WHAT IS GOING ON IN EUROPE AFTER THE PRAGUE FOLLOW- UP?

WHAT IS GOING ON IN EUROPE AFTER THE PRAGUE
FOLLOW- UP?
Presentation in the seminar
“EUROPEANISATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE MECHANISMS IN THE
SLOVAK REPUBLIC”
October 29-30, 2001
Virgílio A. Meira Soares
Centro de Investigação de Políticas de Ensino Superior, Fundação das Universidades Portuguesas
1. Introduction
In 1980 the Minister of Education of Portugal decided to introduce three main
important decrees that could voluntarily be used by the Universities:
1. The introduction of a credit system.
2. The creation of a new degree with the objective of decreasing the
length of the existing graduate programmes and provide students
with a post-graduate degree before PhD.
3. The creation of PhD schools within the Universities that would enjoy
special statuses to perform their doctoral research.
After some five or six years it was clear that among the so many existing programmes in the Portuguese Universities only few of them had adapted to the credit
structure, a preference for the old system being maintained. However, it was immediately obvious that the new degree would be in use very soon without having a decrease
in the number of years of graduate programmes. Finally, the third proposal was immediately declared as unacceptable with the justification that the measure was mainly directed towards elitism.
I am recalling these facts to show how Higher Education Institutions are sometimes so conservative that they despise important opportunities to become modernised.
In this particular case, the Portuguese Universities, using their autonomy, “decided” that
the Minister was trying to impose something that was against their corporative interests.
Had they been more audacious and, today, the application of part of the Bologna Declarationii would be easier. Now they may be facing some difficulties.
2
Unfortunately this corporative attitude is not only a characteristic of my country’s universities but is very much spread throughout Europe.
On the side of the public powers there is also a lack of flexibility that could lead
to good solutions if some of their decisions were prepared with the collaboration of
Higher Education Institutions, and if the authorities heard some of their demands. As a
matter of fact, there are many examples of autocratic behaviour that does not match
with the so much declared respect for the institutions’ autonomy.
Both attitudes may be very harmful to the Higher Education systems.
The Sorbonne Declarationi seems to be one of the many procedures where the
voice of Higher Education Institutions was not taken into account (some of them had
never heard of such a project), as well as many past experiences were not heard or were
ignored.
As a matter of fact, words like mobility, mutual recognition of degrees, readability of qualifications throughout Europe, equity on the access to Higher Education, lifelong learning, quality assurance and others had been in the agendas of many organisations1 (including governments) but some of them were not invited to give any input to
the declaration. Even worse than that, four ministers, apparently trying to impose their
ideas to Europe, signed the declaration. The result, although not publicly known, was
that some of the countries invited to put their signature in the Declaration, refused to do
so unless the text was modified in some particular points2. As a result, the former CRE
engaged itself in preparing the meeting, supposed to take place in Bologna in 1999, to
try and find a new text that would meet the wishes and eliminate the constraints of all
partners (i.e., the Ministers who were going to sign a new document).
Irrespective of the transparency of the process, the Sorbonne Declaration, fortunately, had the merit of becoming a driving force to make people think about what was
already inevitable some years before – a European Higher Education Area. The Bologna
Declarationii was indeed the starting point for the identification of the main goals (international competitiveness, employability and mobility) and six instrumental objectives of
that European Higher Education Area3 – (1) adoption of a system of easily readable and
comparable degrees, (2) adoption of a system based on two main cycles, (3) establishment of a system of credits, (4) promotion of mobility of students, academic staff and
i
“Harmoniser l'architecture du système européen d'enseignement supérieur”, Sorbonne, May, 1998
“The European Higher Education Area”, Joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education, Bologna, June, 1999
ii
3
non-academic staff, (5) promotion of European cooperation in quality assurance and (6)
promotion of the European dimensions in Higher Education.
Each of these six instruments was thoroughly discussed in many countries and
international fora. The report of the follow-up group3 identified many of the problems
raised during the discussions and pointed out some others that were not clearly mentioned in the Bologna Declaration or were insufficiently stressed but were also raised in
different seminars and meetings. Although we will mention them in more detail later, it
is important to note that in the Prague communiquéiii there is a special mention to lifelong learning, to the involvement of the students in the process and to its social dimension; it is also worth mentioning that in the communiqué the term “quality assurance” is
used very often and that transnational education is identified as an issue that needs special attention. Finally one should welcome the Ministers’ call for participation to all involved partners and the recognition that education is a public good.
