internationalisation, which can work especially well invery autonomous or decentralised HE systems, but which can also result in big disparities in
the results between different HEIs, thus leaving some students behind.

National Union of Students in their country is not familiar with the target. This should be
improved since ESU believes that a meaningful partnership with students’ unions is an
important step towards ensuring a successful internationalisation process.

In the case of Croatia, an increased push to internationalise HE has led to overextension interms of competence of teaching staff. With new programmes and courses opening up in
foreign languages, for example, there is a lag in assessing the quality of teaching in thesecourses, for example the language skills of the respective teaching staff.

Among other barriers identified were: Lack of collaboration from university faculty, highadministrative burdens, and specifically in the case of the United Kingdom a perception
from international students that they are not welcome, likely fostered by the negative
political discourse we observe about foreigners. The Bologna with Student Eyes publicationin 2018 explored in some details how the British and Irish students’ unions experience Brexit
as a major problem for internationalisation and student mobility to and from their countries.
This is both due to the direct practical and financial impact of Brexit-related policies but
also importantly the indirect impacts of the sheer uncertainty felt by prospective mobile
students and the negative political rhetoric. These problems described in the previous
Bologna With Student Eyes publication remain largely unsolved with students’ rights andgood conditions for universities being left behind in the process.

Barriers for implementing internationalisation strategies
Lack of resources and lack of given priority by the stakeholders were identified as the mainbarriers with respectively 47 and 45 % of respondents pointing to them. We cannot hope
to move forward with high-quality internationalisation of education as long as almost halfof the student unions experience is that not enough funding is being allocated to it. The
underlying reason for the apparent lack of stakeholder interest in internationalisation arefrom some reported to be a political or ideological lack of will to internationalise but may
also according to others be caused by education institutions being busy dealing with theeffects of budget cuts, digital transformation or other major challenges.
Another major barrier for internationalisation strategies is that the needed steps are notbeing taken from the national level. 34 % of respondents identified a lack of continuous
assessment and follow-up of the process and 32 % identified a lack of effective measures
for fostering mobility. This shows that there continues to be a significant gap between theinternationalisation ambitions of governments and the concrete actions they take to makeit happen in reality. Furthermore, 29 % of respondents report that there is a lack of guidancefrom the national level to the education institutions and 26 % report a lack of consistency
in the initiatives taken. Thus, there is room for improvement in the actions taken to follow
through on the ambitions, to ensure that education institutions experience sufficientguidance and clear consistent signals in the policies.
It is also important for the successful implementation of internationalisation strategies thatstudents are motivated and all stakeholders are engaged. 26 % of respondents reported
that there is a lack of interest from domestic students in internationalisation which showsthat there is room for improvement in designing the internationalisation initiatives in a
way that is beneficial and attractive for the student body. 16 % of respondents reported alack of interest from international students. These are important barriers to address since
motivated students who feel a positive impact of mobility and internationalisation on
their studies and spread this motivation to other students are a key factor in making theinternationalisation strategy a success.
Regarding setting effective targets for internationalisation, there is also some room for
improvement. 13 % of respondents reported that no target is set in their country while
5 % report that the target does exist but is unrealistic. 8 % of respondents report that theInternationalisation at home
While mobility is an essential part of internationalisation, internationalisation at home isalso an important factor. Internationalisation at home can not replace the transformative
experience of being mobile but it does add value in its own right by making the daily life
on campus more diverse and putting the education activities into an international context.
The Bologna with Student Eyes surveys have been used to monitor internationalisation
at home initiatives for years by asking the national unions of students “What tools ofinternationalisation at home are most commonly used by higher education institutions inyour country?”.
Comparing the survey from 2020 with the one from 2018, results are close to stagnant formost of the internationalisation initiatives. However, a few stand out. Some progress has
been made on education institutions offering modules or programmes taught in foreign
languages with 71 % of respondents perceiving this as common in 2020 compared to 49 % in2018. Progress has also been made on the focus on integrating international students withdomestic students with 63 % of respondents perceiving this as common in 2020 compared
to 51 % in 2018. This is, however, a focus area where there is still room for improvement.
Ideally, a focus on integrating international students with domestic students both sociallyand academically with their domestic peers should become common in all countries.
Regarding domestic teachers teaching in foreign languages, there has been a very modest
improvement with 55 % of respondents perceiving this as “common” in 2020 compared to
49% in 2018. It should, however, be noted that this number does not say anything about thequality of teaching in the foreign language or whether teachers are supported to develop theircompetences in teaching in another language than their mother tongue. There is still someroom for improvement in this regard, since 45% of respondents do not perceive it as one of

64 | Internationalisation and mobility

the most common internationalisation initiatives that domestic teachers teach in a foreign
language, even without having to take into account the quality of teaching.
For one aspect of internationalisation at home, there has been a significant deterioration
since 2018: Diversification of language courses. In 2018, 37 % of respondents perceived this ascommon while in 2020 it was only 21 %. Reasons for this decrease can be different according
to the students’ unions: Some courses have closed or restricted access due to budget cuts,
in other cases tuition fees have been increased or national policies have restricted thestudents’ right to take the courses. For example, in Denmark a fee on language courses was
implemented in the fall of 2018, which caused a significant drop in participation. After thefee was implemented, 45 % fewer learners enrolled for the language courses overall, and 73 %fewer among international students in particular. According to the experience of teachers,
the dropouts were often caused by learners being unable to cover the fee on already tightstudent budgets. This drop-in participation rates led to major layoffs of staff and courses
closing in several cases. This development caused concern among the student organisations
but also the employers’ organisation who pointed out that this would hurt the possibility forinternationals to fully integrate into the local labour market. After pressure from students’and employers’ organisations, the fee is planned to be removed again in 2020.
Measures for students returning from mobility
Students who return from mobility hold an important potential for being partners in the
successful internationalisation of their education institution. The Bologna with Student
Eyes surveys have been used to monitor which initiatives are taken to utilise this potential
for years. This has been done by asking the national unions of students “Are any of thefollowing measures being taken for returning students in your country?”.
The results have been almost stagnant between 2018 and 2020. The only significant
progress is that now 79 % of respondents experience that returning students are giving
feedback on their mobility compared to only 63 % in 2018. This is a positive development as
the feedback from mobile students is an important part of quality assurance of the mobility
programmes being offered.
Language learning and intercultural understanding
Access to language learning is a key issue in internationalisation both for mobile and nonmobile students. Language learning has an obvious important role as a practical tool in
the internationalisation toolbox, enabling learners and local communities to get more outof mobilities. Furthermore, language learning is also seen by some scholars, as well as by
the students’ unions, as an important goal in itself, and as a part of fostering intercultural
understanding and global citizenshipLanguage learning in connection with higher education is also an important part of the puzzle
if we are going to achieve increased European integration culturally, in academia, and in theInternationalisation and mobility | 65

labour market. This has been emphasised both in the Council of the European Union andas a central ingredient in the European Commission’s efforts to build a European Education
Area. For mobile students, learning a high level of academic English as well as the basics ofthe local language in the country they are visiting, is crucial for their success academically but
also socially. Understanding a bit of the local language and culture makes a big difference
for successful integration of mobile students into the communities they visit, as well as
enhances the intercultural learning by decreasing the tendency for international students
to only socialise with each other rather than with local students. Furthermore, learning the
local language increases the opportunities for mobile students to get part-time jobs whereknowing the language is a requirement. Having access to part-time employment is for many
students a financial necessity and furthermore a way of integrating into the local community.
Feeling welcome and integrated as well as knowing the local language and having experience
with the local labour market are all very important factors when international graduates
decide if they can see themselves living and working in the host country. Thus, these aspects
are important to keep in mind if we want to move away from a situation where international
mobilities are mostly a project of self-development for a privileged few, towards a situation
where the circulation of students to a larger extent contribute to the circulation of workers
and the strengthening of intercultural understanding.
Treatment and situation of students on mobility
The rights of international students and how often they are talked about differ quite radicallyfrom country to country. Roughly 44 % of the respondents indicated that international
students’ rights are only brought up when concrete issues are being discussed on thenational level or within higher education institutions, while only around 10 % discuss therights of international students as frequently as the rights of domestic students. 5 % of the
National Unions indicated that international students rights are not being talked about on
the national level at all while around 3 % submitted that such issues are not broad on thetable at higher education institution level.
When it comes to international students’ rights and how they are being tackled within
the structures of national or local students’ unions the situation looks different. As seenin Figure 8.2., on the national level international students’ rights seem to be more of aprominent topic than on the local level with more than 42 % of the NUSes indicatingthat international students’ rights are often addressed or as much addressed as issues
related to domestic students (24 %). On the local students’ union level, the discourse oninternational students rights is less dominant with only 8 % of the respondents suggestingthat international students’ issues are addressed equally in comparison with domestic
students and 29 % % showcasing that such issues are addressed often. In conclusion we cansay that international students’ rights are a more important topic to students’ unions thanto policy makers and university leaders based on how often they are being discussed in therespective frameworks.

66 | Internationalisation and mobility

Internationalisation and mobility | 67

How often and how thoroughly are issues regarding international students’rights being discussed/addressed at the following levels?
National
level
HEI
level

Equally with domestic students

Figure 8.2.
How often andhow thoroughly areissues regarding
international students’rights being discussed/
addressed at thefollowing levels?

According to your NUS, are administrative staff sufficiently trained to assist international students?
(Do they speak foreign languages, are they trained to help international students, etc.)

29.73%

35.14%

Yes, in someinstitutions

Yes, in mostinstitutions

Often addressed

Withinyour NUS

Addressed only when issue is brought up
Barely addressed

Local students’union level

Only in a few
institutions

Not addressed at all
0

20

40

60

80

100

I don’t know

I don’t know

Another vital part of fostering the academic success of international students and theirindividual sense of belonging is the provision of well-trained administrative staff within
higher education institutions, This includes staff members that speak foreign languages
and personnel that is equipped with the necessary skills to work with individuals fromdiverse cultural backgrounds.

For those countries where programmes are being offered, the data clearly shows thatshort-term and credit mobility students are favoured over long-term and degree students
when it comes to which kind of initiatives are being provided. While 29 % of governments,
74 % of higher education institutions and 68 % of student unions offer programmes that
aim at enhanced social integration for short-term students, only 19 % of governments, 47%of higher education institutions and 43 % of student unions do the same for long term
mobility and degree students.
Are there any effective programmes or initiatives to enhance social integration of incoming students?

By the Government

Yes, for long-term/
degree students

By the HEIs

Yes, for short-term/
credit mobility students
No

By the Students’ Union

I do not know
30

60

90

120

150

in all10.81% Yes,
institutions

2.7%

The social integration of incoming students is crucial for a successful course of studies in
the host country. It gives international students a feeling of belonging and enhances theiracademic performance as much as their individual wellbeing. It is therefore even moredisappointing that more than 55 % of the governments, around 16 % of the higher education
institutions as well as 19 % of the students’ unions do not have any programmes in place toenhance the social integration of incoming students.

021.62%

Figure 8.3.
Are there any effective
programmes or
initiatives to enhancesocial integration ofincoming students?

On the positive side, as seen in Figure 8.4., the underlying data shows that 10 % of our
respondents implied the presence of sufficiently trained administrative staff in all of thehigher education institutions in the respective countries while 35 % indicated that this is
the case in most of the institutions. 30 % of the national union of students suggested thatwell-trained administrative staff in relation to the needs of international students can only
be found in some institutions while 22 % submitted the disappointing response that this is
the case in only a minority of higher education institutions. In conclusion the analysed datasuggests that increased investment in staff training is necessary in order to create fair, equal
and welcoming environments for incoming students.
In many European countries, international students frequently suffer from structural
discrimination, unequal treatment, xenophobia and exclusion. Cases of racial discrimination
are reported from countries such as Slovakia or Malta, whereby in Malta the issue seems to bequite common and stems from a general behavior from certain parts of the local population.
One of the most common forms of uneven treatment in European higher education systems
derives from unequal tuition fees where non-EU/EEA students pay considerably higher fees.
This is the case in Austria, Germany, Finland and many more countries.
NUS UK states that international students sometimes face a rather unwelcoming
environment when attempting to pursue their education in the UK due to hostile
government measures and problems when it comes to obtaining the necessary visa

Figure 8.4.
According to
your NUS, areadministrative staff
sufficiently trained
to assist international
students?
(Do they speak
foreign languages,
are they trained tohelp international
students, etc.)

68 | Internationalisation and mobility

Internationalisation and mobility | 69

permits that would allow students to study in the country. The national union of students
in Switzerland reports that international students from non-EU/EEA countries barely havethe possibility to legally work while studying since the Swiss student visa permit does notallow that. In Finland it is difficult for international students to find employment due tostructural problems in the labour market. The working language is often Finnish, even ininternational companies. Studies also show that racism and xenophobia prevent people
with foreign names to find work. Non-native speakers in Poland and Iceland frequently
experience issues caused by the language barrier while Italy reports discrimination in the
housing market to be one of the most pressing forms of discrimination.

When national unions of students were asked if there were effective measures or programmes
in place to tackle obstacles to mobility, mixed answers were presented. It was more common
to have such programmes at the HEI level than at the national level, but at every level
less than half of the responses claimed that such measures were in place. A low level of
information sharing was also noted, as nearly a third of respondents didn’t know whether
such programmes were in place at the HEI level. Reassuringly, almost all of those who
responded affirmatively to this question also felt that the programmes or measures thatwere in place were effective in their results, although in more than a third of the cases theireffectiveness had not been monitored.

Tackling mobility obstacles

Balanced mobility

As national unions of students were asked to describe the most important barriers to bothincoming and outgoing mobility, the financial burdens for students were cited as by far
the most common ones in both cases. This tracks the same information from 2018, and theever-growing disparities between rising costs of living and studying, and grants which arechronically insufficient and stagnant in comparison. Without major increases in funding
given out as Erasmus+ grants, lowering or mitigating the cost of living (especially forstudents studying in urban centers), decreasing the cost of moving and studying abroad,and widening access to other support systems, it is likely that this situation will persist.

