Conference of Education and Research Committee Chairpersons of the
Parliaments of the Member States of the EU, the European Parliament and
the Parliaments of the Candidate States at the Bundestag

Berlin, 11 June 2007

Honourable members,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to thank the organisers for their kind invitation to this conference. I was happy to accept because it provides an opportunity to discuss education in Europe from an angle that deserves more attention.

As you know, the Treaty of Rome states quite clearly that the content and organisation of education and training systems are the responsibility of Member States. However, the fact is that the Treaty has articles on education and training, and that cooperation in there areas at EU level brings great added value. Indeed, in the era of globalisation, I would say it is essential.

Given the general interests of the audience today, and given the fact that European cooperation, is most extensive in the higher education sector – just think of the Bologna Process – it is here that I would like to concentrate my remarks.

I said that this conference gives us a chance to discuss European aspects of education and research from an angle that is often neglected. I feel that the unique point of view of parliaments would complete our policy debate. You are ideally placed to see how education policies affect people’s lives: you talk to your constituents; you receive their letters of complaint and their demands.

Policy decisions for schools, universities and training institutions have implications that involve almost every aspect of our economic and social reality. For this reason alone, it is crucial that the voice of elected representatives is heard and that your debate takes place in a European context.

Why do I insist that the future of our higher education and research is best planned in a European context? Because these are fields in which the wind of internationalisation is blowing ever stronger.

It is quite common today for bright young researchers to go to the internet and pick the institutions where they will further their education, carry out their research, or apply for teaching positions.

It is also not uncommon for these intellectual workers to regard the world as their playground. I like this attitude immensely. It makes me think of the travelling scholars that are so characteristic of Europe’s intellectual and scientific past. Erasmus was one of them—and, as you know, our best–known programme is named after him.

However, our systems of education cannot simply watch the world change around them. They need to lead the change. Specifically, education and research authorities in Europe need to work as a team.

Having been in this job for 2 and a half years now, I think I can say that all EU countries now agree that the quality of education and training, in particular in science and technology, is a key ingredient for the long–term success of the Union—both in social and in economic terms – and that European level cooperation is needed to achieve this.

One response of governments and universities to this challenge has been the effort to build a genuine European Higher Education Area: this is the goal and purpose of the policies and reforms known as the Bologna process.

The process has specific targets and deadline. The Area should be operation by 2010 and its main objectives – apart from the introduction of the three cycle system of course – include free movement of students and teachers, reliable qualifications frameworks and credit systems, and effective systems of quality assurance.

I would like to point out that, although the specific policies look quite technical, the EHEA is more than an ‘internal market’ for Europe’s scholars, intellectual and researchers.

While the Area takes shape and becomes stronger, Europe’s higher education has a golden opportunity to grow and diversify. In short, to regain world leadership.

Just consider the implications of the quality–assurance systems that are being put in place as we speak. A network of reliable, internal and external systems are emerging in all European countries. Ministers of the 46 European countries in the Bologna Process met in London last month and, amongst other decisions taken, adopted a European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies.

But the quality labels that institutions and programmes will be awarded are much more than administrative documents. They will have a cascading impact on the academic landscape because—among other things—students will be able to use them to choose their university.

I think this is important because it makes institutions more transparent and responsible and, above all, because it ultimately empowers students ahead of one of the most momentous choices in their lives.

Quality labels will have an impact at the opposite end of study courses as well. Prospective employers will use them as additional information on the kind and quality of qualifications of a job applicant.

Obviously, both of these effects will mean that universities will have to become more competitive.

These are just some of the potential consequences of the development of quality assurance systems. To turn this potential into reality, however, a great deal of work remains to be done.

For instance, universities’ websites will have to describe in detail all study programmes, indicating learning outcomes and the level and kind of accreditation or certification won by the programme or institution.

I regard this as a major innovation that will give academic and government authorities invaluable data that they can use in their effort to improve output and performance.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The drive to modernise Europe’s higher education has already achieved good results in the past few years. However, there is no room for complacency.

It seems to me that the Bologna process is a huge structural success; that is to say, a success for the national and regional authorities that are in charge of higher–education systems.

However, the picture does not look as rosy at the level of individual institutions. These large–scale reforms have still to trickle down to improve the daily life of teachers, students and researchers, to be implemented at the grass roots level.

