Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Recommendation of the Council and of the European Parliament on further European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education (COM(2004) 642 final — 2004/0239 (COD))
Date: 2005-04-06
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: cooperation policy, higher education, teaching quality

C 255/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2005

3.2
The problems concern in particular: (a) consistency with
other policy areas of the Community, (b) budget allocations
and their distribution, (c) broad access and usefulness to users
(d) transparency
despite rationalisation at Commission level,
and participation in the programme committee, and (e) civil
society involvement.

Brussels, 6 April 2005.

The EESC hopes that, in view of the Lisbon objectives,
3.3
especially those
its
comments on these points will be taken into account in further
decisions on PROGRESS.

concerning the

framework,

financial

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Recommendation
of the Council and of the European Parliament on further European cooperation in quality assur-
ance in higher education

(COM(2004) 642 final — 2004/0239 (COD))

(2005/C 255/14)

On 20 January 2005, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under
Article 262 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned communication.

The Section for Employment, Social Affairs and Citizenship, which was responsible for preparing the
Committee's work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 15 March 2005. The rapporteur was Mr Soares.

At its 416th plenary session, held on 6 and 7 April 2005 (meeting of 6 April), the European Economic and
Social Committee adopted the following opinion by 144 votes to 2, with 6 abstentions.

1. Introduction

Article 149(1) of the Treaty establishing the European
1.1
Community stipulates that ‘the Community shall contribute to
the development of quality education by encouraging coopera-
tion between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting
and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the
responsibility of the Member States for the content of teaching
and the organisation of education systems and their cultural
and linguistic diversity.’

On 24 September 1998,

the Council of Ministers
1.2
approved a Recommendation on European cooperation in
quality assurance in higher education, which ‘called on Member
States to support or establish quality assurance systems and to
encourage higher education institutions and competent authori-
ties to cooperate and exchange experience’. It would be up to
the Commission ‘to support such cooperation and to report on
the implementation of the objectives of the Recommendation
at European and Member State level’.

systems

assurance

The report submitted by the Commission (1) demon-
1.3
strates that major progress has been achieved ‘in establishing
quality
cooperation’;
however it emphasises that this is not yet enough, pointing out
that ‘more far-reaching measures are needed in order to make
European higher education perform better and become a more
transparent and trustworthy brand for the people of Europe
and for students and scholars from other continents’.

and promoting

1.4
In September 2003, European education ministers met
in Berlin as part of the Bologna process, working to bring
about the European Higher Education Area, and concluded that
quality assurance systems, based on a series of essential features
institutions
— such as the evaluation of programmes or
through internal assessment and external review, student parti-
cipation, publication of results and international participation
— had generally speaking been implemented in all Member
States.

(1) Report

from the Commission to the European Parliament,

the
Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions (COM) 620 final of 30.9.2004).

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/73

1.5
At this time, they decided to call upon the European
Network for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) (2)
to draw up ‘an agreed set of standards, procedures and guide-
lines on quality assurances, to explore ways of ensuring an
adequate peer review for quality assurance and/or accreditation
agencies or bodies, and to report back through the Follow-up
Group to Ministers in 2005’.

1.6
The ministers also undertook to support the develop-
ment of quality assurance at institutional, national and Euro-
pean level, and stressed that there was a need to draw up
mutually shared criteria and methodologies for quality assur-
ance. They likewise emphasised that, in keeping with the prin-
ciple of institutional autonomy, responsibility for quality assur-
ance in higher education lay first and foremost with each insti-
tution, providing the basis for genuine accountability of the
academic system within the national quality framework.

Lastly,

1.7
quality assurance systems should include:

they therefore agreed that by 2005 national

— a definition of the responsibilities of the bodies and institu-

tions involved;

— evaluation of programmes or institutions, including internal
assessment, external review, participation of students and
the publication of results;

— a system of accreditation, certification or comparable proce-

dures; and

— international participation, co-operation and networking.

1.8
In compliance with Article 149(4) of the Treaty, the
Commission presented this proposal for a Recommendation (3)
to the Council and the Parliament, submitted here to the Euro-
pean Economic and Social Committee for an opinion.

1.9
The EESC understands the reasons put forward by the
Commission and agrees with the principles set down for estab-
lishing and boosting the quality of higher education by placing
good practice on an institutional footing and by developing
quality management at European level. The systematic applica-
tion of quality assurance methodologies as an instrument for
continuously improving actual quality is the best way to secure
genuine high quality higher education in the educational estab-
lishments of the EU, promoting university education in the
various Member States and facilitating equality between the
various national education systems.

education and training systems should become ‘a world quality
reference by 2010’.

2. Proposed recommendation

The proposal submitted by the Commission, based on the
1998 Recommendation, is designed to make a concrete contri-
bution to the aim of mutual recognition of quality assurance
systems and assessments across Europe.

The recommendation contains five steps for achieving

2.1
mutual recognition:

2.1.1
‘Require all higher education institutions active within
their territory to introduce or develop rigorous internal quality
assurance mechanisms.

