Report from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Report on progress in quality assurance in higher education
Date: 2009-09-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: education policy, higher education, report, teaching quality

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 21.9.2009 
COM(2009) 487 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Report on progress in quality assurance in higher education 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND 
THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 

Report on progress in quality assurance in higher education 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Quality assurance in higher education is at the heart of efforts to build a coherent, compatible 
and  attractive  European  Higher  Education  Area  (EHEA),  in  line  with  the  objectives  of  the 
pan-European  Bologna  Process.  Over  the  past  decade,  there  has  been  growing  interest,  in 
Europe  and  worldwide,  in  quality  assurance  in  higher  education.  With  globalisation, 
economic  integration  and  increased  academic  and  professional  mobility,  there  is  a  growing 
need  for  the  recognition  of  qualifications  outside  the  country  which  awards  them.  The 
“borderless”  delivery  of  higher  education  has  made  cross-border  quality  assurance 
increasingly  important.  The  emergence  of  so-called  “degree  mills”  (fake  universities  selling 
fake “degrees” on the internet) makes it vital to distinguish legitimate education undertaken 
abroad  from  spurious  qualifications.  Quality  assurance  helps  to  make  higher  education 
transparent and trustworthy for European citizens and employers as well as for students and 
scholars from other continents. 

Within  the  framework  of  the  Lisbon  Strategy,  the  European  Commission  has  called  for 
modernised  curricula  and  more  effective  funding  and  governance  of  higher  education.  It 
acknowledged  the  importance  of  the  Bologna  reforms,  including  quality  assurance1.  There 
have  been  two  Recommendations  from  the  European  Parliament  and  Council  to  promote  a 
quality assurance culture in higher education. The first, in 19982, called for the  support  and 
where  necessary,  the  creation  of,  transparent  quality  assurance  systems.  The  second,  in 
February  2006,  dealt  with  further  European  cooperation  in  quality  assurance  in  higher 
education3.  

The  purpose  of  the  2006  Recommendation  was  to  encourage  higher  education  institutions 
(HEIs) to introduce or develop internal quality assurance systems and for quality assurance or 
accreditation  agencies  to  apply  the  European  Standards  and  Guidelines  on  Quality 
Assurance4, in this area. Representatives of national authorities, the higher education sector, 
quality assurance and accreditation agencies, together with social partners, were also invited 
to  set  up  a  'European  Register  of  Quality  Assurance  Agencies'  which  would  allow  HEIs  to 
choose,  from  amongst  the  agencies  in  the  register,  an  agency  which  meets  their  needs  and 
profile.  The  Recommendation  also  called  for  Member  States  to  enable  HEIs  to  seek 
accreditation  from  registered  agencies  outside  their  own  country;  for  cooperation  between 

1 
2 
3 
4 

COM(2005) 152 final of 20.4.2005 
Recommendation 98/561/ΕC of 24 September 1998 (OJ L 270 of 7.10.1998) 
Recommendation 2006/143/EC of 15 February 2006 (OJ L 64 of 4.3.2006) 
Adopted at the Bologna Ministerial Conference in Bergen in 2005, see 
http://www.enqa.eu/pubs_esg.lasso 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
quality  assurance  agencies  in  order  to  build  mutual  trust;  and  for  public  access  to  the 
assessments made by the agencies.  

The 2006 Recommendation invited the Commission to: 

(1) 

Continue, in close cooperation with the Member States, its support for cooperation 
between  HEIs,  quality  assurance  and  accreditation  agencies,  competent  authorities 
and other bodies in the field; 

(2) 

Present triennial reports on progress in the development of quality assurance systems 
in the various Member States and on cooperation activities at European level. 

This  is  the  first  triennial  report  on  progress  achieved.  It  analyses  the  situation  at  national, 
European and international level and suggests areas for further development.  

2. 

MAIN DEVELOPMENTS AT NATIONAL LEVEL  

This section of the report outlines the role of external quality assurance, the current situation 
and experience with quality assurance standards. 

