The European

Higher Education Area

in 2024
Bologna Process
Implementation Report

European Education
and Culture
Executive Agency
This document is published by the European Education and Culture Executive Agency
(EACEA, Unit A6 – Platforms, Studies and Analysis).

Please cite this publication as:

European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2024. The European Higher Education Area in
2024: Bologna Process Implementation Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.

European Education and Culture Executive Agency

Unit A6 – Platforms, Studies and Analysis

Boulevard Simon Bolivar 34 (Unit A6)
B-1049 Brussels

E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu

Printed by the Publications Office of the European Union in Luxembourg

Text completed in April 2024.

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2024

© European Education and Culture Executive Agency, 2024

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented by Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of
12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Unless otherwise
noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY
4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate
credit is given and any changes are indicated.
For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be
sought directly from the respective rightholders.

Print PDF

ISBN 978-92-9488-603-3 ISBN 978-92-9488-602-6

doi:10.2797/351309 doi:10.2797/483185

EC-02-24-018-EN-C EC-02-24-018-EN-N
The European
Higher Education Area
in 2024

Bologna Process
Implementation Report
FOREWORD

Twenty-five years ago, ministers from 29 countries gathered to sign

the Bologna Declaration, making the first step on our
transformative journey towards an open and inclusive European
Higher Education Area (EHEA). The Tirana Ministerial Conference
at the end of May marks a major milestone: a quarter-century of
progress since that inaugural ministerial conference in Bologna.
Now comprising 49 higher education systems, the EHEA has seen
many policy reforms come to fruition thanks to collaborative efforts
of public authorities, higher education institutions and students
working together within individual countries and across Europe.

In a world facing shared global challenges, broadening and deepening cooperation in higher education
is not only a necessity for Europe – it brings major benefits to students, academics, higher education
institutions and our societies at large. It is easy to forget that before the Bologna Process, it was
unthinkable that all European countries would base their higher education systems on a common three-
cycle degree framework consisting of bachelor's, master's and doctoral studies, that quality assurance
standards and guidelines would be developed at the European level, and that agreements would be in
place for an automatic recognition of qualifications from other countries.

Today, these ideas are a reality, and the European Commission is fully committed to deepening these
policies. In March 2024, we adopted a set of ambitious proposals for Europe’s higher education sector,
comprising a Communication on a blueprint for a European degree and proposal for two Council
recommendations to improve quality assurance processes and automatic recognition, and to make
academic careers more attractive and sustainable.

Commission’s support for the EHEA pre-dates the Bologna Process. Over 35 years ago, the launch of
the Erasmus programme kindled a demand for student mobility that continues to grow to this day.
Erasmus also highlighted the need for a more intense and better structured cooperation among
European higher education institutions. Since those early days, EU higher education programmes and
the Bologna Process have grown increasingly interconnected and reinforce each other.

The Erasmus+ programme now not only continues to enhance student and staff mobility, but also
supports Bologna structures and events, finances cooperation projects in EHEA countries and funds
teams of experts who assist countries in the EU and beyond with Bologna-inspired reforms. As a full
member of the Bologna Follow-up Group and its Board, the Commission is a driving force for innovation,
inclusion and interconnectedness that we aspire to achieve in the EHEA.

We can only have a truly open and inclusive European higher education if all EHEA countries fulfil the
commitments that they have taken on. This edition of the Bologna Process Implementation Report
provides an overview of how far European higher education systems have advanced through cohesive
national reforms – and highlights areas where work is still required.

Despite many positive developments, the beginning of this decade has been challenging, marked by
the Covid-19 pandemic and significant geopolitical shifts including Russia’s war of aggression, against
Ukraine supported by Belarus. The EHEA acted swiftly to suspend these two countries and to help
affected Ukrainians including students and staff. In addition, we keenly feel the impacts of the climate
emergency and the cost-of-living crisis.

3
However, it is in difficult times that European higher education cooperation can best demonstrate its
value. We are all much stronger when we work together, sharing ideas and knowledge. This philosophy
is both at the heart of the European Union and central to the ambitions of the EHEA.

Our resolve is strong: we have set ambitious priorities for the EHEA, boosted by the actions stemming
from the Commission’s European Strategy for Universities. This strategy has bolstered the European
Universities alliances and at the same time driven advances in higher education, research, innovation
and service to society.

A quarter of a century after the Bologna Process began, it is time to step up our efforts and achieve our
ambitious goals for the EHEA.

Iliana Ivanova

European Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth

4
CONTENTS

Table of figures 7
Executive summary 11
Introduction 17
The Bologna Process 17
Report outline 18

Chapter 1: European Higher Education Area key data 21

1.1. Student population 22
1.2. Statistical data on access and participation 26
1.2.1. Access and participation 26
1.3. Academic staff 37
1.4. Higher education institutions 41
1.5. Expenditure on higher education 43
1.6. Conclusions 49

Chapter 2: Key commitments: Degree structures, recognition and quality assurance 51

2.1. Development of the degree structure and state of implementation of three Bologna tools 52
2.1.1. Workload of first-cycle programmes 53
2.1.2. Workload of second cycle programmes 54
2.1.3. Combined workload of first- and second-cycle programmes 54
2.1.4. Short-cycle programmes 56
2.1.5. Integrated/long programmes leading to a second cycle degree 57
2.1.6. Programmes outside the Bologna-degree structure 58
2.1.7. Progress in the implementation of the commitments related to the degrees structure 60
2.1.8. Microcredentials 62
2.1.9. Monitoring the implementation of the ECTS system 64
2.1.10. Diploma Supplement (DS) 66
2.1.11. National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF) 68
2.2. Recognition 70
2.2.1. Principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) in national Legislation 71
2.2.2. Implementation of Article VII of the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) 72
2.2.3. Use of tools for recognition of qualifications of refugees 73
2.2.4. System-level automatic recognition of degrees for academic purposes 75
2.3. Quality Assurance 77
2.3.1. Stage of development of the external Quality Assurance systems 78
2.3.2. Student participation in external Quality Assurance 82
2.3.3. International participation in national quality assurance systems 83
2.3.4. Level of openness to cross border Quality Assurance of EQAR-registered agencies 84
2.3.5. The European Approach to the Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes in the EHEA 87
2.4. Conclusions 90
2.4.1. Degree Structures 90
2.4.2. Recognition 91
2.4.3. Quality Assurance 91

Chapter 3: Fundamental values 93

3.1. Academic freedom 96
3.2. Academic integrity 101
3.3. Institutional autonomy 105
3.4. Participation of students and staff in higher education governance 113
3.5. Public responsibility for and of higher education 117
3.6. Conclusions 118

5
Chapter 4: Social dimension 119
4.1. Strategic commitment towards diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education 120
4.2. Flexibility 124
4.3. Synergies and lifelong learning 128
4.4. Monitoring and data collection 132
4.5. Policies to ensure effective provision of academic and careers guidance, and psychological counselling services 135
4.6. Policies to ensure sustainable funding for equity, inclusion and diversity in higher education 138
4.7. Policies to create inclusive learning environments and institutional cultures 142
4.8. Mobility 145
4.9. Community engagement 149
4.10. Policy dialogue 152
Conclusions 155

Chapter 5: Learning and teaching 157

5.1. Top-level strategies and other policy measures 158
5.1.1. Top-level strategies promoting learning and teaching in higher education 158
5.1.2. Policy levers other than strategies 160
5.1.3. Top-level bodies supporting learning and teaching in higher education 162
5.2. Stakeholders’ involvement 164
5.2.1. Stakeholders involved in policy developments 164
5.2.2. Role of quality assurance agencies 165
5.3. Student-centred learning 166
5.3.1. Student-centred learning in top-level steering documents 166
5.3.2. Use of learning outcomes 168
5.3.3. Regulations potentially limiting flexibility and individualisation of studies 170
5.4. Enhancing the quality of teaching 173
5.4.1. Requirements for academics with a teaching role to receive training in teaching 173
5.4.2. Other systems-level measures promoting teacher training for academic staff 175
5.4.3. Support provided by higher education institutions to their teaching staff 176
5.4.4. Students’ perspective 178
5.5. Recognition of teaching in the recruitment and promotion of academic staff 179
5.6. Conclusions 183

Chapter 6: Internationalisation 185

6.1. Assessing student mobility flows 185
6.1.1. Outward mobility 186
6.1.2. Inward degree mobility 195
6.1.3. Mobility balance 197
6.2. Qualitative Data 203
6.2.1. Portability of public grants and publicly-subsidised loans 203
6.3. European solidarity with Ukrainian higher education 207
Introduction 207
6.3.1. Top-level monitoring of participation of Ukrainian refugees in higher education 208
6.3.2. Large-scale measures supporting the integration in higher education of students and academic staff from Ukraine. 209
6.4. Conclusions 210

References 211
Glossary and Methodological notes 215
I. Codes, abbreviations and acronyms 215
II. General terms 216
III. Statistical terms 226
IV. Data sources 232
V. Country-specific notes 235

Annex 243
Acknowledgements 255

6
TABLE OF FIGURES

Chapter 1: European Higher Education Area key data 21

Figure 1.1: Number of students enrolled in tertiary education by ISCED level, 2020/2021 22
Figure 1.2: Percentage change in the number of students enrolled in tertiary education, 2015/2016°-°2020/2021 23
Figure 1.3: Enrolment rates in tertiary education (as a % of the total population aged 18-34), 2015/2016°-°2020/2021 24
Figure 1.4: Relationship between the educational background of first-cycle new entrants (ISCED 6) and
the educational attainment of their parents’ cohort (population aged 45-64), 2020/2021 27
Figure 1.5: Share of women among new entrants in tertiary education (ISCED 5-8), 2015/2016 and 2020/2021 28
Figure 1.6: Median percentage of women among enrolled students in Bologna structures
by field of education and level of Bologna structure (ISCED 6 and 7), 2021 29
Figure 1.7: Participation rates in tertiary education among people aged 18 to 29,
foreign-born, native-born and total population, 2016 and 2021 30
Figure 1.8: Tertiary education attainment of 25 to 34-year-olds by country of birth:
odds ratio of native-born over foreign-born population to complete tertiary education, 2016 and 2021 32
Figure 1.9: Students enrolled as part-timers in tertiary education by country and age (%), 2016 and 2021 34
Figure 1.10: Adults (30-64) who attained their tertiary education degree during adulthood (aged 30-64)
as a percentage of all adults (30-64) 2016-2021 36
Figure 1.11: Percentage change in the total number of academic staff in 2016 and 2021 37
Figure 1.12: Percentage of academic staff aged 50 or over, 2016 and 2021 39
Figure 1.13: Percentage of female academic staff, 2016 and 2021 40
Figure 1.14: Number of higher education institutions (HEIs) in the EHEA, 2022 41
Figure 1.15: Number of higher education institutions (HEIs),
public and total per million population (MP) in the EHEA, 2022/2023 42
Figure 1.16: Annual public expenditure on tertiary education as a % of GDP (including R&D), 2015 and 2020 44
Figure 1.17: Annual public expenditure on
public and private tertiary institutions
per full-time equivalent student in euro, 2015-2020 45
Figure 1.18: Percentage change in the annual public and private expenditure on
public and private tertiary education institutions in PPS
per full-time equivalent student between 2015 and 2020 46
Figure 1.19: Annual public and private expenditure on
public and private education institutions in tertiary education,
per full-time equivalent student in PPS relative to the GDP per capita in PPS, 2015 and 2020 47

Chapter 2: Key commitments: Degree structures, recognition and quality assurance 51

Figure 2.1: Share of first-cycle programmes with a workload of 180, 210, 240
or another number of ECTS credits, 2022/2023 53
Figure 2.2: Share of second-cycle programmes with a workload of 60-75, 90, 120
or another number of ECTS credits, 2022/2023 54
Figure 2.3: Most common total workload of first- and second-cycle programmes, 2022/2023 55
Figure 2.4: Presence of short-cycle programmes considered as part of higher education, 2022/2023 56
Figure 2.5: Presence of integrated/long programmes leading to a second-cycle degree and
the percentage of students in these programmes, 2022/2023 57
Figure 2.6: Programmes outside the Bologna-degree structure (other than integrated/long programmes), 2022/2023 59
Figure 2.7: Scorecard indicator n°1:
Implementation of agreed Bologna degree structures, 2022/2023 61
Figure 2.8: Inclusion of microcredentials in national qualifications frameworks, 2022/2023 63
Figure 2.9: Scorecard indicator n°2:
Monitoring the implementation of the ECTS system by external quality assurance, 2022/2023 65
Figure 2.10: Scorecard indicator n°3:
Stage of implementation of the Diploma Supplement, 2022/2023 67

7
Figure 2.11: Scorecard indicator n°4:
Implementation of national qualifications frameworks, 2022/2023 69
Figure 2.12: Principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention in national legislation, 2022/2023 71
Figure 2.13: Implementation of Article VII of the LRC at national level, 2022/2023 73
Figure 2.14: Use of tools for recognition of refugees’ qualifications:
the Council of Europe Qualifications Passport for Refugees (EQPR) and
ENIC/NARIC’s toolkit for recognition of refugees’ qualifications, 2022/2023 74
Figure 2.15: Scorecard indicator n°5:
System level (automatic) recognition for academic purposes, 2022/2023 76
Figure 2.16: Scorecard indicator n° 6:
Stage of development of external quality assurance system, 2022/2023 79
Figure 2.17: Share of higher education institutions reviewed by an EQAR-registered quality assurance agency, 2022/2023 81
Figure 2.18: Scorecard indicator n° 7:
Level of student participation in external quality assurance, 2022/2023 82
Figure 2.19: Scorecard indicator n° 8:
Level of international participation in external quality assurance, 2022/2023 84
Figure 2.20: Scorecard indicator n° 9:
Level of openness to cross border quality assurance of EQAR registered agencies, 2022/2023 85
Figure 2.21: Countries allowing the European Approach for quality assurance of joint programmes, 2022/2023 88
Figure 2.22: Countries using the European Approach for quality assurance of joint programmes, 2022/2023 89

