ACA’s German member – DAAD – together with the ACA Secretariat in Brussels produced an information note for the European Parliament (EP) on the main achievements, implementation status and future prospects of the Bologna Process. The note is based on the most recent Bologna evaluations and stocktaking reports (2009 and 2010) as well as on the authors’ expertise in Bologna-related issues, and was published on the EP website this month.
The 48-page document gives a general overview of the topics, developments and trends within the Bologna Process since the signing of the Sorbonne Declaration in 1998. It also provides analysis of the progress made with respect to the Bologna reforms, and identifies achievements and future challenges within the main Bologna action areas: degree and curricular reform, mobility, recognition of qualifications and lifelong learning, employability, social dimension, quality assurance, qualifications frameworks, linking the EHEA and ERA, and the external dimension. Overall, the report finds that good progress has been made in many of these fields, but further concerted action is needed in order to fully reach the Bologna goals by the end of this decade. Last but not least, the authors formulate a number of recommendations addressed to the EP, which outline concrete steps that could be taken to contribute to the achievement of the Bologna objectives. Download the note of Aca-Daad Bologna process - Stocktaking and prospects.
Abstract
The Bologna Process has led to fundamental changes in higher education across Europe. The launch of the EHEA in 2010 marked an important milestone on the way to an open area of higher learning with greater compatibility and comparability as well as increased international attractiveness and competitiveness of the European higher education systems. Good progress has been made in many fields, but much remains to be done in order to ensure full achievement of all Bologna goals in the next decade...
2.2.3. Recognition of Qualifications and Lifelong Learning
History
The importance of recognition for the emergence of an EHEA was already emphasised by the Sorbonne Declaration (1998). It was envisaged to improve international transparency of courses and ensure recognition of qualifications through gradual convergence towards a common framework of qualifications and cycles of study. The main recognition instrument and the only legally binding text is the Lisbon Recognition Convention of the Council of Europe/UNESCO (1997). The process of increasing transparency and improving recognition is facilitated by the ENIC and NARIC centres. Other recognition tools are the Diploma Supplement, ECTS and the QF EHEA. According to the Bergen Communiqué (2005) appropriate recognition procedures should create opportunities for flexible learning paths in higher education, including procedures for recognition of prior learning, and thus further embed lifelong learning in higher education.
Achievements and future challenges
According to the Stocktaking Report, the Diploma Supplement (DS) has been fully introduced in over half the Bologna countries (Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels 2009, p. 67). This means it is provided to all graduates automatically, free of charge and in a widely spoken European language (usually English). In the remaining countries the DS is either issued only on request or for a fee. In two countries the DS is not yet systematically issued (ibid.). Provision of the DS varies among student groups. While almost all countries issue the DS to holders of BA and MA degrees, fewer than two thirds of the countries issue the DS to doctoral candidates. In addition, in seven countries the DS is not issued to graduates of traditional degree programmes, while in four countries it is not issued to graduates of “short Bachelor” programmes (Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels 2009, p. 68).
In many cases, higher education institutions demand further reference documents in addition to the DS. This is mainly due to the fact that not enough graduates currently hold a DS. Thus it is apparent that awareness of the existence and utility of the DS must be increased further among students, higher education institutions and employers. Currently, there exists only limited information on whether and how the DS is used by these groups (Sursock & Smidt 2010, p. 56). Therefore appropriate monitoring procedures must be introduced in all countries. In addition, it is important to promote the usage of the DS according to the EU/CoE/UNESCO standards within the Bologna countries. In this respect, Sursock & Smidt (2010, p. 55) also report that the DS often varies in content, structure and layout, which minimises the quality of the document. The Europass framework should continue to be used for promoting the DS (Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels 2009, p. 70).
The Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) has been ratified by almost all countries; however, its country-specific implementation differs widely (CHEPS, INCHER & ECOTEC 2010, p. 44). By January 2011, 46 Bologna signatory states have ratified the LRC. Only Greece has so far taken no steps at all in this regard. Despite these achievements the compatibility of national legislation with the LRC needs to be developed further in the Bologna countries. The ratification of the LRC cannot be equated with a uniform implementation of the LRC principles and subsidiary texts. Rather, interpretation of the LRC principles, terminology and recognition procedures diverge significantly (CHEPS, INCHER & ECOTEC 2010, p. 44). Regarding the application of the LRC principles, it is therefore necessary to find a shared language and uniform standards of implementation. Particular attention in this context must be given to the definition and interpretation of “substantial differences”, which differ greatly across the Bologna countries (ibid., p. 46). A prerequisite for this is that universities understand the transfer of the LRC principles and subsidiary texts into higher education law not as a threat to their autonomy but as an opportunity to strengthen their international profile.
All countries currently apply ECTS or a compatible system (EACEA/Eurydice 2010, p. 21).
Differences however exist in the procedures, the purposes for which credit points are awarded and the basis on which they are transferred. Full implementation of ECTS will be achieved when at least 75% of institutions and degree programmes use credit points to transfer and accumulate academic achievement, and implement them based on student workload and learning outcomes (ibid.). Recent research (CHEPS, INCHER & ECOTEC (2010)) shows that only 12 countries meet these requirements. 22 countries either evaluate only student workload (participation in attendance lectures) or learning outcomes; 13 other countries employ neither of these two concepts (see Annex fig. 2).
The extent to which credit points are awarded in doctoral programmes varies widely. No comparable indicators currently exist; therefore the evaluation reports make only general comments in this regard. In some countries, credit points are already awarded across all doctoral programmes, in some only for taught courses and in others not at all (Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels 2009, p. 48). The number of credit points awarded is regulated at institutional level.
An appropriate representation of formally acquired qualifications in the form of ECTS can only be achieved by awarding credit points based on learning outcomes. The EU’s ECTS Users’ Guide provides instructions on how to do this, and the EU Tuning project offers recommendations for practical implementation. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain, particularly regarding the proper linkage of credits with learning outcomes (Sursock & Smidt 2010, p. 55). Better interlinking would also increase the value of the DS and could contribute to achievements gained abroad being more easily recognised by students’ home institutions.
Only a few countries have a well established system for recognition of prior learning (RPL), including non-formal and informal qualifications acquired before entering a higher education programme. According to Rauhvargers, Deane & Pauwels (2009, p. 82), no significant progress has been made in this field compared to 2007. The use and prevalence of procedures for recognising prior learning has different traditions across the EHEA. In almost two thirds of the countries these qualifications are counted towards admission requirements for university degree programmes, while 25 countries recognise them in the form of exemption from certain requirements within study programmes. In 22 countries prior learning is translated into credit points (ibid.). RPL is in many cases at the discretion of the higher education institutions, and it is left to individuals to ask for recognition of their previous achievements.
RPL is only one aspect of lifelong learning (LLL).
According to the BFUG Coordinating Group on Lifelong Learning a number of activities have taken place to promote better understanding of LLL in higher education since 2007. The group also stated that considerable progress has been made towards increasing the understanding of LLL in higher education contexts. However, much remains to be done before LLL becomes a full reality in higher education systems across the EHEA. Moreover, there is a need for a Europe-wide accepted definition of the LLL concept as well as for comprehensive and reliable data, especially on funding of LLL (EACEA/Eurydice 2010, p. 34). Perhaps EUA’s European Universities’ Charter on LLL and future projects of EU’s LLL programme will contribute to make progress in this area. More...