2.1. 

Role of external quality assurance  

The  2006  Recommendation  acknowledges  that  the  main  responsibility  for  quality  in  higher 
education rests with HEIs themselves. HEIs internal quality assurance systems aim to monitor 
and  enhance  quality  and  to  develop  a  real  “quality  culture”.  However,  they  often  lack  the 
independence  and  public  accessibility  required  to  inform  stakeholders  in  a  transparent  and 
accountable way. Providing such information is the role of external quality assurance, which 
is the main thrust of the Recommendation and is carried out by independent quality assurance 
agencies.  

External quality assurance may consist of:  

–  Evaluating  (“auditing”)  the  quality  of  a  given  higher  education  institution,  its 

programmes or units;  

–  Comparing quality at different HEIs in a given area/discipline (“benchmarking”); 

–  Guaranteeing 

that  certain  pre-defined  “standards”  of  quality  are  met 

(“accreditation”); 

–  Awarding  various  quality  seals  usually  designed  to  signal  high  quality  or 

“excellence”. 

2.2. 

The diverse landscape of quality assurance across Europe  

Many  HEIs  in  Europe  have  been  building  up  their  “quality  culture”  and  internal  quality 
assurance  systems,  mainly  through  inter-institutional  cooperation,  mutual  assistance  and 
benchmarking5. This positive development should be further encouraged.  

5 

Trends V, Universities shaping the EHEA, EUA, 2007. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The  emergence  of  new  quality  assurance  agencies  and  networks  is  the  most  significant 
development in the European landscape. This trend began after the 1998 Recommendation but 
has spread and accelerated in recent years. There are now quality assurance agencies in almost 
all  countries  of  the  EHEA,  although  they  are  quite  heterogeneous  in  terms  of  size,  scope, 
statute,  focus  and  international  capacity.  Many  are  small,  newly  created  with  only  limited 
experience and European/international exposure. With a few exceptions, their remit is limited 
to  their  country  (and  sometimes  their  region):  only  a  very  small  number  are  active  outside 
their own territory. Most agencies focus on programme evaluation, but a growing number are 
becoming involved in institutional accreditations or audits6. 
The  Bologna  Process  Stocktaking  Report  20097,  confirms  that  HEIs  in  most  countries  are 
actively working to establish coherent internal quality assurance systems and align them with 
external  assessment  procedures.  The  main  challenge  for  most  countries  is  to  design 
assessment  procedures  to  measure  learning  outcomes.  The  Stocktaking  Report  uses  three 
indicators to measure progress in quality assurance:  

•  Stage  of  development  of  external  quality  assurance:  countries  score  best  if  they 
have  an  external  system  applying  to  all  institutions  working  in  accordance  with 
the European Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance.  

•  Level  of  student  participation:  countries  score  best  if  students  participate  in  the 
governance  of  national  quality  assurance  bodies,  in  external  reviews  of  HEIs 
and/or programmes, in internal quality assurance processes and in preparation of 
self-assessment reports.  

•  Level  of  international  participation:  countries  score  best  if  there  is  international 
participation  within  external  reviews  of  institutions  and/or  programmes,  in  the 
governance  of  national  quality  assurance  bodies  and  in  external  evaluations  of 
national quality assurance agencies.  

Examples  of  Member  States  that  score  well  on  these  three  indicators  are  Austria,  Belgium, 
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, 
Sweden and the United Kingdom.  
The ENQA Survey 20088 indicates that whilst most agencies have a national 'remit', this is not 
always the case. In some countries different parts of the higher education sector have different 
agencies,  e.g.  in  Germany  a  real  market  has  been  established  with  a  number  of  'competing' 
agencies  under  an  accreditation  council.  Most  quality  assurance  agencies  are  in  a  period  of 
change,  driven  by  the  Bologna  Process  and  the  international  context.  Another  major 
development is the increasing involvement of stakeholders in quality assurance issues. 

2.3. 