Chapter 3: Fundamental values 93

Table 1: Monitoring framework for rights/freedoms values 95

Table 2: Monitoring framework for obligations/duties values 95
Figure 3.1: Concept of academic freedom in national legislation, 2022/2023 98
Figure 3.2: Requirements for evaluation of academic freedom in higher education institutions, 2022/2023 100
Figure 3.3: Concept of academic integrity in national legislation, 2022/2023 102
Figure 3.4: Legislative requirement to evaluate academic integrity, 2022/2023 103
Figure 3.5: Data collection on academic misconduct, 2022/2023 104
Table 3: System changes across autonomy dimensions 106
Figure 3.6: Institutional autonomy in national legislation, 2022/2023 107
Figure 3.7: Government/public authority role in higher education institutions’ programme offers, 2022 111
Figure 3.8: Evaluation of institutional autonomy in higher education institutions, 2022/2023 112
Figure 3.9: Required proportions of students and staff in higher education institutions' governing bodies, 2022/2023 114
Figure 3.10: Legal requirements for staff and students to participate in national HE policymaking, 2022/2023 115
Figure 3.11: Legal requirements for staff and students to participate in HEIs’ internal steering bodies, 2022/2023 116

Chapter 4: Social dimension 119

Figure 4.1: Strategic commitment to the social dimension of higher education:

top-level targeted strategies, action plans and measures, 2022/2023 122
Figure 4.2: Strategic commitment to the social dimension of higher education:
requirement for quality assurance agencies to
monitor higher education institutions’ (HEIs’) strategies on the social dimension, 2022/2023 123
Figure 4.3: Recognition of prior learning in accessing and
for the fulfilment of first-cycle higher education study programmes, 2022/2023 126
Figure 4.4: Scorecard indicator n°10:
P & G 2:Enabling flexible modes of lifelong learning in higher education, 2022/2023 127
Figure 4.5: Top-level coordination structures and mechanisms between different levels of education, 2022/2023 129
Figure 4.6: Scorecard indicator n°11:
P & G 3:Facilitating synergies for an inclusive lifelong learning, 2022/2023 131
Figure 4.7: Monitoring student characteristics other than age and gender at higher education (HE) entry, at the completion of the first
cycle, and at the end of the first year of the first cycle, 2022/2023 133
Figure 4.8: Scorecard indicator n°12:
P & G 4: Monitoring and data collection, 2022/2023 134

8
Figure 4.9: Legal requirement for free guidance and counselling services for actual and/or potential students in higher education,
2022/2023 136
Figure 4.10: Scorecard indicator n°13:
P&G 5: Effective guidance and counselling services, 2022/2023 137
Figure 4.11: Grants awarded in the first cycle of higher education, 2022/2023 140
Figure 4.12: Scorecard indicator n°14:
P & G 6: Sustainable funding for equity, inclusion and diversity in higher education, 2022/2023 141
Figure 4.13: Support to higher education institutions (HEIs) for staff training on equity, inclusion and diversity, 2022/2023 143
Figure 4.14: Scorecard indicator n°15:
P&G 7: Inclusive learning environment and institutional culture, 2022/2023 144
Figure 4.15: Top-level measures supporting vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented students in international learning mobility,
2022/2023 146
Figure 4.16: Scorecard indicator n°16:
P&G 8: Supporting vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented groups of students and staff in participating in
international mobility, 2022/2023 148
Figure 4.17: Top-level funding of higher education institutions (HEIs) for community engagement activities, 2022/2023 150
Figure 4.18: External quality assurance requirements for community engagement activities, 2022/2023 151
Figure 4.19: Participants in policy dialogue to implement the principles and guidelines on the social dimension, 2022/2023 153
Figure 4.20: Scorecard indicator n°17:
P & G 10: Policy dialogue on implementation of principles and guidelines, 2022/2023 154

Chapter 5: Learning and teaching 157

Figure 5.1: Top-level strategies with major references to the enhancement of learning and
teaching in higher education (by the type of strategy), 2022/2023 159
Figure 5.2: Top-level policy measures (other than top-level strategies) to support learning and
teaching in higher education, 2022/2023 160
Figure 5.3: Top-level bodies dedicated to supporting learning and teaching in higher education institutions, 2022/2023 162
Figure 5.4: Stakeholders commonly involved in the development of national higher education learning and
teaching policy (number of systems reporting different stakeholders), 2022/2023 164
Figure 5.5: Role of quality assurance agencies in relation to learning and teaching in higher education
(number of systems reporting different roles), 2022/2023 165
Figure 5.6: References to student-centred learning in top-level steering documents, 2022/2023 167
Figure 5.7: Use of learning outcomes as required or recommended in top-level steering documents, 2022/2023 168
Figure 5.8: Implementation of learning outcomes in higher education institutions (% of institutions), 2023 169
Figure 5.9: Problems encountered by higher education institutions when
implementing learning outcomes (% of institutions), 2023 170
Figure 5.10: Legal requirements or restrictions that may limit flexibility and
individualisation in higher education (number of systems reporting different requirements or restrictions), 2022/2023 171
Figure 5.11: Presence of legal requirements or restrictions that may limit flexibility and
individualisation in higher education, 2022/2023 172
Figure 5.12: Top-level regulations requiring academic staff with a teaching role to receive training in teaching, 2022/2023 174
Figure 5.13: Support provided by higher education institutions to teaching staff (% of institutions), 2023 177
Figure 5.14: Categories of academic staff for which training courses for teachers are compulsory
(% of institutions reporting different categories), 2023 177
Figure 5.15: Percentage of students (strongly) agreeing with different statements related to their lecturers, 2022 178
Figure 5.16: Existence of top-level requirements or recommendations specifying criteria that
should be considered within the recruitment and promotion of academic staff, 2022/2023 180
Figure 5.17: Criteria that should be considered within the recruitment and promotion of academic staff as
specified in top-level requirements or recommendations (number of higher education systems), 2022/2023 181
Figure 5.18: Teaching performance as a criterion specified in top-level requirements or
recommendations related to the recruitment and promotion of academic staff, 2022/2023 181
Figure 5.19: Role of teaching performance evaluations in the promotion and career progression of teaching staff
(% of institutions reporting different roles), 2023 182

9
Chapter 6: Internationalisation 185

Figure 6.1: Outward (degree and credit) mobility rate of graduates (ISCED level 5-8) by country of origin, 2020/2021 (%) 187
Figure 6.2: Outward degree and credit mobility of graduates, by country of origin and
level of educational attainment, 2020/2021, (%) 188
Figure 6.3: Outward credit mobility rate – tertiary mobile graduates from the EHEA
as a percentage of the total number of graduates from the country,
by country of origin and level of educational attainment, 2020/2021 (%) 191
Figure 6.4: Outward degree mobility of graduates by country of origin and level of educational attainment, 2020/2021, (%) 193
Figure 6.5: Inward degree mobility rate per level of educational attainment within the EHEA, 2020/2021 195
Figure 6.6: Extent of balance in degree mobility flows within and outside the EHEA, ISCED 5-8, 2020/2021 198
Figure 6.7: Student mobility flows: Top three countries of ORIGIN (INWARD) in %, 2020/2021 199
Figure 6.8: Student mobility flows: Top three countries of DESTINATION (OUTWARD) in %, 2020/2021 201
Figure 6.9: Portability of public grants, first and second cycle, 2022/2023 203
Figure 6.10: Portability of publicly-subsidised loans, first and second cycle, 2022/2023 205
Figure 6.11: Scorecard indicator n°18:
Portability of public grants and publicly-subsidised loans, 2022/2023 206
Figure 6.12: Top-level monitoring of participation of refugee students and/or
academics from Ukraine in higher education, 2022/2023 208
Figure 6.13: Presence of large-scale measures supporting the integration of students
and academic staff from Ukraine, 2022/2023 209

10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

More than two decades after the launch of the Bologna Process, the European Higher Education Area
(EHEA) is now evolving in a context where a series of major crises have arrived in quick succession:
the COVID-19 pandemic followed by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, a cost of living crisis,
various manifestations of climate emergency and war in Israel and Gaza following the atrocities
committed on 7 October 2023. These crises pose challenges to society as a whole, and also have a
major impact on higher education. Like other sectors, higher education may suffer social and economic
consequences at a time of crisis. At the same time it also contributes – through teaching, research and
assisting rational policy development – to finding a path towards a brighter future. The 2020 Rome
Communiqué, emphasises this path, outlining a vision for an inclusive, innovative and interconnected
EHEA by 2030, able to underpin a sustainable, cohesive and peaceful Europe. This report shows where
steps have been taken, and gives some indication of the distance still to travel.

The report is divided into six self-contained but inter-related chapters, giving a snapshot of the European
Higher Education Area, and assessing how far policy commitments have been implemented.

Key data
The first chapter on key data sets out some current realities of the European higher education landscape
to provide context about the environment in which policy commitments have been taken.

Firstly it is important to note that the suspension of Russia and Belarus has changed the dimensions of
the EHEA significantly, shrinking both its geographical and demographic coverage. Student numbers in
the majority of the remaining EHEA countries/systems rose significantly in the 5 years from 2016-2021
– an overall 11% increase. However, there were exceptions, and student numbers declined in several
countries/systems in Eastern Europe.

It is important to note that, at least in the short term, the COVID-19 pandemic led to increased enrolment
in higher education. Close to 60% of students are enrolled in first-cycle, bachelor-type study
programmes, which means that there are more students in this cycle than in the three other cycles
(short-cycle, second cycle and third cycle) combined.

Academic staff numbers also rose in the majority of EHEA countries/systems. However, the increase in
staff numbers was less significant in most countries/systems than the increase in student numbers.

Although there are considerable variations between countries/systems, overall public spending on
tertiary education relative to GDP has a median value of 1%. In most countries/systems, public
expenditure has been stable in recent years. However, as student and staff numbers have been
increasing, this stability could be considered as a reduction in public funding.

Key commitments
The EHEA is developed through implementing shared policy commitments. All commitments are
therefore important, but three key commitments underpin the structural foundations of the EHEA. They
are three-cycle degree structures in line with agreed parameters; recognition of qualifications, based
upon the Lisbon Recognition Convention, and with the objective of system-level automatic recognition
within the EHEA, and quality assurance systems aligned to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality
Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG).

The vast majority of EHEA countries/systems have implemented the main agreements concerning
degree structures. Nevertheless there remain a handful of national systems that maintain some

11
structural elements that are not aligned to the EHEA commitments. These may be programmes
constructed on credit ranges that are outside Bologna agreements, degree programmes that require a
qualification at the same degree level for access, or providing an excessive number of long/integrated
programmes leading directly to a second cycle qualification. While there may be strong arguments within
countries/systems in favour of maintaining this reality, such anomalies do not serve the objective of
easily understandable and comparable high education provision throughout the EHEA. Short-cycle
higher education, now included in the overall Qualifications Framework for the European Higher
Education Area, is less coherent and comparable within the EHEA than the other cycles.

Establishing three-cycle degrees has been aided greatly by the development and coherent use of ECTS,
Diploma Supplement and National Qualifications Frameworks. These EHEA tools have been widely
adopted, and the evidence shows that there is steady improvement in implementation. Nevertheless a
small number of countries/systems still have progress to make to ensure that these tools are properly
developed and used.

EHEA cooperation has focused for many years on improving and simplifying recognition practices.
European higher education policy has worked towards easier and fairer recognition on the basis of the
Lisbon Recognition Convention – protecting the value of learning outcomes and ensuring that
qualifications are easily understood and communicated. Recent years have seen a significant
improvement in embedding the principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention into legislation, with all
main principles now included in the relevant legislation of 31 countries/systems. Similarly an increasing
number of EHEA countries/systems, now reaching 18, have put in place measures to ensure system-
level automatic recognition of qualifications from all EHEA countries/systems. Automatic recognition
nevertheless remains a challenging concept for many working in this sector.

Quality assurance has become an established feature of European higher education. The ESG have
been a major support for the development of trust, and 32 systems now have all their external quality
assurance undertaken by an EQAR registered agency.

Fundamental values
The EHEA has agreed six fundamental values – academic freedom, academic integrity, institutional
autonomy, student and staff participation, and public responsibility for and of higher education. So far
only one of these values – academic freedom – has been defined within a statement of common
understanding adopted in the Rome Ministerial Conference. At this stage, in the absence of adopted
common definitions, this report takes a first step towards monitoring these values by examining whether
and how they are protected in legislation.

There is an important divide between countries/systems that protect and define values in their national
contexts, and those that do not. However, in the case of academic freedom, existing definitions may not
cover all aspects agreed in the EHEA understanding, and this should be examined in the future. Analysis
for this report shows that the concept of freedom to learn – integral to the EHEA understanding of
academic freedom – is a dimension that is most often overlooked.

While rarely specified in legislation, increasing policy attention is being given to academic integrity
throughout the EHEA with plagiarism identified as the most burning issue. Other aspects, such as
academic fraud and contract cheating currently receive less attention from public authorities.

In almost all EHEA countries/systems, the concept of institutional autonomy has specifically been
mentioned in legislation with the majority also providing a definition. In most cases, in addition to
outlining higher education institutions’ independence from public authorities, the definition includes
reference to academic freedom. This confirms the interrelationship between fundamental values and

12
the need to consider them not only independently, but also as a set where the infringement of one value
may undermine all.

Student and staff participation is another important value in itself that can also be considered as an
integral element of another value – institutional autonomy. Legislative requirements for student and staff
participation in higher education institutions’ governance structures are in place in nearly all systems,
and in the large majority the legislation stipulates that all members of governing bodies have full rights
to contribute to all issues.

