Seminar 6 was hosted by the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Poland and addressed the issues of "HE lifelong learning and changing relations with the region and state across Europe" and "Quality assessment of HE as a global problem" with the aim of contributing to a conference paper on "Steering Change in HE, management implications and quality assurance" and a policy paper on "Relations with the State and quality in HE". The objectives of the seminar were:

• To offer innovative analyses on case studies of what forms of quality and accountability are emerging between the institution, its region and the state
• To compare issues of quality assessment, evaluation and control across EU countries
• To use seminar and website discussions to give an analytical overview of lifelong learning models for quality and accountability
• To contribute to end of year policy briefing paper for the influence of future policies on HE and quality across Europe in the lead up to EU enlargement.
• To provide a framework for the network participants to consider future research collaborations and policy issues in the area of institutional change and quality management.

Session 1 - "Quality and Accountability"

Paper 1 - State accreditation: Czech case, Helena Sebkova

Paper 2 - Academic accreditation: Polish case, Ewa Chmielecka

Key discussion points to come out of Czech presentation: State Accreditation: Czech case

• Power of Ministry to over-ride the decision of expert panel evidence Is the Accreditation Committee truly independent? Might the Ministry not take the recommendation of the AC. In fact, it would probably be difficult for the Ministry to act without taking account of the recommendations of the expert’s evidence.
• Funding link between HE Funding Councils and Quality Accreditation decisions Should there be a financial link between. In theory, AC is not directly linked to money, but in fact, state funding is distributed through formula funding; formala funding is linked to student numbers, which in turn is linked to quality. (Poles)
• How useful are the key networks eg. INQUA to deal with "illlegal" education from other sources such as commercial sources How do we ensure quality assurance of commercial courses and provision offered by unknown providers? (Marek & Poles)
• Quality assurance is more then just accreditation of programmes. The debate needs to be enlarged to include other aspects of HE provision; for example, what about research? What about evaluation of HE system in general? (Barry Hake)
• To what extent could or should the responsibility for QA be devolved to individual institutions? (Maria Slowey)

Key discussion points to come out of Polish presentation: Academic Accreditation : Polish case

• Methodology Can we use the internal evaluation, the external evaluation and public report methodology together to achieve quality and enhancement (control and improvement)
• Co-ordination of 2 systems Are there real difficulties for the HEIs being quality assured? Are HEIs being overloaded which can lead to negative outcomes rather than the positive outcomes which are desirable.
• How important is it for HEIs to have the "quality mark"? All HEIs need the PKA quality assurance so as to ensure survival. The second method of KRASP is optional but is actually the method which will ensure true quality at a deep level of analysis because it based on voluntary self reflection and evaluation.
• Do we need 2 systems ie. PKA to survive and KRASP for self assessment? The 2 systems work in slightly different ways, but are actually complimentary and synergistic.

Session 2 - "Quality and Accountability" Chair: Helena Sebkova

Paper 3 - QA - German experiences, Achim Hopbach

Paper 4 - QA in Lifelong Learning in Latvia, Atis Kapenieks, Juris Dzelme

Key discussion points to come out of German presentation: QA : German experiences

• Why will a common system produce an advantage in picking up all quality issues given the differences between HEIs? Germany has standardised framework and procedures, but the implementation is well-developed to take account of specific needs of HEIs at local level.
• Evaluation and accreditation are both important?
• The private Universities are accredited by a different Council. They are accredited on an institutional basis rather than on a programme level. The system is unlikely to change while the number and size of the private Universities are still so small.
• Germany has many agencies involved. Should there be an umbrella organisation for these agencies?
• How does Germany evaluate other aspects of HE provision eg. research, institutional processes etc.

Germany should have brought these procedures together from the start and is still very important work which needs to be done by the German Rektors.

Key discussion points to come out of Latvian presentation: QA in lifelong learning

• Challenges for QA to support learners in a more flexible HE system which takes account of increasing internationalisation and part-time learners (Maria Slowey)
• Ways of studying are becoming more and more differentiated and we need to create QA measures to check these different outcomes. This presents a huge challenge if we are to become more flexible in this way.
• We need to place more emphasis on competences which students will have when they leave HE; this requires a more outcome driven focus.