The idea of a balance in outgoing and incoming mobility flows being a sign of a healthy
environment for educational mobility is not a new one, and is one upon which the ERASMUS
mobility programme is founded. However, imbalances in mobility are a persistent concern
when it comes to degree mobility, and tend to be a sign of barriers to mobility that adversely
affect the freedom for students to engage in mobility, especially in cases with very low
incoming or outgoing mobility flows. The core argument from the European Students’
Union is that balanced mobility as a goal should be sought, but should never be used as
an excuse to restrict domestic students from going abroad to study, or to restrict access forincoming students from other countries.

Another major obstacle to mobility across Europe is the lack of sufficient language skills
and the low number or quality of education offered in English or other foreign languages.
Students often don’t obtain a sufficient skill in English during their secondary education,or even the first part of their tertiary education, thus leaving them unable to engage inmobility and leaving mobility disproportionately more available for those with privileged
backgrounds. On the other hand, HEIs regularly fail to offer enough (or sometimes, any)programmes in English, and those that are offered often lag behind in the quality of theircontent and teaching.
A common set of obstacles that were cited can be summed up as failures of support systems
to accommodate students that would engage in mobility. This ranges from students not
being assisted in finding housing for their mobility period or a lack of proper communication
channels with sending/hosting institutions, to students facing discrimination or exclusion whileon mobility and not being engaged in social or cultural programmes as part of their mobility.
A final major barrier to mobility is uncertainty around or unavailability of recognition for studies
conducted abroad. This was cited widely as a struggle facing students, especially those outside
the Erasmus+ programme. Not only are there often exorbitant bureaucratic procedures
needed to get recognition for ECTS credits obtained abroad, but HEIs and governments also
bar mobility in more subtle ways. Some cited examples include study programmes which
don’t allow for a period of mobility, struggles in continuing their education for students who
have engaged in mobility, and challenges or barriers in accessing support systems.

As mobility flows have been increasing between EHEA countries as well as EHEA andnon-EHEA countries, we are seeing an intensifying discussion about balanced mobility
across Europe take place. 11 out of 38 respondents said that the issue of balanced mobility
is an important issue in their country, compared to 6 in 2018 who were aware of national
initiatives to move towards balanced mobility REF. Individual responses also reveal a crucial
factor of this issue, which is the imbalance between certain regions within Europe withregards to incoming and outgoing mobility, especially degree mobility. Countries such as
Croatia, Montenegro, and Slovakia are facing brain drain as they work to attract comparable
numbers of students to study in their HEIs as they are going abroad. At the same time,governments in Denmark, Sweden, and Israel are discussing ways to encourage outgoingmobility among their students. This reflects a wider and longer-term issue of countries inCentral and Eastern Europe experiencing low levels of incoming degree students (especiallyfrom wealthier and Western European countries), while many go to study and work abroad.
Being asked whether there are mobility quotas for international students in place, Figure8.5. shows that 35 out of 38 respondents answered that they do not have such quotas intheir countries for students from EU/EEA countries while 33 respondents answered thatsuch quotas are also not in place for non-EU/EEA students.
In Bosnia and Herzegovina there is a minimum mobility quota in place for both EU/EEA
and non-EU/EEA students while in Cyprus only a minimum mobility quota for non-EU/

70 | Internationalisation and mobility

Internationalisation and mobility | 71

In your country, is there a mobility quota for a maximum/minimum number of students not from yourcountry that are allowed/should study in your country per year?
Students from the EU countries

Students outside the EU and EEA

86.84%
No

92.11%
No

Yes,
maximum
quota

Very positive0%

Positive

20%

10%

Very negative

Negative

50%
20%

Neutral

5.26%

Yes,
minimumquota

How positive or negative does your NUS assess the current quotas to be?
Figure 8.5.
In your country, isthere a mobility quota
for a maximum/
minimum numberof students not fromyour country that areallowed/should study
in your country per
year?

I don’t know

2.63%

5.26%

Yes, minimum
quota

2.63%

Yes, maximum
quota

EEA students exists. In Spain and Italy, there is a maximum mobility quota enacted forstudents from outside the EU/EEA. In Italy quotas for non-EU students are established eachyear by the Ministry for the admission in the same decree that regulates the total amountof places available for certain regulated studies. In Denmark, where there are no official
quotas applied, on the other hand, there is a quota on how many study places in the English
language are being granted, which indirectly enforced a quota on the maximum numberof international students. Other countries limit the amount of non-EU/EEA students by(not) issuing visas for potential incoming students as it is the case in Slovakia. While inGermany there are no national quotas in place, some higher education institutions have atarget quota in their performance and service agreements with the state.
Overall it is clear that the very broad majority of countries does not rely on mobility quotas
in order to regulate incoming and outgoing students, but rather uses other official or
unofficial means to regulate the rush of international students, while other countries
downforce the reglementation to higher education institutions as it is the case in Croatia
where maximum quotas for students outside of the EU/EEA are determined by study
programmes and universities but do not apply universally.
Something similar can be observed in Austria where there are quotas for studying medicine,whereby a certain % age of the study places is reserved for students from Austria, from the
EU/EEA and non-EU/EEA students.
Looking at the level of satisfaction of the national unions of students when assessing the current
mobility quotas in their respective countries, we observe an overall positive result, with 10% of
the respondents indicating that they perceive the quota regulation as very positive and 50% as
positive. as seen in Figure 8.6.. 20% of the respondents have a neutral position towards the quota
system in place while another 20% are unhappy with their current national solution in this regard.

The national unions of students in Austria, Germany and the Czech Republic indicatedthat they are not in favour of any maximum quotas for international students since they
do believe that there should not be a limit to the number of talented students who wantto take on studies in the respective countries, while emphasizing that incoming students
should face as little barriers as possible when they chose to educate themselves in therespective countries.
In Croatia there are not many incoming students, except in cities such as Dubrovnik where
foreign students come to study due to the touristic features such as the display of the city as
one of the main scenes known from the popular TV show Game of Thrones. In the UK, thelatest actions by the government, such as legislation that introduced payment for healthservices for international students and the removal of post-study work visas together withthe uncertainty over Brexit is seen as harmful for the future of students mobility. In countries
such as Italy, where a numerus clausus system is regulating access to higher education,
quotas are seen as vital to give non-EU students the chance to access universities. The
reason for this is that admission tests are the same for Italian and international students andcontain a majority of logical/general knowledge questions that penalise foreigners in the
final score on the basis of which admission rankings are formed.

8.3. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSy The internationalisation goals cannot be achieved as long as crucial aspects ofinternationalisation remain underfundedy It is recommended to increase Erasmus grants to lower the barriers for students toparticipate, especially for students from underrepresented groups. Concretely, ESU
recommends increasing the general rate for all Erasmus grants to 500 EUR per month
to make the system simpler, more transparent, and more accessible especially forstudents who have to work to cover their living costs
y Student grants as well as state support for covering tuition fees should be made portablein all countriesy Language courses in academic English, the local language as well as other languages
should be made free both for international and local students. This will make it accessible

Figure 8.6.
How positive or
negative does your
NUS assess thecurrent quotas to be?

72 | Internationalisation and mobility

for all students regardless of their financial situation and significantly increase theintercultural learning aspect of internationalisationy Clear and realistic goals for internationalisation in all countries should be set andpartnership with the students’ unions should be established to achieve these goals. It is
recommended to make sure that strategies for achieving these goals are well anchoredlocally in the education institutions and sufficiently supported with guidance andresources, otherwise the goals will not be achieved
y It is necessary to continue the tendency of increased efforts for social integration ofinternational students in the local communities to increase the impact of student
mobilities on intercultural understanding. There is need to partner with the local student
unions to identify the barriers and achieve this goal effectively
y HEI teachers should be given training on teaching in English and on confronting
western-centric bias in curricula to ensure that all students get access to learning asatisfactory level of academic English and broaden their horizon with a truly international
curriculum
y It is recommended to ensure all HEI staff are well-equipped to understand international
students’ needs and trained in cultural awareness and non-discriminationy Discriminatory practices towards international students included in tuition fees, accessto health care, housing and social services should be dismantled
y Internationalisation is not just about the quantity of mobile students but also about
quality. There is a need to make good use of the experiences of students returning frommobility to improve the experience of others. The increasing tendency of gathering
feedback from international students to improve the quality of internationalization
should be continued

Internationalisation and mobility | 73

REFERENCES• European Students’ Union (2019). Internationalisation and Mobility Policy Paper. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/BM76_-Internationalisation-and-Mobility-Policy-Paper-.pdf• European Students’ Union (2019). Towards a well-funded Erasmus+ programme for the years tocome: European Students Union & Erasmus Student Network “Joint Position Paper on the Future of
ERASMUS+”. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/102019_ESU_ESN_
JointPositionPaper_Erasmus.pdf• Rysgaard, K. K. (2019, April 25). Nej tak til dansk: Gebyr får udlændinge til at droppe sprogkursus. DR.
Retrieved from: https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/nej-tak-til-dansk-gebyr-faar-udlaendinge-til-droppe-sp
rogkursus?fbclid=IwAR1GpzQsUOIpuc1yq1Q1yxZoozmJFsVAe6CUwUNKK7_NpcLS59uikrHv0pc• Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2009). Internationalization of the curriculum: A
practical guide to support Canadian universities’ efforts. ISBN 978-0-88876-276-3. Retrieved from: http://
www.aucc.ca/_pdf/english/publications/curriculum-primer_e.pdf• Wit et al.(Ed.) (2013). Possible Futures: The next 25 years of the internationalisation of higher education.
European Association for International Education (EAIE)• Roth, R. (2018). Lokale Willkommenskulturen für ausländische Studierende. In F. Gesemann & R. Roth(Eds.), Handbuch Lokale Integrationspolitik (pp. 489–507). Springer Fachmedien. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13409-9_21• Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet and Udlændinge- Integrations og Boligministeriet (2015).
Internationale studerende i Danmark: Hvad har betydning for om internationale studerende bliveri Danmark efter endt studie? Retrieved from: https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2015/filer/internationalestuderende_mlogo.pdf• Ferencz, I. (2015). Balanced Mobility Across the Board—A Sensible Objective? In A. Curaj, L. Matei,
R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P. Scott (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Between Critical
Reflections and Future Policies (pp. 27–41). Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_3

9. STRUCTURAL REFORMS
9.1. INTRODUCTION“In order to unlock the full potential of the EHEA and ensure the implementation of Bologna
key commitments, we are adopting a structured peer support approach based on solidarity,
cooperation and mutual learning. In 2018-2020, thematic peer groups will focus on three
key commitments crucial to reinforcing and supporting quality and cooperation inside the
EHEA: a three-cycle system compatible with the overarching framework of qualifications of
the EHEA and first and second cycle degrees scaled by ECTS—compliance with the Lisbon
Recognition Convention—and quality assurance in compliance with the Standards andGuidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area.”
Even though there are continued efforts on the ground to improve the implementation of
the key commitments of the Bologna Process not much has changed when it comes to thestate of play in Europe since 2018. The following chapter deals with the perceptions of theimplementation of the National Qualifications Frameworks (NQFs), the European Credits
Transfer System (ECTS) and the Three-cycle system by the national unions of students. For
further reading about implementation in the field of Quality Assurance, see Chapter 6.

9.2. MAIN FINDINGS
Qualification frameworks: Comparability across the EHEA
Through the adoption of the Berlin Communiqué in 2003 (Berlin, 2003) Qualification
Frameworks (QF) have been on the Bologna Process (BP) agenda. Qualification frameworks
are a tool to strengthen the comparability of degrees and create trust between institutions
both nationally and on the international level. Over the past 17 years, the majority of the
EHEA countries have developed NQFs in compliance with the European Qualifications
Framework (EQF). Two years ago in Paris, ministers once again committed themselves
to elaborating national frameworks for qualifications compatible with the overarchingframework for qualifications in the EHEA. Despite the implementation of NQFs in most
EHEA countries, students are still facing difficulties getting their qualification recognised.
Learning outcomes as a description of what learners are expected to know, be able to do
and understand, at the end of a learning sequence are playing an increasingly importantrole in enhancing the quality of education and training in Europe. It is vital to establish welldesigned programmes with clear intended outcomes, which are easily understandable
and transparent for applicants, students, teachers and the assessors. Learners are not wellaware of the QF in many countries. Raised awareness would improve their understandingof the educational landscape. But it is not necessarily the goal that all students can state the

EHEA country with no ESU member
No information available

There is an NQF BUT it is not used at all
There is an NQF BUT it is used quite rarely

There is an NQF and it is being used quite often
There is an NQF and it is always being used

EQF level of their degree. Students should be well-informed about the intended learning
outcomes of their programme, and of where they can find more detailed information if
need be, in order to fully use the potential of the Bologna system.
Looking at the existence and usage of National Qualifications Frameworks in ESU’s member
countries we can see that 91 % of the respondents indicated that there is a NQF in place
while 11 % suggested that they are not aware of such. Only in about 16 % of the respondents’

Map 9.1.
Is there a National
Qualifications
Framework (NQF) in
your country and if so,
how often is it beingused?

76 | Structural reforms

Structural reforms | 77

How satisfied or dissatisfied is your NUS with the development and introduction of the NQF in your country?
16.22%

Very satisfied

13.51%

Dissatisfied

Satisfied

8.11%

29.73%

Very dissatisfied

24.32%Neither

8.11%
N/A

countries the NQF is not being used at all (11 %) or used quite rarely (5 %). Roughly 40 % of
the national unions of students affirmed that the NQF is always being used while 32 %suggested that the NQF is used quite often.
A lack of national qualification framework in place drastically hinders the transparency andcomparability of academic achievements obtained, creating a dilemma for mutual trust
both between the higher education institutions within a country and even more so when it
comes to mobility abroad. National unions of students in the the Czech Republic, Moldova,
Serbia and Israel indicated that even though the NQF is in place, it is never used.
When it comes to the development, introduction and enactment of National Qualification
Frameworks, 13 % of the respondents made clear that they are very satisfied with theircountry-specific situation. Another 30 % feel satisfied with the state of play while 24 %indicated that they are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. With just about 24 % of the national
unions of students being either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, we can see an overly positive
trend when it comes to the perception of the NQF implementation in Europe. More thanhalf of all respondents are either satisfied or dissatisfied, which might stem from the factthat there is a lack of involvement and co-ownership regarding the development andimplementation process as well as the enactment of qualification frameworks in Europe.
Going more into detail, national unions of students raised a broad variety of points linked tothe best and worst practices seen on the ground. On the positive side, the NUS of Georgia
expressed its appreciation towards the fact that the Georgian quality assurance agency
periodically holds meetings and trainings for higher education institutions linked to the
NQF. In Malta, the NUS is convinced that although some improvements could be made,the national qualifications framework facilitates the understanding and review of Maltese
qualifications, guaranteeing transparency at the national and international level. ESU’s
member union in Luxembourg indicated that the new system (updated in 2016) lays thefoundation for a more advanced operational QF that improves the overall consistencyof education and training provision in the country. The data also indicates that the
NQF system in Ireland, Iceland and Estonia is fit for purpose and satisfactory from a
student’s perspective.

