Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the 'Proposal for a Council recommendation on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education'
C 64/76 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 2. 98 Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the ‘Proposal for a Council recommendation on European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education’ (98/C 64/13) THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS, having regard to the proposal for a Council Recommendation on European Cooperation in Quality Assurance in Higher Education [COM(97) 159 final 97/0121 (SYN)] presented by the European Commission; having regard to the decision taken by the Council on 5 June 1997, under Article 126 and the first paragraph of Article 198c of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to consult the Committee of the Regions on the matter; having regard to its decision on 11 June 1997 to direct Commission 6 for Education and Training to draw up the relevant opinion; having regard to the draft Opinion (CdR 285/97 rev. ) adopted by Commission 6 on 29 September 1997 (rapporteur: Ms Freehill); having regard to the Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the European Commission Green Paper on education-training-research: the obstacles to transnational mobility (1); its Opinion on education and training in the face of technological, industrial and social challenges: first thoughts (2); its Opinion on the White Paper on education and training and learning towards the learning society (3) and its draft Opinion on a proposal amending the Decision 819/95/EC establishing the Community action programme Socrates (4); having regard to the European Commission Report on the European pilot project for evaluating quality in higher education, unanimously adopted the following Opinion at its 20th plenary session on 19 and 20 November 1997 (meeting of 19 November). 1. Introduction 1. 1. The responses of the Member States to the Commission Memorandum on higher education (5) stressed the importance of quality assessment in an increasingly diversified higher education system. These responses, coupled with years of cooperation under the Erasmus programme, encouraged Community action in the area of quality assessment and quality assurance in higher education. At its meeting on 21 November 1991, the Council requested the Commission to undertake the following steps: — financing of a comparative study of the evaluation methods used in the Member States; — development of a limited number of cooperative pilot projects in this area; (1) OJ C 215, 16. 7. 1997, p. 1. (2) OJ C 100, 2. 4. 1996, p. 106. (3) OJ C 182, 24. 6. 1996, p. 15. (4) OJ C 379, 15. 12. 1997, p. 17. (5) COM(91) 349 final. — implementation of mechanisms for strengthening European cooperation, in the light of experience already acquired. 1. 2. Following this request and on the basis of the study by the Commission on the methods of quality assessment used in the Member States published in Octo- ber 1993, the Commission launched two European pilot projects to test a common methodology for quality evaluation open to national adaptation. These pilot projects, in which 42 education institutions participated, were implemented in cooperation with the competent authorities of the Member States. There was broad satisfaction with the launch 1. 3. and implementation of these pilot projects and a growing realization of the need to guarantee the quality of higher education. The Commission therefore proposed that a Council Recommendation be presented to introduce quality evaluation systems based on the results of these pilot projects. 27. 2. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 64/77 2. General comments The Commission proposes to Member States that 2. 1. transparent quality assessment and quality assurance systems be established within their responsibilities for the operation of their higher education systems. These quality systems aim to: — safeguard the quality of higher education within the particular economic, social and cultural context of their countries while taking into account the European dimension and international requirements; with experts and devising instruments for obtaining necessary information; — link quality assurance with other Community activi- ties under the Socrates and Leonardo programmes or with the recognition of qualifications at the European level; — prepare methods to achieve better integration of graduates into the European labour market. — help higher education institutions to use quality assurance techniques to promote organizational flexibility and improvement; 2. 5. This network will be eligible for financial support in the framework of the Socrates and Leonardo Da Vinci programmes. — underpin European and world-wide cooperation in quality assessment. These systems, it is proposed, will be based on 2. 2. the following principles: — autonomy and independence of the bodies respon- sible for quality assessment and quality assurance; 2. 6. It is proposed to present a report every two years on the development of quality assessment and assurance systems in the Member States, on cooperation activities at the European level and to submit proposals to strengthen these systems. — relating evaluation procedures to the profile of institutions; 3. Specific comments — a combination of internal and external assessments; — the involvement of all relevant players; — the publication of evaluation reports. The systems will also ensure that follow-up 2. 3. actions are taken at the appropriate level, which will enable higher education institutions to implement their plans for improving the quality of education and facilitating the integration of graduates into the labour market more effectively. It is also proposed that priority be given by public authorities and the management of higher education institutions to continuous exchange of experience and cooperation in quality assessment and quality assurance with other Member States and inter- national organizations active in the field of higher education. To enable this it is proposed to establish a 2. 4. European Quality Assurance Network with the follow- ing tasks: — exchange of information and experience; — provide technical assistance to individual Member State authorities in implementing projects; — provide assistance to groups of institutions from different Member States to cooperate in quality assessment or assurance, particularly in the frame- work of ‘thematic networks’ under the Socrates programme; — assist institutions by providing information on new methodological developments, facilitating contact 3. 1. Quality assessment and assurance 3. 1. 