Public responsibility for higher education can only be assessed by considering a wide number of aspects
– from amounts and types of funding, appropriate quality assurance arrangements and attention to the
social dimension. These dimensions of the concept are discussed throughout this report, but there are
not, as yet, any umbrella indicators for such a broad concept. Indeed it is a moot question whether it
would be feasible to design such indicators in a meaningful way in the future. Meanwhile the concept of
public responsibility of higher education focuses very much on the role of higher education institutions,
and as such extends beyond the scope and capacity of this report.

Social dimension
The social dimension of the EHEA is a policy area where data has consistently shown that the main
objective of policy – that the student body entering, participating in and completing higher education
should reflect the diversity of the populations – is far from being reached. More detailed policy
commitments were taken in 2020 through the adoption of the Principles and Guidelines ( 1) (P&Gs), and
monitoring has focused on the ten areas addressed by the document. In eight of these areas a scorecard
indicator has been developed on the basis of the guidelines outlined in the P&Gs. In the area of strategic
commitment, a more exhaustive mapping has been favoured over the development of a composite
scorecard indicator, and similarly no scorecard indicator has been included for community engagement
as in this case the P&Gs are mostly targeted at higher education institutions.

Regarding strategic commitment, EHEA education systems have generally implemented some strategic
measures, even if the approaches can differ substantially, ranging between mainstream and targeted
policies, and more centralised and decentralised approaches. However, there is a need for greater
strategic commitment in almost all education systems to address the social dimension of higher
education more holistically.

In the other areas, while some scorecard indicators show a strong commitment towards social dimension
principles in the EHEA, others uncover a relatively lower level of policy attention.

The principles with the highest degree of implementation are related to sustainable funding for equity,
inclusion and diversity in higher education, and to guidance and counselling provision. All EHEA
education systems provide some form of financial support to higher education students, and there are
only two countries/systems with no academic or career guidance provision. EHEA countries/systems
also do relatively well in monitoring and data collection as well as in enabling flexible learning conditions.
At the same time, education systems could do more to collect data on the completion of first-year
students in the first cycle, and to establish legal frameworks allowing access to higher education through
the recognition of prior learning.

The scorecard indicators that take middle position in terms of overall implementation relate to the
principles on synergies and lifelong learning, and creating inclusive learning environments and
institutional cultures. Most education systems still lack significant elements when it comes to these policy
areas. The principles with the lowest level of implementation are on international mobility and policy

(1) Principles and Guidelines to Strengthen the Social Dimension of Higher Education in the EHEA, Annex II of the Rome
Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

13
dialogue. This result concerning mobility is particularly disappointing, as the need to support
disadvantaged learners in mobility programmes has been on the EHEA policy agenda for more than a
decade.

Learning and teaching

Supporting quality and innovation in learning and teaching is the objective of the Recommendations
adopted by ministers in the 2020 Rome Communiqué ( 2). Three interconnected thematic areas were
outlined: system-level policies and measures, student-centred learning and initiatives fostering
continuous enhancement of teaching.

While only around half of the EHEA countries/systems have an ongoing system-level strategy in place
promoting learning and teaching in higher education, many other system-level policy measures can be
found. These measures often promote digitalisation of higher education and/or enhancement of higher
education pedagogy, and there have also been regulatory changes in some countries/systems to boost
learning and teaching innovation. Three countries/systems have in place national bodies dedicated to
supporting learning and teaching in higher education institutions.

Student-centred learning, despite being a central objective of higher education, is not always mentioned
in national policy documents and is rarely defined at national level. However, most countries/systems
have in place policy measures addressing areas that are closely associated with student-centred
learning. For example, top-level policy documents commonly specify that higher education programmes
should include explicit intended learning outcomes, and in more than half of the systems, documents
accompanying higher education qualifications must specify achieved learning outcomes.

Most higher education countries/systems have in place regulations that (to some extent) restrict flexible
study arrangements. The restrictions in question commonly concern possibilities for the recognition of
prior non-formal and informal learning, the choice of assessment methods and/or the extent of online,
blended and distance learning, or part-time studies. These restrictions are often justified by quality
assurance concerns. Thus, while the provision of adequate learning opportunities for all learners,
including non-traditional and self-directed learners, is a stated policy objective, in practice, it is often
hindered by other actions.

Unlike at other education levels, teaching staff in higher education institutions are rarely required by top-
level legislation to follow training in teaching. However, the EUA Trends survey shows that higher
education institutions often make training in pedagogy and didactics compulsory for their teaching staff.
In other words, requirements set at institutional level regarding training in teaching for academics
commonly outstrip those specified at national level.

Regulatory information also suggests that research performance remains the main criterion valued in
academic career progression. Thus, parity of esteem of research and teaching has not been achieved.
Nevertheless, data show that teaching performance plays a non-negligible role in academic careers.

Mobility and internationalisation

The Bologna Process has undoubtedly played an important role in stimulating greater mobility and
internationalisation in European higher education.

Nevertheless, statistical data for 2020/2021 shows that the target of 20% of graduates experiencing
mobility by 2020 was not met. One important explanation of this is that 2020/2021 was the first year of
the COVID-19 pandemic and student mobility slumped significantly as a result. As this is an anomaly

(2) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

14
year, it makes no sense to use it for purposes of comparison and establishing longer-term trends. Future
reference years will give a more informative picture of mobility within the EHEA.

Nevertheless certain patterns in student mobility are clear. The first is that mobility increases with each
higher education cycle – more mobility in the first cycle than the short cycle, more again in the second
cycle, and the most in the third cycle. In terms of percentages of graduates experiencing mobility during
their studies, the majority of credit and degree mobility therefore takes place at master and doctoral
level. However, in absolute numbers, most mobility takes place in the first cycle. This paradoxical finding
is explained by the much greater numbers of students enrolled in first cycle higher education
programmes.

Making domestic student grants and loans fully portable is a policy commitment made by ministers two
decades ago to support mobility. This is a commitment which has, however, mostly not been followed
up and which continues to be neglected by many systems. The countries/systems which have taken
steps to improve the situation are the exception and not the rule.

Supporting the Ukrainian academic community

Many higher education institutions around Europe have made a significant effort to support students
and staff exiled from Ukraine following the war of aggression launched by Russia.

While several systems do not track Ukrainian nationals in their higher education enrolments, more than
half of the systems do collect enrolment data at the top level. This is important for monitoring the
evolution of Ukrainians in the academic community around Europe, as well as for the purposes of
ongoing communication with the Ukrainian Ministry.

In most cases, EHEA countries/systems have made available existing forms of support in their system
to Ukrainian nationals. Thus the most widespread form of support is the provision of grants to students
from Ukraine. Language learning support can also be found in many systems, while less commonly
preparatory courses have been set up as a bridge into the national higher education system. Academic
and psychological counselling services have also been made available to Ukrainians.

While this report is not able to assess the quality of actions that have been taken, there is clear evidence
that EHEA countries/systems have responded positively to the challenge of supporting the academic
community of a partner country at a time of need.

15
INTRODUCTION

The Bologna Process

The Bologna Declaration was signed in 1999 by ministers responsible for higher education from
29 European countries. It was developed following the Sorbonne Conference and Declaration of 1998,
which was signed by the higher education ministers of France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom,
and called for a ‘Europe of knowledge’ paving the way for a genuine European Higher Education Area
(EHEA). These ministerial events and declarations set in motion an intergovernmental process based
on European cooperation for more convergence of higher education systems in Europe that has radically
changed higher education. Reforms have affected countries within and beyond Europe, and the number
of official signatory countries has reached 49 with San Marino being the most recent country to join in
2020. However, two countries – Belarus and Russia – have been suspended following the ongoing war
of aggression against Ukraine launched by Russia and supported by Belarus on 24 February 2022.

The chart below outlines some of the commitments of the ministerial conferences within the Bologna
Process up to 2020. It illustrates that several main themes can be followed throughout the process –
mobility of students and staff, a common degree system, the social dimension, lifelong learning, a
European system of credits, quality assurance and the development of Europe as an attractive
knowledge region. Learning and teaching and sustainable development were added as explicit priorities
in the Yerevan Communiqué, while digitalisation was recognised as an issue for attention in the Paris
Communiqué in 2018. The Rome Communiqué in 2020 set out a vision for the future decade that
embraces all these developments under the concepts of an EHEA that is inclusive, innovative and
interconnected.

The Rome Communiqué is noteworthy for stressing socially inclusive higher education, and for adopting
the Principles and Guidelines for the Social Dimension in the EHEA. The text also stresses the need to
protect and promote fundamental values through intensified political dialogue and cooperation. It asks
the BFUG to develop a framework for the enhancement of the fundamental values that will foster self-
reflection, constructive dialogue and peer learning across national authorities, higher education
institutions and organisations, while also making it possible to assess the degree to which these values
are honoured and implemented in our systems.

The Rome Communiqué calls for higher education institutions to be innovative in intensifying their
search for solutions to the challenges our societies face. It calls for flexible and open learning paths,
and emphasises student-centred learning. It also points out how cooperation and mobility connect our
systems and foster the development of intercultural and linguistic competences, broader knowledge and
understanding of our world.

To transform objectives into reality, the EHEA has established three key commitments that underpin
cooperation and must be fully implemented in each system. These are three cycle degree systems
supported by Qualifications Frameworks and ECTS, recognition based on the Lisbon Recognition
Convention, and Quality Assurance aligned to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in
the European Higher Education Area (ESG).

17
The Bologna Process: from Sorbonne, 1998 to Paris, 2018

Sorbonne Declaration, 1998 Bologna Declaration, Leuven/Louvain la Neuve Paris Communiqué, 2018 Rome Communiqué,
1999 Communique, 2009 2020

Mobility of Mobility also for Target: 20% graduate mobility by Student digital data Inclusive
students and teachers researchers and adminis- 2020 exchange
trative staff

A common Easily readable and NQFs by 2012 Short cycle as a stand-

two-cycle degree system comparable degrees alone qualification level
Revised Diploma
Supplement

National targets Inclusion of under-

for the social dimension to be represented and vulnerable
measured by 2020 groups

LLL as a public responsibility Combine academic and

Focus on employability work-based learning

Use of credits A system of credits (ECTS) Implementation of Bologna tools Innovative

European cooperation in Quality as an overarching focus for Ensure compliance with

quality assurance (QA) EHEA ESG 2015
Promote European
Approach for QA of joint
programmes

Europe of European dimensions Enhance global policy dialogue Develop synergies Inter-connected
Knowledge in higher education through Bologna Policy Fora between EHEA – ERA

Innovation and Inclusion in

Leaning and Teaching
Digitalisation and digital
skills

Support to
UNSDGs

1998 1999 2009 2018 2020

Report outline
This 2024 Bologna Process Implementation report has been prepared for the EHEA Ministerial
Conference in Tirana, Albania, on 29-30 May 2024, based on the mandate from the Rome Communiqué:

‘For our Conference in 2024 we mandate the BFUG to produce an implementation report assessing
progress in our agreed commitments’

The report aims to provide an overview of implementation of the Bologna Process commitments from
various perspectives using data collected in the first half of 2023, and with 2023/2024 as the most recent
reference year. Two main principles have guided its development:

1) Focus on implementation of the commitments in the European Higher Education Area.

2) Provide a comparative snapshot of reality within a narrative that discusses implementation and
change in recent years.

In line with these principles, the report combines two main types of information: quantitative data,
(Eurostat and a specific data collection for non-European Statistical System countries) and qualitative
data – provided by the BFUG. Additional sources have been used, notably data for the forthcoming EUA
Trends 2024 report, ESU Bologna Within Student Eyes 2024 report, and Eurostudent VIII.

As with previous editions, the development of the report has been overseen by the Bologna Follow-up
Group (BFUG), and specifically by a working group established to guide all aspects of the reporting

18
process. Close collaboration has also been established with all working groups established by the
BFUG.

Qualitative information was gathered through a questionnaire addressed to BFUG members. No

questionnaires were sent to the two suspended countries - Belarus and Russia. Serbia also chose not
to submit a completed questionnaire and, except in statistical data, is therefore represented throughout
the report as ‘data not available’. In all other cases, questionnaires were submitted by the Bologna
representatives between May and September 2023. For the United Kingdom and Belgium, two
responses each were submitted. The United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) is
therefore treated as a separate higher education system to that of Scotland, while the Flemish and
French Communities of Belgium are considered as distinct higher education systems. However where
statistical data is combined for Belgium in Eurostat's database, it is presented in a combined form in this
report.

Qualitative data is based mainly on official evidence-based information about legislation, regulations
and national policies, and in some cases country representatives are asked to report on their perception
of specific aspects of higher education reality. The data refers to higher education institutions that are
directly or indirectly administered by a public education authority, which means public and publicly
subsidised private higher education institutions.

Among the indicators presented are so-called scorecard indicators that are designed to track country
progress in implementing EHEA policy commitments. New scorecard indicators have been introduced
in Chapter 4 on the Social Dimension, and also in Chapter 2 (Key Commitments) where there is a new
scorecard indicator (scorecard indicator 1) on the implementation of agreed degree structures. Other
scorecard indicators were already used in the 2020 edition of the Bologna Process Implementation
Report.

The European Union's Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA), working through Agilis SA,
Greece, undertook a specific data collection in 2023 for the EHEA countries that are not part of regular
Eurostat data gathering exercises. Data was collected for several reference years, the most recent being
2020/2021 and with the intention of illustrating short-term change. In this context short term has been
understood as a five-year period. Agilis also provided advice on presentation of statistical data and
provided expert advice on the analysis of the figures.

The report is divided into six thematic chapters, with a structure that aims to maintain coherence with
the previous Bologna Process Implementation Reports, while also reflecting the current policy priorities
of the EHEA. Chapter three, on Fundamental Values, and chapter five, on Learning and Teaching, are
both new. Meanwhile chapter two, on Key Commitments, regroups information that, in previous editions,
was presented in different chapters. Chapter 6 on internationalisation focuses mainly on mobility but
also includes a section on responses of EHEA higher education systems to integrate academics and
students from Ukraine following the launch of the war of aggression against Ukraine in 2023.

