Formation Continue du Supérieur

05 February 2013 - 06 February 2013, Copenhagen. Each year the Ministry of Children and Education organises an R&D conference in order to spread and utilize the experience and results of research and development projects and other development work in training.

17 January 2013 - 18 January 2013, Brussels. In 2010, the EACEA issued a call for proposals “to support national projects for the development of a national approach to improve the quality assurance of vocational education and training systems by promoting and developing the use of the European quality assurance reference framework in vocational education and training (EACEA/09/2010). ”Five pilot projects were selected. These projects tested EQAVET as an instrument to promote a shared culture of quality assurance.

24 February 2013 - 01 March 2013, Nice. eLmL 2013 conference continutes bringing together federated views on mobileLearning, hybridLearning, and on-lineLearning. eLmL 2013 is dedicated to educators, eLearning experts, and students to exchange their ideas, experiences and lessons learnt in different facets of modern learning.

IADIS International Conference: Mobile Learning 2013: Free as Birds Learning in the Cloud. 14 March 2013 - 16 March 2013, Lisbon.

On December 12, the Committee of Ministers adopted Recommendation Rec(2012)13 on ensuring quality education. The Recommendation and its Explanatory Memorandum outline the Council of Europe’s understanding of quality education, link the concept to the multiple purposes of education and consider the roles and responsibilities of public authorities for ensuring quality education at various levels of education. The texts were prepared by the Steering Committee for Educational Policy and Practice (CDPPE).
Recommendation Rec(2012)13 on ensuring quality education
Higher education
18. Students should be granted effective and equitable access to higher education institutions and programmes on the basis of their aspirations and abilities. Their qualifications should be suited to address the major objectives of higher education as defined in paragraph 6. Moreover, students should be entitled to contribute fully to and participate in the governance of the institution as responsible members of an academic community.
19. Public authorities have a leading responsibility for establishing a coherent framework which ensures equal opportunities of access to and in higher education for all citizens and which is based on the principle of institutional autonomy. The development of quality-assurance criteria, while based on the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area, should take account of the concept of quality education as defined above.
Explanatory Memorandum
7.2 Steering Committee for Educational Policy and Practice (CDPPE)
Recommendation CM/Rec(2012)13 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on ensuring quality education – Explanatory Memorandum
Preamble
The Preamble places the present recommendation in its proper context by recalling the relevant Council of Europe Conventions and recommendations with particular relevance to the topic of the present Recommendation as well as the fundamental agreed principles on which it builds.
The action foreseen in the recommendation is that which is typically included in recommendations concerning States party to the European Cultural Convention, whereas the subject matter of the recommendation is described in the appendix. It recognises that member States are responsible for the organisation and content of their educational systems.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes the right to education. The preamble recognises that this right can only be fully exercised in practice if the education is of sufficient quality and if it pursues a variety of purposes. This view of education is consistent with that expressed in Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the public responsibility for higher education and research.
The recommendation to member States (1.a – f) allows for the fact that competence in education is located at different levels in different member States and that while the public authorities at central level in some cases have direct authority in all or some education matters (1.a), in other cases they do not (1.b). Hence, public authorities at central level may need to take action of different kinds according to the degree of their competence in education matters, as reflected in the text of the Recommendation...
Scope and definitions (paragraphs 1-9)
Public responsibility is understood as exercised through public authorities. These terms are defined as in Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)6 of the Committee of Ministers to member States on the public responsibility for higher education and research. The competent public authorities may, according to the level and strand of education concerned and the constitutional arrangements of various countries, be located at national, regional, local or other levels but the principles for the exercise of public responsibility remain the same.
Higher education (paragraphs 18-19)
Measures to ensure quality higher education are articulated somewhat differently than measures concerning other kinds of non-compulsory education in view of the highly specialised nature of higher education, the increasing maturity of students and, in some cases, of the considerable financial needs involved. Access to higher education should be effective and equitable and commensurate with students’ abilities and aspirations.
Public authorities, then, have the obligation to ensure that access to higher education is given on an equitable basis. However, selectivity is a much more prominent feature of higher education than of education at other levels. Rather than universal access, the goal for higher education should therefore reasonably be that public authorities should provide all those qualified for higher education with access to a study programme which is compatible with their aspirations and qualifications. As stated in the Preamble to this recommendation, public authorities should ensure that all persons should enjoy quality of education, commensurate with their aspirations, abilities and circumstances and for some persons, their aspirations, abilities and circumstances will take them along learning paths which do not include higher education.
The recommendation underlines that the qualifications which students will earn should fulfil the full range of purposes for higher education. These are defined in Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)6 by the Committee of Ministers to member States on the public responsibility for higher education and research:

- Preparation for sustainable employment;
- Preparation for life as active citizens in democratic societies;
- Personal development
- The development and maintenance, through teaching, learning and research, of a broad, advanced knowledge base.

The first sentence of paragraph 19 follows the wording of Recommendation CM/Rec(2007)6. The paragraph further underlines the importance of observing the principle of institutional autonomy. Unlike all pupils in pre-primary and the majority of pupils in compulsory education as well as non-compulsory secondary education – unless they are older learners enrolled in lifelong learning programmes – the vast majority of higher education students will be legally adult and hence competent to make their own decisions, even if in many cases, parents or legal guardians will have an important role in advising students about their choice of whether or not to seek access to higher education as well as about which study programmes to apply for...
Private education provision (paragraphs 20-22)
A quality assessment will be an important part of these criteria and for the areas of education for which a formal quality assessment procedure has been established, such as higher education and in many countries also vocations education and training, the outcomes of these procedures will be the basis of the decision. The commitment of institutions and programmes to providing equal opportunities to quality education should also be given consideration, either as a part of the quality assessment or as a separate consideration...
Learning paths and qualifications frameworks (paragraph 25).
Qualifications frameworks are a new way of describing the full body of qualifications of a given education system. They describe not only individual qualifications but also the way in which these qualifications interlink and the learning paths that pupils and students as well as those engaged in informal and non-formal education may follow in order to obtain a given qualification. Qualifications frameworks are therefore, among other things, instruments which make it easier for students to obtain quality education and to help them identify the learning paths which suit them the best. They should help education institutions as well as public authorities identify ways in which they may ensure that courses and programmes best lead to qualifications which are a part of the national framework and hence of the national education system. By emphasising learning outcomes – what pupils and students know, understand and are able to do – on the basis of a given qualification, they should, in the words of the Council of Europe/UNESCO Recognition Convention (ETS No. 165) on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, further the fair recognition of qualifications.
It should be noted that all 47 countries party to the European Higher Education Area have committed to developing national qualifications framework for higher education – an effort coordinated by the Council of Europe - and that 32 countries are engaged in the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning, supported by the European Commission and covering all areas and levels of education. Qualifications frameworks are therefore a key instrument of European education policies and competent public authorities as well as institutions and pupils and students should see qualifications frameworks not merely as technical instruments but as instruments helping fulfil the main goals of education...
Measures for vulnerable groups and/or groups with special needs (paragraphs 26-29)
The recommendation recognises that some individuals are unable to benefit mainstream education provision and that the reasons for this may be highly diverse. Public authorities have responsibility for providing individuals concerned with suitable education offers adapted to their needs and circumstances...
It is understood that the obligation to provide training in the language(s) of instruction for those lacking the required proficiency may be articulated differently at different levels of education, so that such training will, for example, be different for those in primary education and for those in higher education. It may also be articulated differently for pupils in compulsory education that for higher education students engaging in academic mobility.
Combating corruption in education (paragraph 31)
The extent of corruption in education varies from country to country and with the kind of education. In particular, access to and qualifications from higher education seem to be areas in which corruption is the most widespread. Nevertheless, corruption is a real or potential issue in all countries and for all kinds and levels of education.
Public authorities have the responsibility to take measures against corruption in education. These should involve all stakeholders as well as the general public and in addition to providing adequate legal regulation measures should aim to develop attitudes so that corruption is widely condemned and those engaging in it run a strong risk of exposure and denunciation.