• The ECTS scheme is key to these developments. Mobility is key and depends on an outcome driven approach.
• Developing the methodology for moving towards a more outcome oriented approach is very important.
• Germany and Sweden are just beginning to think about this approach. Turin and Netherlands are developing an approach which may have potential. Must avoid a heavily-bureaucratic approach which is at odds with the Bologna process.
• ECTS and what do we expect from quality.
• Different aims may be likely depending on subjects and HEIs.
• Internally the significance of ETSC are reduced in important.
• ECTS is a useful international currency system which allows for comparability between students from different national systems.
• What is the impact of developing an outcome-driven approach on access.
• A move towards a more outcome-driven approach is likely to improve access, APL and APEL. Access for non-traditional learners who have come through non-traditional routes in Germany is not yet highly developed for example, whereas it is relatively well-developed in the UK.

Session 3 - Panel discussion "Hidden Variables in QA"

Moderator: Maria Slowey; Panelists: Ewa Chmielecka, Malgorzata Radkiewicz, Helge Stromdahl, Louise Morley.

Key points to come out of panel discussion on "Hidden Variables in QA"

• We can probably evaluate knowledge and skills, but maybe not attitudes and behaviours. How do we evaluate hidden values such as the development of ethics, philosophy and humanism. Maybe the new value to develop amongst students and maybe it should be a stronger sense of responsibility (Ewa — Poland)
• Gender issues in HE. Even where there are no gender imbalances evident in the student body in Sweden, there are still major gender imbalances at all levels of staff, especially at higher levels. This is despite all of the government guidelines which encourage gender equality. Gender is a quality issue even in the Swedish system; the quality guidelines are there, but achieving gender equality at all levels of staff in Swedish HEIs is very difficult to achieve.
• What is the focus of the evaluation — is it on the quality of the process or on the standard of the outcome? Is it the process, the environment or the standards? Lee Harvey’s matrix for standards might be useful for looking at quality in relation to hidden variables. (Helge- Sweden)
• Quality assurance is associated with success or failure in the UK which in itself is problematic. Some feel that quality assurance is used to legitimate major state intervention in HE. QA is underpinned about significant values and norms associated with HE — it is about changing HE’s relationship with the State. Getting new forms of governance, new moralities and new norms about HE — some see this as interference from Government, while others see the intervention as a welcome change which needs to happen.
• At the level of student engagement in the classroom there are whole areas of HE which cannot be QA’d eg. how do hidden values translate into very mechanistic QA measures.
• There is a whole new language of quality; people have had to learn how to represent themselves. Those in favour welcome the reflective practice approach, whereas others argue that this is actually part of the marketing quality culture in which HE has to present itself in a very positive light despite the very very real problems — ie. we have to pretend that everything is getting better and that it is in hand.
• Critics argue that knowledge and content is ignored in favour of skills and competences.
• A hidden variable in the UK is a strong sense of stress and alienation. The impact of over-regulation has already impacted on schools; now it is beginning to impact on HE.
• Quality is a very difficult discourse to resist or to criticise.
• For many it is about challenging the elite organisations.
• One of the hidden impacts of QA is the development of an enormously wasteful bureaucratic culture which is frankly, a waste of academic time

Discussion.

1. CE has an ongoing debate within Universities in terms of quality and its relationship to the rest of the academic programmes being undertaken at Universities. This debate is very similar to the issues facing gender studies and gender balance in HE. The same debate is happening in relation to widening participation despite where new curriculums are being inhibited by traditionalists despite the current relevance of the subject area to the world of work and despite the truly analytical academic work.
2. The whole QA debate is potentially undermining the role and core values of the academic in the pursuit of knowledge. Also, what about academic freedom — one way of looking at QA systems that this is a game which has to be played. It is a useful game because it enables academics to show how good they are. Whatever, the academic must be allowed to continue to be creative and to operate in an environment of academic freedom.
3. The aim of HE is intended to be for the public good, yet the QA system is encouraging the development of the individual good rather than the public good. The values associated with individual pursuit are linked to values associated with market values, selfish attitudes and individual commercial gain at the expense of society, the team, the common good.
4. Why is evaluation taken on such a huge importance in our time. Is it because massification of HE has made governments more aware of the need to evaluate the impact of HE on society. The trouble is that we may have lost sight of the role of the academic and of the values which we are encouraging in the curriculum and in the student body.