There is no doubt that the report of the follow-up group was of utmost importance to the outcome of Prague. However all the issues are far from reaching an end and
one may have the feeling that more problems than expected were raised. The Ministers
in Bologna might have been very optimistic about the process.
We will try to address very briefly some of the questions we think need further
discussions in view of the diversity of the education systems in Europe.
2. Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees; mobility; employability
It is widely accepted that, for the majority of the existing programmes, the adoption of comparable two cycle degrees will soon be possible at European Higher Education Institutions. This acceptance is just a first, but important, step.
As we can see in many of the available documents, “the adoption of a credit
system supported by ECTS or similar in order to provide both transferability and accumulation functions is necessary”4. This calls for cooperation between Higher Education
Institutions and Governments that takes into account the need of having credits whose
meaning is understandable all over Europe. Future actions should aim at having a common understanding of a European credit system in Berlin, 2003. There seems to exist
conditions and, in particular, will to achieve this objective by that time.
iii
Following the meeting of European Ministers in charge of Higher Education, held in Prague on May
19th, 2001
4
The experience of the ENIC/NARIC network and the generalised use of the Lisbon Convention (not yet ratified in many signatory countries; shame on them!) in which
mutual trust is an essential feature, together with the compulsory use of the diploma
supplement, could pave the way for the readability of the existing degrees and to help
the establishment of a credit system. Additionally, the contribution that can be given
(and has already been given) by the Council of Europe and by CEPES/UNESCO may
be a decisive step5.
Incentives to the networking of Higher Education Institutions in different European countries should have in mind the possibility of developing joint research projects
and awarding joint degrees (the definition of what it means needs to be made), thus facilitating recognitions and readability of degrees and build similar core curricula.
It seems difficult to find an agreement for some programmes (such as medicine,
law and some few others) to follow a two-cycle system. However, there are some countries prepared to do so. There may be some reasons for others to resist to the change.
Dialogue among the different “special” areas and, if possible, with professional associations is desired and justifiable to reach a common understanding. There is already experience in the European Union countries.
The mentioned European Union experience is connected to some professions.
Some professional degrees can only be professionally recognised if a set of disciplines
previously defined are included in the programme’s curricula. The autonomy of the
Higher Education Institutions is not curtailed by this fact. They are free to build their
own curricula but, at the same time, they must bear in mind the social relevance of the
degrees they are awarding and the chances of employment of their graduates.
This example has already raised some questions regarding the imposition of a
core curriculum to all programmes, concerning the employability of the graduates. According to those who defend the imposition of a core curriculum, the employer, the student and the society at large should know whether a particular degree is accepted all
over Europe, basing the judgement on the common disciplines that may exist in all similar programmes of the Higher Education Institutions. In my view, this position goes
against the autonomy of the institutions and is contrary to the diversity that is allowed
by the introduction of a credit system. What is important and was stressed during the
debates is that “diversity is not a problem in itself if there is a clear information on what
is being offered to the candidates and if the effective learning outcomes match those announced by the institutions”3. This issue calls for a special attention in the quality as-
5
surance/accreditation debate (see below). Moreover it is so much connected with one of
the main goals of the Bologna Declaration (employability) that we must take a closer
look at it.
Any programme in Higher Education Institutions at the level of the first cycle
should give the student the skills and competencies to face the challenge of employabilty and employment after graduation. I do make a difference between employability
and employment. As for the second one I can only say that if a professional degree is
awarded to the student he/she should be able to find a job if the only criteria for hiring a
person is the degree – it should have the same “value” all over Europe, thus giving
grounds for the need of readable and recognisable professional programmes. Regarding
employability the situation may be different. Any programme, regardless of their nature,
should “prepare students for an active life and citizenship, (…) by developing competencies, skills and attitudes, initiative, problem solving skills and attitudes that are essential parts of the education process. As a consequence, these objectives should be
considered in the learning process and included in the definition of learning outcomes”3. We must bear in mind that Higher Education Institutions in Europe will be
competing among themselves and with other Institutions outside the European Higher
Education Area. As a consequence diversity must be preserved whenever possible not
only because of the institutions’ autonomy but also because it promotes competition and
eventually attractiveness.