ENQA initiates and coordinates transnational quality assurance projects, which aim to disseminate information at the European level and promote the establishment of the quality assurance framework of the European Higher Education Area.

Transparency of European higher education through public quality assurance reports - EQArep

ENQA has recently obtained funding for a LLP/Erasmus proposal. The two-year project started on 1 October and will end on 30 September 2014. The project, entitled “Transparency of European higher education through public quality assurance reports” (EQArep), aims at developing European standards for quality assurance reports.

Enhancement of Quality Assurance Management in Jordanian Universities - EQuAM

The University of Barcelona is launching a new project entitled "Enhancement of Quality Assurance Management in Jordanian Universities" (EQuAM), in partnership with ENQA and 15 other higher education bodies.

Promoting Quality Culture in Higher Education Institutions - PQC

In the autumn of 2012, EUA is launching a new project entitled ‘Promoting quality culture in higher education institutions’ (PQC), in partnership with ENQA, the University of Duisburg-Essen, the University of Lisbon and the University of Zagreb.

Joint capacity building project in Southeast Asia

The DIES ASEAN-QA Project which promotes regional quality assurance in Southeast Asia has been sealed by signing a Memorandum of Understanding on the 4th July, 2011 in Bonn.

The ENQA Workshop to agencies undergoing an external review will take place in Paris, France, on 21-22 January. The event is co-hosted by the Commission des Titres d'Ingenieur (CTI).
The purpose of this workshop, targeted specifically to agencies undergoing a second external review, is to focus on the whole process of external reviews of agencies, from the preparation to the follow-up. Participants will be given information and insight into the purpose and objectives of the second round of reviews and the role of reviewers. They will share best practice on the self-evaluation process and discuss the impact of the external review on future planning and development of the agency.
Programme The programme for the event can be found here (pdf).
The registration for this event has reached capacity and is now closed. If you want to enter our waiting list please send an e-mail to secretariat@enqa.eu.
Monday 21 January - Day 1
15.00 Registrations and coffee
15.30 Welcome: Achim Hopbach, President of ENQA, Philippe Massé, President of CTI
16.00 The difficult art of self-reflection for constant enhancement: the purpose and objectives of the second round of reviews. Achim Hopbach.
16.45 The process of external review and the task of the reviewers Maria Kelo, ENQA Secretariat.
Tuesday 22 January - Day 2
9.00 How to prepare for external evaluation and the rationale of the self-evaluation report in the second round of reviews. Rafael Llavori, ANECA, ENQA Board.
9.45 How did we do it? – Case examples of the self evaluation process and involvement of stakeholders from AQU Catalunya and EVA, Denmark. Josep Grifoll, AQU, ENQA Board and Christian Moldt, EVA.
11.30 Split up-groups – work in three small groups on analysis of self-evaluation report models and identifying good practice. Chairs: Rafael Llavori, Josep Grifoll, Padraig Walsh, QQI, ENQA Board.
14.00 Good practice in self-evaluation – feedback from split-up groups. Chair: Maria Kelo
14.45 Impact of the external review on future planning and development. Padraig Walsh.

High officials and scholars from China and Hong Kong together with European policymakers and practitioners deeply involved in the making of Europe-China academic relations had a round of vivid discussions with the enthusiastic participants in the 35th ACA European Policy Seminar. Over 100 participants, many of whom are China experts themselves, turned up at the event on 7 December 2012 despite the disruptive first snow in Brussels. The seminar was a timely occasion for the exchange of new information, professional know-how and inspiring thoughts on higher education cooperation between the European Union and China, especially at the juncture of major changes on both ends. It was also a well-attended event, bringing together speakers and participants with a shared goal in developing academic relations between Europe, China and its Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
The seminar was a one-day event, as usual. The eight hours of people-to-people contact, though short, were thoroughly enjoyed by the participants and speakers alike. As we are well aware of the fact that an event without participants is a sad event, we wish to thank all the participants and speakers for making the seminar a happy one. Additionally, we must also thank the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in Brussels for its support that enabled us to reach out to the best possible speakers in the Greater China region.
ACA organises four policy seminars each year. On 24 January 2013, the first gathering of the year will, again, be What’s News in Brussels? This seminar will discuss the latest developments in European policies and programmes including, but not limited to, the proposed Erasmus for All and Horizon 2020, the Bologna mobility strategy, and issues for the European Commission’s upcoming “internationalisation communication”. It goes without saying that ACA only brings you the best speakers who do not only have something to say, but say it very well.
Seats in this hallmark seminar go particularly fast. We highly recommend an early registration before 8 January 2013 (Tuesday).
ACA Seminar – What’s new in Brussels.

