European Union Higher Education package: a first step on a long trip
Across the months of December and January, the Commission announced various policy proposals targeted at attaining the European Education Area (EEA) by 2025 and expanding the role that Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) play in European society. These documents are the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on individual learning accounts and the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on micro-credentials, the Proposal for a Council Recommendation on learning for environmental sustainability, the proposal for a Council recommendation on building bridges for effective European Higher Education cooperation and the Communication on a European Strategy for Universities. The European Students’ Union (ESU) supports this new emphasis on Higher Education (HE), as the COVID-19 epidemic, the climate catastrophe and the development of authoritarianism make the role of HE and its civic participation more crucial than ever.
As outlined in the Student manifesto on the future of HE in Europe, the ‘future of HE lies in an integrated European Higher Education Area (EHEA), where fundamental values, automatic recognition of degrees, upward convergence of student rights and democratic and effective student representation on all levels (from local to European and transnational) are practised’. The EEA may play a crucial role in further implementing the EHEA policies and in permitting policy experimentation while preserving the EHEA as the primary policy-setting body for HE in Europe.
EEA must engage democratic, independent, representative stakeholders
The HE package presented by the European Commission envisages major adjustments within the HE sector, from the European to the institutional level. The EEA has the objective to be the next stepping stone in the integration of European HE systems after the Bologna process. The Bologna process has shown that the involvement of stakeholders from representative, democratic, independent organisations (such as ESU, the European University Association – EUA, European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education – ENQA, and the European Trade Union Committee for Education – ETUCE) has been crucial to shaping successful policies in HE: the thorough design and implementation of EEA policies cannot be achieved if democratic, autonomous, stakeholder representation is set aside at the different levels, and cherry-picked, unrepresentative actors, are empowered as a tokenised version of ‘stakeholders involvement’, as it risks to happen if the Council Recommendation on building bridges for effective European HE cooperation does not clearly stipulate the importance to democratise and foster a democratic culture in European Universities and within the EEA governance.
As the Communication on the Strategy for Universities puts out: “Fundamental academic and democratic values are under pressure”. Recurring threats pointed out by national student unions to ESU on the autonomy of student representation in the administration of HE have principally concerned the external meddling and pressure on student representatives, by both state and non-state actors. It is essential that student representatives are able to autonomously represent the views and defend the rights of their constituency, and the best model that this can only be done by protecting, recognising and supporting democratic, independent student unions as well as fostering a democratic culture in European universities.
In keeping with the Council’s decisions on the European Universities Initiative and with the planned Council Recommendation on ‘building bridges’, ESU reiterates that student engagement must be democratic and representative at all levels, including the transnational one. Therefore, ESU further asks each alliance of HEIs to form a democratically elected, representative student council, with a strong, direct representation in the highest decision making body of the alliance. The same degree of stakeholders’ participation is essential also at the EEA level. However, as we previously warned, minimal space is provided to stakeholders in the EEA governance, restricting their involvement to the technical organizations and excluding them from the High-Level Group on Education and Training: this risks harming the development of the EEA.
ESU believes that the EHEA is the benchmark for stakeholders involvement at the European level, and calls for a revision of the EEA governance system: HE stakeholders, including students, must be represented within the High-Level Group, and the democratisation of the involvement of students and stakeholders students must be involved at the national level in shaping the governments’ positions on EEA issues and in designing and implementing HE reforms.
Assessing the transnational dimension of European Higher Education
The European Strategy for Universities and the proposed Council Recommendation on building bridges outline the establishment, by mid-2024, of a series of tools to foster the integration of the HEIs members of transnational alliances, with the encouragement to experiment on them in the years leading to that deadline.
These instruments are a legal statute for the alliances, allowing them to pool human, digital, administrative and financial resources as well as to find long-term, sustainable ways of funding; a European Degree, to be delivered at a national level, based on common criteria and recognised across the European Union (EU), preceded by the creation of a ‘European degree label’ to be assigned to the joint degrees delivered by alliances of HEIs; and the development of joint educational activities, including joint student admission and enrolment. This would be supported by Recommendations to further establish a European Quality Assurance and Recognition System.