Higher education is still suffering from uniformity of programmes offered, over–regulation and under–funding.

I call on government and academic authorities to turn the structural changes made possible by the Bologna process into bolder and more tangible reforms.

I am not the only one to notice this implementation gap. For example, the report presented by the European University Association to Ministers in London last month confirmed that many universities still find it hard to grasp the concept of lifelong learning and to make full use of its opportunities.

Their analysis, which the European Commission shares, is as follows. These are times of demographic change. In the future, higher education institutions will receive fewer students who enrol directly from school. Instead, the number of older people who need to upgrade their skills will grow.

This is a consequence of both globalisation and demographic change. It is a fact of life. However, learning institutions should not see it as a threat, but as an opportunity to develop and diversify their course offerings. In the case in point, I would expect to see more study programmes designed for adult students and for learners with non–traditional backgrounds.

I am calling on institutions to be bolder in their reforms. However, many European universities may reply that they would very much like to change and innovate, but have too little room for manoeuvre.

Unfortunately this is the case in many parts of Europe. I fear that public authorities in charge of education are a little too fond of their professors and scholars; the embrace of government officials and regulators is a little too tight and risks to suffocate them and stifle reform.

An open European Higher Education Area also means freedom for the universities. Governments must resist the temptation to micromanage universities from above – many have already realised this.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that they should withdraw from their responsibilities altogether. On the contrary, public authorities would remain responsible for the rules of the game. For example, they would be in charge of the qualifications frameworks and of recognition.

But governments should enter a new type of partnership with their universities—and many have done so already. The public authority would provide a regulatory framework, policy objectives, and funding and incentives. In return, the institutions would be free to take their own strategic decisions. I have no doubt universities and research institutions would thrive on this new freedom and would use it responsibly.

I want to see more responsive universities, more mobility, more diversity and more openness to business and society at large, also beyond the Europe borders.

What does ‘openness to business and society’ mean? Among other things, it means the systematic integration of the notion of employability into curricular development.

In other words, a freer and more responsible university would also feel responsible for the occupational future of its graduates. To this end, students would receive not only discipline–specific skills but also broader employment related skills.

Fostering an entrepreneurial mindsets and innovation skills should become part of the normal learning outcomes of many study programmes.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

These are some of the reasons why higher education and research are so important for us in the knowledge era. However, there is another aspect which is equally important, and that is why I have saved it for last.

I am talking about innovation. In the modes of production that have emerged in the past few years, innovation is clearly the number–one factor of growth and job creation.

And to clear the ground of any misunderstanding, let me specify that I don’t regard economic success as an end in itself, but as an essential means to preserve our social model for ourselves and the generations to come.

This is why innovation is so crucial. Now, it seems that in Europe we are not living up to our century–old tradition of technological and scientific leadership; we must do something about it to regain the edge.

Our analysis of the challenge convinced us that the real problem lay in the transition from science and research to innovation proper. In fact, the full picture would also include education.

I often use a geometrical figure to describe our most urgent task; I am convinced that Europe’s most urgent need is to bring together the knowledge triangle composed of education, research and innovation.

One recent initiative of the European Commission is devoted just to that. It is the European Institute of Technology, or EIT. The EIT is proposed as a model that shows a new way to do innovation. It will not be a new university, it will be a new platform of co–operation between university, research and business. It will bring together – but not physically – the best teams in Europe to address major challenges facing our societies – such as climate change and renewable energy.

First of all the EIT will contribute to improve the competitiveness of Europe directly. It will be a performer, a knowledge operator, not a funding scheme. It will do research, education and innovation ignoring, existing disciplinary boundaries.

Secondly, we have designed the EIT to build a critical mass of human and physical resources, attracting and retaining private–sector investment as well as the brightest minds from both the scientific and business sectors.

Finally, we believe that the EIT can contribute indirectly to Europe’s competitiveness by becoming the model of a new way to do innovation. Let me stress this: the EIT will promote new forms of collaboration around the knowledge triangle and is set to become a model for the modernisation of higher education and research institutions.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Meeting the innovation challenge will be a major determinant of Europe’s future standing.

This is perhaps the best reason why we should not spare our efforts in supporting education, research and innovation in Europe.

Thank you.