Experience with quality assurance standards and guidelines 

The  European  Standards  and  Guidelines  on  quality  assurance  were  adopted  in  2005.  They 
consist of three parts: principles for HEIs’ own internal quality assurance system; standards 
for the external evaluation of HEIs and their programmes by agencies; standards applying to 
quality assurance agencies themselves. They are meant as a “generic” common reference with 

6 
7 

8 

Quality Procedures in the EHEA and Beyond, 2nd ENQA Survey, ENQA, 2008. 
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/documents/ 
Stocktaking_report_2009_FINAL.pdf 
Quality Procedures in the EHEA and Beyond – Second ENQA Survey (2008) 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
a  certain  margin  for  interpretation  in  the  context  of  different  countries,  disciplines  and 
institutions.  

Awareness  of  the  quality  standards  varies  between  countries  and  constituencies,  but 
considerable  experience  with  their  application  has  been  gained:  thousands  of  people 
(university staff, experts, students, representatives of business and society) have participated 
in  self-evaluation  procedures,  served  on  evaluation  panels  or  been  interviewed  during 
evaluation visits. The participation of students in quality assurance as a basic requirement in 
the  EHEA  has  gained  ground  in  recent  years,  although  this  involvement  often  remains 
confined to certain aspects or procedures9. The involvement of business representatives and of 
non-nationals  varies  significantly  in  internal  and  external  quality  assurance  and  is  generally 
stronger in agencies’ evaluation panels than in their decision making bodies.  

The definition of quality assurance standards is under continuous development. An example is 
the  organisation  of  seminars  by  the  E4  Group10  on  issues  such  as:  the  use  of  learning 
outcomes; the link to qualifications frameworks; the publication of quality assurance reports; 
the  recognition  of  prior  learning;  transnational  education;  the  internationalisation  of 
procedures; and the cooperation and compatibility with other world regions. 

The standards provide useful generic references, but are still interpreted in different ways in 
various  countries,  agencies  and  HEIs.  They  are  seen  either  as  a  check-list  of  formal 
requirements,  as a  code  of good professional practice, or  as soft guidelines.  The  notion that 
agencies  should  have  overall  compliance  rather  than  meet  each  of  the  standards  seems 
reasonable, but it leaves the door open to a wide range of interpretations. 

The experience of European HEIs and quality assurance agencies with the quality standards is 
still largely restricted to “traditional” initial higher education, although, some special attention 
has  been  paid  to  distance  education  within  certain  national  contexts.  Overall,  however, 
transnational  education  in  all  its  forms,  continuing  education  and  lifelong  learning 
qualifications in general, short-cycle higher education, and distance and online education have 
remained largely outside the scope of quality assurance. 

It is also worth noting that despite that fact that the 'European Standards and Guidelines' were 
developed  in  context  of  the  Bologna  Process,  they  do  not  refer  to  the  importance  of 
complying  with  the  EHEA’s  basic  requirements  (e.g.  concerning  the  Qualifications 
Framework or the use of ECTS11) and main priorities (such as employability and mobility).  

3. 

MAIN DEVELOPMENTS AT EUROPEAN AND INTERNATIONAL LEVEL 

This section of the report examines European developments in quality assurance and looks at 
international trends that are shaping work in this area. 

3.1. 

Strong growth in Europe's quality assurance infrastructure 

The  growth  of  quality  agencies  has  nurtured  a  strong  development  of  quality  assurance 
networks.  The  Commission  is  supporting  the  European  Association  for  Quality  Assurance 

9 
10 

11 

Bologna with Student eyes, ESU, 2009.  
Comprised by ENQA, the European University Association (EUA, www.eua.be), the European Student 
Unions  (ESU,  www.esib.org)  and  the  European  Association  of  Institutions  of  Higher  Education 
(EURASHE, www.eurashe.eu). 
European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
(ENQA)12, created in 2000. It has increased membership quickly to 48 full members from 23 
different  countries.  The  “E4  Group”  proposed  the  European  Standards  and  Guidelines  for 
quality assurance, adopted in 2005. This group has also organised seminars examining various 
key  quality  assurance  issues.  Various  regional  clusters  of  agencies  are  active  e.g.  in 
Central/Eastern Europe or the Nordic countries. The European Consortium for Accreditation 
(ECA)13,  which  has  15  member  organisations  from  10  countries,  has  actively  pursued  the 
mutual recognition of accreditation decisions between its members.  