We applaud that the measures suggested in the Council proposal are accessible for all the alliances of HEIs, not confined to the European Universities, with the intention to make them available for all the HEIs.
The third call of the European Universities permits HEIs from the EHEA to be part of an alliance as associate partners: it must be clear how these HEIs would create and agree upon the legislative legislation, the European Degree and the other instruments proposed in the two protocols.
No inequalities in circumstances and involvement in governance must arise between academic partners, whether they full or associate members. However, obstacles for the rollout of the alliances of HEIs, such as tuition costs, numerus clausus and varying degrees of student assistance would still be present — an upward convergence of student rights and conditions within the alliances is required.
In order to do so, the alliances should examine the status of student rights and conditions according to shared criteria, select a HEI standard for each criterion and identify the impediments to upward convergence towards those benchmarks. Such effort would clarify the systemic impediments to such convergence, therefore catalyzing the convergence of the European HE systems as a whole.
In order to achieve so, the engagement of students, their unions and their representation at the alliance level is vital; ESU is ready to offer help in defining the common indicators and in supporting and enabling the students of the alliance to complete such task.
For HE stakeholders, the functioning systems, such as External and Internal Quality Assurance based on the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes or recognition structures, remain the key for systemic involvement of stakeholders on all levels, being the basis for building trust across the EHEA and ensuring the high quality of education. For learners as a stakeholder, according to the ESG’s these procedures are playing an important role to institutionalise the engagement of learners.
The Council decision and the Strategy foresee the European Student Card and the unique European Student Identifier to be accessible to all mobile students in 2022 and to all the other students by mid-2024. The Card must augment, but not supplant, the present ones provided by HEIs and student unions, and must enable mobile students access to the same services as those of the at-home students. Privacy and data security problems must be considered in developing a unique identification.
The financial sustainability of the partnerships must be addressed: the announced establishment of an investment route integrating local, national and European funds as part of the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) is key. ESU, however, illustrates how many national HE systems are underfunded.
On the one hand, without strong public investments, the alliances could resort to increasing tuition fees or acquiring substantial private investments to support their work, which would be a failure of the public responsibility on HE and would further commodification tendencies, as well as widen the gap between the alliances and all the other HEIs.
ESU calls the Member States to fulfil their commitment to public responsibility of HE by closing the funding gap and investing in education (and in particular in HE) the amount of funds needed for HEIs to be up to the challenges of a changing world and the requirements society and public authorities demand of them.
ESU appreciates the emphasis on academic freedom, academic integrity and institutional autonomy, by incorporating them into the Erasmus Charter for Higher Education, Erasmus Student Charter and as a requirement for establishing up shared governance structures of the alliances of HEIs.
The Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG) is working on uniform definitions and indicators for EHEA basic principles, to be ratified at the next Ministerial Conference in 2024. Thus, the Commission’s pledge to propose in 2024 guiding principles on maintaining core academic values should enforce inside the EU those EHEA criteria and indicators.
The announced guidelines for hosting researchers at risk and the encouragement to set up national programmes for refugee students are a welcomed development towards the establishment of a European Scholars and Students At Risk scholarship scheme, based on a common framework for national programmes and co-funded by the EU.
Lighthouses require additional commanders and devices to guide ships from danger
At a critical time when the pandemic has exacerbated social inequality, and the financial and educational background of students’ parents remains affirmed as the predominant factor for enrolment in many European education systems, ESU found that the four joint key objectives for the EEA to achieve by 2024 could have more holistically integrated diversity, equity and inclusion.