Introduction
Ministers have entrusted the implementation of all the issues covered in the Berlin Communiqué, the overall steering of the Bologna Process and the preparation of the next ministerial meeting to the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG).
The BFUG is composed of the representatives of all member states of the Bologna Process (46 European countries) plus the European Commission. Also, as consultative members, BFUG has the Council of Europe, UNESCO/CEPES, EUA , EURASHE, ESU, ENQA, Education International and BUSINESSEUROPA. BFUG meets at least twice a year, chaired by the EU Presidency, with the host country of the next Ministerial Conference as vice-chair.
A Board, also chaired by the EU Presidency and with the next host country as vice-chair, will oversee the work between the meetings of the BFUG. The overall follow-up work will be supported by the Bologna Secretariat which the country hosting the next Ministerial Conference will provide. The Secretariat is currently based in Benelux.
The BFUG coordinates the Bologna process at international level and, on the authority of competent ministers, draws up and implements the work programme between one ministerial conference and the next. According to the London Communiqué adopted by the Ministers, the BFUG’s top priorities at present are:
* to evaluate the implementation of the set objectives ten years after the signature of the Bologna declaration and,
* to frame a proposal for the further development of the Bologna process after 2010 and for the vision of the European Higher Education Area in 2020.
Working groups
At its meeting in October 2007, the Bologna Follow-up Group adopted a work programme http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/ for the time leading to the next ministerial meeting in April 2009 and established working or coordination groups on the following topics: 