The student will then be able to face the market or to continue his/her studies. It
is even more so when we are aware that science is developing so fast that it would be
impossible to provide all the available knowledge that is considered relevant to the labour market. Indeed I agree with the conclusions of the follow-up group when it states
that “the only sure values are a solid and broad scientific education, the capacity to apply knowledge and to learn and horizontal skills”.
Moreover, there is another problem regarding the employabilty that must be
studied carefully in order to avoid confusion. In many countries there are binary systems (e.g. Universities and Polytechnics) where the two types of institutions have different missions. One of the sub-systems (polytechnics) is more directed to award the socalled professional degrees and is consequently less interested in research, whereas the
other subsystem (universities) favours a theoretical approach to teaching and learning
(with the exceptions mentioned above, like medicine) more directed to research, be it
basic or applied, and therefore to post-graduation. Both have their places in the Euro-
6
pean Higher Education Area. What is new now is that we are asking this second subsystem (universities) to award first cycle degrees having in mind the employability of the
students. And we are providing them with a set of “recipes” to promote employability of
their graduates. There is the risk of introducing uniformity instead of promoting diversity if Polytechnics and Universities are forced to follow the same pattern of behaviour.
The added value that Polytechnics brought to the countries having these two types of
Higher Education Institutions may be lost if employabilty and professional degrees are
to be considered together, thus not differentiating the two subsystems. Any credit system and degree structure should be introduced having in mind this danger.
One of the main results of settling down the aforementioned issues is the mobility of students and staff. We have already mentioned the use of ECTS (or similar) for
exchange and for accumulation, the Diploma Supplement, the need to a use the mechanisms of recognition already developed (e.g., the Lisbon Convention). It seems clear
that, without solving those questions, mobility will continue to be at the same level as it
is now.
But some other instruments should be developed.
Promoting real mobility of students involves a sensitive approach to the social
dimension as well as to the administrative and structural barriers that still exist.
To enhance mobility the governments must take into consideration that there are
huge differences among the countries regarding families’ incomes. A compensation
scheme must be introduced to allow for those differences. The experience of the Socrates/Erasmus programmes has proved how expensive it is to maintain a certain level of
mobility between richer and poorer countries and the problem was never completely
solved. When one tries to extend to the actual signatory countries of the Bologna Declaration the solutions may be dramatically expensive and may hinder the achievement of
such an ambitious, but commendable, objective. Studies must be carried out to assess
the consequences of implementing mobility to a large scale and the consequences of
limiting it due to financial restrictions, after creating so many expectations. This is a responsibility of the governments and not of the Higher Education Institutions.
Another issue deserving special attention is the policy of visas among the signatory members. Students (and staff) should not be prevented of using the mobility
schemes due to bureaucratic rules that the governments are not able to overcome. Residence permits should be given to those who wish to use the framework of the Bologna
Declaration, within reasonable limits. Any restrictions will surely frustrate the natural
7
ambitions of the prospective candidates. Once again, this is a responsibility of the governments and not of the Higher Education Institutions.
Mobility of students has also two other important dimensions: the knowledge of
the foreign languages and a good support in the host institutions.
The first dimension will probably meet some resistance: the equilibrium between “defending” the mother language and the possibility of teaching some credits in a
foreign language in a particular country (of course, the teaching of a foreign language in
Higher Education Institutions is considered as accepted in this presentation). My own
experience is that this is not so easy to accept as one might expect. In many countries
there is opposition of the academic staff who defend that teaching should only be in the
official language of the country (sometimes to hide their own incapability to teach in a
foreign language) and, sometimes, the governments are afraid to “force” the Higher
Education Institutions to accept teaching some disciplines in another language but their
own. This has to be tackled with care, but there does not seem to remain any doubt that
the language barriers are serious opponents of mobility. National policies should address these issues carefully but with clear guidelines.
The second dimension, i.e., good support from the host institutions, is essential
to attract students. This is part of the policies of Higher Education Institutions wishing
to be really involved in the European Higher Education Area. However it is also the responsibility of the states to provide the means lacking in the Higher Education Institutions regarding social support to students. And, so far, not much has been done regarding this issue.
