The Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué of 2009
Is the European Higher Education Area a Reality?
Sep 21, 2009
The educational objectives outlined in the Bologna Declaration of 1999 have been reviewed and assessed several times – first in the Prague Communiqué in 2001, a second time in the Berlin Communiqué in 2003, a third time in the Bergen Communiqué in 2005, and a fourth time in the London Communiqué in 2007. During the London Conference, the Ministers of Higher Education ordered assessment reports and data collected in several priority areas before the next scheduled assessment in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
The Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Conference
On April 28, 2009, European Ministers from 46 signatory countries met in Belgium to review progress in the Bologna Process since the 2007 London Conference. To assist the Ministers in their review, a follow-up report (“Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2009”) was prepared and submitted to the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Conference by the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG).
As the BFUG report (2009) candidly admitted, previous Ministerial reports were limited in scope. At the 2005 meeting in Bergen, it was necessary only to show that work had been started. By the 2007 London meeting, it was sufficient to show either that legislation had been drafted, or cursory progress achieved. In 2009 – one year before full implementation of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) – the assessment process was far more rigorous.
Assessing the Failure of Some Bologna Process Objectives
The BFUG report acknowledged that although some improvement had been made since 2007, “not all the goals of the Bologna Process will be achieved by 2010.” The Education Ministers reviewed the conclusions of the BFUG report in five priority areas:
- Three-Cycle Degree System: Although barriers to moving from one cycle to another had been removed, “the actual proportion of students studying in the Bologna three-cycle system is still relatively low.” Some countries had not yet admitted students to the three-cycle program, while other countries had imposed additional examination requirements before students could progress to the next cycle.
- Qualifications Frameworks and Lifelong Learning: The European Ministers noted that while national qualification frameworks had begun to be implemented, only 6 signatory countries had completed the certification process. Few countries had developed flexible learning paths or kept statistics of progress. Overall, there was not enough integration between qualifications frameworks and learning outcomes. As a result, most countries would not meet the desired 2010 deadline.
- Educational Quality Assurance: While most countries had introduced a quality assurance system, only 15 signatory partners had established any assessment of the systems created. Even though student participation had increased, student participation often was limited to being observers — not preparers of assessment reports, as intended.
- Recognition of Degrees and Study Periods: The European Ministers acknowledged four failures within this area. First, while most signatory countries had ratified the 1997 Lisbon Recognition Convention, their approach to interpreting Convention guidelines was inconsistent (and often incoherent). Second, the 2003 Berlin Summit Ministers had hoped that all graduates would receive the Diploma Supplement (DS) “automatically and free of charge” by 2005. In reality, only half of the signatory countries had introduced the DS by 2009. Third, the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) had not been fully implemented in a number of countries and was unlikely to be introduced before 2010. Finally, although 75% of all countries had approved a joint degree system, “half of the countries estimate that only between 1% and 25%” of higher education institutions were cooperating with each other to create actual joint degree programs.
- Social and Global Dimensions of the EHEA: The European Ministers admitted that only a minority of countries had established monitoring committees to measure the social dimension. Furthermore, most countries were content to promote their own educational programs instead of the EHEA as an entity.
Setting Future Priorities for the Bologna Process
In recognition of the failure to reach all the 2010 Bologna Process objectives, the European Ministers agreed to set an action plan for the next decade. In particular, the BFUG was empowered to create a work plan up to 2012, which would
- define indicators used to measure academic mobility and the social dimension;
- debate how true mobility could be achieved within the EHEA;
- establish a network to promote the Bologna Process outside the EHEA; and
- monitor transparency mechanisms while following-up on national action plans concerning degree recognition.
No new countries were admitted for membership.
From Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve to Hungary/Austria
The results from the 2009 meeting were published as the Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué. The anniversary assessment of the Bologna Process is scheduled to be jointly hosted by Hungary (Budapest) and Austria (Vienna) in 2010.
The 2012 assessment of the Bologna Process is scheduled to be held in Bucharest, Romania.
References
Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué. 2009. The Bologna Process 2020 — The European Higher Education Area in the new decade. Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 28–29 April 2009. Bologna Process website.
Leuven/ Louvain-la-Neuve Conference. 2009. Welcome to the process of creating the European Higher Education Area. Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education. Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve, 28–29 April 2009.
Bologna Follow-Up Group. 2009. Bologna Process Stocktaking Report 2007. Report from working groups appointed by the Bologna Follow-up Group to the Ministerial Conference in Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve. 28–29 April 2009.
 |
 |