19
CHAPTER 1: EUROPEAN HIGHER EDUCATION
AREA KEY DATA

The 2020 Rome Communiqué

The 2020 Rome Communiqué, adopted by Ministers of Higher Education of the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) in the Rome Ministerial Conference in November 2020, outlines a vision for
‘building an inclusive, innovative and interconnected EHEA by 2030, able to underpin a sustainable,
cohesive and peaceful Europe’ and commits to ’overcoming the social inequities that still limit the
achievement of a fully inclusive EHEA’ ( 1).

Chapter outline
This chapter provides information on the framework conditions for higher education in the different
countries of the EHEA. The aim is to give insight on the evolution of these conditions in the context of
the Bologna Process implementation across the EHEA through statistical data on key features of
European higher education. The topics covered are: evolution of student and staff involvement; access,
participation, and employability of higher education students; changes in the number of higher education
institutions; evolution of public funding in higher education.

Technical note
The comparative overview is based on a five-year period. Data has been produced for reference years
between 2015/2016 and 2020/2021 (the most recent year with statistical data available). Data
comparison between the two time-points, however, must be interpreted with caution due to the impact
and limitations introduced by the COVID 19 pandemic for reference year 2020/2021.

(1) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

21
1.1. Student population
Figure 1.1 shows the number of students enrolled in tertiary education in 2020/2021, and their
distribution in each ISCED level between ISCED 5 and ISCED 8. ISCED 5 corresponds to short-cycle
programmes, ISCED 6 to first-cycle programmes (bachelor programme or equivalent), ISCED 7 to
second cycle (master programme or equivalent) and ISCED 8 to third-cycle programmes (doctoral or
equivalent).

Figure 1.1: Number of students enrolled in tertiary education by ISCED level, 2020/2021

ISCED 5 ISCED 6 ISCED 7 ISCED 8

(x 1 000) TR DE UK FR ES IT UA PL NL EL RO BE SE AT PT CH
ISCED 5 3 114.6 11.0 414.3 565.7 524.3 23.1 357.0 0.5 33.8 : : 25.1 41.0 74.1 18.1 3.3
ISCED 6 4 506.1 2 032.4 1 844.6 1 185.8 1 263.1 1 244.7 770.6 884.8 730.8 715.1 359.3 379.3 275.3 203.2 231.1 221.8
ISCED 7 514.2 1 115.9 621.2 992.7 377.9 795.7 247.6 431.9 206.2 95.0 178.1 116.6 155.1 141.7 131.0 80.6
ISCED 8 145.7 192.3 113.9 65.1 95.8 33.3 26.7 30.6 16.9 33.7 23.1 18.8 19.1 19.4 23.5 26.7
CZ NO DK FI HU IE AZ RS BG HR GE SK AL LT AM BA
ISCED 5 1.0 10.7 35.7 : 11.8 22.7 41.5 : : 0.01 : 2.4 5.8 : 12.3 :
ISCED 6 198.7 198.0 193.9 210.6 183.2 175.2 180.6 180.0 147.8 91.9 139.2 83.2 74.4 75.2 68.9 59.1
ISCED 7 107.2 93.5 69.4 76.0 82.4 42.1 23.8 51.2 72.0 65.1 17.5 48.8 40.5 27.0 10.6 22.5
ISCED 8 21.8 9.3 9.2 18.7 10.1 9.5 3.2 11.4 6.6 3.9 3.8 6.6 3.0 2.7 0.9 1.2
SI MD LV MK CY EE ME IS MT LU LI SM AD EHEA
ISCED 5 10.6 14.7 14.1 : 3.8 : : 0.8 2.4 0.9 : : 0.01 5 397.2
ISCED 6 45.9 44.8 44.2 50.9 23.2 27.5 19.5 14.8 9.3 3.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 19 392.7
ISCED 7 22.8 18.8 18.2 3.9 24.9 15.2 3.1 5.8 6.1 2.8 0.3 0.08 0.05 7 172.8
ISCED 8 3.5 2.3 2.0 0.5 1.7 2.3 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.01 0.03 1 021.6
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Countries are arranged by the total number of students in tertiary education. The graph is scaled to three thousand for readability.
>1 000 (x 1 000) no decimals; <1 000 (x 1 000): 1
EHEA: refers to total number of students across all countries with available data.

There were about 32.985 million tertiary education students enrolled in the EHEA in the academic year
2020/2021. Overall, across the EHEA, most tertiary students (58.8%) were enrolled in first-cycle
programmes (bachelor programmes), while 21.7% were enrolled in second-cycle programmes (master’s
degree or equivalent level), and 3.1% in third-cycle programmes (doctoral or equivalent level). 16.4% of
tertiary education students were enrolled in short-cycle tertiary education programmes.

Türkiye (8.3 million) and Germany (3.4 million), which each had a total population close to 85 million,
accounted for the highest number of tertiary education students − equivalent to about 35% of the EHEA
total student population. It is noticeable that Türkiye had an ISCED 5 student population that exceeded
the combined total ISCED°5 population of the rest of the EHEA countries, and at ISCED°6 level had the

22
largest number of bachelor students. All education levels considered, the United Kingdom (2.9 million),
and France (2.8 million), had the next largest student populations followed by Spain and Italy – each
with more than 2 million students enrolled in tertiary education. These six countries accounted for 66%
of the total student population in the EHEA. Ukraine and Poland had more than 1 million students, while
4 out of the 45 countries with available data (nearly 9%) had more than 500 000 students in tertiary
education. In the remaining 33 EHEA countries with available data, the median number of enrolled
students was 123 797, while the average number of students was 166 959.

Figure 1.2 shows the percentage change in the number of students enrolled in tertiary education over a
five-year period, between the most recent time-point (2020/2021) for which data is available and
2015/2016.

Figure 1.2: Percentage change in the number of students enrolled in tertiary education, 2015/2016°-°2020/2021

% SM MT CY UK LI TR AZ AD EL IS GE NL PT IT SE ES
2016-2021 93.8 33.2 32.6 25.9 25.5 23.8 20.0 19.5 18.9 18.5 18.5 18.0 17.7 15.5 15.1 14.9
IE FR CH NO LU DE BE RO FI SI AT HR DK HU RS LV
2016-2021 14.3 13.3 12.6 12.3 10.2 10.1 6.2 4.7 2.8 2.4 1.7 -0.6 -2.1 -2.7 -3.4 -6.8
ME EE CZ MK BG SK PL AL UA AM MD LT BA EHEA
2016-2021 -7.9 -11.2 -11.6 -12.7 -15.1 -15.7 -15.8 -16.5 -17.0 -18.1 -21.4 -21.6 -22.7 11.0
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Countries are arranged by the percentage change in the number of students in tertiary education (2016-2021).
EHEA: percentage change calculated based on total number of students of countries with data available for both reference years.

Compared to 2015/2016, the student population continued to increase in more than half of the countries.
The total percentage increase registered in EHEA was 11% (calculated as the percentage change in
the total student population at all education levels across the EHEA between the two reference time
points).
27 of 45 EHEA countries with available data recorded an increase, and most of these countries
registered a rise of more than 15% (all education levels considered). The largest percentage increase
in the number of enrolled students took place in San Marino (93.8%), followed by Malta (33.2%), and
Cyprus (32.6%). Among the countries with a large student population (see Figure 1.1 for reference),
Türkiye and the United Kingdom recorded an increase of more than 20%, while Germany, France,
Spain, and Italy saw an increase of more than 10%. The most pronounced increase was recorded in
Türkiye – more than 1.5 million students, and in the United Kingdom − more than 600 000 students. A
notable increase of 300 000 students or more was observed in France and Germany, and nearly
300 000 in Spain and Italy.
Despite the overall upward trend observed during this period, 18 countries saw a decline in student
enrolments, with decreases ranging between 0.6% (Croatia) to 22.7% (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Steep
decreases of more than 20% were also observed in Lithuania (21.6%), and Moldova (21.4%), followed
by Armenia (18%), Ukraine (17%), Albania, Poland, Slovakia, and Bulgaria (more than 15%). North

23
Macedonia, Czechia, and Estonia registered a decrease of more than 11%. Among the countries with
the largest student populations in this group, Ukraine, and Poland registered decreases of more than
250 000 students. This report is unable to analyse all the factors that may explain the different changes
during the reference period. Policy and reforms in the education area may have had an impact upon the
conditions to participate in higher education, and so too may broader demographic and socio-economic
developments.
To understand the changing structures of the (higher) education systems it is also important to bear in
mind, for example, whether short-cycle tertiary programmes exist, and whether part-time study is
facilitated. Country-specific characteristics, national policies aimed at increasing tertiary entry and
completion rates, financing provided to institutions and students are all important features to consider.
Changes in economic and learning conditions also influence the desire and ability of young people to
enrol in higher education. Institutional conditions are also relevant and include: (a) admission rules and
procedures, (b) the cost/benefit analysis involved in acquiring higher education – such as fees, financial
support, employment rates of graduates, and (c) the length of studies.
Figure 1.3 presents the change in enrolment rates in tertiary education between 2015/2016 and
2020/2021 for students aged 18-34, the most frequent age-range for students attending higher
education. The indicator thus shows the share of the national population aged 18-34 that studies in
tertiary education.

Figure 1.3: Enrolment rates in tertiary education (as a % of the total population aged 18-34), 2015/2016°-°2020/2021

% EL TR NL ES FI DK NO GE IE FR BE SI AT HR PT CY DE LV IS IT RS SE LT
2021 31.7 31.0 22.6 22.5 20.9 20.8 20.5 20.2 20.1 20.0 19.9 19.6 19.5 18.9 18.9 18.4 18.2 18.2 17.6 17.6 17.1 16.8 16.3
2016 25.7 27.2 20.8 19.4 20.4 22.0 18.7 15.2 17.6 17.4 18.3 18.2 18.7 17.3 15.0 14.9 16.7 17.5 17.3 14.8 16.2 15.7 19.6
ME CH PL AL CZ BG SM EE UA MK HU RO MD MT SK LI BA AZ LU AD UK EHEA
2021 16.0 16.0 15.4 15.3 15.0 15.0 14.0 13.9 13.6 13.3 12.7 12.4 11.7 11.1 11.0 10.1 10.0 6.3 4.5 2.8 : 16.9
2016 16.4 14.2 16.1 : 14.5 16.2 8.0 14.8 12.7 11.4 12.5 11.2 12.5 11.0 11.6 8.2 12.2 5.2 4.6 2.8 13.6 15.9
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Countries are arranged by the share of enrolment rates for students aged 18-34 for 2021.
EHEA: Refers to the EHEA median calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.

24
The EHEA enrolment rate median increased from 15.9% (2016) to 16.9% (2021). The EHEA average
enrolment rate in tertiary education, based on available data for 43 countries for both reference years,
raised from 17.3% (2016) to 19.9% (2021). The EHEA countries showed different trends regarding the
tertiary education enrolment rates. 32 of 42 countries with available data for both time-points registered
an increase of the enrolment rates in 2021. In 20 countries the enrolment rates increased and were
above the EHEA median while 12 countries registered an increase but were below the EHEA median.
Greece and Türkiye continued to be the countries with the highest enrolment rates also in 2020/2021
and registered high increases between the two time-points (respectively 6 and 3.8 percentage points).
San Marino also registered a very high increase of nearly 6 percentage points but remained below the
EHEA median also in 2021. The increase in the enrolment rates in Georgia (about 5 percentage points
increase), Portugal and Cyprus (3.5 percentage points increase) placed them above the EHEA median
for 2021 while in 2016 their enrolment rates were below the EHEA median for 2016. Among the countries
with available data for both time-points, 10 countries registered a decrease with Lithuania noting the
highest decline of 3.3 percentage points. The lowest enrolment rates (below 5%) were recorded in
Luxembourg and Andorra. However, the data for these two countries does not reveal an accurate picture
as most students aged 18-34 studied abroad.

More than a third (12 of 42 countries with available data), showed a decrease in the total population
aged 18-34 but registered an increase in the student population and hence an increase in the share of
people aged 18-34 enrolled in higher education programmes. This was the case of Greece, Georgia,
and Spain, which were among the countries registering high increases in the enrolment rates between
2016 and 2021. Denmark registered an increase of the total population aged 18-34 but a decrease in
the student population within this age group and subsequently registered a decrease of the enrolment
rate. Türkiye, Germany, France, and Italy were the countries with the largest total population (above
10 million) and the largest student population (above 1 500 million) in this age group for both time-points.
However, while Türkiye registered a strong increase (3.8 percentage points) in the enrolment rate, the
other countries showed an increase of below 3 percentage points with Germany registering the lowest
increase of 1.6 percentage points among this group of countries.

Data in Figure 1.3 also show that 16 countries registered decreases both of the total and the student
populations aged 18-34. In eight countries ( 2), despite the decreases in both the total population aged
18-34 and the total student population within this age group, there was a slight increase of the enrolment
rates. Conversely, in the remaining eight ( 3) countries the decrease in both the total and the student
populations aged 18-34 lead to a decline of the enrolment rates.

The fluctuations in the enrolment rates could be the product of a number of different factors, such as:
policy and institutional reforms creating conditions for increased interest to engage in tertiary education
studies, strengthened institutional capacity to absorb and sustain a higher number of students in tertiary
education; a time-lagged effect of changes in the student cohort size for this age group; changes in the
labour market leading to an increased interest in higher education studies. In addition, it is clear that the
COVID-19 pandemic had no negative impact in 2020/2021 on the demand for higher education, as
enrolment rates in most EHEA countries continued to grow.

(2) Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Latvia, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Ukraine.
()
3
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia.

25
1.2. Statistical data on access and participation
This sub-section presents statistical data on higher education students related to the following
characteristics: the impact of parental education on higher education participation, gender balance,
participation of migrant and mature students in higher education, and data on part-time students.