Mobility of staff introduces some of the mentioned and other questions. One of
them regards academic staff and has to do with the real usefulness of fostering academic
mobility without including the research dimension. Academics need to cooperate with
their colleagues in other countries both in teaching and research. Therefore it is somewhat puzzling that the signatory governments of the Bologna Declaration did not take
properly into account the already existing ideas of developing the European Research
Area. This is an issue that should be clearly introduced in the follow-up work of the
Prague’s meeting.
Finally, I would like to draw your attention to another new dimension that is being considered at the Higher Education level all over Europe: lifelong learning. This is
mentioned in the Bologna Declaration, in relation to the establishment of a credit system and acquiring credits outside formal education. According to the follow-up group
8
“a comprehensive lifelong learning policy requires that the education and training systems are open to new publics and offer alternative learning paths to standard qualifications, as well as a variety of non formal learning opportunities”. Having in mind the
positions of several international organisations6, “access to higher education should
remain open to those successfully completing secondary school, or its equivalent, or
presenting entry qualifications, as far as possible, at any age and without any discrimination” and “admission to higher education should be based on the merit, capacity, efforts, perseverance and devotion, showed by those seeking access to it, and can take
place in a lifelong scheme, at any time, with due recognition of previously acquired
skills.”. These principles are not yet very much applied in European countries, although
there are already some where good experiences exist. Therefore it is important that the
different Higher Education Institutions and the governments of the signatory countries
help to disseminate good practices, leading to a real European policy on lifelong learning.
Attention should be paid to the Preliminary Draft of the Final Recommendations
on Higher Education Policies in Lifelong Learning7 recently approved at the meeting of
CC-HER (Council of Europe), following a project launched in November 1998 under
the title “Lifelong Learning for equity and social cohesion: a new challenge to Higher
Education”
3. Quality assurance and accreditation
This is one of the most problematic outcomes of the Bologna Declaration. The
need to have a readable system of qualifications in Europe, the problem of the recognition of degrees and the assurance that is needed regarding the level of those degrees in
different Higher Education Institutions in different European countries constitute a leitmotiv for those who feel that the American system of accreditation is the best solution
to ensure the quality of emerging institutions or programmes.
Nevertheless the concept of accreditation that is behind their positions lacks
consensus. As a matter of fact, accreditation in United States was introduced by the
Higher Education Institutions of the country to prove to the society that the quality of
their programmes was according to predefined standards. As David Dill8 states: “the
accreditation process determines whether an institution or program meets threshold
quality criteria and therefore certifies to the public the existence of minimum educational standards”. It is performed by private Accreditation Agencies (created by the in-
9
stitutions themselves). In Europe the situation is different: the States have been for a
long time responsible for authorising the functioning of Higher Education Institutions
and their programmes. Each government uses its own method to license the Institutions
and the programmes and in some cases (Central and Eastern European countries) some
Accreditation Committees were created but they were, and still are, state agencies that
give an opinion about the acceptance of a particular programme or the setting up of a
Higher Education Institution. The simple copy of the American system does not, therefore, make sense since in Europe it is the states’ responsibility to ensure the minimum
standards are in accordance with some accepted pre-conditions. Nevertheless, there is
no doubt that the different signatory countries of the Bologna Declaration and their
Higher Education Institutions should accept a set of minimum standards. Thus, there is
a need for a common understanding about this issue.
The problem we all met so far is the misuse of the word “accreditation” since it
has different meanings in different countries. In the conclusions of the Salamanca Convention of Higher Education Institutions9, one can read: “The internationalisation of
quality assurance is a necessary response to the current globalisation trends and to the
challenges of building a European Higher Education Area. Accreditation is one answer
to these challenges and quality assurance mechanisms are a pre-requisite for good accreditation procedures”. The concept of accreditation is not defined and therefore one
may conclude that the differences that had already been found two months before in a
meeting organised by the CRE in Lisbon continued to exist and no common understanding was found. Later in the text we can read: “some kind of European platform or clearing system needs to be organised with the full support of Higher Education Institutions
in order to disseminate good practise and advise accrediting bodies on appropriate
procedures. It should foster the mutual acceptance of quality assurance decisions in
Europe while preserving national and subject differences and institutional autonomy
and not overloading universities”. And then it is said that the “role of ENQA in this
process should be considered”. Implicitly it is accepted that there does not exist a
common understanding of what accreditation means as one could already suspect.