12 
13 

www.enqa.eu 
www.ecaconsortium.net 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Good practice 

through 

the  European  Commission 

Within  the  ECA  consortium  of  accreditation  agencies,  trust-building  based  on  intense 
cooperation  has  led  to  a  first  series  of  bilateral  agreements  for  the  recognition  of 
accreditation  decisions  and  to  the  first  experiment  of  making  these  decisions  publicly 
accessible  on  Internet 
funded  database  called 
Qrossroads.14 
The European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR)15 is the major new body in the European 
quality  assurance  architecture.  It  was  set  up  by  the  E4  Group  as  a  new  legal  body  in  2008, 
with the support of the Commission, in response to the 2007 meeting of Bologna Ministers in 
London and in line with the principles set out in the 2006 Recommendation. The Register is 
open to agencies operating in the EHEA on condition that they demonstrate their compliance 
with  the  European  Standards  and  Guidelines.  There  is  a  simplified  procedure  for  the 
admission  of  full  members  of  ENQA,  who  already  satisfy  this  condition,  but  candidate 
agencies  may  also  apply  directly  to  EQAR.  Decisions  about  admissions  are  taken  by  the 
Register Committee whose members are nominated by the E4 Group and other stakeholders. 
Governments may become EQAR members but only with observer status in the Committee. 
The  first  two  rounds  of  registrations  of  December  2008  and  April  2009  resulted  in  the 
admission of nine ENQA members into EQAR. More are planned to follow soon. 

The considerable development of the quality assurance infrastructure in Europe over the past 
few years is in line with the 2006 Recommendation and with the Bologna Process. However, 
the variety of actors in quality assurance is large and some aspects may need to be reviewed to 
improve  the  transparency  of  the  system  as  a  whole.  In  particular,  agencies  in  small  higher 
education  communities  face  an  additional  challenge  to  achieve  real  credibility  beyond  their 
boundaries.  There  is  some  concern  that  agencies’  membership  in  ENQA  or  even  their 
registration  in  the  EQAR  might  not  generate  the  necessary  level  of  mutual  trust.  Such  trust 
however is the basis for the transparency and credibility within the EHEA as a whole. 

With  multiple  layers  of  agencies  and  networks,  the  system  can  be  difficult  to  read  and  use. 
The  basic  requirement  for  membership  in  both  ENQA  and  EQAR  is  compliance  with  the 
European  Standards  and  Guidelines  and  the  two  bodies  have  a  number  of  members  in 
common, but not all. Hence, much more effort will be needed before the EHEA has a readable 
and  user-friendly  quality  assurance  system.  It  is  in  many  cases  still  unclear  what  being 
accredited  in  one  country,  even  by  a  registered  agency,  means  in  another.  It  is  also  unclear 
how  the  misuse  of  such  an  accreditation  could  be  prevented,  e.g.  in  the  case  of  a  higher 
education institution which operates in several countries without offering in all locations the 
guarantees  that  led  to  the  initial  accreditation.  Stronger  warranties  would  help,  since  the 
credibility  of  the  European  quality  assurance  system  may  hinge  on  the  least  trustworthy 
agency accepted or maintained in the Register and the weakest HEIs with accreditation from a 
registered agency.  