Figure 9.2.
How satisfied
or dissatisfied isyour NUS with thedevelopment andintroduction of the
NQF in your country?

Criticism towards the development and introduction of the NQF in Serbia comes fromSKONUS, which was not involved enough during the initial period of setting up theframework, unlike ESU’s member from Croatia who helped with developing the QF andis satisfied with the outcome. The national union of students in Germany mourns about
the fact that the implementation of their NQF brought a lot of additional bureaucracy withaccreditation and less freedom in learning overall. In Switzerland, the present draft of the
NQF is perceived to be too general. Greater specialisation and more specific points would
have been favourable. To the regret of VSS-UNES-USU, the topic of informal and non-formal
learning is not reflected upon sufficiently. As an important instrument for enabling flexible
learning pathways, the NQF should therefore necessarily be accompanied by a chapter on
non-formal and informal learning. The social dimension was also not taken into accountand the Swiss NUS misses the link between the NQF and the federal law on the promotionof the universities and coordination in the Swiss university sector. Other members such as
the Slovakian NUS criticise the accessibility of information on the NQF, stating that only avery few number of students are aware of its existence and the way it is structured. The only
country that indicated to have no NQF in place is Belarus.
The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)

Figure 9.3.

“In order to further develop mobility and recognition across the EHEA, we will work to
Are study programmes,
modules and individual
ensure that comparable higher education qualifications obtained in one EHEA country
courses constructed
are automatically recognised on the same basis in the others, for the purpose of accessing
using the European
further studies and the labour market. To this end we renew our commitment to ensure fullCredit Transfer andAccumulation System
implementation of ECTS, following the guidelines laid down in the 2015 ECTS Users’ guide”.
(ECTS)?
AlwaysVery often Sometimes Rarely
Never
I do not know
As one of the foundations of the Bologna Processnothe
ECTS
iscrucialforfacilitatinglabel
71.05%
15.79%
5.26%
5.26%
0.00%
2.63
recognition of academic achievements in and outof mobility. It guarantees transparency and helps Are study programmes, modules and individual courses constructed
students to evaluate the workload they take on using the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)?
themselves throughout the course of studies. In orderfor the system to work proper implementation needs
71.05%
to be ensured in all EHEA countries.
AlwaysIn 2020 most study programmes, modules andindividual courses are being constructed by using theEuropean Credit Transfer and Accumulation System.
71 % of the respondents indicated that this is always
15.79%
Very often
the case while another 16 % suggested that the ECTS
is used very often but not always. Roughly 10 % of thecountries use the ECTS only sometimes or rather
Rarelyrarely. According to the national unions of students,
5.26%
I don’t know
there is no country that does not use the ECTS at all.
Sometimes
2.63%
This might seem like a satisfactory state of play but

5.26%

Structural reforms | 79

working hours. Unfortunately this is rarely
or not at all common practise in 10 % of
the countries. In 76 % of the countries theworkload based allocation of ECTS is always
or at least very often the basis of awarding
credits. This shows that there is clearly aneed for further improvement in order toguarantee a fair distribution of workload andcomparability of students academic records.

Does the allocation of ECTS happen on the basis of theformulation of learning outcomes?

24.32%

Yes, always(throughout
the system)

I don’t know

2.70%
No, never

Figure 9.5.
Does the allocationof ECTS happen
on the basis of theformulation of learning
outcomes?

16.22%
10.81%

The allocation of ECTS happens on the basis
Rarelyof the formulation of learning outcomes
and it is a common practice throughout
8.11%
the continent. Countries where it happens
37.84%
Yes, sometimes
rarely are Slovenia, Latvia, Hungary andYes, very often(about half of the
Czechia. However, the national unions ofHE system)
students in Israel, Sweden, Italy, Serbia,
Belarus and Austria indicated that this is not the case in their higher education systems.
In 9 countries (24% of the replies) the allocation of ECTS points happens on the basis of theformulation of learning outcomes while in 14 countries (38% of replies) it is implemented
very often. Compared to the findings of BWSE 2018, the number of countries where theamount of ECTS is always based on the formulation of learning outcomes has risen from 7
to 9 which is a positive trend.
When it comes to the satisfaction of NUSes with the ECTS implementation in their respective
countries, the same number of NUSes as in 2018 indicated that they are either satisfied orvery satisfied with the implementation of ECTS (19 NUSes - 50%). Seven unions stated they
are neither satisfied nor dissatisfied with the situation linked to ECTS in their country. Thisillustrates that even though all EHEA countries use ECTS as a way to structure the national
credits system on some level, it is not well-organised across Europe. The students’ reasonsfor dissatisfaction with the system are of a wide range. One union less than in 2018 stated

How satisfied or dissatisfied is your NUS with the implementation of ECTS in your country?
EHEA country with no ESU member
No information available

No, neverRarelyYes, sometimes
Yes, very often

Yes, always

keeping in mind that the ECTS is one of the key commitments of the Bologna Process,these results are rather disappointing.
Another key feature of the European Credit Transfer System is that the allocation of ECTS
points should be based on a workload estimation. One ECTS point usually equals 25 to 30

Very satisfied

13.16%

Satisfied

15.79%

15.79%

Map 9.4.
Does the allocation of
ECTS happen on thebasis of an estimationof the workload?

Very dissatisfied

Dissatisfied

34.21%
15.79%Neither

2.63%
N/A

Figure 9.6.
How satisfied
or dissatisfied isyour NUS with theimplementation of
ECTS in your country?

80 | Structural reforms

that they are either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with the implementation (in 2018 there
were 12 NUSes being dissatisfied, in 2020 there were 11 NUSes). Compared to 2015, thelevel of students’ satisfaction with the ECTS has not risen but remained at the same level.
However, the number of dissatisfied unions has slightly lowered.
When it comes to problems with the ECTS implementations, SSU states that in Slovenia
ECTS points rarely mirror the actual workload of students. One of the biggest problems is thevaluation of all courses with the same number of ECTS within a study programme - e.g. allcourses are rewarded with 5 ECTS points. In Italy it is also common practice that all exams areallocated the same amount of ECTS, but in reality the amount of workload drastically varies
from one exam to the other, thus not reflecting the actual students’ workload. This results
in a heavier workload than indicated by the given ECTS points. Another problem pointed
out by NUSes is the complicated recognition process when it comes to ECTS obtained in
the scope of mobility programmes. Higher education institutions do sometimes not follow
the guidelines that foresee one foreign ECTS point to be equal with one local ECTS point.
The national union of students in Sweden states that the Swedish rectors’ conference has
made it clear that ECTS implementation is not a priority for them. Slovakian NUS SKRVS statesthat ECTS points reflect the actual workload only on paper and not in practice, as they often
do not take into consideration work conducted outside the classroom. Some students thenhave 15 courses a semester, with 2-3 credits, which is unbearable. Although being generally
satisfied with the ECTS implementation, ANOSR states that in Romania one ECTS point isestimated to equal 25 working hours but in reality credits are not awarded based on a specificcalculation of the hours required, rather on the basis of how relevant the HEIs consider the
subject to be for the respective programme. Similar cases are reported from Croatia, Czechia
and Austria where CSC, SKRVŠ and ÖH believe ECTS points are well implemented in theory
but in practice do not always represent the actual workload of the student.
In Switzerland, the biggest problem is the lack of information on how the ECTS system isfacilitated at the respective HEIs. The institutional and departmental coordinators have toadvise and counsel students on the ECTS. Information should also be accessible via theinstitutions’ website but this is not always the case. Another problem is mutual recognition,
since higher education institutions do not trust each other, they are looking at the content ofa module instead of trusting in the value of the allocated ECTS points. SKONUS reports that in
Serbia the process of awarding ECTS credits is based on the principle of deemed importanceof the respective professor. There are no realistic criteria for awarding ECTS at almost all HEIs.
Most HEIs are constantly sabotaging the process of re-evaluating the ECTS credits, which isone of the most important activities of both NUS and local student unions. SKONUS statesthat at various faculties over 90% of students cannot score 60 ECTS in one year.
Good examples of ECTS implementation can be found in Ireland, where USI states that
ECTS is well recognized and embedded within the Irish HE sector. LIS, the national union of
students in Iceland states that the ECTS system in the country is very evolved and that they

Structural reforms | 81

are not aware of any problems. The same positive conclusion was put forward by KSU from
Malta and GSOA from Georgia. In Luxembourg, the NQF and the HE law state that learning
outcomes and ECTS based on workload should be the common practice. Higher education
institutions are defining learning outcomes for more and more courses and are working
on implementing them. Thus, in general students are satisfied with the government’s and
HEIs efforts to implement and adapt the ECTS systems. The Polish NUS, PSRP states thatthe adoption of ECTS has had a very tangible impact on the assessment of the student’s
workload. UAS from Ukraine and ASM from Moldova see the implementation of ECTS as
being helpful to make programmes more transparent and to ease mobility.
ESU believes that a well implemented ECTS ensures fairness and reliability for all the
stakeholders within the higher education systems. In order to truly make the EHEA workcountries and higher education institutions need to further prioritise the implementationof workload and learning outcome based ECTS. It is also crucial to ensure the periodical reevaluation of the estimated ECTS point allocation towards study programmes and courses.
Even though substantial progress has been made in this regard, further action is needed inorder to fully unleash the potential of the EHEA.
3 Cycle System
The three-cycle system is determining the amount of credits a student should obtain fora Bachelor-, Masters-, and PhD degree across the EHEA. Initially only BA and MA degrees
were considered but in the scope of the ministerial conference in Berlin (2003) the third cycle(PhD level) was recognised as the last addition to what we know as the three-cycle system
today. Since then the structured three-cycle degree system has been firmly established.
However, although the commitments have mostly been met, the significant differences
remain in some degree structures across the EHEA
The results of this year’s edition of BWSE show that in most of the countries subject to thisanalysis, the three-cycle system is implemented well, either always or in most of the cases(95 %) although a very small minority of countries needs to put further effort in ensuringthat degree programmes are truly comparable with similar qualifications of other EHEA
member states.
The state-of-play of the three-cycle system has not been seen as a developing process
throughout the last 2 editions of the publication. The reality of the current higher education
landscape in most of the countries has not changed significantly. 28 out of 38 respondents
stated that they are satisfied with the level of implementation. However, some NUSes
expressed different opinions about the advantages of the three-cycle system not being
exploited enough. While analysing the results, a certain level of criticism was put forwardwith regards to how “old” degrees have been poorly translated into the three-cycle system.
The issues range from difficulties in changing the location of studies (Germany), designing
three-cycle studies as a block that offers little flexibility of changing between the cycles

82 | Structural reforms(Slovakia), or finally, the cheeky move of the labour market demanding an MA degree fromstudents in order to be considered employable (Italy).
Soley completing the first cycle in Italy is still often considered as an insufficient levelof qualification when it comes to being ready for entering the labour market. A similar
situation is occurring in Slovenia – due to the inappropriate implementation of NQF, amaster’s degree is too often needed to enter the labour market, which opposes its initialgoal. The Romanian NUS expressed the opinion that master programmes, which main
focus should be specialising students in more restrained fields, are usually pursued as aprolongation of studies without any consideration of changing the field or place of study. In
Poland, the development of the three-cycle system had a good impact on the effectivenessof higher education. However, PSRP believes that in some fields of studies (e.g. philology,
cognitive science) programmes should be adapted to long-cycle studies (5 years), due to theobserved lack of quality of the second cycle. The last example, visible both in 2018 and 2020,
challenges the initial intention of the Bologna Process by the labour market demanding ahigher level of qualification for a job that might actually require a lower qualification. This
trend is not solely detected by NUSes; the 2018 Bologna Implementation Report suggests
the same worrying trend.
Part-time studies
The mode of study, whether full- or part-time, has been put forward as a tool for either anincrease or decrease in widening participation to higher education. Flexible learning paths
and part-time studies enable education mainly for adult learners, students with children andworking students due to the need for an income to cover their living costs and tuition fees.
According to this year’s responses, the majority of NUSes (34 out of 38) stated that it ispossible to study part-time in their countries. Thus, the total number remains the same
compared to the last edition of BWSE. There are certain differences when it comes to thepossibilities of part-time studies during the different cycles. Among all NUSes, exactly 50%
stated that there is full access to part-time bachelor studies. In comparison to 66% when it
comes to master studies. The specific circumstances vary in this regard, depending on thefield of study, type and tradition of the institution, work restrictions, suspension of student
loans and other specific regulations.
In Bulgaria, a limit of a maximum of 20 working hours per week is in place for doctoral
students willing to study part-time. This regulation does not apply to bachelor students who
are free to work but face problems combining a part-time job with their part-time studies
due to the extensive workload of their programmes. In Germany, students are not entitled
to receive the federal student’s loan (BAföG), while working part-time. The example of Italyshows that the individual situation depends on regulations as set out by the respective
institutions. In some cases, university students are allowed to study part-time, while other
HEIs require the provision of supporting documents that prove the employment of theStructural reforms | 83

Is it possible to study part-time in any of the cycles?

7,89%

2,63%

7,89%

2,63%

Figure 9.7.
Is it possible to study
part-time in any of thecycles?