1.2.1. Access and participation

Central to the social dimension of the Bologna Process is the aim that the student body should reflect
the diversity of the population, and that the background of students should not have an impact on their
access to and participation in higher education. Given the diversity of socio-economic and cultural
realities across the EHEA, as well as the responsibility for managing education and higher education
systems that lies with public authorities, each country decides which characteristics to consider when
comparing the composition of the student body with the total population. The societal groups which are
identified as under-represented in higher education may therefore also differ between countries.

Nevertheless, some common themes are inevitable across countries: low socio-economic background
(in the form of low income or the low educational background of parents), gender, immigrant status and
disability are often agreed as main aspects of disadvantage. Such characteristics are often central to
inclusion policies ( 4) as well as lifelong learning strategies for adjustment with individual and labour
market needs, ‘where higher education institutions play a central role in transferring knowledge and
strengthening regional development, including by the continuous development of competences and
reinforcement of knowledge alliances’ ( 5). Mature students are specifically targeted in many countries,
as students from under-represented groups that may be encouraged to enter higher education with a
delay or solicited to engage in continuing education in the context of life-long learning strategies.

Parental background
The educational background of parents is one of the most important factors influencing the chances of
learners to participate in higher education. Previous editions of the BPIR have observed that students
with parents with tertiary educational attainment are most-likely to engage in higher education study
programmes (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2020).

Figure 1.4 depicts first-cycle new entrants with parents of high educational attainment, and the
corresponding proportion of people with high educational attainment (ISCED 5-8) in the hypothetical
parents’ cohort. The figure presents the situation in 2021 ( 6). Due to changes in the methodology for
data collection in 2021, break in series makes the comparison with previous years not feasible. The
definition of level of education of parents has also changed. For more details, see the Glossary and
methodological notes.

(4) EURASHE’s statement for the European Higher Education Area ministers’ conference in Rome 2020.
()
5
Bucharest Communiqué 2012, p. 2.
(6) Due to changes in the methodology for data collection in 2021, comparison with previous years is not feasible. For more
details, see the Glossary and methodological notes.

26
Figure 1.4: Relationship between the educational background of first-cycle new entrants (ISCED 6) and the
educational attainment of their parents’ cohort (population aged 45-64), 2020/2021
Share of population aged 45-64 with high educational attainment

Share of first-cycle new entrants at ISCED 6

Share of first-cycle new entrants at ISCED 6

with highly educated parents

with highly educated parents

Share of population aged 45-64 with high educational attainment

RO IT MT AD CZ PL PT CY HR SK LU EL BG DE BE
New entrants 23.2 25.1 31.9 37.3 38.0 39.3 40.4 40.7 45.1 47.3 48.4 51.4 51.6 54.2 54.6
Hypothetical Parents cohort 13.3 15.1 19.9 21.7 19.7 22.2 22.9 34.8 19.1 20.4 37.4 29.2 25.9 28.7 39.7
SI FR IE NL ES DK HU LT AT CH LV NO FI SE EE
New entrants 56.5 59.3 60.6 61.3 62.9 63.0 63.6 64.1 65.9 67.7 68.3 68.4 69.9 71.8 71.9
Hypothetical Parents cohort 33.0 33.1 43.3 34.3 35.4 35.8 24.5 34.4 28.7 38.4 33.0 40.2 41.0 40.5 38.8
Source: Eurostat, EU-LFS, custom extraction and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Break in series for 2021.
For definitions see the Glossary and methodological notes.
Countries are arranged in ascending order according to the share of new entrants.

The graph shows the relationship between the share of first-cycle news entrants (ISCED 6), with highly
educated parents, indicated on the Y axis, and the share of the population aged 45-64 with high
educational attainment, displayed on the X axis. As seen from the scatterplot, there is a very clear linear
relationship, around 0.8. The countries clustering close around the trend line denote a balance between
the share of new entrants with parents with high educational attainment and the share of highly educated
population. In 2021, in 17 of 30 countries with available data (56%) the share of new entrants was higher
than 50% and the corresponding share of parents with a high educational attainment level was around
a third of the population or in some cases even higher. Bulgaria and Hungary had also very high shares
of new entrants (above 50%) with parents’ cohort aged 45-64 accounting for a fourth of the total
population. For example, in Finland, Sweden and Estonia the share of new entrants was about 70%
with corresponding share of population aged 45-64 with high education attainment around 40%. On the
other end, in Romania the share of new entrants was 23.2% with corresponding share of population
with high educational attainment of 13.3%.

27
The analysis show that the educational background of parents is still a robust predictor of whether young
people are likely to participate in higher education.

Gender balance
Equal opportunities for men and women to participate in higher education is a central concern of the
social dimension within the Bologna Process. It is important to consider not only trends regarding overall
numbers, but also gender distribution in different fields of study.

Figure 1.5 shows the percentage of women among new entrants in tertiary education in 2016 and 2021.
As the figure demonstrates, in 2016, the share of female entrants was high (50% and above) in 37 out
of 43 (86%) of the countries. In 2021 female students were in a majority in every EHEA country (40 out
of 43 with available data) except Ukraine, Liechtenstein, and San Marino.

Figure 1.5: Share of women among new entrants in tertiary education (ISCED 5-8), 2015/2016 and 2020/2021

% IS AL PL BA MT CY LT SE EE UK RS SK AM LV NO HR CZ EL FI RO BG IE
2021 64.3 62.5 60.9 60.5 58.7 58.6 58.4 58.2 57.6 57.5 57.1 57.0 56.8 56.7 56.7 56.5 56.4 56.3 55.9 55.6 55.5 55.4
2016 62.8 62.1 57.7 54.1 54.3 52.5 54.1 57.5 57.4 56.6 53.4 57.7 54.8 55.4 55.5 55.8 57.2 54.9 54.6 54.7 54.1 52.9
AT FR SI IT BE LU NL AD HU ES DK PT GE MK AZ TR CH DE UA LI SM EHEA
2021 55.3 55.3 55.2 55.2 55.2 55.0 54.8 54.8 54.5 54.3 54.3 53.9 53.8 53.5 53.1 52.6 51.1 50.2 49.9 41.6 38.3 55.4
2016 53.1 54.7 54.2 54.8 54.9 50.0 52.8 42.9 55.4 53.5 54.6 54.5 52.4 51.2 54.6 46.4 48.9 49.2 51.7 38.9 39.7 54.5
Source: Eurostat, UOE, OECD and additional collection for the other EHEA countries (extract 26 January 2024)
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the share of women new entrants for 2021.
EHEA: Refers to the EHEA median calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.

The share of women among new entrants in 2021 was the highest in Iceland, Albania, Poland, and
Bosnia°and°Herzegovina – above 60% in all four countries.

In Germany, Switzerland, Türkiye, and Andorra where the male entrants were a majority in 2016, the
female participation increased to a level above 50% in 2021. As the figure demonstrates, looking at the
change compared to 2016, the EHEA median slightly increased (55.4% in 2021 compared to 54.5% in
2016). This indicates that the trend for men to be under-represented in higher education has slightly
grown during this five-year period.

The highest increases of female new entrants’ share were observed in Andorra (11.9 percentage
points), followed by Bosnia and Herzegovina (6.4 percentage points), Türkiye (6.2 percentage points),
and Cyprus (6.1 percentage points). The highest decrease was registered in Ukraine (-1.8 percentage
points) and San Marino (-1.4 percentage points).

While the overall change in the share of female and male students’ participation is an important
consideration, a clearer picture emerges through analysis of gender shares in different study fields.

28
Figure 1.6 depicts the median share of women among enrolled students in the first and second cycle by
field of education in 2020/2021.

Figure 1.6: Median percentage of women among enrolled students in Bologna structures by field of education and
level of Bologna structure (ISCED 6 and 7), 2021
ISCED 6 ISCED 7
Education 80.3 80.5

Health and welfare 77.3 71.3

Arts and humanities 65.9 65.2

Social sciences, journalism, and
information 64.4 69.4
Natural sciences, mathematics
and statistics 56.3 57.8

Business, administration, and law 55.9 58.3

Agriculture, forestry,
fisheries and veterinary 49.4 63.3

Services 42.4 46.0

Engineering, manufacturing
and construction 25.6 35.0
Information and
Communication Technologies 18.9 27.5

Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Fields are arranged in descending order by the median share of women at ISCED 6 level.
The median value is derived as the median of the percentage of women enrolled in Bologna structures across all EHEA countries
for which data are available per ISCED level.
The country coverage varies across different study fields (see the Glossary and methodological notes).

In 2021, the median share of women varied between the fields and the different education cycles. The
gender distribution among the selected fields of study should be observed in the context of the total
enrolment rates in these fields. Across EHEA countries, for both education cycles, the highest median
share was registered in the field of ‘Education’ (above 80%), followed by the field of ‘Health and welfare’
(above 70%). The ‘Education’ and ‘Health and welfare’ fields show the most important gender gap with
both fields registering female participation of above 70% at ISCED°6 and ISCED 7 levels. In another
four education fields, female representation is above 50% at both education levels. The lowest
participation was registered in the field of ‘Information and communication technology’ as well as
‘Engineering’ at both ISCED levels. In these fields the difference (around nine percentage points)
between the two education cycles was much more important compared to the other fields (except for
the field of ‘Agriculture’ where the difference is close to 14 percentage points). In these two fields female
participation was significantly higher in the second cycle than in the first cycle. In 2021 in 8 out of
10 fields, the percentage of women was higher in the second cycle. The share was almost equal in ‘Arts
and humanities’. Only in ‘Health and welfare’, the median share was substantially lower in the second
cycle (71.3%) than in the first (77.3%) – despite still being very high. Considering this analysis with
relation to gender distribution among the selected fields in EHEA countries, women participation was
the strongest in ‘Education’ and ‘Health and welfare’. In contrast, the male participation was considerably
stronger (around 70% median share, both levels considered) in ‘Information and communication’ and
‘Engineering’ studies’ fields. Compared to 2016/2017, the trends are similar. However, in the field of
‘Social sciences’ and ‘Business administration’ the female median share at ISCED 7 increased while
the median share at ISCED 6 decreased.

29
Migrant status
Having a migrant background is also an important factor influencing the chances of learners accessing
higher education, especially if it coincides with low parental education. Immigrants and children of
immigrants might lack the sufficient cultural, economic, and social capital, which have important effects
on educational success (see e.g., Griga and Hadjar, 2014).

It is difficult to gather comparable and representative information on the participation of migrant students
in higher education. Eurostat data presented in Figure 1.7 uses the country of birth as the criterion
defining migrants, and this has two major limitations. Firstly, the group of foreign-born students includes
not only migrants who become students, but also students who moved to the country for the purposes
of study, i.e., mobile students. Not only does the concept of ‘foreign born’ mix groups with very different
characteristics, but when numbers of mobile students are substantial, as they are in several countries,
the picture is distorted.

The second limitation of this data are that children of immigrants born in the country (often referred to
as ‘second-generation immigrants’) are excluded. Also, series report a break in 2021 due to changes in
the methodology for data collection. For these reasons, data must be interpreted with caution ( 7).

Figure 1.7 presents the participation rates in tertiary education of students aged 18 to 29 as a
percentage of the respective total population based on their migration status, showing the situation in
2016 and 2021. The graph shows the participation of native-born 18–29-year-olds as a proportion of the
total native-born population in this age group. Similarly, the following graph shows the foreign-born
population thus provides the participation of the 18–29-year-olds compared to the total foreign-born
population in this age group. This enables clear comparison between the two groups.

Figure 1.7: Participation rates in tertiary education among people aged 18 to 29, foreign-born, native-born and total
population, 2016 and 2021

Foreign-born Native-born Total

(7) For more details, see the Glossary and methodological notes.

30
 Foreign-born Native-born Total

2021
% SI ES PT NL EL BE IE NO FR FI BG IT IS HR RS AT SE DE DK CH
Native-born (2021) 43.0 36.0 35.8 35.0 34.0 33.5 31.9 30.6 29.9 29.7 29.2 28.9 28.6 28.2 27.9 26.1 26.0 25.1 24.7 24.6
Foreign-born (2021) 15.9 18.2 27.0 29.5 17.0 24.3 27.8 23.0 25.5 20.6 : 11.6 16.6 10.0 25.4 22.8 14.5 16.5 26.9 17.4
Total (2021) 41.1 32.4 35.3 34.3 33.4 32.0 31.0 : 29.6 28.8 29.4 : 26.3 27.7 27.8 25.5 23.1 23.6 24.9 22.9
CY CZ EE LV AM LT SK RO MT PL HU LU BA AD ME UK MK TR EHEA
Native-born (2021) 24.3 23.3 23.3 23.2 21.4 21.2 20.9 20.6 19.7 18.4 17.7 15.1 13.0 4.0 : : : : 26.1
Foreign-born (2021) 12.7 15.4 15.0 : 33.5 : : : 12.0 : 19.7 10.8 21.7 9.3 : : : : 18.9
Total (2021) : 23.0 23.0 23.3 21.9 21.0 21.0 : 18.3 18.4 17.8 13.1 13.2 6.3 : : : : 24.2
2016
% SI ES PT NL EL BE IE NO FR FI BG IT IS HR RS AT SE DE DK CH
Native-born (2016) 37.4 31.4 26.2 29.3 33.1 27.0 21.6 28.5 25.8 25.7 27.1 27.2 : 28.0 31.3 26.4 23.1 22.9 27.0 5.5
Foreign-born (2016) 14.1 12.4 20.3 27.0 13.2 20.9 20.0 20.3 22.3 16.0 : 9.3 : 16.1 28.7 24.6 16.1 : 24.7 7.4
Total (2016) 36.0 27.9 25.7 29.1 31.6 26.1 21.3 27.4 25.6 25.1 27.3 24.8 : 27.2 31.2 26.1 21.9 22.0 26.7 5.9
CY CZ EE LV AM LT SK RO MT PL HU LU BA AD ME UK MK TR EHEA
Native-born (2016) 22.1 23.4 22.1 21.9 : 25.1 20.9 18.1 18.9 19.6 17.7 25.6 12.9 4.0 32.2 14.7 25.6 18.1 25.7
Foreign-born (2016) 21.7 20.4 : 24.4 : : : : 10.4 47.0 28.6 17.2 12.2 3.1 23.0 20.9 14.1 8.6 18.6
Total (2016) 22.0 23.4 21.9 22.0 : 25.1 21.0 18.1 18.3 19.7 18.0 21.8 12.9 : 31.7 15.8 : 17.8 24.1
Source: Eurostat, EU-LFS, custom extraction, and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
EHEA: Refers to the EHEA median, which was calculated based on countries with available data.
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the share of native-born population in 2021.
EHEA: refers to the EHEA median calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.
2021: break in series. For more details see the Glossary and methodological notes.