Some voices call for the creation of accreditation agencies in all countries and,
like in Germany, for a meta-accreditation agency that accredits the others. This may
prove to be very cumbersome in an enlarged Europe. What I feel is important is that the
Governments and the Higher Education Institutions recognise mutually their own procedures to authorise the functioning of institutions and programmes (be it through the
10
use of Accreditation Agencies or the use of other procedures). Moreover networks of
Higher Education Institutions could help to clear some doubts about mutual recognition
of diplomas and credits.
More important than the so-called “accreditation” is the periodic assessment and
auditing of institutions and programmes performed by the Quality Assurance Agencies.
What the European Higher Education Area needs is to prove its real quality and not its
minimum standards10. Only in this way it can be competitive and attractive. Recalling
again David Dill8, “the assessment process evaluates the quality of specific activities such as educational or research quality - within academic units. Assessment goes beyond accreditation to make fraded judgements about academic quality levels rather
than binary judgements relative to threshold standards” and “academic audit is an externally driven peer review of internal quality-assurance, assessment and improvement
systems. Unlike assessment, audit does not evaluate quality: it focuses on the processes
that are believed to produce quality and the methods by which academics assure themselves that quality has been attained”. This is now a trend in Universities in the USA
and, surprisingly, it seems that in Europe some people wish to move backwards giving
accreditation the role it should not play – to substitute continuous improvement by the
verification of the existence of minimum standards.
The Ministers, in Prague, were wise and gave quality assurance the place it deserves, ensuring the continuous improvement and, as a consequence, a higher degree of
competitiveness of the European Higher Education Area. Their wisdom went as far as
calling for a “close European cooperation and mutual trust in and acceptance of national quality assurance systems” and inviting “Universities and other Higher Education Institutions to disseminate examples of best practice and to design scenarios for
mutual acceptance of evaluation and accreditation/certification mechanisms”. They
also called on ENQA to participate in this effort. Going ahead through this path also ensures the reverse: competitiveness will contribute to improve quality, which is “measured” by assessments and evaluations and not by re-accreditation, i.e., by making sure
the minimum standards continue to exist in a particular institution or programme without preoccupation with improvement.
It is with some concern, however, that I hear voices complaining that quality
evaluation is too expensive to continue as it is and that quality assurance is a matter
concerning the Higher Education Institutions and not the governments, thus Higher
11
Education Institutions should pay to demonstrate their quality, whereas Governments
should only be concerned with minimum standards.
There may be some truth in these statements. But is there anyone who thinks
that the creation of a European Higher Education Area would be made at a low cost
given the questions involved? Electing competitiveness and attractiveness of European
Higher Education as one of the main goals is not only correct but has also a price that
has to be paid. And quality has a high price! Administrative verification of minimum
standards has a lower price but, by itself, will decrease the international trust in the Institutions’ performances, thus against what the Bologna Declaration aims at.
In conclusion, more work has to be developed concerning quality assurance and
accreditation, but I believe that the role of ENQA and Higher Education Institutions in
Europe will be of utmost importance to ensure the quality of the European Higher Education Area. Accreditation is not the solution for the problem. It may be an important
means but very unsatisfactory.
4. Transnational education
Among the various events that took place between the meeting of the Ministers
in Bologna, in 1999, and the Prague meeting, in 2001, one emerging theme was the
rapid development of transnational education. Fears of poor quality and fraudulent offers were raised during a seminar organised by the Confederation of European Rectors’
Conferences in Malmö, Sweden, in March 2001.11 Nevertheless, in that same seminar
its existence was considered also positive due to the fact that the providers of such form
of education “help to widen the access to Higher Education to students that otherwise
would not have that possibility”3. In fact, in some cases, they challenge the systems of
various countries especially when they are not able to cope with the increasing number
of candidates.
To avoid fraudulent offers and to ensure the quality of the programmes the Quality Agencies must develop concerted action to protect the prospective and existing students. In particular, given the experience already acquired by the Lisbon Recognition
Convention Committee, it is my belief that it should be given to the Council of Europe,
where all the signatory countries of the Bologna declaration are represented, the task to
prepare concrete measures to tackle with this new form of education. As a first step the
Committee has already developed a Code of Good Practise12 that defines important
principles regarding:
12
a) Academic and quality standards
b) Publication of institutions policies and mission statements
c) Information to students
d) Staff members qualifications (research included)
e) Responsibilities of the institution and its agents
f) Admission of students (requirements)
g) Academic workload
h) Qualifications issued and their relation with the Lisbon Convention
A close cooperation involving this Committee, ENQA, the NARIC/ENIC network and the Higher Education Institutions seems to be able to lead to prompt and suitable proposals to issue legislation applicable to the signatory countries and to solve
eventual emerging problems.
