A Comparative Analysis of the Social Dimension surrounding the project partners Hannah Leichsenring Ghent | 12. November 2013

 Project partners: Universities from Flanders, Lithuania, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, UK  Goal: Network and find out what you have to do at home to expand opportunities  Develop approaches usable internationally  Questions:  What are you talking about when you say „Expanding Opportunities“ in your country?  Are we talking about similar (political) situations?  Is something one should do in one country advisable for others? ... Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Who compares what and why?

HE sectorPolitical context, laws (rights) vs. policies (incl. funding) Experience, projects,knowl edge expertise Networks internationally, locally Bologna Experts Expand O Experts Instituti ons Countri es Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov How to structure this exchange? Very complex, rather qualitative (lack of data) not to be answered by one person

 Draft by ExpandO. Sources: the Bologna follow-up report, Eurostudent, national reports and stakeholder input  The existing qualitative comparisons are not as clear as one would wish  Feedback by national experts  National events for networking  Quantitative information (What happens?)  Qualitative assessments (Why, how does it work?)  Goal: Basis for further discussion  Common ground  Good practice (fit for purpose in a specific context)  „Benchmarks“ (recommendations) Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Step 1: National reports Perspective of HEIs!

 Goal 1: Identify common ground  Goal 2: Identify good practice and possible recommendations  Goal 3: Basis for National Action plans (-> Step 3!) Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Step 2: Analysis of the reports Develop a methodological approach for an international Expanding Opportunity „movement“ (-> Step 4!) Have a method how to deal with the qualitative aspects of WP policies Have examples that work and an idea why Have a method to come up with a strategy: a National Action Plan Develop a methodological approach for an international Expanding Opportunity „movement“ (-> Step 4!) Have a method how to deal with the qualitative aspects of WP policies Have examples that work and an idea why Have a method to come up with a strategy: a National Action Plan

1.School System 2.Regulation of HE (esp. funding) 3.Expanding Opportunities as Element of HE Strategy 4.Policies (target group vs. Inclusion) 5.Measures and Programmes in HE 6.Role of Employers Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Analysis Template

Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Qualitative comparison policy, laws, regulations incentives (money) UK FL SE LT ES TR

Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov 20138

9 target group vs. inclusiveness UK FL LT TR ES SE target group focus inclusive policy UK FL LT TR ES SE target group focus inclusive approach for the design of programs

 UK is exceptional in number and depth of quantitative data. Therefore, UK universities know more about what is successful.  Flanders has improved policy, regulations, incentives in the last years, but the numbers did not change accordingly.  project/programme funding instead of structural funding  lack of clear goals and data monitoring  little impact on cultural change in HEIs.  Spain and Lithuania have an impressive legislative for WP.  through concrete policy work, measures, funding etc. is lacking: Implementation necessary Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Analysis of the reports: Results

 Turkey is massively expanding opportunities!  target group of disabled students  until now only little awareness about social factors that limit access  Sweden has an inclusive, decentralised approach  national data suggests it is a best practice example for a HE culture which enables and enforces access also for underrepresented groups  due to the lack of monitoring comparability is limited Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Analysis of the reports: Results

 Not all countries have flexibility measures like AP(E)L implemented, rarely as expanding opportunities-tools.  Financial support is important for students from low socio-economic backgrounds and for students with specific additional costs. But non- financial support is just as important and need to be tailored based on the needs of the individual student.  There is a general need for more involvement by institutions to set up structural changes. Governments support institutions to make changes but there is little force being used (except in the UK) Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Considerations 1

 The UK case shows the importance of a clear definition of what underrepresented groups are:  Basis for clear (official) political targets.  Flexibility in responding to societal changes.  Education-adequate definitions are necessary! (e.g. the definition of disabled students in some countries does not include learning disabilities)  A clear definition is necessary for monitoring (and should be used for that purpose). Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Considerations 2 For international networking, as well as strategic planning, a data based approach is advantagous.

 Link between quality assurance and educational changes:  What is quality in education under the condition of a divers student body?  Little information on connection between Expanding Opportunities regulations and School System as well as Employer/Labor market  weak link or not explicit?  There are three kinds of motivations for an expanding opportunities agenda which should be reflected in the measures taken to improve access:  social motivation  educational motivation  and serious economic reasons! Hannah Leichsenring | Ghent | Nov Analysis of the reports: Gaps