14 
15 

www.qrossroads.eu 
www.eqar.eu 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Good Practice 

Joining forces: NVAO is the joint quality assurance agency of the Netherlands and Flanders 
(Belgium). These territories share a common language but have significantly different higher 
education systems and degrees. The single agency helps to increase the evaluation resources 
and enhance the credibility of NVAO’s quality seals.16 

Increasing  objectivity:  the  Austrian  Accreditation  Council  uses  almost  exclusively  foreign 
evaluators  and  Austrians  are  not  in  a  majority  in  the  decision-making  Board.  This  adds  to 
interests  may  distort 
international  credibility  by  preventing  suspicions 
accreditation decisions.17 

that  vested 

3.2. 

Quality assurance still has a limited European dimension 

The 2006 Recommendation encourages Member States to enable HEIs to seek accreditation 
(or  other  quality  seals)  from  registered  agencies  outside  their  own  country.  This  can  only 
become a reality if several conditions co-exist:  

–  HEIs need sufficient autonomy to apply for a foreign quality seal; 

–  Agencies  need  to  be  able,  allowed  and  willing  to  operate  beyond  their  national 

borders; 

–  National  governments  and  quality  assurance  agencies  must  acknowledge 

registered agencies from other countries and recognise their conclusions. 

There are still only a few examples of HEIs seeking evaluations or accreditation from foreign 
agencies, apart from cases of subject-specific agencies and of some joint-degree courses. Only 
few governments have opened quality assurance in their country to other registered agencies 
(an  example  though  can  be  found  in  the  Netherlands).  Universities  of  the  EHEA  seeking  a 
quality seal in a given discipline still tend to turn to US agencies like ABET18or AACSB19. 
There  seems,  however,  to  be  a  growing  number  of  agencies  that  are  preparing  for  quality 
assurance activities outside their national context.  

Good practice 

Engineering  schools  and  technical  universities  from  several  countries  have  received  the 
accreditation of the French Commission du Titre d’Ingénieur (CTI). CTI has also carried out 
joint  evaluations/accreditations  with  other  agencies.  Business  schools/faculties  in  various 
countries  have  been  “accredited”  by  the  German  ACQUIN  agency.  German  HEIs  have 
shown an interest in the quality audit provided by the Swiss agency (OAQ).  

Two  successful  European  quality  seals  exist  since  before  1998:  the  EQUIS  in  management 
studies20  and  the  European  University  Association’s  Institutional  Evaluation  Programme 
(IEP)21. Both offer an institutional rather than programme-based approach, draw on genuinely 
international  evaluation  panels  and  are  now  attracting  interest  from  outside  Europe.  A  few 

16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 

www.nvao.net 
www.akkreditierungsrat.at 
http://www.abet.org/the_basics.shtml  
http://www.aacsb.edu/ 
http://www.efmd.org 
http://www.eua.be/events/institutional-evaluation-programme/home  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                 
newer  subject-based  initiatives  have  developed  more  recently  from  thematic  networks  in 
chemistry and engineering (both with financial support from the Commission) or are still in 
the planning phase (e.g. in musical education). 

Good practice 

The  Eurochemistry  seal  started  at  the  bachelor  level  but  now  also  exists  for  master  and 
doctorate  degrees.  It  is  awarded  directly  by  the  Eurochemistry  network  to  programmes 
meeting the agreed standards22. 

The EUR-ACE label in engineering exists at the bachelor and master level. Standards were 
defined at European level, but are applied through national quality assurance agencies that 
are authorised to issue EUR-ACE “labels” together with their national accreditation. Several 
hundred  labels  have  already  been  awarded,  but  they  are  still  available  from  only  seven 
national agencies23. 

However,  overall  cross-border  quality  assurance  is  still  limited.  As  a  result  there  is  little 
comparable information for the stakeholders, in particular students, to make informed choices 
about where and what to study. 

3.3. 

International Trends: growing commitment to transparency 

Several new quality assurance networks have emerged in various world regions – sometimes 
using  Europe  as  a  reference  model.  The  worldwide  dialogue  on  quality  assurance  has 
intensified  within  the  framework  of  the  International  Network  for  Quality  Assurance 
Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE)24.  