15,79%

50%

18,42%

39,47%

65,79%
39,47%
Yes

23,68%
Yes, but only in certain circumstances

26,32%
No

I don’t know

student. In order to receive the student’s financial support in Finland, students need toprove that they are earning less than the maximum allowed income of up to 696 Euros. The
allowance is also connected to the prerequisite of obtaining a minimum of 45 ECTS points
per academic year. Also in Denmark, the majority of HEIs demand students to acquire asimilar yearly amount of ECTS. This means that it is possible to study part-time, but only toa very limited extent. There are exceptions to his rule, but they are only applied in extreme
and very rare cases, for example in the case of elite athletes, entrepreneurs or a president of
a voluntary organization under the Danish Youth Council.
Flexibility within the cycles is often ensured with the possibility of shaping individual
learning paths. This sometimes requires to plan on extending the minimum amount ofsemesters. More than 80% of the member organisations replied that there are restrictions
regarding how many semesters/terms a student can take to complete each cycle, statingthat mainly cases of illness or parental leave may be exempt.
61% of the respondents replied that too many restrictions exist in completing the 1st cycle
later than planned, resulting in the situation that 55% cannot complete their studies and
48% face financial problems forcing students to choose between education and personal
basic welfare. These restrictions apply to the few countries that do enable the 2nd cycle(51%) and the 3rd cycle (42%) as well.
In Georgia we face a situation where no government funding is granted to students if theyexceed the maximum amount of semesters while FAGE reports that in France students
are being expelled if they are not progressing fast enough within their studies. In Austriaand Slovakia and Romania tuition fees have to be paid if the regular study time plus 2
additional tolerance semesters are exceeded. Sweden reports that there are no explicit
consequences for students who do not progress fast enough in their studies. However, theindirect consequences such as loss of student loans and grants as well as student housing
represent real threads to students that need more time for the completion of their studies

84 | Structural reforms

Structural reforms | 85

Are there exceptions following some delays? If so which ones?

If yes, which measures are taken for faster completion?
Figure 9.8.
Are there exceptions
following somedelays? If so which
ones?

100
80

72.22%
58.33%

60

47.22%

40

38.89%

Maternity
leave

Parentalleave

41.67%

Other

St.Union
mandate37.50%
29.17%
16.67%

N/A

11.11%
IIlness

Financial incentives forcompletion on time

Allowing students tograduate early

25%
5.56%

compared to the average. Students in Finland even face expulsion if they do not provide a
detailed roadmap for completing their studies in due time.
The positive exceptions that do enable student delays are very narrow and strict, including
mainly illnesses (72%) or parental leave (47%). In fewer institutions student representation(25%) is seen as a legitimate reason to justify delays.
ESU strongly condemns the concerning fact that financial reasons for slow study progress
and the necessity for students to work next to their studies is only recognised in 11% of the
respondents’ countries as a legitimate delay, creating social gaps and reducing opportunities
for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
In Malta, HEIs may allow students to extend their studies by up to twelve months, irrespectiveof whether the student is registered on a full-time or part-time basis. In special circumstancesand on the recommendation of the university board, the Senate may allow a further
extension of up to two years of study. HEIs may allow students, for a good and sufficientreason, to suspend their studies for a maximum period of twelve months. In countries suchas Hungary, Switzerland or Armenia military service is accepted as a reason to delay orsuspend studies. Estonia sets a positive precedence with civil service, academic leave andparticipation in mobility programmes as a recognised reason for interruption of studies.
In order to reduce delays in completion, only a few measures have been taken for fastercompletion; in some areas (33%) the measures are taken both on the HEI level and on
the national level (Czechia, Malta, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Cyprus, Switzerland, Italy,
Estonia, Finland, Denmark and Slovenia). Four NUSes indicated that measures are being
taken independently by HEIs (Hungary, France, Ireland, Sweden) Seven NUSes replied that

4.17%

Other
0

Employment No exceptions

Figure 9.9.
If yes, which measures
are taken for fastercompletion?

66.67%

Penalties for prolongationof studies

20
0

Limiting the student
support (grant/loans)

20

40

60

80

100

no supporting measures are being taken on the national and HEI level. This is the case inGeorgia, Austria, Republic of Moldova, Belarus, Slovakia, Norway and Romania.
There are very few measures taken in order to reduce delays in completion. Those measures
can mainly be divided into; Limiting the student support (grants/loans) (67%), financial
incentives (e.g. stipends) for completion on time (42%), penalties for prolongation of studies(38%), allowing students to graduate early (29%), these figures are extremely low, and should
alarm stakeholders as a proof for poor and unsatisfied support measures in place.

9.3. CONCLUSIONSThe Yerevan Communiqué stated in 2015 the following:“By 2020 we are determined to achieve an EHEA where our common goals are implemented
in all member countries to ensure trust in each other’s higher education systems;
where automatic recognition of qualifications has become a reality so that students
and graduates can move easily through out it; where higher education is contributing
effectively to build inclusive societies, founded on democratic values and human rights;
and where educational opportunities provide the competences and skills required forEuropean citizenship, innovation and employment”
Over the past 17 years, the majority of the EHEA countries have developed NQFs in compliancewith the European Qualifications Framework (EQF). The NQF’s are a well recognized andimplemented tool for fostering mobility, raising interconnectivity and transparency ofqualifications provided by higher education programmes to foster the involvement of
all relevant stakeholders, including students. It is important to better communicate thereasoning and benefits which come from full implementation.

86 | Structural reforms

HEI’s across the EHEA should promote and inform learners to boost wide acknowledgementof the fact that education can be more effective within the three cycles by creating more
flexibility. This involves ensuring part-time studies, granting exceptions for delays in students’studies for parental leave, employment, student representation, illness and disabilities, andby providing the guidance and support students’ need in case of delays in their studies. The
flexible approach is more and more relevant in current times in comparison to traditional
full-time studying. Higher education should provide the possibility for everyone to gain thenecessary education at every stage of their life which should be boosted by providing fit-forpurpose solutions that facilitate lifelong learning.
The full implementation of the ECTS should give the basis for extensive facilitation ofmobility and the recognition of learning outcomes in EHEA. The allocation of ECTS credits
has been often based on a mathematical calculation from the country’s previous credit
systems. The ECTS system of credits can be considered as successfully implemented, only
when based on learning outcomes and learner’s workload.
Recommendationsy Review the quality of the National Qualifications Frameworks to ensure full compliancewith EQF
y Implement the whole of ECTS reliably across Europe. The implementation must be
according to the ECTS Users’ Guide. This includes basing ECTS on workload and Learning
Outcomes, not other characteristicsy The three-cycle system should enable flexibility, not constrain it. Enable students on an
individual basis to decide when and where the next cycle should be startedy Develop more flexible cycles for students to be able to study part-time without certain
circumstances for exceptionsy The time restrictions for completing one or all cycles should be abandoned, taking into
consideration not only the achievements but also the barriers faced by the learners

Structural reforms | 87

REFERENCES• EHEA (2018). Paris Communiqué, Paris, May 25th 2018. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/
ministerial_declarations/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf• National qualifications frameworks (NQFs). (2020). Cedefop. Retrieved from: https://www.cedefop.europa.
eu/en/events-and-projects/projects/national-qualifications-framework-nqf• European Union (2015). ECTS Users’ Guide 2015. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union. Retrieved from: https://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ects-users-guide_
en.pdf• European Students’ Union (2018). Bologna with Student Eyes 2018: The Final Countdown.
ISBN 9789491256059. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/
uploads/2019/02/BWSE-2018_web_Pages.pdf• EHEA (2003). Realising the European Higher Education Area: Communiqué ofthe Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19
September 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/
ministerial_declarations/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf• European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2018). The European Higher
Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved
from: https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/european-higher-education-area-2018-bolognaprocess-implementation-report_en10. FINANCING OF HIGHER EDUCATION
10.1. INTRODUCTION
Education is a public good, a public responsibility, and should be publicly funded. Higher
education is a good that contributes to the general interest of all people However, it isstill too often portrayed as an expense. The value of higher education should not become
subject to economic speculation or prey to the ideologies of privatisation and the shrinkingof the state. Based on its belief that access to education shall not depend on a student’s
socio-economic background, ESU, therefore, calls on all stakeholders to commit to thisleading principle and for it to be taken into consideration in all their decisions.
The quality, accessibility, equality and form of higher education is highly dependent on
financing. Higher education should never be considered solely as a means for improving
economic competitiveness. Education has other aims and consequences, among them theformation of a foundation of tolerance, democracy, critical thinking, and personal fulfilment.
These objectives must be taken into account when allocating funds to higher education. In
this respect, funds allocated to the higher education sector should not merely be considered
an expense, but a provision of public good and public responsibility. Higher education
institutions produce not only new research and highly skilled graduates but also have theresponsibility to communicate their knowledge and collaborate with businesses, public
institutions, and other organisations and movements in their surrounding community.
It is important that education institutions are financed sufficiently to fulfill their multiple
missions and that this funding is given in a way that ensures the independence of theinstitution so they can focus on performing their activities with integrity and high quality.

10.2. MAIN FINDINGS
Student support services“Before even tackling the issues related to costs and affordability of higher education,
and as mentioned with regards to widening access to Higher Education, there is a strong
need for adapted guidance systems and accurate information. This is crucial from thepoint of view of accessibility: the diversity of prospective students’ backgrounds needs
to be fully understood and taken into account by HEIs, especially when communicating
about their programmes, in order to include as many potential students as possible andmaximize the likelihood of completion.”
Over the last 2 years, the financial situation of students has become worse in 28% of theEuropean countries subject to the ESU’s analysis as shown on Map 10.1. For roughly onethird of the countries, the situation remained the same, while 29% of the respondents

EHEA country with no ESU member
No information available

Become a lot worse
Become a bit worse

Stayed the same
Improved somewhat

Improved a lot

indicated that the situation of students somewhat improved. The financial situation of thestudents has improved a lot compared to 2018 in only one of the countries.
The national unions of students in Malta, Latvia, Ireland, Israel, and France indicated thatthe ongoing increase of living costs is becoming a burden for students in those respective
countries. Ireland, for example, reports that there has been no significant improvement infunding of higher education over the past two years. Student grants, which were reduced
in 2011 and 2012, remain at the same level as when they were cut, in spite of the fact that

Map 10.1.
Over the last two years
students’ financial
situation in yourcountry has…

90 | Financing of Higher Education

the cost of living has risen sharply during this period, especially when it comes to housing.
In Germany, the federal student loan system “Bafög” was increased for the first time in five
years, but the NUS considers the increase to be insufficient in light of rising living and rental
costs in bigger cities. Estonia also reports a dissatisfying situation due to the fact that theneed-based allowances have remained the same since 2013; and relative to rising costs, theallowance has decreased over time. In the Netherlands, the basic student grant system (270Euros per month) was abolished in 2015 and disappointingly never reintroduced.
Other countries have seen fluctuation in the relationship between public funding and living
costs. In Finland, according to the member union, the state’s student financial aid was cut
extensively as a part of the last government saving plan in fall 2017. The non-repayable partof student support was reduced from 330 Euros to 250 Euros a month. As a part of the same
student aid reform, the student loan portion of the student aid was raised from 400 Euros to 650
Euros a month, and the specific housing benefit for students was terminated and integrated
into the general housing benefit system. Students with families were granted a small increasein their student allowance from the start of 2018. This was an increase of income for parents but
did not compensate for the bigger cuts to the student allowances made earlier in 2017. In 2019,the newly-elected government increased this benefit to 100 Euros. Because of the changes,
students are taking more student loans. Since 2020, the student allowance has been bound to
an index, keeping the student allowance tied to the inflation rate.
On the brighter side, the national unions of students in Sweden, Latvia, and Croatia reported
an increase in student grants and stipends. In Poland, the student union also reports that
financing in the area of material assistance has also significantly increased. A zero tax was
also introduced for persons up to 26 years old who undertake contract work. The NUS,
furthermore, indicated that numerous additional scholarship programmes from both
university and external organizations are being provided.
Public funding of financial student aid
Since 2018, 43% of the countries have increased the public funding of financial students’aid while another 43% did not facilitate any changes according to the survey results seen in
Figure 10.2. Only three European countries, namely Slovenia, Belarus, and the Netherlands
decreased public spending onstudents’ financial aid in the past two years.
The national union of students in Finland stated that when it comes to public funding, in 2019,the newly-elected government increased the additional benefit for students with minors
from 75 to 100 Euros per month. In Sweden, the government decided to increase the student
grant by 300 SEK, which equals around 28 Euros. In Israel, there has been a growing number ofprivate funding opportunities; while in Slovenia, the Ministry of Education grants concessions
to private companies for teaching activities in certain higher education institutions.
In Estonia, the level of public funding has remained the same since 2015. The budget of 2020
had foreseen an extra 5 million Euros, which is not considered to be a substantial increase by

Financing of Higher Education | 91

the NUS, since relatively speaking the inflation Did an increase or decrease in public funding of financial
outweighs the added funds. In Iceland, there students' aid ocurr since 2018?
has been a dramatic decrease in students
5.41%
100
N/A
taking loans from the national student loanfund. Even still, the loan fund has been getting80
its regular share of public funding. Therefore,
43.24%
as there were a lot of funds left over in the
No status quo
system due to the decrease of students taking
60
loans from the national fund, the government
8.11% Decrease
has decided it does not need to replenish the
40fund and subsequently lowered the amount
43.24%
allocated to the fund. Poland is one of the
Increaserare countries where an increase in private
20
funding of financial student aid has occurred.
Institutions have also been provided with0
more funding from the Ministry of Higher
Education and Science, especially those HEIs
which perform well when it comes to research. These institutions will receive 10% more funding
in the upcoming 6 years. Regarding the implementation of the new “Law of Higher Educationand Science”, a lot of HEIs also received treasury bonds and money from grant programmes
supporting the further development of the respective institutions. In Romania, the publicfunding of financial student aid increased from 2018 to 2019 by 24% from 700 million Euros
to 868 million Euros, an increase of nearly 170 million Euros. Switzerland increased its overallfunding for students’ financial aid. However, since the number of students is on the rise, only asmaller percentage of students are able to profit from the offered grants.
Moldova, Czechia, and Malta have also registered a slight increase in their higher educationbudgets over the past two years. However, in the case of Malta, the increase is practicallyinsignificant as it stands at only 2.33 additional Euros in stipends per student. As for theloans offered by the private banks, they are more lenient.
When looking at the developments in the private student aid sector since 2018 a mildly positive
picture is revealed. There has been no decrease of private student aid in any of the analysedcountries. However, 30% of the respondents suggested that the status quo is prevalent andthe level of private funding remained the same over the past two years. Increases have beenregistered in 5 countries (Israel, Poland, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Malta) although a quite
significant number of replies (60% or 21 NUSes) imply that NUSes either do not know or do nothave information on available private funding of financial student aid in their country.
There is no private funding of student grants in Italy in public universities. As for the publicfunding (the so-called Fondo integrativo statale - FIS), it has increased by 45 million Euros inthe last 2 years. However, since the amount of money needed to cover student grants for all
eligible students is much higher than the actual available funds, many students that fulfill

Figure 10.2.
Did an increase or
decrease in publicfunding of financial
students’ aid ocurr
since 2018?