1. The Committee of the Regions welcomes in principle the proposal by the European Commission to support European cooperation in quality assurance in higher education and the establishment of effective quality assessment systems in the different higher edu- cation institutions in the various Member States. 3. 1. 2. It points out that the improvement of the quality of higher education institutions directly concerns local and regional authorities since these institutions play an important role in the economic, social and cultural life of the regions and localities where they are located. Good quality higher education is, for example, an important factor in attracting companies to the region and enabling them to grow. 3. 1. 3. The COR must also re-emphasize the impor- tance of the Community dimension, in maintaining the commitment of higher education institutions and relevant organizations in evaluation and in supporting cooperation and exchange of experiences that are essential in an evolving European educational environ- ment. 3. 1. 4. However, the COR does underline that the value of quality assessment is in strengthening mutual trust and should not be imposed, at either the European or national levels. It must respect cultural diversity, C 64/78 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 2. 98 protect existing academic norms and values and guard against the harmonization of education within Europe. In this respect, the COR feels that the thrust of the recommendation is well grounded. 3. 1. 5. The COR does stress that the objective of any evaluation must be to improve the quality of education and as such the quality of higher education institutions. Therefore, evaluation of the quality of individual disci- plines should be combined with the evaluation of institutional structures and institutional quality assur- ance systems. This should however not be used to rank the performance of education institutions but as a tool by institutions to optimize resources, anticipate future developments and assist the preparation of strategies for constant adaptation of institutions in a rapidly changing environment. 3. 1. 6. The Committee of the Regions stresses that a European system of quality assessment will only be possible if the Member States provide the appropriate national frameworks and if Member States are commit- ted to the development of quality assurance systems and cooperation at the European level. This presupposes that account is taken of the fact that the introduction and organization of internal and external evaluation is the task of the higher education institutions and the individual Member States or regions. National frame- works must allow full autonomy to educational insti- tutions and allow a synergy to develop between national policy and the experiences of European quality assess- ment systems. 3. 1. 7. The Committee of the Regions would however consider that there is a danger in quality assessment becoming a self-sufficient activity, in that potential abuse of the system could occur in relation to the issues of the promotion of academic prestige and budgetary allocation. The COR therefore emphasizes that quality assessment in higher education must not be linked directly with these issues. 3. 1. 8. The COR must also caution against absorbing an institution’s energies and resources in servicing systems of evaluation. Quality assessment must not lose sight of the primary objective of these institutions i. e. teaching and lead to a preoccupation with measurement rather than substance. High costs resulting from wide- ranging administrative activities which bear no relation to the intended effects should be avoided. would therefore propose that a set of qualitative criteria be used as a basis for a quality assessment methodology to be supplemented by other criteria which would take into account the individual institutional or national educational milieu. These qualitative criteria, acting as a guideline, must be acceptable to educational institutions and should be drawn from the experiences of the pilot projects, initiated by the Commission in the 1990s and which were generally well received by the educational institutions in each Member State. In this regard, educational establishments will be able to ensure an effective self-assessment system, with the necessary support being provided by the competent authorities within each Member State. 3. 2. 3. The results of this methodology would act as a yardstick for action, as a means of implementing improvements based on other institution’s experiences, provide a Community dimension to the quality of education and as a guide for the mutual recognition of qualifications. 3. 2. 4. The Committee of the Regions agrees that any quality assessment system must be based on the autonomy of the education institution and provide for the institution to apply suitable adaptations to the methodology used. Education institutions must also have the capability to initiate appropriate measures in the light of the results of the assessment and use the fruits of exchange of experience, which the COR believes must be a prime element of the methodology, to do so. The proposed European Quality Assurance Network with the support of the Member State must facilitate this. 3. 2. 5. The COR also underlines the importance of involving all relevant actors in the assessment process and in particular the formal involvement of student representatives into the decision making process. The student is a necessary component of quality assessment and as both the consumer and end product of the services of higher education institutions is a vital source of information for improving quality. 3. 2. Principles of Quality Assessment The COR endorses the principles on which 3. 2. 1. the proposal is based and would support the full implementation of the principles of subsidiarity and transparency within assessment systems undertaken by educational institutions. 3. 2. 2. However, quality assessment calls for a uniform and universally acceptable methodology. The COR The involvement of interests outside the edu- 3. 2. 6. cation sector, such as local government, industry and other social partners allows for the broadest concept of quality — including cooperation between higher education and local society — to be applied. The involvement of local and regional authorities ensures that the specific economic, social and cultural needs of the locality or region where the institution is located are effectively taken into account in assessing quality and that the results of quality evaluation contribute towards local and regional development. The involvement of 27. 2. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 64/79 employers, practitioners and recent graduates (approxi- mately 5 years) provides the benefit of their own experiences, but also their expectations of higher edu- cation institutions. The COR believes that the inclusion of these interests must be encouraged and facilitated not just in the assessment process, but must also be represented in the European Quality Assurance Network and the supporting national structures. 3. 3. European Quality Assurance Network 3. 3. 1. The COR welcomes the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Network providing it is not given institutional status. It should act as a necessary mechanism to continue to promote a quality assessment culture in European education institutions and to assist in the coordination of the various assessment systems in the Member States. 3. 3. 2. However, the COR considers that the structure of the network and its legal and financial arrangements need to be more clearly defined and that its range of functions should be expanded to include: — a role in evaluating and combining assessment methodologies from the various higher education institutions including the revision of the evaluation methodologies and the development of a mechanism of comparative assessment of institutions. This task should allow for the development of a framework system applicable to all disciplines in all higher education institutions and facilitate comparison at the European level; — provide direct assistance to higher education insti- tutions in combining quality assessment systems with strategic planning measures, the development of courses, the mutual recognition of academic qualifications and to reach a common understanding of what is meant by quality teaching and higher education. Professional institutes and organizations already undertake this type of activity, but the proposed network will provide the European dimen- sion; — act as an agency to assist in the exchange of both academic and management personnel between institutions, provide training to those involved in assessment and to promote a culture of team work in higher education establishments. This will be particularly important in the early stages of developing the system. 3. 3. 3. The COR stresses that this network must be independent and in this regard it would like to see a clarification of its position or relationship with existing academic and professional non-governmental networks already active in quality assessment in higher education and on the proposed composition of the network. 3. 3. 4. The COR would also like a more detailed outline of the proposed operating structure for the implementation of the assessments and for the Quality Assurance Network. 3. 3. 5. As part of the network’s role the recommen- dation proposes that it should prepare methods to achieve better integration of graduates in the European labour market. The COR considers that this is an objective linked to quality assessment. Increased cooper- ation in quality assessment can enable higher education institutions to improve their flexibility in responding to local and regional labour market demands and in particular, to the challenges of new organization and systems of work resulting from the information society and the globalization of the economy. In this respect, it refers to its Opinion on the European Commission Green Paper on Education-training-research: the obstacles to transnational mobility where it called on the Com- mission to give emphasis to the development of quality assurance within its lines of action noting that this was essential in order to promote transnational mobility which it considered to be a prerequisite in creating opportunities in the labour market. 3. 3. 6. The recommendation should therefore link the problems associated with the integration of graduates into the European labour market outlined in the Green Paper (1) with quality assessment and suggest a more clearly defined role for the network. 3. 3. 7. The recommendation also proposes that this European Quality Assurance Network may receive financial support from the Socrates and Leonardo in a recent proposal (2) the programmes. However, Commission indicated that the current budget for Socrates was unable to meet demand effectively. Demand in 1996, for example, was four times the budget available and the Commission has proposed a budgetary increase to cover the current programme period. The COR is concerned that it will not be 3. 3. 8. possible to allocate funding to the network from either the Socrates or Leonardo programmes, if it has not been provided for in the proposed increased budget. If this, as it expects, is the case the COR considers that such a network and its activities should be incorporated into a revised Socrates Programme. The COR believes that a sizeable portion of exchanges of experience should be funded by and take place within the framework of the exchanges usually provided for in education pro- grammes. 3. 3. 9. The Committee of the Regions would also like a more detailed account of the funding requirements of (1) COM(96) 468 final. (2) COM(97) 99 final — 97/0103 COD). C 64/80 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 2. 98 the European Quality Assurance Network. The COR considers it appropriate that the network be allocated specific funding but is concerned that if the financial needs of the network must be borne by the Member State that this may discourage the active participation in the network by certain Member States. The COR proposes that failing the allocation 3. 3. 10. of specific funds for the network, that an existing European network be used as a basis for the European Quality Assurance Network. This would help efficiency and reduce costs. 4. Conclusion 4. 1. The Committee of the Regions underlines that the value of quality teaches us that you manage what could go wrong from a position of knowledge, not supposition, it teaches that people need to be in control for learning, improvement and innovation to occur. Quality assessment must therefore emphasize develop- ment rather than be a process of performance. 4. 2. The COR endorses the Commission’s proposal as an initiative to further a culture of quality assessment in European higher education institutions, based on the broad principles outlined. The COR calls for all relevant actors, including local and regional authorities, to be involved in the assessment process in order to ensure that quality assessment is linked to the objectives of local and regional development. Before a position is adopted on the establishment of a European Quality Assurance Network, there must be a further refinement of the methodology to be used in the assessments and clarification on the functions, financing and operating structures of the proposed European Quality Assurance Network. Brussels, 19 November 1997. The Chairman of the Committee of the Regions Pasqual MARAGALL i MIRA