Another  major  development  at  both  European  and  global  level  is  the  growing  number  of 
international  university  rankings.  These  are  often  criticised  in  the  higher  education 
community  for  their  methodological  shortfalls  and  their  mono-dimensional  approach  (i.e. 
their focus on research achievements in 'hard sciences' and their disregard of performances of 
universities in areas like humanities and social sciences, teaching and community outreach). 
Notwithstanding  these  shortcomings,  rankings  can  be  a  useful  tool  for  comparison  and 
contrast  between  HEIs  and  their  programmes.  The  European  Commission  has  recently 
launched a feasibility study to develop a new multi-dimensional and customised approach to 
the  global  ranking  of  universities25.  The  development  of  transparency  tools  in  close 
consultation with stakeholders was supported in the 2009 Bologna Ministerial Conference26. 

The  main  developments  in  quality  assurance  in  Europe  should  be  seen  in  the  light  of  these 
trends.  

4. 

CONCLUSIONS  AND  SUGGESTIONS  FOR  THE  FURTHER  DEVELOPMENT  OF  QUALITY 
ASSURANCE IN EUROPE 

Over the past few years, Europe’s quality assurance system has developed enormously, both 
with  respect  to  internal  quality  assurance  in  European  HEIs  and  to  external  evaluation  and 

22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

http://ectn-assoc.cpe.fr/chemistry-eurolabels/default.htm 
http://www.enaee.eu 
http://www.inqaahe.org  
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc62_en.htm 
Leuven-Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué, April 2009, 
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/conference/  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
accreditation  of  institutions  and  programmes27.  Many  new  quality  assurance  agencies  and 
networks have been created, there is an increased awareness of the European Standards and 
Guidelines  on  quality  assurance  and  there  are a  growing  number  of  agencies  which  prepare 
for  quality  assurance  outside  their  national  context.  Notwithstanding  this  overall  positive 
development, the full implementation of the 2006 Recommendation appears to require further 
efforts in a number of areas. 

4.1. 

Looking at the quality assurance infrastructure  

Some  features  of  Europe’s  quality  assurance  infrastructure  appear  to  require  further 
discussion in order to allow for a higher level of trust between agencies and hence a sufficient 
level  of  transparency  for  users  and  society.  Quality  assurance  agencies  are  still  a  relatively 
new  feature  in  the  EHEA.  They  will  need  to  demonstrate  their  independence  and 
professionalism  to  build  trust  among  stakeholders.  They  will  further  need  to  convince  their 
European  peers  that  they  offer  a  sufficient  level  of  comparability,  which  is  important  as  a 
precondition for the cross-recognition of degrees and the promotion of student mobility. 

The  Commission  is  aware  of  the  risk  that  agencies  may  have  become  too  numerous  while 
their size remains rather small. Therefore, the possibility of agency mergers might merit some 
consideration  via  the  existing  European  quality  assurance  networks  (ENQA,  ECA),  e.g.  by 
regrouping  agencies  on  the  basis  of  regional  or  linguistic  proximity.  Agencies  could  also 
consider broadening the scope of their activities in order to deal more adequately with lifelong 
learning, distance, online, vocational, transnational and private higher education. 

Creating a clearer distinction of roles between ENQA, EQAR and the European Consortium 
for  Accreditation  (ECA),  with  a  stronger  focus  on  the  benefit  of  quality  assurance  users, 
might  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  European quality  assurance  infrastructure.  Providing  an 
easy, online access to the European-wide list of evaluated institutions and programmes could 
be discussed as a priority of EQAR. The Qrossroads experiment, started by ECA with support 
from  the  European  Commission,  may  provide  a  useful  point  of  departure  for  a  much  larger 
scale database.  Close cooperation with the NARIC-ENIC28 network is likely to enhance the 
database’s potential to contribute to the recognition of qualifications and to foster mobility.  

4.2. 