On 20 November 2012, the European Commission published a Communication entitled “Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes”. The document, which repeats known positions and adds new ideas, calls for a comprehensive and determined skills strategy at all levels of Europe’s education and training systems. The EU Commission argues that the days are over when Europe’s competitors provided only low-skilled services. In order to stay competitive on world markets and to sustain and revitalise the Union’s labour markets, Europe needed to reduce skills mismatches and raise skills levels.
The skills strategy behind the Communication is broad: the Commission asks for the improvement of transversal and basic skills, particularly in the entrepreneurial field, but also STEM-related skills. It insists that the basis of any meaningful skills strategy are foundation skills such as literacy, numeracy, and basic maths and science, but it also calls for increased foreign language competencies, the development of high-quality vocational education and training (VET) systems (“world-class”), including importantly work-based learning and apprenticeships, and for mobility.
The key messages to member states are the following: promote excellence in VET; improve achievement level of pupil groups with high risks of early school leaving and low basic skills; strengthen provision of employability-enhancing transversal skills (entrepreneurial initiative, digital skills and foreign languages); reduce the number of low skilled adults; increase the use of ICT-supported learning; and strengthen the professional profile of all teaching professions.
The Communication is accompanied by a number of “staff working papers” which display policy evidence and good practice, country sheets with information on EU member states’ performance and reforms in education and training, as well as the first edition of an “Education and Training Monitor”, providing information on progress (or otherwise) towards the Europe 2020 headline targets.
European Commission - Communication.
European Commission – Staff working document.