• data collection
• employability
• European higher education in a global setting
• lifelong learning
• mobility
• qualifications frameworks
• social dimension
• stocktaking

Bologna Experts
The purpose of the National Teams of Bologna Experts is to provide a pool of expertise in certain areas to promote and enhance progress toward higher education reforms in their countries. The National Teams will make sure that the relevant actors involved in Higher Education on a national level will benefit from the pan-European nature of these reforms.
Bologna Experts are normally senior academics or administrators who have been chosen because of their in-depth knowledge in quality assurance, qualifications frameworks and recognition issues in higher education. The European Commission provide training workshops for them. The experts are appointed by the Ministries of Education of their country in cooperation with national HE stakeholders, following approval by the European Commission.

The German National Association for Student Affairs (DSW) and the European Council for Student Affairs (ECStA) are organising an International Bologna Conference: “The Social Dimension – Stocktaking and Future Perspectives of Student Affairs and Services”, which will take place in Berlin, Germany on 11-13 July 2011.
Research - teaching - student affairs and services: these are the pillars of well-performing higher education systems. Excellence in education calls for excellent social infrastructures and support mechanisms for students. The social dimension is a key factor for the success of the European Higher Education area.
The European Higher Education Area is shaped by student affairs and services – referred to as the social dimension - but they are organised differently, depending on educational concepts, the structure of universities, and the way the social support of students is organised.
The diversity of this situation holds the potential for benchmarking and exchange of good practice, and for mutual learning outcomes in the context of exchanges between student services/affairs professionals.
The conference therefore aims to:
    * analyse the social and economic situation of students in Europe
    * take stock of existing student affairs and services models
    * discuss challenges and future perspectives for student affairs and services
    * define the contribution that student affairs and services can make to improve the competitiveness of the European Higher Education Area
    * strengthen the social dimension of the Bologna process
Beginning with an analysis of the social and economic situation of students in Europe, and current developments of higher education institutions, the needs of universities and students are analysed in order to draw conclusions on the effects on student affairs and services.
Looking at different situations in various countries, the stocktaking of student affairs and services in Europe is done in case studies, looking at relevant practices, existing models, strengths and weaknesses as well as challenges for student affairs and services.
Based on current research on the effects and impacts that they have on students’ academic success and educational development, the strategic role of student affairs and services will be discussed. In conclusion, experts in student affairs and services from other continents will be asked to reflect on the social dimension of higher education in Europe.
The conference shall end with conclusions and a communiqué on the  further development of student affairs/student services in the European Higher Education are.
See also: Bologna-Seminar: “The European Dimension of Quality Assurance”.