Revisiting the European Standards and Guidelines 

The  European  Standards  and  Guidelines  could  be  further  developed,  to  make  quality 
assurance  more coherent  with  the development of the EHEA, as was envisaged in the 2006 
Recommendation. This exercise would need to involve agencies and other quality assurance 
stakeholders within the Bologna Process framework. Such a development could consider the 
following three aspects: 

(1) 

Complying  with  the  main  structure  (three  cycles)  as  a  basic  quality  requirement  in 
the  EHEA.  This  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  European  Qualifications 
Framework  (EQF)  and  the  Qualifications  Framework  of  the  EHEA  adopted  in 
200529.  A  clearer  reference  in  the  guidelines  should  be  given  to  the  Diploma 
Supplement and the ECTS, since these are not fully implemented in most countries.  

27 
28 
29 

Trends V, op.cit.  
http://www.enic-naric.net  
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/qf/overarching.asp 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(2) 

(3) 

In the EHEA, the quality standards would encompass priorities such as employability 
and  mobility  (in  line  with  the  target  set  for  mobility  in  the  2009  Communiqué  of 
Bologna Ministers). 

The  standards  for  internal  quality  assurance  systems  of  HEIs  might  also  factor  in 
other  key  dimensions  such  as  the  quality  of  student  services  in  general30, 
career/employment guidance for students and alumni31, the development of financial 
management  capacity  and  the  implementation  of  the  European  Charter  for 
Researches and the Code of Conduct for the Recruitment of Researchers32. 

4.3. 

A stronger European dimension in quality assurance 

The  possibility  for  HEIs’  to  choose  from  among  registered  agencies,  as  highlighted  in  the 
2006  Recommendation,  hinges  on  the  development  of  a  larger  number  of  European  quality 
seals.  They  could  be  based  on  broad  disciplinary  fields  (rather  than  on  narrow  areas  of 
professional  specialisation)  and  awarded  either  by  separate  specialised  agencies  or  in 
conjunction  with  national  evaluations  in  the  corresponding  field.  The  Commission  is 
supporting the development of initiatives of this type33. 

National quality assurance agencies should be encouraged to develop activities beyond their 
borders  and  to  seek  the  recognition  of  their  decisions  in  other  countries,  e.g.  through 
conventions of mutual recognition. HEIs could be encouraged to use the services of registered 
agencies  outside  their  country.  There  may  be  a  need  to  clarify  the  portability  of  national 
accreditation within the EHEA and also the issue of quality assurance for cross-border higher 
education  within  the  EHEA.  Given  the  growing  importance  of  joint  and  double  degree 
courses  in  Europe,  clear  principles  might  be  useful  to  avoid  the  need  for  multiple 
accreditations. 

The  Commission  supports  the  development  of  transparency  tools  complementing  quality 
assurance, in particular those providing a comparative view on the quality of HEIs and their 
programmes.  This  includes  the  aforementioned  feasibility  study  on  a  multi-dimensional, 
customised university ranking34.  

The  international  outreach  and  credibility  of  the  EHEA  may  be  further  promoted  through 
cooperation in quality assurance with other world regions. This point has been underlined in 
the  statement  of  the  first  Bologna  Policy  Forum  in  Louvain-la-Neuve,  which  specifically 
mentioned  quality  assurance  as  an  area  for  concrete  cooperation  between  the  46  Bologna 
countries and countries from across the world. 35 

In  the  present  report  the  Commission  has  highlighted  the  positive  developments  in  quality 
assurance in higher education but has also made some suggestions for further discussion and 
development. The Commission would like to invite all stakeholders to reflect on this report 
and to ensure the appropriate follow-up to the 2006 Recommendation. The Commission looks 
forward to being able to report on further progress in 2012. 

30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

Bologna with Student eyes, ESU, 2009. 
Leuven-LLN Communiqué, op.cit. 
http://ec.europa.eu/eracareers/pdf/am509774CEE_EN_E4.pdf 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/erasmus/doc910_en.htm 
http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc62_en.htm 
http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeronderwijs/bologna/forum/  
 Bologna_Policy_Forum_Statement_29April2009.pdf 

EN 

11 

   EN