1. the student perspective in the EHEA
back to basics !
the student perspective in the EHEA
The European Students’ Union
Bert Vandenkendelaere
Chairperson
Istanbul, 15th of June 2011

3. A long story short 1989: Wall falls and WESIB becomes
1999: The Bologna Process starts and ESIB creates content committees
Information exchange to more advocacy
2007: ESIB is renamed into ESU
2009: The Bologna Process celebrated its 10th anniversary
2012: 3oth anniversary of WESIB/ESIB/ESU

4. 30 years of ESU
From an informal gathering of 7 unions with no budget and no mandate…
… to a strong union defending students’ rights, with 17 elected representatives, 7 secretariat members and 45 member unions from 38 countries…
… with a fixed seat around the table in all Bologna-gatherings

5. The voice of more than 11 million European students…
45 members = National Unions of Students
38 countries
No member union from Turkey Last Country study visit in 2007

6. In cooperation with (and thanks to…)
logo EUA
logo CoE
logo EI
and EUCOM that supported LLP on Enhancement of Student Contribution to the Implementation of Bologna, then SCL, then Financing and QA project.. link to next slide
LOGO’s

7. ESU’s contribution
Bologna With Student Eyes, monitoring the progress from a student perspective.
Policy input and discussions in BFUG and national level.
Concrete initiatives on action lines, for example Student-Centered Learning project.

9. Student-centered research
The heart of the research for BWSE and BAFL is based on students' views as reflected by their respective National Student Unions (NUSes)
But also taking national stocktaking reports and other data sources into account
From this data, conclusions are derived and recommendations and suggestions for future policy lines put together

11. Bologna at the Finish Line … ?
Finish line was not 2010
Bologna “à la carte” implementation caused negative effects, inequality and confusion
Not enough information on why and how
Bologna  Lisbon?
Focus on attractive parts (attractiveness/mobility/ECTS/cycles)
Focus on financial input from the market
Focus on Global attractiveness
Focus on Social Dimension?
Providing information. While the structure of higher education systems is being reformed, little is being done to make it understandable, clear and comprehensible to the wider public, especially prospective students. It is crucial for ministers to commit to establishing credible and easy to use guidance systems for different actors in higher education and to communicate what the academic opportunities in the European Higher Education Area are about to everyone. The European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) would be a suitable institution for providing parts of this information if supported adequately in terms of finances and access to information. True shift to a European area will not happen without these support structures, rendering the EHEA as a myriad of systems that are incomparable while still carrying the same labels.

12. back to basics !

13. High quality for all Higher Education student-centred
with academic freedom
Higher Education
for all
student-centred
an opportunity to be mobile
with student participation
in a society where education is both a public good and a public responsibility
On October 17th 1982 seven national unions of students (NSU Norway, NUS United Kingdom, SFS Sweden, SHÍ Iceland, UNEF-ID France, DSF Denmark and ÖH Austria) gathered in Stockholm to create WESIB, the West European Student Information Bureau. The aim of WESIB was to coordinate the flow of information between the members and from European and international bodies such as the Council of Europe, the European Communities and UNESCO.
The political changes in eastern Europe at the end of the 1980-ies affected WESIB as well, as it was opened for national unions of students from the former east and at the 17th Board Meeting (BM17) in February 1990, WESIB dropped the “W” to become the European Student Information Bureau (ESIB). These changes resulted in a surge of membership applications and the number of members rose from 16 in 1990 to 31 in 1992!

14. for all
in a society where education is both a public good and a public responsibility

15. The social dimension, an ambition made of paper?
Tuition fees are raised
Merit-based access doesn’t necessarily equal participative equity
Recognition of informal/NF learning
Tuition fee fleeing begins…
for all
in a society where education is both a public good and a public responsibility
Social dimension. The social dimension is recognized as an important principle and target on European level, however many countries still do not introduce this as a priority in national higher education policies. Lack of data or the need to create proper regulations, often within ministries other than those of education, has invoked unjustified and prolonged procrastination on any work on the topic. The implementation of full national strategies realizing higher education with a social dimension and the monitoring of equity at both entry and exit points of higher education should become useful basics. The commitments to set national targets for social dimension made in the Leuven communiqué should be made effective and adopted on national level before the 2012 Ministerial Conference.

16. for all
in a society where education is both a public good and a public responsibility

17. High quality for all Higher Education student-centred
with academic freedom
Higher Education
for all
student-centred
an opportunity to be mobile
with student participation
in a society where education is both a public good and a public responsibility
On October 17th 1982 seven national unions of students (NSU Norway, NUS United Kingdom, SFS Sweden, SHÍ Iceland, UNEF-ID France, DSF Denmark and ÖH Austria) gathered in Stockholm to create WESIB, the West European Student Information Bureau. The aim of WESIB was to coordinate the flow of information between the members and from European and international bodies such as the Council of Europe, the European Communities and UNESCO.
The political changes in eastern Europe at the end of the 1980-ies affected WESIB as well, as it was opened for national unions of students from the former east and at the 17th Board Meeting (BM17) in February 1990, WESIB dropped the “W” to become the European Student Information Bureau (ESIB). These changes resulted in a surge of membership applications and the number of members rose from 16 in 1990 to 31 in 1992!