Berlin, 14  March 2011. The German Accreditation Council and the German Rectors’ Conference – Project nexus - jointly organise the Bologna Seminar “The European Dimension of Quality Assurance”
At the ministerial conference in Leuven/Louvain-La Neuve ministers reasserted the crucial importance of “further developing the European dimension of quality assurance”. Significant progress has been made with regard to the implementation of the ESG, since they were adopted in Bergen in 2005. The procedures of external quality assurance in Europe are converging to a certain extent. In two fields, however, further efforts have to be made in order to strengthen the European dimension of quality assurance:
- mutual recognition of quality assurance decisions, to foster mutual recognition of programmes and qualifications,
- quality assurance of joint degree programmes.
The Bologna seminar seeks to focus on possible ways how to strengthen the link between quality assurance and the recognition of degrees. Moreover, it will raise the issue of quality assurance in joint programmes, which is still bound to specific and often differing national regulations, irrespective of the ESG. Growing numbers of joint programmes underline the necessity of a real European dimension in quality assurance, allowing for joint, cross-border QA mechanisms and procedures, thus lowering the burden on the HEIs involved. The conference language will be English. Programm. Registration.

A new Academy briefing paper has been published which identifies challenges to and opportunities for UK higher education institutions in the Bologna Process and the European Higher Education Area (EHEA.)
Written by Simon Sweeney, a UK Bologna expert, National Teaching Fellow, and senior lecturer in International Business and Governance at Sheffield Hallam University, the paper aims to help UK HEIs to engage in the spirit and application of Bologna, and identifies ways in which students, staff and HEIs might benefit from active commitment. It also provides an overview of the principles underlying the Bologna Process and the EHEA. “In the European and global context for UK HE, it becomes increasingly important to demonstrate an ideological and practical commitment to educational and cultural mobility, both inward and outward, and for students and staff,” comments Dr Rachel Segal, Assistant Director at the HEA.   “The predicted increase in transnational education also presents some real challenges and opportunities for UK HEIs. "At the Academy, we work with higher education institutions to improve the student learning experience. The context for that experience is broadening. We hope that this paper helps HEIs to assess both the practicalities and benefits of Bologna.”
Mr Sweeney outlines the ways in which the UK complies with key Bologna mechanisms and frameworks; for example, it has already established:
* the three-cycle framework;
* quality assurance;
* awards based on credit accumulation, and credits based on learning outcomes;
* articulation between UK qualification frameworks and the Bologna Qualification Framework of the European Higher Education Area;
* a commitment to lifelong learning.
But, the paper asks, is compliance sufficient, or is there a need to engage more actively with the mechanisms and the spirit of Bologna? “There is a tendency in the UK to diverge from the norms and expectations of Bologna,” writes Mr Sweeney. “The introduction of fast-track degrees, major increases in fees, differences in Masters-level provision, reduced contact time, and access to doctoral study directly from a first-cycle qualification raise important questions that may threaten the perceived international competitiveness of UK higher education.”
 There is evidence that study abroad and/or work placement brings many benefits to students, the paper notes,  including a better degree classification, improved key skill competences, enhanced confidence and potentially better employment prospects, as employers look favourably on graduates with what is perceived to be added value in relation to potential recruitment. Mobility also provides institutional benefits such as:
* enhanced attractiveness of the university, adding value to the university brand and reputation;
* strengthening international institutional partnerships;
* building collaborative research opportunities;
* internationalising staff experience – a key element in staff professional development;
* integration with European educational and professional communities and networking;
* combating institutional and particularly departmental insularity.
Read the full report, Bologna Process: Responding to the post-2010 challenge, here.

