Conference of European Ministers responsible for higher education in
Leuven and Louvain–la–Neuve, Belgium.

28 April 2009

Dear Ministers,
Distinguished Rectors,
Dear friends,

I’ve had the privilege to address the two previous Bologna summits in Bergen
and in London. I am happy to see that, according to the various studies that have
been prepared, good progress has been made since 2007.
I would like to thank the government authorities and higher–education
institutions of the Bologna countries for the hard work that has made this
possible.
The good results show once more that the Bologna working method is effective:
common targets are agreed and they can be implemented with the higher
education sector.
Challenges are addressed openly and solutions sought in a spirit of active
cooperation. This is very close to the working method we use at the EU in our
education and training policies.
We all agree on the urgent need to modernise Europe’s education and training
systems. Too much knowledge remains locked up in our universities and too
much talent is being wasted.

Our efforts are based on the following realisations:
our schools and universities determine to a large extent the individual and
collective values held by Europeans today and tomorrow—and I say this both
as Commissioner and as a father of four;
investing in education is the best bet we can place on our future—and this is
a point worth stressing in a recession;
excellent and accessible education systems are decisive factors of economic
growth and competitiveness.

Crisis and reforms
My current term as Commissioner is coming to an end, and I will use this
opportunity to reflect upon what we have achieved together over the past few
years.
We have also prepared a brochure on “The EU contribution to the Bologna
Process”, which is being handed out at this Conference.
I will touch on three main issues: quality assurance, lifelong learning and global
attractiveness. But before that I want to share my views on higher education and
research policies in the current downturn.
With Europe’s and the world’s economy in dire straits, some suggest cutting
back spending in areas that do not bring short–term returns—such as education.
The most vulnerable sectors of society are hit hardest by the crisis and—there is
no doubt—they need all the assistance we can afford. However, this support
should not come at the expense of higher education and research.
In this crisis, universities have never been part of the problem, but they can be
part of the solution.
The broad orientations the EU has adopted to weather the economic storm
perfectly apply to research and higher education.

Our recovery plan suggests we increase, not decrease, expenditure in education,
innovation and research. In fact, it’s already happening; we have increased the
budgets for Erasmus and Erasmus Mundus.
Short–term measures are needed to tackle the worst effects of the crisis, but we
must look ahead. We must continue to pursue the structural reforms that we
have introduced over the past few years, many of them under the “Bologna
umbrella”.
But the pace of reforms should speed up during the recession if they are to
maximise their contribution to recovery and growth.
As you know, we propose that spending on higher education should be increased
by 1% up to 2% of GDP by 2020. In the present climate, to some this may seem
wishful thinking, but—believe me—it is absolutely necessary.
Of course, higher education remains the responsibility of Member States and
their regions, but I will not tire on encouraging political and academic leaders to
tap all the support Europe can give—which is not negligible.
The European Institute of Innovation and Technology is one example. Looking
back at the past five years, the EIT is one achievement I am particularly proud
of.
Proposed for the first time just four years ago, the EIT is today a reality. It will
carry out its mission following two main paths: it will join the corners of the
knowledge triangle—education, research and innovation—and it will build an
environment in which the most dynamic business people and the most dynamic
academics can work side–by–side.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
As I said earlier, today I would like to focus on quality assurance, lifelong
learning, and global attractiveness.

Quality Assurance

Quality assurance has become central for higher education over the past few
years.
The Commission, Member States and university associations have jointly
promoted a culture of quality for a long time.
The main idea behind what is called ‘internal quality assurance’ is to help
institutions help themselves through peer reviews and benchmarking.
More recently, we have seen the rise of external quality assurance. Ten years
ago, only a few countries in Europe had external reviews of university teaching.
Again, pilot projects supported by the European Commission have helped to
promote external quality assurance persuade in all EU countries.
As a result, we now have bodies such as ENQA and quality–assurance agencies
in most of the 46 countries that participate in the Bologna process.
Finally, a year ago I had the pleasure of speaking at the founding event of the
European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education.
The Register is the result of a successful cooperation between the Bologna
process and the EU and its operations shows that it is applying quite rigorous
selection quality criteria. And I am very happy to see that already 9 agencies
from 5 different Member States have been admitted to the Register.

Lifelong learning
As to lifelong learning—that old chestnut you may say—we’ve been talking
about it for years, at least since the European Year for Lifelong Learning in

1996. 
      A lot of work has gone into improving the recognition of prior learning and
      introducing more flexible, student–centred learning modes.
      