ESU played a key role in the creation and adoption of the Principles and Guidelines to Strengthen the Social Dimension of Higher Education in the EHEA and continues to co-chair the 2021-2024 BFUG Working Group on Social Dimension supporting the implementation and monitoring of the Principles and Guidelines. Whether the Commission’s proposed “European framework for diversity and inclusion” will complement and support the further implementation of the Principles and Guidelines is an important question and the answer should not only rest assured that the framework will not lead to any contradictions between both policies, it should also stipulate meaningful involvement of the BFUG Working Group on Social Dimension in the development of the European framework. This would be in keeping with the pledge to enhance synergies between the EHEA, EEA and European Research Area (ERA).
Still, from a student position, ESU thinks there might have been a lot more thinking and imaginative measures to avoid students from marginalised, underprivileged and underrepresented groups from being left behind in our education institutions and society.
Without special and rapid expenditures in education, it will take us decades to make up for the learning deficits incurred by the epidemic. Investing in education involves, above all, investing in teachers, paying them appropriately while providing sufficient training, resources and tools for establishing digital capabilities to all students and to teaching and administrative personnel. While the Strategy ticks the box in noting the need to enhance working conditions, it required to also note that teaching and administrative personnel are more and more requiring to adapt and cater to the requirements of an increasingly diverse student body.
It is highly concerning that the inclusion of student support services (scholarships/grants, counselling and guidance, language help, food and lodging) is significantly absent and gets no reference in the whole Strategy. In a Europe-wide student survey ESU carried out together with the University of Zadar and the Institute for the Development of Education in Zagreb at the height of the first wave of the pandemic in 2020, the majority of the respondents reported feeling frequently frustrated, anxious and bored in relation to their academic activities. An, even more, grimmer fact to learn about is that just 5.8% of students would turn to institutional personnel if they wanted assistance regarding their academics and 1.5% of students would turn to institutional staff if they needed support to speak about the COVID-19 problem.
ESU feels it should be general knowledge by now that it is damaging to the quality of European education if the social component is overlooked and, most notably if it is not included into the digital and ecological transformation of our institutions. Just as the Commission promises to provide support to transnational cooperation to develop the digital skills and competencies of students of all ages, staff and researchers, it can and should also do the same for social skills and competencies to combat the negative consequences the pandemic has had on the human backbone of our educations systems. Similarly, it may and should assist Member States’ efforts via peer learning and sharing best practices in fostering full institutional approaches towards the social dimension, along with sustainability, climate and environmental literacy.
An ideal example for a truly holistic and integrated approach would be if the European Commission supports dedicated measures to recognise at the EU level the efforts of universities not only driving the digital and green transformation but doing this while strengthening the social dimension and upholding the fundamental values. While we are setting ambitious targets, ESU reiterates its belief that the EU can and should have a role in promoting minimum standards on investments, e.g. on scholarships/grants, mental health support services and housing, in line with the European Pillar of Social Rights, for instance by reformulating the European Semester in order to strengthen its social part.
The focus on investing in digital skills and infrastructure to bridge the current divides is fundamental, and the future of HE will also pass-through access to high quality, shared digital environment: ESU supports the proposed creation of a European platform to promote cooperation between HEIs, compatible with the European Open Science Cloud, as a way to strengthen the Digital Education Action Plan.
It is vital to clarify that the digital skills, for which the Commission’s Strategy sets ambitious objectives, should not simply contain technical and specialty capabilities, but also transversal skills and attitudes such as data literacy, ethics etc. The Strategy also underlines the need for digital infrastructure. The main purpose while constructing this infrastructure should be to make sure the infrastructure is available to all learners, since universal accessibility is an essential requirement for digital education. Any and all digital initiatives for HEIs should be established and regularly assessed with the engagement of students and staff.
ESU stresses the need for a holistic vision in the plans for digital skills, education, and infrastructure, which should include plans for developing the necessary pedagogical skills and vision for how the digital tools should be used in education, as well as the necessary quality assurance procedures to ensure the quality of the digital education. The Council Recommendation on ‘building bridges’ highlights pedagogical training and valuing education in academic staff career evaluations, which is a good development and their implementation is vital for the proper execution of any digital education.