Across EHEA countries, the native-born student population was 17 times more numerous than the
foreign-born student population. The EHEA median for the native-born participation of young adults in
tertiary education increased to 26.1% in 2021, while the median share of the foreign-born population
increased to 18.9%. In most of the countries with available data, the level of participation was lower for
foreign-born students, except for Hungary, Denmark, Bosnia°and°Herzegovina, Andorra, and Armenia
where the foreign participation was slightly higher. In a fifth of the countries in both time-points the native-
born student population was by 10 percentage points larger than the foreign-born student population.

In 2021 disparities continued to be more evident in southern Mediterranean countries where the native-
born participation rates were twice as high than those of foreign-born students (Italy, Greece, and
Spain). In Hungary and Switzerland, the participation rates of foreign-born students in 2016 were higher
than those of native-born students. Hungary maintained the same trend despite the decrease of the
foreign-born population in 2021. Conversely, Switzerland inverted the trend as both populations

31
increased but the native-born population had a more pronounced evolution and outnumbered by
7 percentage points the foreign-born student population share in 2021. Given the methodological
problem in some countries of distinguishing between foreign born and mobile students, the negative
impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on student mobility flows may be part of the explanation for the
decreased number of foreign-born students shown in the figure.

Indicators looking at differences in the chances of students attaining higher education by migrant
background have similar limitations as Figure 1.7. Data are not available by ‘migrant background’ as
such. Eurostat data are limited to making differences between the foreign-born and the native-born. The
indicator looks at the resident population with tertiary attainment, irrespective of the country of
graduation. This means that it includes foreign-born young people who arrived in a given country after
obtaining a tertiary degree. In addition, it is still not possible to evaluate the chances of second-
generation immigrants since they are classified among the native-born population.

Nevertheless, it is still interesting to examine the odds ratios of the native-born over the foreign-born to
obtain a higher education degree. On Figure 1.8, when an odds ratio is higher than 1, it means that the
native-born population have higher chances to attain higher education; when it is below 1, then the
foreign-born population have greater odds to do so.

Figure 1.8: Tertiary education attainment of 25 to 34-year-olds by country of birth: odds ratio of native-born over
foreign-born population to complete tertiary education, 2016 and 2021

% CY MK ES SM IT ME SE NL AT PT FR BE IS FI RS
2021 5.71 3.20 2.16 1.50 1.49 1.20 1.17 1.06 1.02 1.0 0.97 0.39 0.93 0.89 0.72
2016 3.57 : 1.75 1.70 1.21 : 0.74 1.49 1.04 : 0.82 1.01 : 1.03 1.18
BA DE CZ AM CH DK HR IE LU NO SI TR UK EHEA
2021 0.70 0.65 0.55 0.50 0.48 0.41 : : : : : : : 0.98
2016 0.80 0.68 1.26 : : 0.49 0.60 0.84 0.60 1.23 1.90 0.59 0.40 1.04
Source: Eurostat, EU-LFS, custom extraction, and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
EHEA: Refers to the EHEA median, which was calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the odds ratio values in 2021.
EHEA: refers to the EHEA median calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.
2021: break in series (see Glossary and methodological note)

32
In 2021 the EHEA median of the odds ratio indicates an increase of tertiary education attainment of
foreign-born population. Figure 1.8 reveals that in 2021 the biggest differences between the native-born
and the foreign-born population in their chances to attain higher education existed in Cyprus, where the
probability that native-born achieve higher education degree was five times higher compared to foreign-
born. Foreign-born young people also had lower chances to attain higher education in North Macedonia,
Spain, San Marino, Italy, Montenegro, and Sweden. In the Netherlands, and Austria the imbalance was
not large and slightly above 1 indicating little prevalence of odds for native-born population, while in
France the foreign-born population had slightly lower attainment chances. In Portugal the attainment
odds ratio indicated balanced chances for the two groups. At the other end of the scale, the native-born
population had much lower odds to complete higher education than the foreign-born in Denmark and
Switzerland where the odds were below 0.5.

When looking at changes between 2016 and 2021 in the odds ratios, the most substantial decreases
for the native-born (indicating increases in the relative chances of the foreign-born population) took place
in nine countries. In Czechia, while in 2016 the native-born population had higher odds to attain higher
education, the situation reversed in 2021. The opposite trend was observed in Sweden, where an
increase of the native-born population reversed the odds in 2021. In Cyprus, Spain and Italy, the native-
born odds ratio increased further, which increased the gap between native-born and foreign-born.

Part-time students
The social dimension of higher education is also informed by the availability of part-time studies in a
higher education system. Socio-economic constraints may influence the opportunity to access full-time
study. For example, people willing to follow higher education studies may have to be in full-time
employment during their studies. Part-time study proposes more flexible attendance time-schedule and
have a lower cost. Therefore, part-time study could be a more feasible option for people who have more
limited financial means or people who are willing to continue their education but are already engaged in
employment.

Figure 1.9 shows the percentage of students enrolled as part-timers among students aged 20 to 24 and
those aged 30 to 34.

33
Figure 1.9: Students enrolled as part-timers in tertiary education by country and age (%), 2016 and 2021
20-24 years 30-34 years

% HR SI MT AD HU SK NL BG SE IE FI BA LV ES PL LU
2021 18.0 13.4 12.7 52.5 9.4 5.7 2.8 15.4 23.1 3.9 15.2 9.5 15.3 15.1 28.1 1.9
Y20-24
2016 18.8 11.1 9.3 52.9 8.9 10.1 2.0 18.5 29.2 3.8 17.8 8.6 15.9 15.2 26.9 1.6
2021 86.3 73.2 71.2 70.5 70.5 64.0 61.4 57.5 54.6 53.9 52.2 50.7 49.7 46.8 41.4 41.0
Y30-34
2016 84.3 68.2 72.4 73.2 78.8 79.9 59.1 59.7 58.4 45.7 60.7 49.7 53.0 51.4 47.8 37.7
% LT DE BE AZ MK CY RO DK PT EE SM AL CZ EL UA EHEA
2021 7.5 6.5 21.6 12.1 5.4 7.2 5.5 1.2 3.3 3.1 1.7 : : : : 9.4
Y20-24
2016 14.3 4.1 22.6 21.4 5.4 10.4 5.3 1.1 3.7 6.0 : 6.6 : : 34.0 10.2
2021 39.8 33.2 31.9 31.4 30.3 23.4 22.1 17.4 11.9 10.1 7.6 6.6 5.7 1.2 : 46.8
Y30-34
2016 60.5 33.2 35.6 28.6 45.4 47.3 21.1 15.3 10.8 18.8 : 30.2 : 1.0 82.0 49.7
Source: Eurostat, UOE custom extraction and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the participation of mature students (30-34 years old) in part-time studies in 2021.
EHEA: refer to the EHEA median based on the countries with available data.

34
The EHEA median for both age groups slightly decreased between the two time points. However, the
share of part-timers aged 30-34 remained significantly bigger compared to the younger group. In 2016
in 14 of 29 countries with available data, the part-time student population aged 30-34 represented more
than half of the total student population in this age group. In 2021 12 out of 30 countries with available
data the part-timers’ population was more than half of the student population aged 30-34. Data show
that the countries register different patterns in the evolution of the part-time student populations in both
age groups. There was, however, a common reality that students aged 30-34 had a higher likelihood of
enrolling in part-time studies.

In 2021, the share of part-time students in the age group 30-34 varied between 86% in Croatia to 1.2%
in Greece. The shares of the younger part-timers ranged between 52.5% in Andorra and 1.7% in San
Marino. In 12 of 30 countries, part-time students in the older age group represented more than half of
the total number of students of the same age group. At the other end, four countries had shares of below
10%. Observing the younger age group, only Andorra had a part-time student population of more than
half the total student population in this age group and 15 countries registered a share of below 10%.
Seven countries had rates of part-time students aged 20-24 below 5%.

The distribution of part-time students’ shares among the respective student populations varied
significantly across EHEA countries. In 2021, the total 20–24-year-old student population in the
Netherlands was 8 times bigger than the total population of the older age group while the number of
younger part-time students was more than twice smaller. Conversely, in Belgium the part-time student
population aged 20-24 was almost 9 times bigger than the part-time student population aged 30-34, and
the total population of students aged 20-24 was 13 times bigger than the population of the older group.
For both time points, in the two countries, the share of part-time students in the older age group was
higher compared to the share of their counterparts in the younger age group, however the gap between
the two part-timers age groups in the Netherlands was more significant.

Comparing the two time-points for the countries with available data, the total student population of the
older age group (30-34) showed a considerably higher increase (34%) compared to the younger age
group (4.4%). The part-time student population aged 20-24 showed a considerable decrease (26.7%),
while the older part-timers’ population remained almost the same. In seven of the eight countries where
both part-time students’ age groups registered an increase, the growth of the older age group was more
important. Between the two time points, the share of part-time students in the older age group increased
the most in Ireland (8.2 percentage points) followed by Slovenia (5 percentage points). Decreases of
part-time students in this age-group occurred in 16 countries across the EHEA with Albania, Cyprus and
Lithuania registering a decrease of more than 20 percentage points. For the age group 20-24, the
highest increase was noted in Malta (3.4 percentage points), followed by Germany and Slovenia (more
than 2 percentage points). 14 countries registered a decrease of the share of younger part-timers aged
20-24. The most pronounced decreases were observed in Azerbaijan (more than 9 percentage points),
Lithuania and Sweden (more than 6 percentage points), Slovakia (more than 4 percentage points).

35
Mature students
An important aspect of the social dimension is that higher education should be open to non-traditional
learners who missed the opportunity to enter higher education when leaving secondary education. The
number of over 30-year-old students in the higher education population can be influenced by different
factors. It may indicate a delayed entry into higher education studies after completion of secondary
education or be the result of an extended study duration period, which has traditionally been the case
in the Nordic countries, for example. The introduction of polices supporting adults’ participation in higher
education and the completion rates might also have an impact on the size of mature students’ share.
Recently introduced policies might have not yet provided for a significant change in the share of the
mature students’ population. Small share of mature students may also indicate low completion rates.
Figure 1.10 examines the proportion of ‘mature’ students in tertiary education who are aged 30 years or
older in 2016 and 2021.

Figure 1.10: Adults (30-64) who attained their tertiary education degree during adulthood (aged 30-64) as a
percentage of all adults (30-64) 2016-2021

% AD IS MD CH SE IE DK FI NO SI LV NL EE AT DE MT ES LU LT PT
2021 26.4 21.2 20.7 15.7 15.6 15.4 14.5 14.1 13.5 11.7 10.1 9.9 8.3 7.6 7.6 7.5 7.4 6.8 6.7 6.6
2016 25.5 15.0 18.1 18.6 13.5 10.6 12.4 12.8 13.6 9.5 9.7 9.7 7.0 6.2 7.0 4.4 5.3 4.8 5.8 6.0
FR CY HU PL RS IT BE EL HR SK CZ RO BG BA ME MK TR UK UA EHEA
2021 6.2 6.1 5.8 4.9 4.8 4.5 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.3 2.8 2 1.6 1.6 : : : : : 7.1
2016 4.8 6.0 4.0 5.1 4.9 4.0 3.4 2.3 3.9 2.8 2.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.4 3.7 10.7 48.7 6.0
Source: Eurostat, EU-LFS, custom extraction, and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
EHEA: refers to the EHEA median calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the share of adults who attained tertiary education degree in 2021.
2021: break in series (see the Glossary and methodological notes).

The number of adult graduates continued to grow between 2016 and 2021. The EHEA median share
for adults aged 30-64 attaining their tertiary degree in adulthood increased from 6% in 2016 to 7.1% in
2021. In 2021, 6 of 34 countries with available data registered the highest shares (above 15%). At the
opposite end, 11 countries registered shares of mature adults who attained tertiary education below 5%.
Overall, the Scandinavian countries registered high proportion of mature students in both time-points,
which indicates that adult graduates constitute a substantial share of the total graduates’ population in
these countries. In 2021, the total mature graduates’ population in the EHEA countries accounted for
6.7% of the total population aged 30-64.

The evolution between 2016 and 2021 evidenced that there is clearly an upward trend − in 27 of
34 countries with available data the share of mature students increased while the number of countries
registering a share of adult graduates below 5% decreased. Iceland noted the highest growth
(6.2°percentage points) followed by Ireland (4.7 percentage points) and Malta (3.1 percentage points).
Conversely, eight countries noted a decrease in the share of mature students, with Switzerland, despite
being among the countries with the highest rates for both time-points, showing the largest decline of

36
2.9 percentage points. Comparing the two time points, the lowest shares (below 5%) continued to be
registered in Central and South-East Europe. Recent policy changes or low completion rates may be an
explanation for the reported low participation rates.

1.3. Academic staff

Section 1.1 showed the ways in which student enrolments have developed between 2016 and 2021 in
the framework of the Bologna Process. This section focuses on the corresponding trends about
academic staff. Figure 1.11 presents the percentage change in the number of academic staff between
2016 and 2021.