92 | Financing of Higher Education

the criteria do not receive the student grant due to the underfunding of FIS. To fund the
grants for all eligible students, an additional 100 million Euros would be needed.

Financing of Higher Education | 93

What is the average level of tuition fees in your country (annual in EUR)?

6.06%

Tuition fees
The role of higher education towards the social, economic, and cultural development of
our societies is certainly unquestionable. In that sense, synergy and mutual dependenceof higher education and society is a constant in modern times. However, it must be
acknowledged that this relationship is very often highly affected by economic policies
and financial matters. The influence of individual socio-economic conditions and financialpressure on the accessibility of higher education is evident.
In times of limited financial resources, countries have been implementing several measures
to ensure the financial sustainability of their higher education systems. The most widelyrepresented measure is the implementation of tuition fees, which results in increased
financial obligations of students to pay for being enrolled in higher education while higher
education institutions profit from this additional source of income. In this context, it isobvious that tuition fees are a significant financial burden for students, especially bearing
in mind the heterogenous socio-economic background of students. Consequently, thismeans that tution fees are highly socially selective and one of the most severe barriers to
overcome when accessing and taking part in higher education.
The Berlin Communiqué (2003) stresses the commitment of the ministers to make higher
education equally accessible to all. Unfortunately, what students have been witnessing is thatin 2020, the average level of tuition fees still differs quite radically from country to country anddoes not apply in the same manner to domestic and international students. In around 30% ofEuropean countries that are a part of this survey (see Figure 10.3), local students do not need to
pay tuition fees, while only 9% of those same countries offer the same tuition-free education
to international students. About 35% of the countries do charge domestic students tuition
fees that fall between 0 and 1,000 Euros. The average amount of tuition fees for international
students ranges between 1,000 to 3,000 Euros in nearly half of the countries subject to thisanalysis. When it comes to the countries where students have to pay the highest level oftuition fees (more than 6,000 Euros per year), we again see an enormous divide between
the domestic and non-EU/EEA students. While only 3% of the countries charge 6,000 Eurosor more in tuition fees to local students, 15% of the respondents indicated that their country
charges 6,000 Euros per year or more to international students.
In Czechia, study programmes in the Czech language are free of charge, but participantsof programmes taught in a foreign language need to pay tuition fees regardless of theirnationality. In Austria, domestic students at universities do not have to pay tuition fees aslong as they meet the minimum requirement for the time of studying. At the universities
for applied sciences, students have to pay tuition. This is also the case for private universities
where the level of tuition fees varies drastically. The Swedish system foresees that higher

9.09%

2.94%

8.82%

29.41%

15.15%

20.59%
8.82%
For local students
FREE

0-500 EUR

14.71%

500-1000 EUR

48.48%For international students

1000-3000 EUR

3000-6000 EUR

MORE THAN 6000

I DON'T KNOW/NO INFO

education institutions decide independently how much they charge in tuition. The average
tuition fee there is around 12,000 Euros per year of study. In Romania, domestic students
pay between 500 and 1,000 Euros in annual tuition fees. For international students there,
the costs vary between 3,000-6,000 Euros for programmes within the field of health(medicine, pharmacy, etc.) and 1,000-3,000 Euros for other fields of study.
The data clearly shows that international students are facing widespread unequal treatment
when it comes to the application of tuition fees in almost all European countries in thissurvey. The fees paid by non-EU/EEA students are significantly higher than the ones paidby domestic students, leading to the conclusion that studying abroad is still a very costly
endeavor for international students and, therefore, not accessible to those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
Education as a public good vs. tuition fees
Attempting to bridge the public funding gap in higher education, governments tend
to turn to students as a resource in order to quickly resolve funding issues. In this way,
introducing or raising tuition fees becomes an easy solution to a complex problem, whenthe money available within the higher education sector remains insufficient for ensuring anadequate level of quality.
The Bergen Communiqué back in 2005 reflected the commitment of different authorities
to “uphold the principle of public responsibility for higher education in the context ofcomplex modern societies”. Fifteen years later, students still face economic problems toaccess HE. In addition to other commodification policies which will be discussed, many
countries have not decreased tuition fees but rather increased them or in the ‘’best’’ cases
maintained the status quo since 2018.

Figure 10.3.
What is the averagelevel of tuition fees inyour country (annual
in EUR)?

94 | Financing of Higher Education

Even though the economic crisis came to an end, students still feel the consequences ofausterity policies implemented post-2008. In the case of Armenia, many students havesubstantial problems with paying their fees according to the ANSA. One of the mostalarming cases is Italy, where tuition fees in the last five years have been continuously
growing and subsequently have increased by 25%, with a maximum value in the lastacademic year amounting to 1,341 Euros as stated by the UDU.
Overall, in addition to sufficiently and publicly-funded student support services, the ESU
believes in the abolishment of any tuition fees as the first and most important step inorder to move towards higher education systems that are truly accessible to everyone. This
will require a shift in mentality underlying the political decisions taken, moving from theperception of the funding of higher education as an expense, to the consideration of thisbudget as an investment into the future of the country and its citizens.
Public funding
In 2012, through the Bucharest Communiqué (2012), ministers committed to “securing
the highest possible level of public funding for higher education and drawing on otherappropriate sources, as an investment in our future”. When asked if this formal commitment
had any impact on the higher education system in the respective countries, only 16% of the
respondents answered with a yes, while half of the national unions of students indicatedthat the commitment had no effect on the actual public spending on higher education in
their countries at all. Similar to many other issues for which the ministers committed to theimplementation of policies and tools in the scope of the Bologna Process, the enactment ofthese commitments lacks tangible outcomes. The ESU continues to stress the importanceof governments ensuring that higher education institutions have sufficient and sustainable
resources to deliver high quality teaching and research and meet broader educational,social, cultural, and economic goals.
Georgia is a very positive example of a government that has increased education funding
from 10% to 25%, which the NUS considers as an appropriate investment that can lead tothe future sustainable development of higher education in the country. A more conservative
increase can be observed in Croatia, with an increase in the number and budget for grants
since 2012, according to the member union. However, the NUS also pointed out that there arestill no grants available for PhD students. The ESU considers that in order to have accessible
and stable research, public funds should be allocated as much as in other programmes;
otherwise research activities will remain a privilege instead of a way to contribute to progress.
Unfortunately, there have been several negative developments in other countries such asin Latvia, which has seen multiple attempts to decrease the funding for higher education.
In Romania, the “Law of National Education” that was adopted in 2011 states that at least 6%of the GDP has to be invested in education, and at least 1% of the GDP must be invested inresearch. However, for 8 years, the implementation of the article has been postponed. As

Financing of Higher Education | 95

a consequence, according to the member union, education in Romania is underfundedwith only 2.21% of GDP being allocated for education in 2018 and only 2.76% in 2019. In
Finland, cuts to public funding for higher education have been made by two consecutive
governments. The current government is overturning those trends, but the investments
to HE and HEIs are minimal compared to the previous cuts made since 2012. In Denmark,according to the member union, public funding has decreased, especially since 2015 when
the government began cutting 2% of public funding for education each year. The ESU has
taken an unwavering stand, as stated in the past edition of the BWSE 2018, that Europe
should see free higher education as a long-term goal.
Commodification
Commodification describes the process of quantifying education in order to attach an
economic value to it. This tendency often results from a cut in public funding to education,
and as institutions are less and less able to financially sustain themselves, new sourcesof financing are explored. The danger resides in the fact that such sources of income for
institutions can become a threat to the independence and the integrity of teaching andresearch. The ideal of education as a public good and a public responsibility is, thus, slowly
but surely being dismantled and becoming a private and limited commodity. This creates
challenges to the inclusivity and accessibility of all, favouring a self-described “elite” madeup by the more privileged.

Figure 10.4.
According to your
NUS, does thegovernment promote
policies to increase
commodification inhigher education?

The NUSes have reported various examples of governments promoting policies that increase thecommodification in higher education. The UDU reports that one of the main factors contributing
to the commodification of education in Italy is the consistent underfunding of higher educationin the country as a whole. The underfunding directly led to HEIs imposing and increasing tuition
fees. Due to the high costs, not all students can afford to enroll in higher education which makes
it instead of a public good, a private and limited commodity According to your NUS, does the government promote policies
that only a certain number of students can afford.
to increase commodification in higher education?
One of the most notable examples of commodification
is visible in Croatia where HEIs are implementing thesame study programmes for both local and international
students but are charging the international ones up to
3 times as much in tuition fees. The classes are being
held by the same professors and are of the same
quality but charged for differently based on citizenshipof the student, which evidences the profit-oriented
approach of those institutions. Similarly, Finnish NUSes
report that the last two governments of Finland havedeveloped initiatives towards education export andinternationalisation, which can be seen as linked to theincreased commodification and competitiveness of HE.

18.92%
N/A

13.51%
Not at all

24.32%
Very little

5.41%

To a great extent

37.84%

Somewhat96 | Financing of Higher Education

Financing of Higher Education | 97

In Slovenia, the SSU is troubled by the decision of the government to award concessions forteaching activities to private universities. The NUS is worried about the policy to strengthen
private HE with public funds instead of investing them in high-quality public institutions.

education a more elitist project rather than an accessible public good. Apart from that, wehave seen developments that have dramatically influenced the level of required financial
support, such as the internationalisation of higher education and research, the desire for
quality and new teaching methods, and the increasing different economic interests in higher
education. Not addressing these developments can have tremendously negative longterm effects. Therefore, governments must prioritise higher education and increase public
investment in it to ensure accessible and high-quality higher education.

In the past edition of the BWSE 2018, a subchapter regarding commodification tendencies
was added for the first time. Once again, the ESU sees the necessity to tackle commodification
tendencies rising in higher education policy making across the EHEA. One of the directconsequences of commodification is the design of programmes solely for the sake of fitting
the labour market’s current needs. As a matter of fact, 24% of our members have noted anincrease in commodificative policies since 2015, when less than 3% reported a decrease (seeFigure 10.5.). The majority of NUSes have not seen any change since then (44%).
The DSF, our member union from Denmark, points out that part of the public funding tohigher education there is based on employment rates. Therefore, university courses aredesigned with the very specific purpose of getting students employed, which puts aside theother goals of higher education and limiting its scope to being an economic variable. Anotherexample is Ireland, as reported by the national student union USI, the Irish government
has greatly emphasised the concept of continued education and higher education having
to meet the needs of employers, large multinational companies, and the “skills economy”,
ultimately shifting the role of higher education from something hybrid to a mere economical
field, leaving aside any social responsibility.

The ESU believes that it is of vital importance that public funding guarantees stability andsustainability in the development of higher education. The allocation of public funding
must ensure that the development of education and research is based on wider goals andnot on short-sighted financial benefits.
Recommendations

Figure 10.5.
Have your NUS
observed increaseor decreae ofcommodification
policies in the HE
sector (in connection
to national economic
policies) since 2018?

y Tuition-free and accessible higher education needs to be understood as a long-termgoal for all EHEA member statesy The availability and funding of student support services need to be improved whileworking on a shift from loan to grant provision of financial support in order to ensure
students’ access to higher education and acceptable living conditions
y Better provision of information on funding opportunities for students is neededy More funding needs to be allocated to PhD studies and research to foster theachievement of the sustainable development goals
y Governments must monitor and contain commodification policies in higher education

Even though none of the past communiqués addressed this topic, it is important to keep
describing and analysing the commodification processes in order to safeguard the multiple
aspects and roles of higher education. The París Communiqué 2018 showed its commitment
to ‘’developing policies that encourage and support higher education institutions to fulfil theirsocial responsibility and contribute to a more cohesive
and inclusive society through enhancing intercultural Have your NUS observed increase or decreae of commodification policies
understanding, civic engagement and ethical in the HE sector (in connection to national economic policies) since 2018?
awareness, as well as ensuring equitable access to100higher education’’. The next step needs to aim at
making these words a reality for all students across28.95%
the EHEA.
80
N/A

REFERENCES

10.3. CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS• EHEA (2005). The European Higher Education Area - Achieving the Goals: Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers
Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_
declarations/2005_Bergen_Communique_english_580520.pdf

In the past decades, the number of students in the
EHEA has increased significantly, while the amountof public funding for higher education has not. Asa matter of fact, in the last years public funding
has been cut in nearly half of European countries,
resulting in a gap in financial resources.This makes

60
40
20
0

44.74%
No change

2.63% Decrease
23.68%

Increase• European Students’ Union (2019). Social Dimension Policy Paper 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.esuonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Social-Dimension-Policy-Paper-2019.pdf• EHEA (2003). Realising the European Higher Education Area: Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers
responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.
info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf• EHEA (2012). Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area, Bucharest 26-27 April. Retrieved
from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdfhttps://www.esu-online.
org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Public-Responsibility-Policy-paper.pdf• European Students’ Union (2016). Policy paper on public responsibility, governance and financing of higher education. Retrieved
from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Public-Responsibility-Policy-paper.pdf• EHEA (2018). Paris Communiqué, Paris, May 25th 2018. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/
EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf

Student-centred learning | 99

11. STUDENT-CENTRED LEARNING
11.1. INTRODUCTION
Student-centred learning (SCL) has been one of the core topics of the ESU’s advocacy work
since the 2010s. From 2012 ESU has been advocating for student-centred learning as abroader concept which is to be applied to all elements of higher education and not only topedagogy in a narrow sense (ESU 2012).
The ESU’s core understanding of student-centred learning is defined as “both a mind-set
and a culture within a given higher education institution and a learning approach whichis broadly related to, and supported by, constructivist theories of learning” (ESU, 2015). It is
not a method in itself, but is characterised by innovative methods of teaching, which aim
to promote learning through communication with teachers and other learners, and whichtake students seriously as active participants in their own learning, fostering transferable
skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking and reflective thinking (ESU, 2015).
A very recent definition of SCL can be found in the research paper Mapping and Analysis
of SCLT practices: Usable knowledge to support more inclusive, high-quality higher
education, by Klemenčić et al. (2020). This research is pushing forward the discussion on
SCLT and comes with an overarching definition that encompasses all elements of SCLT in
the perception of ESU. They define SCLT as:
an overarching approach to designing learning and teaching in higher education, which
is founded on the concept of student agency. SCLT primarily concerns the capability ofstudents to participate in, influence and take responsibility for their learning pathways
and environments, in order to achieve the expected learning outcomes. [...] SCLT as an
approach [...] moves beyond the classroom practice to construct inclusive and supportive
learning and teaching environments within the higher education institution and its
subunits, as well as in broader higher education systems at regional, national andsupranational levels. (Klemenčić et al., 2020, pp. 33)
Firmly establishing the SCL approach in an institution or higher education system doesn’t
merely imply implementing new methods of learning and teaching for students, but
requires shaping a mindset and atmosphere where students are co-creating their own
learning experience. For student-centred learning to be successful, it must be part of theuniversity’s overall purpose and can require a change of culture. Student-centred learning,
including active learning and flexibility, can also only be established if students take theresponsibility and initiative in being active learners, and it is up to the institution to provide
the right environment for this.