The digitization ambitions in the package lack consideration for the privacy and ethical elements of digital education. Digital tools, including those making use of artificial intelligence (AI), offer many possibilities for education, and interoperable platforms and infrastructure can make these tools more usable, accessible, and effective, but the privacy of students must always come first: their data must always remain under their ownership, be stored securely, and be used with respect for ethical principles. The creation of European rules for the ethical use of digital technologies in education might be an enabling element in this.
According to the Commission’s Strategy, the ‘future [of mobility] should be founded on hybrid solutions offering a good balance between physical presence and digital tools’. ESU reminds that the Council’s findings on the European Universities Initiative declared that physical mobility must remain the fundamental format, not mixed or so-called ‘virtual’ ones, and once again underscores the significance of physical mobility above all other forms. ESU and the Erasmus Student Network published a joint paper on the role that blended mobilities and virtual exchanges should play: they can be useful to promote physical mobilities at a later stage of a student career, but cannot be an obstacle to the increase in the inclusiveness and in the funding of physical mobility. In order to make the Erasmus programme really accessible and stable over the years, the amount of money should rise without drastic dips between two MFF cycles, and the grants should cover the actual expenses of living and learning in the host city.
The creation of the European Higher Education Sector Observatory intends to bridge the inadequacies of the present data sources and become the single access point for the information on HE in the EU. The Observatory should take into consideration important data about the students’ conditions, experiences and viewpoints in their learning environment. In this regard, the significance of the EUROSTUDENT project and its deliverables cannot be stressed enough, providing a reliable source of comparable data on the social dimension of European HE through a strong network of national partners in each participating country and the participation of stakeholders, including ESU, in its Steering Board. The Bologna With Student Eyes publication is a crucial and only source of comparable data on the participation and involvement of students in the governance of European HE that is collected through the National Unions of Students umbrellaed under ESU and that should be considered one of the data sources for the Observatory. The accompanying European Higher Education Sector Scoreboard, which will also assess the investment levels in HE, must be prepared in consultation with all the HE stakeholders and must feed the European Semester’s country-specific recommendations.
The role of Higher Education Institutions within the green transition
The Council Recommendation on learning for environmental sustainability comes at a vital moment. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals are to be fulfilled in this decade, the European Green Deal is to accomplish a key milestone towards carbon neutrality as well, while nations throughout the globe are experiencing the effect of environmental changes. ESU, therefore, commends this endeavor, since it is vital for bringing ideas for a healthier environment into reality. Sustainability-related education gives a chance to produce more interesting and relevant course material by employing actual situations and examples, which learners might connect to. ESU also underscores the significance of life-long learning highlighted in the text, as individuals of all ages need to have the possibility to learn about the latest development or just supplement their present knowledge. Moreover, such activities not only need to be established but also appropriately publicized, so that residents are aware of these chances and are able to see themselves as students again.
ESU also encourages the education on environmental concerns for staff of HEIs, since students are best led by example and it is a crucial prelude for the correct adoption of these matters into curriculum. Special attention could be necessary in this topic since academics are already specialists in their area and normally demand more extensive, complete information in contrast to other learners.
Finally, implementation of these elements should be examined thoroughly with a focus on meaningfulness to avoid green-washing. Some apparently green-related activities could operate solely on paper and provide little impact in real life, circumventing the objective of this Recommendation.
The numerous objectives of Higher Education
Regarding the Council’s recommendations on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability, and the Council’s recommendations on individual learning paths, ESU agrees that the HE system needs to keep up with the changing times and changing nature of HE, including the rise of lifelong learning as the means to upskill and reskill people. Even though micro-credentials have been the topic of discussion for years now with the prospect of adapting people to the ever-changing workforce more easily, ESU stresses that micro-credentials must not become means of commodification but rather a voluntary free of charge development tool for the learner. The student, the lifelong learner, must always be at the core of the education process.