Figure 1.11: Percentage change in the total number of academic staff in 2016 and 2021

2016-2021
LU SM UK MT HU FI AD DE NL EL CH TR NO GE AZ SE IT PT RS CY ES HR AL
% 101.8 29.0 27.6 23.2 22.1 20.7 20.4 17.4 16.8 15.8 15.4 15.1 14.3 13.9 13.9 13.0 12.8 12.0 11.8 11.5 9.4 8.8 7.9
MK AT LV DK BE BA IE SI CZ PL FR AM LI UA ME RO SK EE BG LT MD EHEA
% 7.7 7.5 6.6 6.4 5.3 3.4 3.4 3.1 2.7 0.9 0.0 -0.6 -1.7 -3.4 -3.5 -3.6 -4.6 -5.3 -8.4 -8.4 -16.0 10.9
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries. OECD for UK data (2021).
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the percentage change in the number of academic staff between 2016 and 2021.

EHEA: refers to the percentage change of the total academic staff across the countries with available data for both reference
years.

The total number of academic staff increased from 1.9 million in 2016 to 2.2 million in 2021. The median
value for number of academic staff across EHEA countries in 2021 was 20 031 while in 2016 the median
was lower (18 296). Among the seven countries with big cohort of academic staff (above 100°000) in
2021, the United Kingdom, Germany and Türkiye registered above 15% increase of the total academic
staff, followed by Italy and Spain with respectively 12.8% and 9.4% increase. France maintained the
level of 2016, while Ukraine registered a decrease. Small education systems with smaller number of
academic staff (below 2 500) registered increases of more than 20% with Luxembourg reaching 101.8%,
while Montenegro registered a decrease. Overall, in 2021, more than half (33 of 44) of the countries
with available data registered an increase in the number of their academic staff. Among the 10 countries
which recorded a decrease, the largest decrease was registered in Moldova (-16%), while in the
remaining nine countries the decrease was below -°10%.

Changes in the number of academic staff during the period did not necessarily match changes in the
number of students enrolling in tertiary education (see Figure 1.2). In more than half of the countries
with available data across EHEA, both the student enrolments, and the academic staff increased
between 2016 and 2021. It is noteworthy that in half of the countries in this group the increase in the
number of students was higher compared to the increase in the number of academic staff. In 10 of

37
45 countries with available data the decrease in the number of student enrolments was accompanied
by an increase in the number of academic staff. Interestingly, among the 25 countries with student
population above 200 000 (ISCED 5-8) in 2021, more nearly half registered a more important increase
in the number of student enrolments compared to the increase of the academic staff. In this group,
among the 12 countries with student population above 500 000, more than half registered more
important increase of the number of students with France registering significantly larger student
enrolment increase (13%) and a very modest increase in the academic staff (0.03%). Conversely,
Poland registered -°15% decrease of the number of student enrolments and 0.9% increase of academic
staff. Among the seven countries with the largest increase of academic staff (above 20%), only Hungary
registered a decrease in the student enrolments (-2.7%), while all the other countries noted an increase.
Among the 10 countries which registered a decline in the number of academic staff in 2021, all countries
except Liechtenstein and Romania noted a decrease in the student enrolment rates as well. Lithuania
and Moldova registered a decrease of more than 21% in the number of student enrolments in 2021 also
noting the largest decline in the number of academic staff, while Bosnia and Herzegovina which
registered the highest decrease in the student enrolments (-22.7%) registered a slight increase in the
number of academic staff (3.4%).

Examining the proportion of total academic staff per total student population, it is observed that in
Luxembourg, being among the countries with the smallest total student population in 2021 (below
10°000) the academic staff increased the most, while the increase of the number of student enrolments
was moderate (10.2%). In this country the number of academic staff per 1°000 students was higher in
2021 than in 2016. Conversely, in Greece, which was among the countries with the largest student
population (above 500°000), the increase of academic staff was significantly lower (15.8%), but the
student enrolments increased more (18.9%), compared to Luxembourg, hence the proportion of
academic staff per 1°000 students, was lower in 2021. France which had a very small (0.03%) increase
of academic staff but had one of the largest student populations and registered an important increase
of student enrolments (13.3%), noted a slight decrease of the availability of academic staff per 1°000
students in 2021. Interestingly, in Lithuania, which was among the countries registering the largest
decrease in academic staff (-°8.4%) and registered the second high decrease of student enrolments (-
°21.6%) noted a higher proportion of academic staff per 1°000 students in 2021.

Age is an important characteristic of academic staff, and particularly relevant in looking to system-level
planning. It is an indicator for the preparedness of the education systems to ensure sufficient human
capacity to renovate itself in the future.

38
Figure 1.12 presents the share of academic staff aged 50 and over for 2016 and 2021. This category is
the most significant to consider as it represents the staff closest to the age of retirement.

Figure 1.12: Percentage of academic staff aged 50 or over, 2016 and 2021

% IT EL SI LV BG CH ES PT MD SE SK SM BE FI MT HU EE AT LT
2021 56.2 52.4 49.9 49.4 49.2 49.0 47.1 45.8 43.5 42.8 41.8 41.2 41.0 41.0 40.8 40.7 40.1 39.8 39.5
2016 54.3 50.8 53.2 47.8 53.1 46.3 42.4 41.4 41.0 43.4 44.2 33.3 38.7 47.7 37.3 41.2 40.8 37.9 38.7
PL FR RO BA MK UK AD HR DK NO BA AL DE CY TR LI LU EHEA
2021 38.9 38.5 38.5 36.7 36.6 36.6 35.6 34.5 33.4 32.5 31.4 30.3 29.4 27.5 21.2 13.6 13.3 39.6
2016 34.4 36.2 32.6 36.9 36.8 40.5 30.8 33.7 34.4 37.6 33.1 29.3 25.5 25.2 17.5 10.0 13.5 37.8
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries. OECD for UK data (2021).
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order according to the percentage of academic staff aged 50 or over in 2021.
EHEA: refers to the EHEA median, which was calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.

Between 2016 and 2021 an increase of the share of academic staff over 50 years of age was observed
in 22 out of 36 countries with available data. The EHEA median for academic staff over 50 years of age
increased by 1.8 percentage points. This clearly indicates an ageing trend in academic staff in many
countries.

In 2021, 17 of 36 countries registered a share of more than 40% of academic staff over 50 years of age.
In two countries the academic staff over 50 years of age accounted for more than half of the total
academic staff population, while in 2016 four countries had more than half of the academic staff aged
50 years and more. While in Slovenia and Bulgaria, the rates slightly decreased to below 50% in 2021,
in Italy and Greece, the share of the staff over 50 increased further compared to 2016. Greece, Italy,
and Slovenia were the countries with the lowest share of academic staff below 35 years of age (below
10%). In 2021, Türkiye and Luxembourg were among the countries which registered the lowest shares
(respectively 21.2% and 13.3%) of academic staff over 50 years of age in 2021. In Türkiye, which was
among the countries with the largest total academic staff population (above 150°000), the group of 35
to 39 years of age had the largest share (44%). Luxembourg was among the countries with the smallest
total academic staff population (below 2°000), most of which (53%) was under 35 years of age. In both
countries the staff under 35 decreased between 2016 and 2021 while the staff between 35 and 39
increased.

Among the countries with the largest academic staff population in 2021, Germany had the largest
number of academic staff (472 418). In Germany the academic staff below 35 years of age had the
largest share (40%). In the United Kingdom and France, the academic staff in the 35°-°39 age group
was the largest, while the share of academic staff below 35 years of age was smaller (below 20%)
compared to the share of the academic staff of over 50 years of age (above 30%).

39
The results from this analysis show clear tendency of ageing among the academic staff which may
consist of a potential risk to human capacity renewal of the EHEA education systems.

Achieving an equitable gender distribution is also an important system-level consideration. Figure 1.13
portrays the gender distribution among academic staff showing the evolution of the share of female staff
between 2016 and 2021.

Figure 1.13: Percentage of female academic staff, 2016 and 2021

% UA AM AZ MD AD LT GE LV AL FI RO BG HR ME BE MK NO RS EE PL NL IE BA
2021 61.7 60.6 57.6 57.1 57.1 56.9 56.0 55.0 53.0 52.4 52.2 51.2 50.9 49.6 49.3 49.0 48.8 48.7 48.6 47.7 47.6 47.1 47.0
2016 : 58.0 60.1 56.0 48.3 56.5 52.6 55.3 57.3 51.7 50.0 48.9 48.9 48.9 48.3 47.3 45.7 46.3 48.8 44.6 45.2 44.0 43.7
SE SK UK SI PT FR DK ES TR AT CY HU DE IT CZ LI MT EL CH LU SM EHEA
2021 46.8 46.6 46.4 46.1 45.8 45.6 45.6 45.4 45.3 44.0 42.2 41.5 40.4 38.3 37.9 37.3 37.0 37.0 36.5 35.5 28.4 47.0
2016 44.5 45.7 44.8 42.0 44.5 43.4 42.6 42.9 43.3 42.1 41.2 43.2 39.1 37.0 38.4 35.0 35.4 33.8 34.7 35.3 24.9 44.6
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries and OECD for UK data (2021).
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the percentage of female academic staff (2021).
EHEA: refers to the EHEA median calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.

In 2021, the EHEA median of the female academic staff was 47% and increased compared to 2016.
Across countries, there were large variations. In all the countries below the median the female academic
staff was more than a third of the total academic staff, except San Marino, which noted the lowest share
(28.4%). The countries with the largest academic staff populations (above 100 000), Germany, the
United Kingdom, Türkiye, Spain, France, and Italy registered female participation below the EHEA
median while Ukraine had the highest share of female academic staff (61.7%) of all EHEA countries
with available data. Among the countries with the smallest academic staff cohort, Andorra with total
academic staff of 177 registered important female participation (57%), while Luxembourg and San
Marino registered rates by more than 10 percentage points lower than the EHEA median.

Compared to 2016, in most countries (37 out of the 43 with available data) the share of female academic
staff increased registering rises between 0.2 percentage points in Luxembourg to 8.8 percentage points
in Andorra. The largest decrease (4.3 percentage points) was observed in Albania, followed by
Azerbaijan (2.5 percentage points).

Despite the slight increase of the median share, female academic staff remains slightly
underrepresented across EHEA countries.

40
1.4. Higher education institutions
The analysis of the higher education institutions’ landscape provides for a more informed understanding
of the developments in the higher education sector and the evolution in student and staff populations.

Figure 1.14 shows the number of public and private higher education institutions reported for the
academic year 2022.

Figure 1.14: Number of higher education institutions (HEIs) in the EHEA, 2022

Public HEIs Private HEIs

DE UK-EWN IT UA FR PL TR BE fr HR HU AT RO ES NL DK KZ AZ
Public 423 285 249 216 163 133 129 125 97 59 58 53 50 50 41 41 40
Private 150 260 : 116 85 233 79 : 24 4 19 34 41 70 : 61 10
BG FI CH NO PT BE nl SE LV CZ EL LT AM SK GE UK-SCT IE AL
Public 38 38 36 36 34 31 31 30 26 25 24 23 23 19 19 16 15
Private 14 : 3 9 62 7 18 22 30 : 13 4 10 43 : 44 27
EE MD BA CY MK SI IS MT ME AD LI LU SM RS VA EHEA
Public 13 13 10 6 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 : : 2617
Private 6 8 33 50 23 45 3 121 5 3 1 2 : : : 1792
Source: BFUG data collection.
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the number of public higher education institutions (2022).
EHEA: the value in the graph indicates the total number of higher education institutions.

In total, the number of higher education institutions in EHEA countries with available data increased
from 3 537 in 2018/2019 ( 8) to 4 409 in 2022. The public higher education institutions grew to 2 617
while private higher education institutions increased their number to 1°792. However, different
developments were observed during the period. In 14 of 34 education systems with available data, the
number of public higher education institutions increased, with significant growth observed in the United
Kingdom (England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) (+125), Germany (+110), and France (+95). Decrease
was observed in nine countries but was less important in terms of number compared to the level of
increase observed. The number of private higher education institutions increased in 13 countries and
decreased in 15 with larger decrease observed in France. In 14 countries the number of public higher
education institutions remained unchanged or increased while the number of private higher institutions
declined. The opposite trend was observed in five countries.

(8) Bologna Process Implementation Report, 2020.

41
Another way of looking at the number of institutions is to see how many of them there are in proportion
to the overall population. Figure 1.15 shows the number of institutions per million inhabitants, indicating
separately the number of public higher education institutions per million population and the total number
of public and private higher education institutions per million population. This is a rather crude measure,
as it does not consider the size of the institutions, but nevertheless it gives a more contextualised picture
of the situation regarding higher education institutions in EHEA.

Figure 1.15: Number of higher education institutions (HEIs), public and total per million population (MP) in the
EHEA, 2022/2023

Public HEIs per million population Total HEIs per million population

HR LV BE EE LT AM DK FI NO AT HU BG AL UA GE DE MD SK IT UK CH AZ PL
Public/MP 25 16 13 10 9 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4
Total/MP 31 28 : 14 13 9 : : 8 9 7 8 15 8 17 7 8 6 : : 5 5 10
PT MK IE SE NL RO CZ FR EL SI KZ TR ES AD CY IS LI LU ME MT SM EHEA
Public/MP 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 : : : : : : : : 9
Total/MP 9 16 12 5 7 5 5 4 : 24 5 2 2 : : : : : : : : 15
Source: Own calculation based on Eurostat and BFUG data collection
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the number of public higher education institutions per million population (2022).
The total number includes public and private higher education institutions.
EHEA: median calculated based on countries with available data.
Countries with population below 1 million are not presented.

The main trend observed is that the most populous countries (more than 40 million population), are
positioned below the median for total number of higher education institutions per million population (15),
even if they have the highest total number of institutions. Germany, Spain, Türkiye, and France had a
lower total number of higher education institutions per million population (7 and below). When observing
the number of public higher education institutions within the same group of countries, Germany, Ukraine,
Italy, the United Kingdom ( 9), France and Türkiye had a number of public higher education institutions
per million population lower to the EHEA median. Interestingly, in more populous countries with large
number of students (Türkiye, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Spain), the flows of incoming
students ( 10) was also high (see Figure 6.6). The median number of students per institution in this group
of countries is 240°235. This finding may be indicative of the size of the higher education institutions
and the higher education systems’ capacity to respond to a higher demand for access to tertiary
education.