The student-centredness of an institution can also be examined through the lense of quality
assurance procedures as the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) for quality assurance
require a student-centered approach in a programme’s delivery and assessment (ESG, 2015).
Today, SCL has a prominent presence in European higher education policy discussions andis included in different forward-looking and action-setting documents, most importantly
by the BFUG working group recommendations for Learning and Teaching that will bepart of the new Rome Communiqué. It is questionable though how far the European level
policy measures trigger actions and promote a change at national and institutional levels
within Europe. This uncertainty becomes more obvious when we compare the results of
ESU’s Bologna with Student Eyes (BWSE) survey from 2018 to this current data of 2020. The
improvement of this period is not significant as the subchapters below show.

11.2. MAIN FINDINGS
Student-centred learning and the Bologna Process
Where are we now?
The concept of student-centred learning was first mentioned in the Bologna Process in the
Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué in 2009, where it became one of the future goals of
the Bologna Process (EHEA, 2009). This was reaffirmed in the 2012 Bucharest Communiqué(EHEA, 2012), the 2015 Yerevan Communiqué (EHEA, 2015) and the 2018 Paris Communiqué(EHEA, 2018) as well.
Looking into this more than 10 year history and the students’ perspective, the Bologna With
Student Eyes 2018 report of the ESU concludes that the implementation of SCL is happening,but is extremely slow, uneven across the EHEA, and the issue of misimplementation
presents a significant danger. ‘’The unevenness of implementation of SCL is problematic
to such a degree that it makes questionable whether EHEA level policies even influencenational levels to any significant extent’’ (BWSE, 2018, pp. 115).
In a recently published article Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap: Student-Centred Learningfrom the Students’ Perspective, Šušnjar and Hovhannisyan clearly outline the use of andreference to SCL in the Bologna discussions and policy documents and show at the sametime that translation of those guidelines to the practice level is scarce and most of the timevery challenging to implement (2020).
An important step towards acknowledging this gap has been the formation of the
Learning and Teaching Advisory Group within the BFUG 2018-2020 cycle, in which the
ESU is a member. During these past two years, the group has worked on drafting a set ofrecommendations addressing in detail the national/governmental support that is requiredaround the EHEA for the enhancement of learning and teaching. One of the three main
chapters of the document addresses the implementation of SCL and will hopefully serve
as good guidance for national level policymakers to make SCL a reality. The ESU suggests

100 | Student-centred learning

Student-centred learning | 101

that the work of this Advisory Group should be followed up by setting up a peer/support
structure during the next BFUG cycle where the EHEA countries will be able to learn
possible enhancements for SCL from each other.

asked the NUSes how important is the ESG2015 standard 1.3 perceived to be by the QA
agencies compared to other standards. Approximately 32% of the unions responded that
it is perceived as very important (or equally important as other standards), and 26.32%
responded it is seen as important. Approximately 8%% of the unions (3 unions) see it as fairly
important and also about 8% of the unions (3 unions) only as slightly important. About 13%of the unions (5 unions) responded that it is perceived as not important and another 13% of
the unions (5 unions) didn’t know (see Figure 11.2.).

How to enable the implementation of SCL?
Looking at the current state of the implementation of SCL in the EHEA, it is essential to reflect
on the implementation of the other Bologna tools and measures that serve as enablers for
SCL. The functioning of the ECTS system, and the use of learning outcomes, for example, allow
students to choose their own learning paths and to take more ownership over their individual
learning programmes, which is essential in the SCL approach. The shift to outcomes-based
educational policies is needed for student-centred learning to become a reality.

Even though these responses give a very positive picture on the importance of SCL in
external quality assurance, it is still worrisome that 5 countries respond that it is perceived
as not important.
ECTS, learning outcomes, and general considerations

SCL and internal quality assurance (QA)

Implementation of ECTS and learning outcomes is one of the key Bologna tools that canenable a functioning SCL. If ECTS is properly used for allocating the student-workload
based on well-defined and clear learning outcomes, we have one of the cornerstones of
SCL implementation. Many countries don’t have this cornerstone according to our member
unions, as the numbers show. This is also strengthened by the academic research where
uneven implementation of the so-called ‘key commitments’ including the full adoption of
ECTS is identified across EHEA (Damiani, 2019).

The involvement of students in internal QA is also an important indicator for SCL, as thisinvolvement is a prerequisite for students to be co-creators and monitors of their education.
Ninety-four percent of the student unions that participated in the survey state that theirstudents are involved in internal QA, which compared to the results reported in the BWSE
2018 indicates an 8% increase.
Almost half of the unions state that the students are involved in internal QA as full-members(voting rights) within the bodies of internal assessment processes (45.95%). Approximately
19% of the student unions indicate the students are only involved as a source of information,
whereas in 2018 this was 26%, which indicates some improvement.
Many unions also state that the level and form of involvement highly differs per institution
and is, therefore, difficult to generalise. This generally applies to internal QA processes,
whereby the student involvement highly differs per institution and even per programme.
We asked our NUSes to what extent SCL is considered
as a factor in the internal QA process in their countries.
Unfortunately, almost half of the unions answeredthat it is perceived as below average in terms ofimportance (29.73%) or as of very low importance(13.51%) (see Figure 11.1.). This has not improved verymuch since 2018, but the number of unions that see
it as low importance has decreased from around 20%(2018) to 13.51% (2020), which is a positive development.
SCL and external quality assurance
Surprisingly, the results are very different when
we look at SCL in external quality assurance. We

Figure 11.1.
To what extent is SCL
considered as a factorof the internal QA in
your country?

To what extent is SCL considered as a factor of the internal QA in your country?

13.51%

Very low/not at all

2.70%

Very high13.51%

Above average

29.73%

Below average

40.54%
Average

Figure 11.2.
According to your
NUS, how importantor not importantis the ESG2015
standard 1.3 seen by
the QA agency/ies incomparison with theother standards?

Where 71% of the members answered that all credits are obtained using the ECTS systemand the majority of the systems use student workload as the basis of allocation of ECTS
credits, only 9 respondents (24%) stated that the amount of ECTS credits is always basedon the formulation of learning outcomes (See Map 11.3) Compared to 2018, there has been
little progress in this regard as only 2 more countries in 2020 indicate that ECTS credits arealways based on the formulation of learning outcomes. Moreover, only approximately half ofthe respondents are either satisfied or very satisfied
According to your NUS, how important or not important is the ESG2015 standard
with the implementation of the ECTS system, which
1.3 seen by the QA agency/ies in comparison with the other standards?
is a very disappointing number so many years after
the implementation of the system. If we are not
13.16%
managing to meaningfully integrate the ECTS as
Not importanta structured tool into higher education systems,
31.58%
Very important
I don’t know
implementing SCL with all its abstractness and all
encompassing characteristics becomes extremely
difficult if not impossible.
On a more general note, in their elaborations about
SCL, many of the member unions highlighted theneed to see the SCL approach as strongly connectedto the social dimension of higher education andstudent well-being. Implementation of SCL that

7.89%

Fairly important
Slightly important

26.32%
ImportantStudent-centred learning | 103

benefits every learner, also means ensuring prior learning recognition procedures thatwill support integrating into HE those from diverse learning backgrounds. As anotherexample, it also means creating flexible pathways so working students or those with care
responsibilities can find a way to combine studies and other obligations. And finally, SCL
also means creating engaging, student-friendly, and innovative learning environments that
regularly support the improvement of pedagogical skills of teachers and apply creative andnew learning technologies - both through digital tools, as well as through human interaction.

11.3. CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
As it becomes visible throughout the chapter, implementation of student-centred learning
is highly dependent on the implementation of other Bologna tools, and through those tools
we try to measure and see if any progress has been made in the implementation of SCL.
We see that SCL has been present in the European level policy discussions for more thana decade now, and the affirmation of its importance is present at the supranational level
policy - initially through the statements in different communiqués and currently also
through the work of the BFUG’s Advisory Group on Learning and Teaching that has beenworking during the 2018-2020 period and has produced a set of recommendations to the
EHEA governments for the implementation of SCL. On the national level policy, however, it’sdifficult to see if the SCL implementation is embraced or not.
When we look into the practical side of implementation, such as through the Bologna tools
identified in this chapter, we clearly see the gap between the European policy and national
practice from the perspective of the member unions. There are still many cases in which
students are considered as mere sources of information for internal QA rather than as full
members of the processes, which prevents a mutual understanding of co-creation that
the SCL approach strongly advocates for. More than 40% of the respondents indicate thatfrom their perspective in internal QA, SCL as a priority is considered to be of below average
importance, which clearly indicates that the institutional level policy is still not aligned withthe members’ perception of SCL as a priority.
EHEA country with no ESU member
No information available
No, neverRarelyYes, sometimes (about half of the HE System)
Yes, very often
Yes, always (throughout the HE System)

Map 11.3.
Does the allocationof ECTS happen
on the basis of theformulation of learning
outcomes?

Regarding external QA, we see some progress as around 65% of the responding unions say
the external QA processes in their country consider SCL as very important/important/fairly
important. For more than 20% of unions, though, its importance is considered to be either
only minor or not at all important. These numbers serve as another example of uneven
implementation of EHEA tools among the member countries.
And finally, the reflection on SCL through a focus on the implementation of the ECTS andlearning outcomes shows how far behind we are from a student-centred way of building
our curriculums and study programmes. Not only do we fail to involve students as cocreators of their study paths, but we also do not put their needs at the center of defining thelearning outcomes and linking them to their workload through the ECTS.

104 | Student-centred learning

Student-centred learning | 105

There are many more aspects of SCL implementation that were not evaluated through thischapter due to limitations of our methodology. However, advocacy for flexible pathways,
student well-being, teacher training, and learning innovation are also seen as a priority forour membership for meaningful and successful SCL implementation.

REFERENCES

Recommendations• Damiani, M. S. (2019). From 1999 to 2019: 20 years of European debate, development, and achievements.
Tuning Journal for Higher Education, 6(2), 51–71. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-6(2)-2019pp51-71

y Develop a structure which will follow up on and monitor the implementation of therecommendations produced by the BFUG’s Advisory Group on Learning and Teachingin order to guarantee that the policy discussions on SCL extend from the European to
the national levely Internal QA should enhance the involvement of students and promote their meaningful
participation, seeing them as full members of the processes. The institutional policyof European HEIs should incorporate this active student approach in relevant policy
documents and make sure its implementation actually happens at the level ofdepartments and programmey Retrain those involved in the curricula development with the aim of communicating
the importance of well-defined learning outcomes and the justified connection of thosewith the allocated ECTS credits. In parallel, allocate resources for building the capacityof students to be involved in the development of the learning outcomes and the ECTS
credits allocated to study programmes and courses
y From the European to the national level, external QA should focus on prioritising theassessment of those accreditation standards which are linked to SCL. Our aim should
be to communicate the importance of SCL through external QA to all the QA agencies
and HEIs in the EHEA

• European Students’ Union (2018). Bologna with Student Eyes 2018: The Final Countdown. ISBN 9789491256059.
Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BWSE-2018_web_Pages.pdf• EHEA (2009). The Bologna Process 2020 - The European Higher Education Area in the new decade:Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven andLouvain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2009_
Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve/06/1/Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve_Communique_April_2009_595061.pdf• EHEA (2012). Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area,
Bucharest 26-27 April. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/
Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdf• EHEA (2015). Yerevan Communiqué, Yerevan, 14–15 May. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/
media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf• EHEA (2018). Paris Communiqué, Paris, May 25 th 2018. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/
Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf• Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education
Area (ESG).(2015). Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from: http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/
uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf• Hoidn, S., & Klemenčič, M. (2020). The Routledge International Handbook ofStudent-Centered Learning and Teaching in Higher Education. Routledge.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259371• Klemenčič, M., Pupinis, M., Kirdulytė, G. (2020). ‘Mapping and analysis of
student-centred learning and teaching practices: usable knowledge
to support more inclusive, high-quality higher education’, NESET
report, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:
10.2766/67668. Retrieved from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publicationdetail/-/publication/4cce61a7-6736-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1/languageen/format-PDF/source-121835282• Šušnjar, A. & Hovhannisyan, G. Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap:
Student-centered learning from the students’ perspective. In
Hoidn, S., & Klemenčič, M. (Eds.), The Routledge International
Handbook on Student-Centred Learning and Teachingin Higher Education (1st Edition pp. 543-561). Routledge.
Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259371-41

The future of the Bologna Process | 107

12. THE FUTURE
OF THE BOLOGNA PROCESS
12.1. INTRODUCTION
The Bologna Process started in 1999 to create more coherence between higher education
institutions in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) in order to facilitate student
and staff mobility, to make higher education more inclusive, accessible, attractive andcompetitive worldwide. Engaging in discussions regarding higher education policy
reforms is key to building the necessary trust for overcoming obstacles and successful
implementation of these reforms. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has alreadyforced HEI to shift and develop their activity online, will continue to have some effect on thehigher education field. Therefore, now more than ever is the time to rethink the future of
the EHEA, and truly foster innovation, digitalisation and inclusion.
The 2020-2030 decade should be a decade of completion, testing and perfecting members’
compliance with the agreed commitments. Achieving effectiveness and efficiency inhigher education depends on mutual support amongst the members of the EHEA in order
to avoid implementation at different speeds.
Although the key commitments remain of utmost importance to achieve the aims of the
Bologna Process, it is crucial to recognise that the EHEA is not static. A shift in attitudeand commitments has to remain up to date with the latest developments in different
higher education systems. It is important to point out the risk of non-implementation andsuperficial implementation on the national as well as the local level. This could fragment
and have a negative impact on the developments within the EHEA.