Discours de Mme Geneviève Fioraso, ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche à l’occasion de la clôture du Forum Campus France - Mardi 18 décembre 2012.
I. La nécessaire internationalisation de notre système d’ESR.
Je suis heureuse d’être parmi vous, à l’occasion de la clôture du Forum des établissements de Campus France. En effet, Campus France est un instrument qui doit servir l’attractivité de notre système d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche en général, et de chacun de vos établissements en particulier. Je me réjouis de ce forum, qui a vocation à vous associer pleinement à la définition des activités de Campus France. Vous le savez, mon parcours, ma sensibilité, me disposent à mobiliser toutes nos énergies pour promouvoir l’excellence de la recherche et de l’enseignement supérieur français, en favorisant leur ouverture internationale. Je ne doute pas que nous y parviendrons, en étroite collaboration avec le MAE. Au service de cette ambition, au service de votre ouverture à l’international, Campus France est un outil qui a vocation à promouvoir notre système d’enseignement supérieur et de recherche, mais aussi à favoriser, faciliter et amplifier l’accueil des étudiants étrangers.
- La vision et la stratégie du MESR.
J’ai à coeur de soutenir et même d’amplifier l’ouverture de notre système d’ESR à l’international. Cette ambition répond à la fois à une stratégie globale et à des logiques scientifiques particulières, propres à chaque établissement. Ces deux conceptions ne sont pas contradictoires. Elles doivent, au contraire, s’alimenter mutuellement, et s’articuler harmonieusement. Cela fait aussi partie de la simplification et de la mutualisation dont nous avons besoin, pour améliorer notre visibilité. Je rappelle que nous avons plus de 3 000 intitulés de licences, et plus de 6 000 intitulés de masters. C’est trop pour être lisible...
II. les missions de campus France et la marge de progression.
Campus France a été pensé pour répondre à trois exigences:
- D’abord, la promotion des études supérieures françaises:
Notre attractivité est forte. Les 284 000 étudiants que nous attirons en témoignent. C’est 12% de nos effectifs, et vous savez que ce taux augmente à mesure que l’on progresse dans les degrés universitaires, puisque les étrangers représentent 41,3 % des doctorants formés en France. Nos atouts sont considérables, si l’on combine la qualité de la formation que nous offrons et l’attractivité de nos droits d’inscription. La modicité de nos frais d’inscription, qui fait partie de notre culture, est un atout en termes d’attractivité, alors que dans les pays anglo-saxons, l’explosion des frais d’inscription augmente l’endettement des étudiants, au risque de l’explosion d’une nouvelle bulle des crédits.
L’histoire et la géopolitique expliquent que les effectifs les plus nombreux viennent d’Afrique (46,6%, Maghreb compris, Maroc et Algérie en tête). Ces liens sont importants, compte tenu de la vocation de la France à rayonner dans ces pays amis. Mais nous devons avoir l’ambition d’attirer également les meilleurs étudiants des puissances scientifiques émergentes.
- La deuxième mission de Campus France est tout aussi essentielle. C’est de veiller à la gestion des bourses du gouvernement français et des gouvernements étrangers. Ces boursiers ne représentent qu’une petite part des étudiants étrangers (environ 10%). Mais cette part est stratégique, parce qu’elle correspond aux mobilités encadrées. Il est de notre responsabilité que cette mission soit bien remplie.
J’entends par là, non seulement bien réalisée, sur un plan technique, mais aussi bien pensée, sur le plan stratégique, et c’est là tout prix de la co-tutelle de Campus France, qui répond à une double exigence diplomatique et scientifique.
- Enfin, et ce n’est pas la moindre de vos missions, Monsieur le directeur général, vous devez veiller à réserver le meilleur accueil aux étudiants étrangers, avec l’appui des dispositifs locaux mis en place par les établissements, les CROUS, et les collectivités territoriales, si souvent oubliées lors du dernier quinquennat, ce qui explique le retard du plan Campus.
J'insiste tout particulièrement sur l'accès au logement, condition indispensable à la mobilité, alors que les retards s'étaient accumulés par rapport aux objectifs du plan Anciaux et de l'opération Campus, dont j'ai réussi à débloquer la mise en oeuvre. D'ici la fin du quinquennat, le gouvernement programmera 40 000 logements étudiants nouveaux, dont une part notable favorisera l'accueil international. Promotion de notre système, gestion des bourses, accueil des étudiants étrangers: en réunissant, ici même, tous les acteurs qui ont uni leurs forces et leurs compétences dans Campus France, j’ai veillé, dès ma prise de fonction, à ce que ces missions soient assurées pour cette rentrée.
Mon ministère veillera à ce que ces missions soient remplies, au bénéfice des établissements, des étudiants, et du rayonnement de notre pays. Pour sa part, Campus France aura à coeur de démontrer sa valeur ajoutée auprès des établissements, sans se substituer à eux sur le territoire. Mais il appartient aussi à ces derniers, il vous appartient, à vous, les Universités, les Etablissements, de jouer pleinement votre rôle dans cet opérateur, à travers ses différentes instances, CA, Conseil d’Orientation et Forum.
Au vue de vos travaux de ce matin, je vois que vous prenez résolument ce chemin, et je m’en réjouis. La
mission supplémentaire qui vous a été confiée, cher Jean-Pierre Gesson, nous aidera à progresser en ce sens.
Campus France est une structure très récente: laissons-la s’organiser, avant de le soumettre à une première
évaluation. Elle se fera à l’aune de nos ambitions pour l’ouverture internationale de notre système d’ESR. Il y aura probablement des améliorations à apporter, pour renforcer les mobilités encadrées, individualiser le suivi des étudiants, et susciter des politiques localement mieux coordonnées entre tous les acteurs concernés, établissements, CROUS, collectivités, entreprises. Je sais que vous travaillez déjà en ce sens, et je vous en remercie.