Session 4 - Workshops: "The role of State and responsibilities of HEIs in QA"

GROUP 1 (Magda Jaroszewska)

State:

• Promotion of the education as the public goods in agreement with Bolonia process,
• Learning of the languages,
• Security of the finances (for example - grants for students),
• Creation of the network in the teaching,
• Support the units - centrum of the excellence of teaching,
• Generally, increase finances on the research and teaching,
• State accreditation should be improved, not only „safety mark"
• Consultation of the minimum of the programs/standards with the HEI,
• Take into account national contexts (emigrants — too), region context etc.

HEI:

• Connection of the research and the teaching,
• Engaged of the students in the research process,
• Accreditation : institution?, program? course?
• Definition of the terminology of the quality assurance, accreditation,
• Academic freedom ? when one is reached and the second not necessary reach
• Good interpretation of the Bolonia process,
• By the way of Bolonia activities — we should present also dark sides of the education, Increase :
• knowledge of the groups of the people at the university (staff development units),
• motivation of the activities of the people,
• ownership (for example — disseminate responsibilities; consultations,
• discussions, seminars...).
• Gender problems.
• Disability problems.

Group 2 (Marek Frankowicz)

• 1. If we discuss any national developments (relations State-Academia, various accreditation schemes), they should be placed in international context (because of the Bologna process).
• 2. There were many meetings after Bologna Declaration concerning QA. Four steps:
• 1st step: platform for exchanging information (ENQA)
• 2nd step: mutual recognition of national accreditation systems (again ENQA)
• 3rd step: metaevaluation at European level
• 4th step: European accreditation commission??? (academic community is against)
• 3. QA for LLL
  • How university deals with non-formal education? How to accredit experiential learning? Are HEIs able to cope with the problem of LLL which fulfills needs of state and society?
  • How to facilitate access to HE for persons with work experience and age > 25?
  • QA mechanisms should motivate students and motivate HEIs
• 4. HE systems: middle-class, eurocentric. There is no willingness to accredit experiential learning. Necessity of better understanding of accreditation among academic staff.

List of questions for further discussion in the eForum

1. In principle - do ideas of the Berlin Communiqué fit (at least to some extent) to the situation in the field of quality evaluation and accreditation in your country? If not, what are the main problems? What is the view of your institution?
2. Has the mechanism of accreditation been implemented in your country already or are you currently in the stage of preparation to implement it? As regards your institution, are you satisfied with this process and with its progress?
3. Are the results of external quality evaluation in your country public? If not, why? If not, do you intend to follow Berlin Communiqué and to change the current situation? If not, why?
4. Are the authorities in your country responsible for quality evaluation/accreditation members of ENQA? If yes, do they consider the membership as useful? In what aspects preferably? If not, do they intend to ask for membership?
5. Are students in your country involved into quality evaluation/accreditation processes? If not, do you intend to change the situation? If yes, do they (their national representation) work actively in ESIB? As regards your institution, are you satisfied with the activities (their type and content) of students?
6. What about the common characteristics for QA procedures agreed in Graze? /They must promote cultural, academic and organisational quality; they must respect institutional autonomy; they must develop internal quality culture; they must be cost effective; they must include an evaluation of the QA agencies; they must minimise bureaucracy and avoid over regulation/ Has your process followed them already? Are there some of them very difficult to be taken into consideration in your country? Have you implemented the evaluation of QA Agency already? If yes, describe, please, the mechanism briefly.
7. Have you implemented any type of training of external evaluators? If yes, describe please the mechanism briefly.