2.1.2
Require all quality assurance or accreditation agencies
active within their territory to be independent in their assess-
ments, to apply the features of quality assurance laid down in
the Council Recommendation of September 1998 and to apply
a common set of standards, procedures and guidelines,
for
assessment purposes.

2.1.3
Encourage quality assurance and accreditation agen-
cies, together with organisations representing higher education,
to set up a “European Register of Quality Assurance and
Accreditation Agencies” and to define the conditions for regis-
tration.

Enable higher education institutions active within their
2.1.4
territory to choose among quality assurance or accreditation
agencies in the European Register, an agency which meets their
needs and profile.

2.1.5
Accept the assessments made by all quality assurance
and accreditation agencies listed in the European Register as a
basis for decisions on licensing or funding of higher education
institutions, including as regards such matters as eligibility for
student grants and loans.’

2.2

In the proposal, the Commission is called upon to:

1.10
The EESC reaffirms its view that it is extremely impor-
tant to tackle this issue from a Community perspective, and
endorses
the approach adopted by the Commission for
achieving the objectives targeted in the Lisbon strategy and,
more specifically, in the conclusions of the March 2002 Barce-
lona European Council meeting, which stated that European

(2) This network was set up in 2000 and incorporates 50 quality assur-

ance and accreditation agencies from 30 European countries.

(3) In follow-up to the assessment in Recommendation 98/561/EC of
24 September 1998 on European cooperation in quality assurance
in higher education.

— ‘continue, in close cooperation with the Member States, its
support for cooperation between higher education institu-
tions, quality assurance and accreditation agencies, compe-
tent authorities and other bodies active in the field’; and

— ‘present triennial reports to the European Parliament, the
Council,
the Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions on progress in the development
of quality assurance systems in the various Member States
and on cooperation activities at European level, including
the progress achieved with respect to the objectives’.

C 255/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2005

3. The EESC's comments

3.1 General comments

3.1.6
The EESC is aware of the need for young Europeans
and the public in general to be informed about the quality of
the various higher education establishments.

The requirement

3.1.1
for high quality education and
training is vitally important for achieving the Lisbon Strategy
objectives. In this connection, the EESC reiterates how impor-
tant greater student and worker mobility is for developing the
knowledge society in Europe. Such mobility may be a key
factor in making a Europe-wide labour market a reality and
building a more competitive knowledge-based society.

However, the standards and criteria used to assess or accredit
European establishments must serve as points of reference to
boost transparency and make it easier to draw comparisons
across Europe and, at the same time, do more to promote
diversity between institutions and help ensure that they are
geared to the needs of society today, rather than contribute to
the harmonization of Member States' regulations and laws,
expressly left out of the Union's Treaty.

This is also the tenor of the proposed Recommenda-
3.1.2
tion since,
in order to fully achieve such mobility, mutual
recognition of qualifications and diplomas is necessary, and this
in turn requires effective, coherent mechanisms throughout
Europe involving all the parties concerned. Here it is particu-
larly important that suitable working methods be devised for
assessing the quality of higher education in Europe and for its
accreditation.

Nevertheless,

the EESC feels that

3.1.3
these assessment
mechanisms, which are of course important for boosting the
quality of higher education and for giving it credibility, must
not be overly dependent on the immediate requirements of the
market, since long-term objectives and prospects for education
have to be taken into account, starting with basic research.

3.1.4 Moreover, the EESC stresses that funding for higher
education is still a key factor in achieving the fundamental
objectives concerned. It would not be right for higher educa-
tion establishments to be prevented from gaining access to
better quality evaluation and accreditation agencies because of
financial constraints.

3.1.5
in the
The current Commission initiative set out
proposed Council Recommendation is in line with the stance
the Committee adopted in 1997 (4),
in particular where it
stated that:

— it would be necessary ‘to move firmly towards the adoption
of quality assurance systems which include standardized
assessment methods which can be used by all those who
voluntarily accept assessment as a system for helping to
bring about improvements and do not regard it as an impo-
sition’;

— ‘the principle of university autonomy is (…) [not] under
debate (…). It is however important for citizens to be aware
which teaching establishments in Europe have introduced
assessment as a systematic quality assurance method in
their organizations (…) [and] which institutions use stan-
dardized quality assessment methods’;

— ‘besides allowing each Member State and teaching establish-
ment to use its own criteria, the Commission should at the
same time encourage the implementation of common
criteria which show the level of teaching quality from a
Community perspective’.

(4) EESC Opinion on the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on
European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education
(COM(97) 159 final - 97/0121 (SYN) – O J C 19 – 20.1.1998.

3.1.7
In a knowledge society which is to provide the basis
for building up the most advanced economic, social, technolo-
gical and cultural area in the world, quality assurance systems
and overall quality processes are indispensable for progress and
for improving the service provided to customers and users.

For this reason, Member States should provide educational
establishments with adequate resources to develop quality
evaluation procedures for improving education as a product.
Moreover,
links between universities and society in general
should be stepped up to enable young people with higher
education to enter the labour market more easily; this entails
the social partners being more involved in, and providing
greater back-up for, higher education quality assurance systems
and better knowledge of the future needs of the labour market
.