5. Final comments
During this presentation I have mentioned the main challenges that must be
studied more or less deeply until the next meeting of the Ministers in Berlin, 2003. For
some of them I have introduced concrete suggestions based on discussions and on papers. However for many others the possible solutions are not straightforward. Some
more studies must be developed and some more discussions are needed to reach consensus
However I have left some questions behind and did not mentioned them.
International competitiveness is transversal to all the six main instruments contained in the Bologna Declaration. Once you have a good solution to them you may be
sure attractiveness is enhanced. By the way, only the fact of discussing the Bologna
Declaration in Europe has already raised a great deal of interest in some South American countries.
The recognition of Higher Education as a public good also raises difficult questions. Transnational education and private education are not free of charge and yet they
exist in several European countries. To what extent this education market can be reconciled with the notion of public good? Should Higher Education be free for all? Should
the students and the families contribute partially to the costs? Should they pay the full
cost of their studies? If students should not pay the full cost how is it compatible with
the payment of the full fees in private and transnational education? These and other
13
questions must have a political answer and I have avoided the discussion. It can be developed after this presentation.
The introduction of two cycles may lead in many countries to an overstaffing of
Higher Education Institutions. It is likely that the overall number of students decrease if
they can find a job after the first cycle. Therefore funding problems may arise. What are
the solutions the Governments envisage regarding this issue? This is also a sensitive political problem since it may allow people to conclude that the Bologna Declaration was
mainly accepted by all signatory governments with the aim of saving money under the
umbrella of very nice but unattainable objectives.
These and other questions have a political character and should be treated as
such.
That is why I will stop soon but not before mentioning the importance of the
participation of the students in the process. They are part of the academy and are the
first ones to fight for quality and proper political measures that value their degrees. I
dare say that the decision to “accept” them in the debate was one of the most important
innovations of the process developed during the last two years.
And, finally, I would like to mention the need for a continuous monitoring of the
Higher Education Institutions’ autonomy. The Bologna process may be transformed
(deliberately or not) into a reason to limit that autonomy by the governments. Fortunately we have now a means to denounce some bad practises – The Observatory of the
Magna Charta Universitatum.
Let us hope that in 2010 all these efforts will bring us to a coherent European
Higher Education Area.
REFERENCES
1
All these items have been sources of fruitful decisions in CC-HER of the Council of Europe and some of
them by the former CRE. In several cases there were even recommendations to the Ministers who signed
them but failed to apply them in their countries. Higher Education Institutions did not pay enough attention to them either.
2
Eduardo Marçal Grilo, EAIR Conference, Porto, September, 2001
3
(1) Pedro Lourtie, “Furthering the Bologna Process – Report to the Ministers of Education of the Signa-
tory Countries”, Prague, May 2001 and (2) “Bologna Declaration”, June, 1999
4
See the Prague communiqué
5
“Recommendation on Criteria and Procedures for the Assessment of Foreign Qualifications”, adopted
by the Lisbon Recognition Convention Committee, Riga, June, 2001
14
6
Recommendation Nº R(98)3, Strasbourg, March, 1998 and “World Declaration on Higher Education for
the Twenty-First Century: Vision and Action”, Paris, October, 1998
7
Document CC-HER (2001) 1 rev.4, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, October, 2001
8
D. Dill, et al., (1996), “Accreditation & Academic Quality Assurance – Can We Get There From
Here?”, Change, September/October, pp. 17-24
9
“Conclusions of the Salamanca Convention of Higher Education Institutions”, Salamanca, March, 2001
10
“Quality Assurance in Higher Education: A policy Paper of the University European Association”,
EUA, Dubrovnik, September, 2001
11
“Transnational Education Project Report and Recommendations”, Confederation of European Rectors’
Conferences, Malmö, March, 2001
12
“Code of Good Practise in the Provision of Transnational Education”, adopted by the Lisbon Recogni-
tion Convention Committee, Riga, June, 2001