18. student-centred

19. “Student-Centred Learning represents both a mindset and a culture within a given higher education institution and is a learning approach which is broadly related to, and supported by, constructivist theories of learning. It is characterised by innovative methods of teaching which aim to promote learning in communication with teachers and other learners and which take students seriously as active participants in their own learning, fostering transferable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking and reflective thinking.”
student-centred

20. Requires empowering individual learners and approaches to teaching and learning,
Effective support and guidance structures and a curriculum focused more clearly on the learner in all three cycles.
But still very large regional differences
Not enough student consultation on curricula development
Removing obstacles such as inflexible hours, lack of choice on curricula or learning methods, use of only conventional teaching methods urgently needed
Give the teacher time to teach!
student-centred
Student-centered learning. While many institutions have gradually started to introduce changes that give students more potential for deciding about their own educational paths, student-centered learning is still a long way off from becoming a reality in most of Europe’s higher education institutions. There should be a focus in institutions on implementing an actual paradigm shift that centers on the student and its learning process and experience, making education more flexible and better suited to the needs of a diversified student body. There should be increased commitment to removing major obstacles to this – such as inflexible hours, lack of choice on curricula or learning methods, use of only conventional teaching methods and lack of support for students from non-specific backgrounds. Additionally, sufficient financial support from the governments is needed to support the institutions in their efforts to train and support staff in changing educational practices.

21. an opportunity to be mobile
Mobility. In order for mobility to achieve its full potential, support must be given in a targeted manner to all types of mobility. Individual countries thus need to create infrastructural, financial and other facilities for all incoming and outgoing students regardless whether mobility is intra-EHEA or students are from outside of the EU or EHEA. These measures are indispensible in order to ensure that the 20% mobility target is reached for the EHEA in its entirety. Of course, these measures need to be correlated with a general easing of bureaucratic obstacles to recognition processes. Now EU chooses 15ECTS or 3 months.

22. 29 respondent countries, only 2 tied to learning outcomes

23. ECTS and Learning Outcomes: still work to do!
Credit and accumulation system, that should be applied consistently
One of the best-implemented tools?
Needs to be properly linked to student workload and learning outcomes.
Superficial implementation without this link is still a main challenge with the Bologna Process in some countries
Use of learning outcomes for recognition!
Recognition remains a main barrier to mobility
according to bologna independent assessment report also in Turkey credits are not matched with learning outcomes and workload

25. for all
an opportunity to be mobile

27. !
with student participation

28. ESU’s Priorities for the next decade
Not allowing for further confusion regarding the main goals and tools of the Bologna Process.
Holistic, in-depth and financially supported continued implementation of all Bologna action lines, with a special focus on the social dimension, mobility and student-centred learning.

29. ESU’s Priorities for the next decade
Inter-governmental solidarity to overcome the ill-effects of the 'two-speed' Bologna implementation, rather than an excessive focus on the individual promotion of national higher education systems.
Full student participation in all decision-making structures at national, regional and institutional levels.

30. ESU’s Priorities for the next decade
Completing the Bologna reforms should be a priority, before new reforms are initiated.
Minimum standards of implementation are needed to deserve the “Bologna label”
or it risks becoming an empty, expensive shell not changing higher education for the better
Bologna as a priority. Despite confusion at the policy level between the goals of various Bologna or EU-inspired policies, which are indeed to a certain degree compatible, there is urgency in fulfilling Bologna commitments before downplaying them or going beyond. It is not problematic if countries add extra reforms to the Bologna envisaged ones, but the latter should not be ignored.
The Bologna process needs to continue and to reach full implementation of structural reforms if it is to succeed in the goal of making education more flexible and helping students become increasingly mobile and to actually create a meaningful European Higher Education Area.
In order to attain this goal an adequate relevance for the Bologna process needs to be kept, meaning that countries need to commit to actually implementing the measures they have signed up to, and to do this in an inclusive and non-protracted way. If not, the member countries should seriously reflect on the use of the Bologna Process and the expenditure it takes to keep it going. Without a proper financial and political commitment from the member countries, the Bologna Process risks becoming an empty shell that lacks the level of substance it needs to change higher education for the better.
Minimum standards. The Bologna Process needs to be rebuilt on an approach based on targets for minimum expected standards of implementation. One particular consequence of the breaching of minimum standards should be that the Bologna “label” should only be reserved for areas where countries have properly implemented envisaged policy measures. Ignoring minimum standards risks affecting the coherency of the European Higher Education Area.see it as a stabilization and accession plan before access to the EU. Bologna should not be that open and reforms should be happening before the label is granted.

31. High quality for all Higher Education student-centred
with academic freedom
Higher Education
for all
student-centred
an opportunity to be mobile
with student participation
in a society where education is both a public good and a public responsibility
On October 17th 1982 seven national unions of students (NSU Norway, NUS United Kingdom, SFS Sweden, SHÍ Iceland, UNEF-ID France, DSF Denmark and ÖH Austria) gathered in Stockholm to create WESIB, the West European Student Information Bureau. The aim of WESIB was to coordinate the flow of information between the members and from European and international bodies such as the Council of Europe, the European Communities and UNESCO.
The political changes in eastern Europe at the end of the 1980-ies affected WESIB as well, as it was opened for national unions of students from the former east and at the 17th Board Meeting (BM17) in February 1990, WESIB dropped the “W” to become the European Student Information Bureau (ESIB). These changes resulted in a surge of membership applications and the number of members rose from 16 in 1990 to 31 in 1992!

32. More information www.esu-online.org or bert@esu-online.org
Thank you!
More information or