12.2. MAIN FINDINGS
Implementation of Bologna commitments between countries / regions / institutions
For another working period of the BFUG, ESU once again notices that the NUSes have highlighted
huge differences in the level of implementation across Europe, but also across regions andinstitutions within the same country. Whilst understanding that the implementation of thecommitments may vary from one country to the other, blatant disregard of them should not
be ignored within the EHEA but rather new mechanisms should be explored to improve
implementation and level differences between countries, across regions.
When it comes to the differences at regional and institutional levels, ESU fully understands
that autonomy comes into play, however, indicators and benchmarking mechanisms

should be introduced to ensure that the work of the BP goes beyond mere words on
papers. With the introduction of the ESGs, for instance, we have seen a drastic improvementin the QA processes. Similarly, with the adoption of the Principle and Guidelines on Social
Dimension, one would expect that a set of benchmarks will now be set, to ensure effective
monitoring of their implementation. In this regard, country thematic peer reviews enable
an honest review of checks and balances and should ensure student participation as amajor target group impacted by Bologna commitments.
Prioritization of the social dimension
There is a growing perception that positive developments on the social dimension are taking
place all across the EHEA, with ESU’s responding NUSes perceiving the social dimension to
be considered a moderately to highly important subject on both the governmental and
HEI levels in ⅔ of the countries that participated in the survey, while being assigned noimportance in only 10% of cases in relation to governmental prioritization and slightly lessthan 10% in relation to HEIs. However, NUSes report that only 6 out of 39 countries havenational targets in place to enhance participation of underrepresented groups in HE, withanother 9 countries having targets in place which are not being followed.
Financial troubles and the rigidness of education systems that lack flexibility for working
students to keep up with their studies are the most commonly mentioned problems that,
according to the NUSes, need to be tackled to reduce dropout rates in the EHEA.
The situation remains far from perfect, and work on the social dimension of higher education
is far from complete. The Principles and Guidelines to Strengthen the Social Dimensionof Higher Education in the EHEA give a solid ground to start concretely improving thesituation. Once the PAGs are adopted by Ministers, a long, uphill journey needs to start,
which will closely follow the implementation of this document. The social dimension
requires more peer support at this point, as we still see significant discrepancies in the levelof policy development and implementation within the EHEA. It is crucial that the BFUG
enables the establishment and work of the Advisory Group for Social Dimension in thenext BFUG Operational Programme 2020-2023. The main objective for the new mandateof the Advisory Group for Social Dimension should be (a) the development of a system ofmonitoring of the Principles and Guidelines and (b) defining indicators and benchmarks forthe principles for SD.
Full potential of student centered learning and student participation neglected
ESU has been advocating for better student involvement for many years and studentcentred learning is very high on ESU’s political agenda. Unfortunately, we have to conclude
that the implementation of student-centred learning in practice is still lacking, as we
can see in the 2018 ‘Bologna With Student Eyes’ report and this year’s BWSE, as well as
in an article by ESU Expert Aleksandar Susnjar and Vice President Gohar Hovhannisyan

108 | The future of the Bologna Process

titled ‘Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap: Student-Centred Learning from the Students’
Perspective’, forthcoming in the Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centred
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education in July.
Achieving a student-centred approach demands a transformation of the mindset and power
relations we hold within the institutions. Both teachers and students need support in order toenhance their understanding about a student-centered approach to education. HE authorities
should support students to take this attitude from the very beginning of the learning process.
Unfortunately, the policies of higher education institutions rarely consider the need for students
to be prepared for student-centred learning and to perceive student participation as something
beyond official involvement in governing bodies and quality assurance.
The survey shows that students are willing to be a part of governance, decision-making
and improvements, but they do not perceive their roles as being relevant. Moreover, 50% of
students’ unions reported in the survey that students do not feel that they are seen as full
members of their academic communities.
There is a lot of room for educational systems to prioritize student support structures (e.g.
mentoring, professional orientation, elective courses from diverse disciplines, etc) to help
them find the most suitable learning path. If the university environment would provide
students with more flexibility and ownership over the programmes, students would be
more eager to take an active approach and perceive their involvement as relevant.
Reforms must guarantee students’ rights to participation in order to ensure partnershipand possibilities for real involvement. It is important to include students in discussions
about learning and teaching, to have a constant dialogue about their learning process.
Mixed success of internationalisation in different countries
Increased mobility is one of the main accomplishments of the Bologna Process. More andmore students have the opportunity to participate in mobility programmes because of the
Bologna Process. However, this increased mobility does not have the same outcomes forevery country. Mainly countries in Eastern Europe are struggling with ‘brain drain’ while thenorthern countries like the Netherlands and Denmark are currently creating measures todecrease the high influx of international students.
ESU is aware of these challenges and promotes cooperation between the different European
countries to turn brain drain into brain circulation. European institutions should not becompeting with each other for the best students but rather should work together to facilitate
diversity in mobility. Whilst the European Universities Initiative can be a great programme forachieving transnational alliances and strengthening strategic partnerships, it brings the riskof excluding students from non-EU countries. Therefore, such initiatives should be designed
carefully in order to prevent segregation and the creation of elitist networks.

The future of the Bologna Process | 109

Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic has created a significant obstacle to mobility programmes,
and ESU is concerned with the increased emphasis on virtual mobility as “mobility for all”.
ESU reiterates that whilst this form of mobility was ideal during the emergency situation,
it should not replace physical mobility that truly demonstrates the ability for building
intercultural competencies amongst students. Ministers should have a continuous
commitment to continue increasing the inclusion of all within mobility programmes, andshould only see virtual and blended mobility as accompanying the physical mobility.
Building trust in automatic recognition
The guarantee that credits from abroad will be recognized is a very important prerequisite
for mobility that often leaves uncertainties about the recognition of qualification andlearning periods completed abroad, especially for students in a different mobility
programme than Erasmus+.
A majority of our NUSes (61%) support the idea of automatic recognition in the future,
however, others point out that the inconsistent implementation of Bologna tools (49%),
the concerns regarding regulated professions (46%) and the lack of trust between EHEA
countries (41%) give reason for automatic recognition not to be accepted yet.
Throughout the various chapters it becomes clear that implementation of the key commitments
is crucial for automatic recognition as obviously without QA there is no trust between thesystems to automatically recognise credentials; without ECTS there is no common framework
for automatic recognition; and without the Lisbon Recognition Convention there is no strong
commitment to make the automatic recognition legally possible.

12.3. CONCLUSIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE FUTURE
Structures: ‘A permanent secretariat’
The idea of having a permanent secretariat for the Bologna Process is not a new one and isan establishment that ESU is in favour of. For the consistency and continuity of the Bologna
Process, we believe that it would be beneficial to appoint a permanent secretariat. In thecurrent system a lot of time and knowledge gets lost by the change in secretariat. However,before this can be fully implemented, a number of questions need to be answered, especiallyabout the permanent seat of the secretariat, the financing and budgeting as well as thestaff of this secretariat.
We strongly believe that the next cycle of Bologna should carefully analyse questions that
thus far remain unanswered through the creation of a Working Group. The group should
specifically analyse the meaning of ‘permanent’ and how to ensure that all governments
involved in the process maintain ownership of the intergovernmental process itself. In ESU’sopinion, it is important that the Bologna Secretariat operates in a neutral manner andremains independent from one particular country that takes the lead for the secretariat

110 | The future of the Bologna Process

and the hosting of the next ministerial conference and that it executes no political role
whatsoever. It is therefore important to (s)elect people in the secretariat on a personal title
instead of in the name of their respective countries.
Key commitments and fundamental values
In the Bologna Process all countries have committed themselves to the implementationof the three key commitments (three-cycle degree structure, recognition of qualifications
and quality assurance) in higher education to boost cooperation and compliance. Fulfilling
the promises made by governments and achieving the key commitments of the Bologna
Process remains essential and lays the foundation on which we can build stronger mutual
understanding and peer learning to achieve sustainable, inclusive, high-quality education
all over Europe. Improvements have been seen but in many countries, however, othercountries are lagging behind in implementation. Especially regarding the three-cycle and
ECTS systems, differences are still large, and despite the strong developments in Quality
Assurance, more work still has to be done to achieve the automatic recognition of degrees
in the whole EHEA by 2030.
Higher education plays a pivotal role in ensuring a fairer, sustainable and more equitableworld. For this, more cooperation is needed within the EHEA to create innovative synergies
and alliances among universities. Synergies between the European Higher Education
Area (EHEA), the European Research Area (ERA) and the European Education Area (EEA)
are extremely crucial to concentrate efforts on achieving common goals such as theSustainable Development Goals.
Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) should take their societal role more seriously to search
for and provide solutions to the challenges our societies face today. This requires HEIs not
only to embed sustainability in our education systems but to also involve the entire higher
education community and society at large in higher education. This will only work if it is built
on a foundation of trust, continued commitment by governments and full implementationof the already agreed commitments.
Fundamental values including academic freedom, institutional autonomy, participationof students and staff are crucial to the protection of students’ rights such as access toquality public education, freedom of expression and association, and personal safety. As
seen in parts of Europe, especially in Belarus, such rights are alarmingly disregarded andviolated. ESU emphasizes the importance of the continuation of the BFUG’s Task Forceon Fundamental Values and the need to develop a monitoring framework that takes into
account both de jure and de facto realities linked to protecting and promoting fundamental
values in the EHEA. Commitments to human rights and democracy as the foundation of
the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) are a prerequisite for educational systems that
aim to contribute to the forthcoming of our society as a whole.

The future of the Bologna Process | 111

The BFUG needs to be visionary in the way it looks at the Bologna Process, and in order todo so, it must keep the relevance and connectivity to the end-beneficiaries of the process
at its core. In this regard, it is also crucial that the BFUG avoids losing time on creating new
terminologies that create confusion, while instead working upon ensuring that common
fundamental values and commitments are given adequate resources for implementation
and are well communicated to all those involved in the process.
Recommendationsy It is crucial that the BFUG enables the establishment and work of the Advisory Groupfor Social Dimension in the next BFUG Operational Programme 2020-2023 to define
indicators and benchmarks for the principles and guidelines of the social dimension andto develop mechanisms of monitoring and peer support for implementation in the EHEA
y Greater focus on student-centred learning is necessary to provide students with flexibility
and sense of ownership of their education. This will enable them to successfully navigate
through, and critically engage in this rapidly changing world. It requires flexible learning
paths with recognition of non-formal and short-cycle education of which a certain
degree of quality can be assured on a European levely It is important to note that the higher education sector is existing in a digital age.
Digitalisation of education has to be perceived as a useful addition to the current
existing solutions and tools in enhancing student-centered learning and accessibility ofeducation. This, however, is only the case if all necessary precautions are taken to makesure it is implemented in the right way
y Better communication and peer support need to be available to tackle issues thatexist at the local and institutional levels that are still hindering the implementation ofcommitments and respect to fundamental values

APPENDICES
115

Bibliography

121

List of commonly used abbreviations

123

List of figures

127

List of BWSE 2020 data collection

114 | Introductory words

Bibliography | 115

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A
Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (2009). Internationalization of the European Students’ Union (2019).
Internationalisation and Mobility Policy Paper. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/
BM76_-Internationalisation-and-Mobility-Policy-Paper-.pdf

B
BM77: Resolution on Improving the Accessibility of Higher Education for people with refugee backgrounds and seeking
asylum. (2019). ESU Online. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/?policy=bm77-resolution-on-improving-theaccessibility-of-higher-education-for-people-with-refugee-backgrounds-and-seeking-asylum

D
Damiani, M. S. (2019). From 1999 to 2019: 20 years of European debate, development, and achievements. Tuning Journalfor Higher Education, 6(2), 51–71. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.18543/tjhe-6(2)-2019pp51-71

E
EHEA (2001). Towards the European Higher Education Area: Communiqué of the meeting of European Ministers
in charge of Higher Education in Prague on May 19th 2001. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/
ministerial_declarations/2001_Prague_Communique_English_553442.pdf
EHEA (2003). Realising the European Higher Education Area: Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible forHigher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_
declarations/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf
EHEA (2005). The European Higher Education Area – Achieving the Goals: Communiqué of the Conference of European
Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/
ministerial_declarations/2005_Bergen_Communique_english_580520.pdf
EHEA (2007). Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world, London,
18 May 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2007_London_
Communique_English_588697.pdf

116 | Bibliography

EHEA (2009). The Bologna Process 2020 - The European Higher Education Area in the new decade: Communiqué ofthe Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 28-29 April
2009. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2009_Leuven_Louvain-la-Neuve/06/1/Leuven_Louvainla-Neuve_Communique_April_2009_595061.pdf
EHEA (2012). Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area, Bucharest 26-27 April.
Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/Bucharest_Communique_2012_610673.pdf
EHEA (2015). Yerevan Communiqué, Yerevan, 14–15 May. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_
Yerevan/70/7/YerevanCommuniqueFinal_613707.pdf
EHEA (2018). Paris Communiqué, Paris, May 25th 2018. Retrieved from: http://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_
declarations/EHEAParis2018_Communique_final_952771.pdf
EHEA Pathfinder Group on Automatic Recognition (2015). Report by the EHEA Pathfinder Group on Automatic
Recognition: To present to Ministers of the European Area of Higher Education for the Bologna Ministerial Conference
14-15 May 2015 Yerevan, Armenia. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/72/3/EHEA_
Pathfinder_Group_on_Automatic_Recognition_January_2015_613723.pdf#Erasmus500: Towards a truly European grant. (2020). ESU Online. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.
org/?news=erasmus500-towards-a-truly-european-grant

