Higher Education Management

Whilst the evaluation of higher education in different countries shares many features, it is subject to a range of interpretations and operational procedures. This variation is evident in the use made of external experts, the role played by various stake-holders and the scope and level of evaluation, including the extent to which education, and teaching, is assessed. Pilot projects at the European level are noted. The need for a harmonious European framework is assessed. SETTING UP SYSTEMATIC EVALUATIONS IN WESTERN EUROPE The last decade has witnessed a remarkable European trend towards assessment and improvement of higher education. Government policies of decentralisation, value-for-money perspective, and internationalisation have all contributed. Several parallel developments have influenced this trend. Thus the move in higher education from an elite to a mass-system has changed the nature of the student population, and has produced a need for a quality in higher education that may meet a diversity of student needs and abilities. At the same time 9 HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGEMENT national governments have focused more on the need for accountability of the higher education institutions. This ‘‘value for money’’ perspective has in some countries been further influenced by a process of decentralisation. In this context more freedom for the institutions has been balanced by the setting up of systematic evaluation procedures. Finally the growing trend of internationalisation of students and studies has given a priority to international comparison of welldefined levels of quality. Accordingly government initiatives caused the establishment of agencies in France (1986), the Netherlands (l988), the United Kingdom (1992) and Denmark (1992) with the task of systematically assessing all higher education in these respective countries. Other countries such as Finland, Norway, Portugal, Spain and Sweden followed although at varying levels of ambition in terms of a systematic effort. Today in most of the fifteen member states of the European Union national systems of evaluation have been or are now being developed. These systems have of course similarities as well as differences. Methodologies are adapted to the specifications of each country and they try to meet the particular circumstances of each member State. CHOICES OF METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Over the last years representatives of European evaluation agencies have regularly met to discuss their national experiences of methodology, procedures and best practices. The first systems in place, the French, Dutch, British and Danish, undeniably have had many elements in common. For example, they all initially planned their evaluations on the basis that all study programmes or institutions must within a specified cycle of time be evaluated. And all of them insisted that the instruments used for managing systems must in principle be autonomous and independent, both from the Government and from the higher education institutions. There has been a general agreement among experts from these four national systems on the importance of self-evaluation, of peer review, of site visits, and on the value to be obtained from evaluation reports, which are then published. But within this general consensus European discussions have been fed by differences in national interpretations and experiences of the operational implications of setting up procedures. The following sections will present some of the more relevant items of discussions and priorities. 10 THE EUROPEAN SYSTEMS OF QUALITY ASSURANCE – DIMENSIONS OF HARMONISATION AND DIFFERENTIATION