The EESC would reassert

3.1.8
for
achieving the objectives relating to mutual recognition, which
should be expressly mentioned in the text of the Recommenda-
tion to Member States:

two key principles

— quality assurance systems cannot be imposed, but have to
be accepted by those involved, in particular lecturers and
academic authorities, and must ultimately aim to help
improve the higher education provided in the Member
States;

— higher education establishments must have access to the
for promoting,
resources needed to fund structures
supporting and implementing quality methods and techni-
ques,
in particular for involving of those parties actually
providing the education, which is indispensable.

3.2 Specific comments

3.2.1
The EESC shares the view that the criteria and stan-
dards applying in each institution for developing internal
quality assessment methods must be rooted in the framework
in which the institution itself operates.

The key elements for making systematic improvements must
be based on these internal quality assurance mechanisms,
together with the use of learning outcomes and competences.
Such improvements must above all keep pace with the chan-
ging needs of society, as identified by stakeholder panels invol-
ving university teachers, professionals, graduates, experts in the
fields in question, students and the social partners.

14.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 255/75

The EESC welcomes the proposal

3.2.2
to draw up an
ENQA Handbook of quality assurance procedures, containing a
number of commonly accepted models or protocols, based on
in Member States. The handbook should
good practice
however focus as much as possible on promoting quality assur-
ance in educational establishments not yet applying this prac-
tice, and on encouraging greater use in those institutions which
already do.

Register and is recognised by the country concerned as being
independent and trustworthy.

The possibility for universities to develop an accreditation
strategy which is most suitable for their particular vocation and
objectives should not, however, lead to a situation where insti-
tutions are classified depending on the quality of the agencies
chosen.

ENQA Handbook,

It also agrees with the Commission on the need to define the
principles for assuring quality across Europe, to be included in
the
regards university
especially
autonomy, public accountability and the independence of
external evaluation and/or accreditation agencies, proportion-
ality and fairness; these are principles to which all the parties
should be able to adhere.

as

3.2.3
The EESC feels it is vital to ensure that the agencies
carrying out external assessments of higher education establish-
ments should meet high standards of independence and profes-
sionalism.

It is nevertheless important to clarify what is meant by inde-
pendence here, and whether these agencies should be profit-
making or not. It is essential to ensure that these agencies are
genuinely independent in relation to the organisations under-
going evaluation, which leads to the second question as to
whether or not they should be profit-making. It is clear that
the agencies must have the necessary means to do their job
(which includes being paid for the work they do), however, if
they were to operate more along the lines of a business, with
activities clearly geared to profit, this might jeopardise their
very independence.

Creating a European Registry of Quality Assurance
3.2.4
and Accreditation Agencies is an interesting, consensus-based
idea, but the Recommendation is not clear about the adminis-
tration mechanisms for the Registry; these presuppose that the
quality of the agencies actually carrying out the quality evalua-
tion of
itself be
the higher education establishments will
assessed and assured, and will ultimately enable qualifications
to be accepted and recognised within and outside Europe.

The EESC recommends

3.2.4.1
the Commission
consider the possibility that the Registry distinguish between (a)
accreditations that establish basic European references for the
main categories of profession and (b) quality and accreditation
provisions for specialised or specific categories.

that

The EESC welcomes the idea of making higher educa-
3.2.5
tion establishments accountable by allowing them to choose a
quality assurance and accreditation agency which meets their
needs and profile, provided that this agency figures in the

Brussels, 6 April 2005.

The EESC would warn those concerned that if the quality assur-
ance and accreditation agencies are themselves of different
levels of quality, then there is a serious risk that this might
affect
thus leading to
different classifications of the higher education institutions.

the evaluation itself,

the quality of

3.2.6
The EESC deems it important that the current national
quality accreditation systems be dovetailed with the European
accreditation arrangements.

In fact, Member States are responsible for organising the
national quality assurance and accreditation systems they need
to make decisions on whether or not to grant licences or
provide funding for universities. However,
these should be
dovetailed with European accreditation arrangements so as to
facilitate mutual recognition of qualifications and diplomas.

Accreditation criteria and certification by non-Member States
could constitute a tool for promoting the image of these insti-
tutions and would not be funded by the state.

Although these alternatives are not the same in terms of what
they mean for making Member States responsible for providing
quality education, the EESC deems it positive that the Commis-
sion ‘supports the setting up and testing phase of transnational
evaluation and accreditation of single and joint programmes of
studies’, together with the establishment of ‘European accredita-
tion in fields like medicine or engineering’, which could repre-
sent a key step towards allowing the ‘much debated “mutual
recognition” [to] become a reality’.

3.2.7
One of the principles on which the Recommendation
is basing quality assurance systems is the involvement of all the
stakeholders.

The EESC believes that socio-economic operators have an
important contribution to make here, with their particular
experience which could be most valuable in terms of
the
methods used. Employers' and workers' organisations, as
forums for voicing labour market concerns, together with other
directly affected parties, must be able to play a key role in this
whole process of making systematic improvements to the
quality of higher education in Europe.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Anne-Marie SIGMUND