      Yet, in spite of all these efforts—including the Charter the EUA presented last
      year—lifelong learning remains a weak point in the modernisation agenda.
      The rationale for lifelong learning is stronger than ever. More and more people
      find themselves between jobs either because they want to change career paths or
      because they have been laid off and need to retrain to stay competitive in the
      labour market.
      Let me stress this point in the clearest terms: learning at any stage in life will
      have to become the norm.
      The next question is on the content of learning. What kind of knowledge and
      which skills will Europeans need in the future? Nobody knows for sure, and
      particularly in higher education accurate forecasting is impossible.
      However, much intelligence on jobs forecasting exists at both national and EU
      level which can help us see broad trends and emerging gaps.
      Last December we issued a Communication on “New skills for new jobs”. Our
      policy document set out our stall and proposed new cooperation stressing,
      among other things, the importance of a scientific approach and evidence–based
      policy.
      Higher education should be more relevant to the needs of the labour market and
      it should be more accessible. We would like to raise the aspirations of all those
      fellow Europeans who think that universities are not for them.
      Demographic changes indicate huge decreases in the stock of school leavers; the
      proportion of mature students in the student body will grow. More people are
      likely to enrol at university later in life, not necessarily when they turn 18.
      The universities that open their doors to these new students will thrive. I have
      proposed that, over the next ten years, lifelong learning and mobility are key
      priorities in an updated strategic framework for cooperation in education and
      training.]
      
      Global attractiveness
      Ladies and Gentlemen:
      I will now turn to the third issue; how can we make our universities more
      attractive? Higher education institutions operate in a global context, and I think
      that international co–operation and competition can bring many benefits and
      opportunities.
      The Bologna process is the main instrument we have in Europe to manage the
      growing internationalisation of the higher–education sector and there are signs
      that it is working well. As you know, several countries in other parts of the
      world are bringing their systems in line with the Bologna framework.
      I have strongly advocated a formal acknowledgment of these efforts by granting
      some kind of Bologna partnership status. Although enough support in the
      Bologna follow–up group could not be found, I welcome the decision to hold a
      Bologna Policy Forum tomorrow. It is a step in the right direction.
      I am sure that this will open a fruitful window for dialogue with countries
      outside Europe and I congratulate the governments of Belgium, the Netherlands
      and Luxemburg on this initiative.
      The Commission attaches great importance to cooperating with other parts of
      the world. We have been working with EU neighbouring countries through the
      Tempus programme, which involves 55 countries, many of which are also part
      of the Bologna Process.
      We have also signed bilateral co–operation agreements with other countries, and
      there is Erasmus Mundus—our flagship programme for global cooperation—
      which has now been extended to the doctoral level.
      In this context, I am pleased to inform you that we are working on a Green
      Paper devoted to learning mobility of young people in all sectors of education
      and training in response to the conclusions of the Education Council in
      November.
      I believe that all students deserve mobility opportunities but fewer than 10%
      actually participate in mobility schemes.
      We are launching the public consultation in July. I am looking forward to
      receiving feedback from ministers in charge of education and training and from
      all stakeholders. ]
      Ranking
      Transparency is another key factor if we are serious about making our
      universities more attractive. The Commission is supporting transparency in
      several ways, such as the classification of higher–education institutions and
      various ranking initiatives.
      Ranking projects are always controversial, including—I understand—among
      some Bologna countries and stakeholders. This is not surprising, because
      ranking is difficult to do and has the potential to affect and even distort life in
      academia.
      However, rankings are already a fact of life and cannot be wished away. Also,
      we cannot deny their popularity and their increasing visibility.
      Existing ranking systems are too narrow. They are mostly based on research
      performance to the exclusion of areas such as teaching and community
      outreach—thereby failing to account for the rich diversity of higher education.
      However, they are devoured by the media, thereby generating perceptions in the
      public opinion that do not always correspond to reality.
      How can we respond? Working towards our own system is the smart thing to do.
      We need a system that captures all the specificities of European universities and
      serves our own constituents.
      
      A good European system would be of great help for students as they select the
      university that best matches their talent and inclination. This is why, in
      December 2008, we launched a call for tender for the design and testing of a
      new ranking system and look forward to having the results of the feasibility
      study in mid–2011.
      We are convinced that an independent and authoritative mapping of universities
      and their programmes—in Europe and beyond—will make education systems
      more transparent and more effective. Above all, it would make the life of many
      Europeans easier—and that’s what counts.
      Close
      Ladies and Gentlemen:
      I would like to close with a few interesting facts found by a new Eurobarometer
      survey carried out on 15,000 students across 30 European counties.
      Let us see what respondents have to say about the objectives of higher
      education:

• 97% say that higher education should provide knowledge and skills
  relevant to the labour market;
• 91% agree on the importance of enhancing personal development and
  87% of helping young people play an active role in society;
  as to transparency:
• 83% think that independent rankings on the quality of universities and
  programmes would help them decide where to study.
• The survey also asked about tuition fees. Two thirds think that higher
  education should be free of charge, whereas the rest would accept fees,
  provided grants and loans are available.
• When asked about mobility, 40% of respondents say they have never
  planned to study abroad and 11% that they have planned to do so but gave
  up. One third of the students say they intend to study in another country.
• The main obstacle to studying abroad is lack of funds, mentioned by 61%
  of those who have abandoned plans to study abroad or who had never
  thought of doing so.
  I think these figures give us enough food for thought and will stimulate our
  debate. I wish us all a very successful conference.
  Thank you.