Le réseau Eurydice publie un rapport analysant l'impact du processus de Bologne depuis 10 ans. Même si parmi les 46 pays participants à ce processus certains font toujours face à des problèmes de modernisation, les objectifs principaux semblent atteints. Le 8 mars 2010, la Commission européenne a présenté  un bilan des 10 années de mise en place du processus de Bologne. Elle se fonde sur les conclusions du rapport intitulé « Focus sur l'enseignement supérieur en Europe 2010 : l'impact du processus de Bologne » publié par le réseau Eurydice. Le premier constat montre que la crise économique de ces dernières années a eu des répercussions variées sur l'enseignement supérieur selon les pays. Rapport complet.
Structure des enseignements en trois cycles
Selon le rapport cette nouvelle structure est mise en place dans tous les pays signataires. Néanmoins, il subsiste encore d’anciens systèmes dans certains cursus (notamment ceux en rapport avec les études médicales ou paramédicales). La majorité des États signataires du processus (dont notamment la France, l'Italie, le Portugal ou la Pologne) ont adopté le modèle « 3 + 2 ans » combinant un premier cycle (licence), comptant 180 ECTS et un second (master), de 120 ECTS. L'Espagne, l'Ukraine et la Bulgarie ont quant à elles choisi le modèle « 4 + 1 » (240 + 60 crédits).
ECT et supplément au diplôme
Le rapport montre que 36 pays ont mis en place les deux outils principaux du processus de Bologne : les ECTS et le supplément au diplôme. Selon la Commission ces deux outils ont joué un rôle important dans la mise en œuvre des réformes de Bologne et la facilitation de la compréhension des systèmes nationaux d'enseignement supérieur.
Cadre national des qualifications
Il s’agit du troisième  outil développé dans le cadre du processus de Bologne. Sur le total de signataires,  huit systèmes d'enseignement supérieur en possèdent un et onze sont en phase d’élaboration.
L’assurance qualité
La  Commission indique que le développement de systèmes d'assurance-qualité externe dans l'enseignement supérieur est « un des effets les plus notables de ces dix ans de processus de Bologne ».  22 pays ont mis en place de nouvelles agences d'assurance-qualité. La coopération européenne dans ce domaine est amplifiée par le développement de l’ENQA (European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education), l'adoption des standards européens d'assurance-qualité et la création de l’Eqar (European Quality Assurance Register). Pour la majorité des pays signataires l'assurance-qualité est conçue comme un outil d'habilitation et de certification des programmes sur la base de normes minimales de qualité. Il y a néanmoins une minorité de pays (dont la France, la Grande-Bretagne, l'Italie, ou la Finlande) qui conçoivent l'assurance-qualité comme un moyen d'améliorer leur système d'enseignement supérieur.
La mobilité étudiante
Promouvoir la mobilité étudiante fait partie des principaux objectifs du processus de Bologne. La Commission constate néanmoins que ce domaine est rarement envisagé comme une priorité par les pays. Le rapport montre que « les mesures censées encourager la mobilité ne font pas souvent l'objet de politiques cohérentes au sein des États et très peu de pays ont fait leur l'objectif de 20 % de diplômés ayant effectué une période de mobilité d'ici 2020 ».

Invitation by Austria and Hungary to 2010 Ministerial Conference
While the following clip was shown to the assembled delegations of the Bologna Policy Forum in Louvain-la-Neuve, the Austrian Minister of Science and Research, Johannes Hahn, extended a cordial invitation on behalf of the co-organizers Hungary and Austria, to participate in the "Bologna Ministerial Anniversary Conference" in spring 2010. The conference will take place on 11 March 2010 in the House of Parliament in Budapest and on 12 March 2010 at the Vienna Imperial Palace Congress Centre. Participation is by invitation only!

The conference will mainly revolve around the presentation and discussion of the independent assessment report, and will be wrapped up in a "Budapest-Vienna Declaration". Invitation by Austria and Hungary to 2010 Ministerial Conference.

In conformity the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation (FCG) will organize an international conference on the 21st and 22nd of September 2009 where the Portuguese and European Academic Community and also participants from outside the European Area of Higher Education will be invited to consider three topics: the curricular design in the Bologna context, the Bologna Process in a global setting, the future 10 years after Bologna.
Connected to the preparation of the conference the Foundation financed an analysis of the Bologna Reports that institutions were required by law to produce in order to evaluate the implementation of the Bologna Objectives.