Bibliography | 117

European Students’ Union (2019). Towards a well-funded Erasmus+ programme for the years to come: European
Students Union & Erasmus Student Network “Joint Position Paper on the Future of ERASMUS+”. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/102019_ESU_ESN_JointPositionPaper_Erasmus.pdf
European Union (2015). ECTS Users’ Guide 2015. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from:https://europass.cedefop.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ects-users-guide_en.pdf
EUROSTUDENT (2020). The Social Dimension of Student Life in the European Higher Education Area in 2019:
Selected indicators from EUROSTUDENT VII. Retrieved from: https://www.eurostudent.eu/download_files/documents/
Eurostudent_brochure_WEB.pdf

F
Ferencz, I. (2015). Balanced Mobility Across the Board—A Sensible Objective? In A. Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Salmi, & P.
Scott (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Between Critical Reflections and Future Policies (pp. 27–41). Springer
International Publishing. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_3

HEuropean Commission (2017). Study to support the revision of the diploma supplement and analyse the feasibilityof its digitalisation at European level: Final report. Retrieved from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1ae19aac-6a9a-11e7-b2f2-01aa75ed71a1

Hoidn, S., & Klemenčič, M. (2020). The Routledge International Handbook of Student-Centered Learning and Teachingin Higher Education. Routledge. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259371

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2018). The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process
Implementation Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Retrieved from: https://eacea.ec.europa.
eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/european-higher-education-area-2018-bologna-process-implementation-report_en

K

European Qualifications Passport for Refugees. (2020). Council of Europe. Retrieved from:https://www.coe.int/en/web/
education/recognition-of-refugees-qualifications

Klemencic, M. (2012). Student Participation in European Governance. International Higher Education, (66). Retrieved
from: https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2012.66.8590

European Students’ Union (2012). Bologna with Student Eyes 2012. ISBN 978-94-91256-12-7. Retrieved from: https://www.
esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BWSE2012-online1.pdf

Klemenčič, M., Pupinis, M., Kirdulytė, G. (2020). ‘Mapping and analysis of student-centred learning and teachingpractices: usable knowledge to support more inclusive, high-quality higher education’, NESET report, Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2766/67668. Retrieved from: https://op.europa.eu/en/publicationdetail/-/publication/4cce61a7-6736-11ea-b735-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-121835282

European Students’ Union (2015), Bologna with Student Eyes 2015: Time to meet the expectations from 1999. ISBN 97894-91256-01-1. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/BWSE-2015-online.pdf
European Students’ Union (2016). Policy paper on public responsibility, governance and financing of higher education.
Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Public-Responsibility-Policy-paper.pdf
European Students’ Union (2018). Bologna with Student Eyes 2018: The Final Countdown. ISBN 9789491256059. Retrieved
from: https://www.esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/BWSE-2018_web_Pages.pdf
European Students’ Union (2019). Social Dimension Policy Paper 2019. Retrieved from: https://www.esu-online.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/Social-Dimension-Policy-Paper-2019.pdf

L
Launch of the ‘Social Inclusion and Engagement in Mobility’ project | ESN.org. (2019). Erasmus Student Network. Retrieved
from: https://esn.org/news/launch-%E2%80%98social-inclusion-and-engagement-mobility%E2%80%99-project

118 | Bibliography

Bibliography | 119

N

U

National qualifications frameworks (NQFs). (2020). Cedefop. Retrieved from: https://www.cedefop.europa.eu/en/eventsand-projects/projects/national-qualifications-framework-nqf

Uddannelses- og Forskningsministeriet and Udlændinge- Integrations og Boligministeriet (2015). Internationale
studerende i Danmark: Hvad har betydning for om internationale studerende bliver i Danmark efter endt studie?
Retrieved from: https://ufm.dk/publikationer/2015/filer/internationale-studerende_mlogo.pdf

P

UNESCO (2019). Global Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education, Paris, 25
November 2019. Retrieved from: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=49557&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_
SECTION=201.html#STATE_PARTIES

Prager, A. (2019, April 26). Solutions from Vienna to address Europe’s housing crisis. www.Euractiv.com. Retrieved from:https://www.euractiv.com/section/middle-ground-politics/news/solutions-from-vienna-to-address-eu-housing-crisis/R
Roth, R. (2018). Lokale Willkommenskulturen für ausländische Studierende. In F. Gesemann & R. Roth (Eds.), Handbuch
Lokale Integrationspolitik (pp. 489–507). Springer Fachmedien. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-13409-9_21
Rysgaard, K. K. (2019, April 25). Nej tak til dansk: Gebyr får udlændinge til at droppe sprogkursus. DR. Retrieved from:https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/indland/nej-tak-til-dansk-gebyr-faar-udlaendinge-til-droppe-sprogkursus?fbclid=IwAR1Gpz
QsUOIpuc1yq1Q1yxZoozmJFsVAe6CUwUNKK7_NpcLS59uikrHv0pc

S
Salmi, J. (2018). Social Dimension Within a Quality Oriented Higher Education System. In A. Curaj, L. Deca, & R. Pricopie(Eds.), European Higher Education Area: The Impact of Past and Future Policies (pp. 141–154). Springer International
Publishing. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77407-7_10
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). (2015). Brussels, Belgium.
Retrieved from: http://www.enqa.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ESG_2015.pdf
Student debt doubles in a decade. (2019). Yle Uutiset. Retrieved from: https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/student_debt_
doubles_in_a_decade/11073924
Šušnjar, A. & Hovhannisyan, G. Bridging the Policy-Practice Gap: Student-centered learning from the students’ perspective.
In Hoidn, S., & Klemenčič, M. (Eds.), The Routledge International Handbook on Student-Centred Learning and Teachingin Higher Education (1st Edition pp. 543-561). Routledge. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259371-41

T
Tuition Fees and Living Costs for Studying in Ireland in 2020—MastersPortal.com. Retrieved from: https://www.
mastersportal.com/articles/1708/tuition-fees-and-living-costs-for-studying-in-ireland-in-2020.html

UNHCR (2018). Stepping up: Refugee education in crisis. Retrieved from: https://www.unhcr.org/steppingup/wp-content/
uploads/sites/76/2019/09/Education-Report-2019-Final-web-9.pdf

W
Wit et al. (Ed.) (2013). Possible Futures: The next 25 years of the internationalisation of higher education. European
Association for International Education (EAIE).

120 | Introductory words

List of abbreviations | 121

LIST OF COMMONLY USEDABBREVIATIONSBA

Bachelor’s Degree

HEI

Higher Education Institution

Bologna Follow-up Group

LLL

Lifelong Learning

Bologna Process

LRC

Lisbon Recognition Convention

BWSE

Bologna with Student Eyes

MA

Master’s Degree

ECTS

European Credit Transfer andAccumulation System

EHEA

European Higher Education Area

NQF

National Qualifications Framework

ENIC

European Network of Information
Centres

NUS

National Union of Students

PAG
EQAR

European Quality Assurance Register for
higher education

Principles and Guidelines for Social
Dimension

QA

Quality Assurance

QF

Qualification Framework

RPL

Recognition of Prior Learning

SCL

Student-Centred Learning

SD

Social Dimension

BFUG
BP

EQF

European Qualifications Framework

ESG

Standards and Guidelines for Quality
Assurance in the European Higher
Education Area

ESU

European Students’ Union

EU

European Union

HE

Higher Education

NARIC

UNESCO

National Academic Recognition
Information Centres

United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organization

List of figures | 123

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure13

4.1.

Legislation ensuring a minimum level of student participation in EHEA countries

13

4.2.

Satisfaction with the enactment of legislation

15

4.3.

Student representation in the decision-making and preparatory processes of higher education
policies

17

4.4.

Average percentage of students represented in HEI decision-making bodies in the EHEA

19

4.5.

Legislation ensuring a minimum level of student participation in EHEA countries

22

5.1.

Social Dimension as a priority for stakeholders

25

5.2.

Implementation of National Access Plans

34

6.1.

What is the purpose of Quality Assurance?

38

6.2.

Structured student expert pools play a crucial role as a platform where students and QA
agencies can cooperate

39

6.3.

What are the main barriers of students’ involvement in QA processes?.

40

6.4.

How many NUS members support the existence of a database?

41

6.5.

Do you agree with foreign QA agencies registered by EQAR to perform reviews in yourcountry?

41

6.6.

What impact has EQAR already made?

48

7.1.

To what extent does your NUS agree that the recognition procedures are transparent/simple/
non-discriminatory?

Title

124 | List of figures

Page

Figure52

List of figures | 125

Title

Page

Figure7.2.

According to your NUS, what are the main barriers for implementing automatic recognition ofdegrees within EHEA?

79

9.6.

How satisfied or dissatisfied is your NUS with the implementation of ECTS in your country?

53

83

9.7.

Is it possible to study part-time in any of the cycles?

7.3.

Is the Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) possible in your country?

55

84

9.8.

Are there exceptions following some delays? If so which ones?

7.4.

According to your NUS, what are the main barriers for barriers for recognition of prior learning?

61

85

9.9.

If yes, which measures are taken for faster completion?

8.1.

Is your NUS satisfied or dissatisfied with the resources allocated towards reaching the target
goals?

89

10.1

Over the last two years students’ financial situation in your country has…

91

10.2.

Did an increase or decrease in public funding of financial students’ aid occur since 2018?

Title

66

8.2.

How often and how thoroughly are issues regarding international students’ rights being
discussed/addressed at the following levels?

66

8.3.

Are there any effective programmes or initiatives to enhance social integration of incoming
students?

93

10.3.

What is the average level of tuition fees in your country (annual in EUR)?

95

10.4.

According to your NUS, are administrative staff sufficiently trained to assist international
students? (Do they speak foreign languages, are they trained to help international students, etc.)

According to your NUS, does the government promote policies to increase commodification inhigher education?

96

10.5.

In your country, is there a mobility quota for a maximum/minimum number of students notfrom your country that are allowed/should study in your country per year?

Have your NUS observed increase or decree of commodification policies in the HE sector (inconnection to national economic policies) since 2018?

100

11.1.

To what extent is SCL considered as a factor of the internal QA in your country?

67

70

8.4.

8.5.

71

8.6.

How positive or negative does your NUS assess the current quotas to be?

101

11.2.

75

9.1.

Is there a National Qualifications Framework (NQF) in your country and if so, how often is it
being used?

According to your NUS, how important or not important is the ESG2015 standard 1.3 seen by
the QA agency/ies in comparison with the other standards?

102

11.3

Does the allocation of ECTS happen on the basis of the formulation of learning outcomes?

76

9.2.

How satisfied or dissatisfied is your NUS with the development and introduction of the NQF in
your country?

77

9.3.

Are study programmes, modules and individual courses constructed using the European
Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)?

78

9.4.

Does the allocation of ECTS happen on the basis of an estimation of the workload?

79

9.5.

Does the allocation of ECTS happen on the basis of the formulation of learning outcomes?

126 | List of data collection 2020

List of data collection 2020 | 127

LIST OF BWSE 2020 DATA COLLECTION
The dataset of BWSE 2020 is based on answers from NUSes
marked with “x” for the respective chapter. Unions marked
with “o” did not provide data to the referred chapter.

NB. For some countries with more than one NUS as
members of ESU, the answers for that country were
provided by one of the two unions (Belarus, France, The
Netherlands). For others, two separate sets of answers
were provided for that country (Belgium, Serbia).

In total, the answers cover the perception of implementationin 40 member countries of The European Higher Education
Area (EHEA).

Country

NUS

Ch. 1

Ch. 2

Ch. 3

Ch. 4

Ch. 5

Ch. 6

Ch. 7

Ch. 8

Armenia

ANSA

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Austria

ÖH

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Belarus**

BOSS**

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Belarus

BSA

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Belgium

FEF

x

x

x

o

o

o

o

o

Belgium

VVS

x

x

o

x

o

o

o

o

Bosnia &Herzogovina

SURS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Bulgaria

NASC

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Croatia

CSC

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Cyprus

POFEN

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Czechia

SK RVŠ

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Denmark

DSF

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Estonia

EÜL

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Finland*SYL &SAMOK*

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

France

FAGE

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

France**UNEF**

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Georgia

GSOA

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Germany

fzs

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Hungary

HÖOK

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Iceland

LIS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

128 | List of data collection 2020

Country

NUS

Ch. 1

Ch. 2

Ch. 3

Ch. 4

Ch. 5

Ch. 6

Ch. 7

Ch. 8

Ireland

USI

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Israel

NUIS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Italy

UDU

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Latvia

LSA

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Lithuania

LSS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Luxemburg

UNEL

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Malta

KSU

x

x

x

x

o

x

x

x

Moldova

ASM

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Montenegro

SPUM

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Netherlands**

ISO**

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Netherlands

LSVB

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

North
Macedonia

NSUM

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Norway

NSO

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Poland

PSRP

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Portugal

FAIRe

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

Romania

ANOSR

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

SerbiaSKONUS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Serbia

SUS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Slovakia

ŠRVS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Slovenia

SSU

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Spain

CREUP

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Sweden

SFS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Switzerland

VSS-UNESUSU

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

UK

NUS-UK

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Ukraine

UAS

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

TOTAL

45

40

40

39

39

37

38

38

38

* SYL & SAMOK answered all parts of the survey together** Surveys for these countries were filled out by the other union from that country

Bologna with Student Eyes is a reality-check of what has been agreed upon bynational governments within the Bologna Process and what the actual situation
is for students. The data for this edition was collected by surveying the European
Students’ Union’s national unions of students in the following areas: student
participation in governance, the social dimension, quality assurance, recognition,
mobility and internationalisation, structural reforms, student-centred learning
and ﬁnancing of higher education. The questionnaire also included generalquestions about the Bologna Process and its future. In total, between 37 to 40
NUSes from 40 EHEA countries responded to the questionnaire, from Norway to
Malta and Iceland to Armenia.
The European Students’ Union (ESU) promotes students’ interests at the European
level towards all relevant bodies and in particular the European Union, Bologna
Follow-up Group, Council of Europe and UNESCO. Through its members, ESU
represents almost 20 million students in Europe.