(9) United Kingdom: data on total population relevant to year 2020.

( )
10
Data for reference year 2020/2021.

42
1.5. Expenditure on higher education
European higher education institutions are funded predominantly from public sources. This section
compares public expenditure on higher education in the EHEA based on Eurostat indicators: public
expenditure as a percentage of GDP, and total public and private expenditure per student in purchasing
power standard (PPS). Alone, none of the indicators presented below can provide a sufficient basis for
comparing EHEA countries; but taken together they provide a broad overview of similarities and
differences between them.

Annual public expenditure on tertiary education as a percentage of GDP provides a measure of a

government’s commitment to supporting higher education and is useful when comparing countries of
different economic sizes. Public expenditure on tertiary education covers expenditure from all levels of
government combined and refers to direct funding on higher education as well as transfers to private
households and firms.

The former includes expenditure that is directly related to instruction and research such as faculty and
staff salaries, research grants, university and institutions’ buildings, teaching materials, laboratory
equipment, etc. The latter includes funding for entities that administer higher education (e.g., ministries
or departments of education), that provide ancillary services (i.e., services provided by educational
institutions that are peripheral to the main educational mission), and entities that perform educational
research, curriculum development and educational policy analysis.

Transfers and payments to private entities include public subsidies to households and students as well
as payments to other non-educational private entities (including scholarships and grants, public loans
to students, specific public subsidies in cash or in kind for transport, medical expenses, books, and other
materials, etc.). However, annual public expenditure does not include tuition fees that are not covered
by scholarships, grants, or loans, and that are directly paid by households.

43
Figure 1.16 shows the annual public expenditure on tertiary education as a % of GDP (including
Research and Development) in 2015 and 2020.

Figure 1.16: Annual public expenditure on tertiary education as a % of GDP (including R&D), 2015 and 2020

% DK NO SE AT NL BE FI MT IS UK CH DE FR TR SI PL EE
2020 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1
2015 2.6 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.4
ES HR LT CY SK IT PT CZ LV IE BG RO HU EL LU RS EHEA
2020 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 : 1.0
2015 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.4 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.2 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.1 1.2
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the annual public expenditure on tertiary education as a % of GDP, 2020.
EHEA: refers to the EHEA median calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.

In 2020, the median public spending on tertiary education relative to GDP accounted for 1% across the
EHEA, which indicates a slight decrease compared to 2015 (1.2%). In 2020 the level of expenditure in
tertiary education ranged between 2.4% in Denmark and 0.5% in Luxembourg. The public investment
in higher education in the Scandinavian countries remained the highest across EHEA. In 2020, Denmark
and Norway were the only countries in the EHEA where public investment in higher education was
above 2% of GDP. In 2020 the countries with higher level of public investment (above 1.5%) registered
also high enrolment rates of 18–34-year-olds ( 11), above 15%, with only Malta having enrolment rates
below this share. However, countries with high enrolment rates in 2020, such as Türkiye (30%), Spain
(21.4%), France (19.4%), and Germany (17.7%) registered public spending below 1.5%, while Greece
with 29.9% enrolment rate had public spending of below 1%.

When analysing the evolution of the share of public expenditure directed to tertiary education as a
percentage of GDP between 2015 and 2020, decreases were recorded in 12 of 32 countries with
available data. Increases were observed in 12 of the countries with data available, while in 8 of the
countries there was no change. The highest increase was registered in Norway (0.3 percentage points).

Cross-country comparisons of the levels of expenditure on tertiary education cannot be made directly
due to the different size of countries’ student population. In order to account for a country’s size of
student population, the average expenditure per student is used.

(11) Source: Eurostat.

44
Figure 1.17 shows the public and private expenditure on tertiary education per full-time equivalent
student in 2015 and 2020.

Figure 1.17: Annual public expenditure on public and private tertiary institutions per full-time equivalent student in
euro, 2015-2020

EUR LU CH NO DK SE UK AT BE IS FI NL DE IE MT FR SI IT
2020 44 155 32 386 29 796 26 153 25 555 16 594 16 575 16 232 16 112 15 976 15 742 15 521 14 517 14 052 10 708 9 040 7 091
2015 42 505 31 899 30 534 25 208 27 146 17 968 14 334 13 652 14 015 17 548 14 811 13 551 14 606 12 755 11 197 5 753 6 873
EE ES SK CZ PL PT LT HU CY LV RO HR BG TR EL RS EHEA
2020 7 029 6 607 6 540 5 832 4 979 4 650 4 552 4 450 4 101 3 863 3 389 3 275 2 681 2 043 1 780 : 8 065
2015 5 516 6 289 6 908 3 469 3 562 4 799 3 382 2 801 5 914 3 979 2 051 2 552 1 278 3 176 1 838 1 583 6 890
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the annual public expenditure per FTE student in euro (2020).
EHEA: refers to the EHEA median calculated based on countries with available data for both reference years.

The median spending per student (full-time equivalent) across EHEA increased from EUR 6 890 per
student in 2015 to EUR 8 065 in 2020. The highest spending country in 2020 was Luxembourg
(EUR 44 155) followed by Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries (except Finland) with
expenditure above EUR 25 000 per student. 17 of 32 countries spent less than EUR°10 000 per student
with 11 of them (34% of all countries with available data) investing less than EUR°5 000 per student.

Most of the countries (21 of 32 countries with available data for both time-points) increased their
spending per full-time equivalent student. The largest increase (110%) was registered in Bulgaria. Five
countries increased their spending with more than EUR 2 000, while in nine the investment per student
raised by more than EUR 1 000. Conversely, five countries showed decrease by more than EUR 1 000
with Cyprus and Türkiye registering the largest decrease of more than 30%. It is noteworthy that Norway,
Sweden, and Finland, while remaining among the countries with high expenditure per full-time student
in 2020 (above EUR°15°000), registered a decrease in their spending compared to 2015, with Finland
and Sweden showing decrease by more than EUR 1 500. The five countries with the highest spending
per full-time equivalent student in 2020 (except Luxembourg) registered also high enrolment rates which
in the Scandinavian countries reached above 15%, with Denmark registering 20.6%. Cyprus, on the
other end, had a high enrolment rate (18.6%) but spending per full-time equivalent student of below
EUR°5°000.

Figure 1.18 provides a more precise comparison across countries as the measure of spending is
adjusted in terms of the differences in price levels across the EHEA while considering the size of the
student population in a country through the provision of the financial spending of a country per full-time
student. In addition to public expenditure, it also takes private expenditure into account to show an
overall financial investment in higher education at national level.

45
Figure 1.18: Percentage change in the annual public and private expenditure on public and private tertiary education
institutions in PPS per full-time equivalent student between 2015 and 2020

% CZ BG RO SI EE HU PL MT BE IS LV LT EL AT DE
2015-2020 47.0 42.7 23.5 23.0 20.4 17.0 16.4 16.0 12.9 10.4 9.9 9.8 8.8 7.1 5.9
% TR DK ES NL FR UK IT FI NO SE HR LU CY PT
2015-2020 5.3 4.6 0.2 -1.3 -1.3 -3.5 -3.8 -4.1 -4.1 -5.4 -8.1 -11.1 -12.2 -14.4
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Countries are arranged in descending order by the percentage change in the annual public and private expenditure in PPS per
FTE.

Between 2015 and 2020, most of the countries (18 of 29 countries with available data) registered a
percentage increase of their spending on tertiary education institutions. Czechia ( 12) showed the highest
increase (47%) in its spending on higher education institutions per full-time equivalent student, followed
by Bulgaria (42.7%) and Romania (23.5%). Important increases of more than 20% were registered in
Slovenia (23%), and Estonia (20.4%). The smallest increase of below 1% took place in Spain.

Across EHEA countries, the annual EHEA median of (public and private) expenditure on tertiary
education institutions in 2020 was PPS°11 367 per full-time equivalent student and increased compared
to the median registered in 2015 (PPS°9 568). However, the evolution of the expenditure in individual
countries differed significantly. Luxembourg had the highest level of expenditure, PPS 31 684. Sweden,
Malta, and Denmark spent more than PPS 15 000 per full-time student, while in 10 of 24 countries with
available data the spending was below PPS 10 000. The highest spending country in 2020 invested five
times more than the lowest spending country. In comparison, in 2015 the least investing country spent
13 times less than the country with the highest investment. This observation may indicate a trend of
diminishing the divergencies in expenditure for tertiary education among EHEA countries.

The analysis of the changes in expenditure devoted to tertiary education institutions per full-time student
against the student population in tertiary education provided some interesting findings. Among the
countries which registered an increase of more than 20% in 2020, all except Slovenia had enrolment
rates below the EHEA median (16.7%). This may indicate that the increase in value in these countries
may be due to the decrease in the student population. However, it could also mean that the increase in
investment might require a longer period of implementation before increased enrolment rates are visible.
In Luxembourg, the student enrolment rate (4.4%), despite the high level of investment, remained
among the lowest in EHEA in 2020. However, many students from Luxembourg enrol in higher education
institutions abroad.

(12) Czechia: data for 2019 instead of 2020.

46
To further review the intensity of investment in tertiary education, the next section undertakes a
comparative analysis between the expenditure per full-time student and the size of the economy taking
into account the population size. This perspective avoids problems of different student populations as
percentages of the total population, as is the case when considering the ratio of the government
expenditure on education to GDP. For higher education, cross-country comparison is more complex as
enrolment rates vary in greater proportions (see Figure 1.3): countries where the enrolment rate is low
could show higher expenditure per full-time equivalent students than countries with higher enrolment
rates. Dividing the GDP per capita by the expenditure per full-time equivalent student provides a more
harmonised and comparable measure of the intensity of the expenditure on education.

Figure 1.19 shows the annual public and private expenditure on public and private education institutions
in tertiary education, per full-time equivalent student in PPS relative to the GDP per capita in PPS for
the years 2015 and 2020.

Figure 1.19: Annual public and private expenditure on public and private education institutions in tertiary education,
per full-time equivalent student in PPS relative to the GDP per capita in PPS, 2015 and 2020
X = GDP per capita X = GDP per capita
Y = Annual expenditure per FTE student

Y = Annual expenditure per FTE student

% 2015 2020 % 2015 2020 % 2015 2020 % 2015 2020
AT 36.9 37.9 EL 13.9 14.2 IT 32.1 29.2 PT 41.7 33.2
BE 39.4 41.3 ES 37.2 37.6 LT 35.9 31.0 RO 32.5 28.6
BG 38.2 43.5 FI 43.5 37.2 LU 46.0 40.5 SE 51.7 46.9
CY 42.5 29.5 FR 42.2 38.9 LV 42.4 38.7 SI 39.5 41.2
CZ 33.7 41.4 HR 47.5 35.1 MT 52.0 54.5 SK 55.5 :
DE 37.6 36.8 HU 34.3 34.6 NL 40.2 36.6 UK 64.9 58.8
DK 40.9 38.8 IE 20.6 : NO 35.7 35.0 RS 46.4 :
EE 46.3 45.3 IS 27.1 29.7 PL 40.2 39.0 TR 33.1 35.4
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Country details are references in the Glossary and methodological notes.

Data shows a positive relationship between the size of the economy considering its population
(expressed through GDP per capita) and the expenditure on education per full-time student (as
expressed through the annual public and private expenditure on educational institutions per full-time
equivalent). The positive correlation between the expenditure per full-time equivalent student and GDP
per capita indicates that countries with higher GDP invest more per student, regardless of the size of
the economy and the size of education sector.

47
However, this correlation does not imply a direct causal relationship between the two variables in the
short term. Indeed, public expenditure (i.e., a major part of total expenditure on tertiary education)
involves long-terms commitments (e.g., capital expenditure or staff salaries) and cannot be adjusted
rapidly to unexpected changes in economic conditions. On the other hand, fluctuations in the number of
students are the result of multi-cohorts’ behaviours and their attitudes towards tertiary education.

Throughout 2015 and 2020, countries providing relatively high expenditure (more than PPS 15 000) on
tertiary education institutions per full-time student and having a high GDP per capita (more than
PPS 30 000) were Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Luxembourg, and the United Kingdom, while there was
lower expenditure (less than PPS 10 000) on tertiary education institutions and lower GDP per capita
(less than PPS 20 000) in Greece, Bulgaria, Croatia, and Türkiye.

The tables in Figure 1.19 show the ratio of the expenditure (annual and private) on higher education
institutions per student to GDP per capita, showing how much of the GDP per capita is spent on each
student. This can be seen as a measure of public and private investment in higher education. It reveals
that countries with different sizes of economy and annual expenditure per student may make a similar
relative financial effort towards investment in tertiary education. For example, in 2020, Malta spent 55%
of their GDP per capita on each tertiary student, which was slightly higher of the respective share spent
by Sweden (47), in which the GDP per capita and annual expenditure per student were higher.

The fluctuations in the intensity of the investment over time can be observed through combining two
measures. Firstly, the total (public and private) expenditure on tertiary education per student and
secondly the GDP per capita. A constant ratio across time signifies that both investment per student and
GDP per capita increased or decreased at the rate, indicating that expenditure in education is given the
same priority over time. It is important to note that this measure of expenditure includes both public and
private spending, so it is impossible to tell from this particular indicator how public expenditure reacts to
changes in the GDP per capita.

Of the 29 countries for which data are available for the reference years analysed, the ratio of public and
private expenditure per full-time equivalent student and GDP per capita decreased in 18 countries. This
finding indicates that in these countries public and private investment in higher education declined
relative to the country's size of economy. Between 2015 and 2020, 12 countries registered a decrease
in expenditure while the GDP per capita grew. The ratio of these countries registered a decrease.
Luxembourg is part of this group of countries, but it should be acknowledged that in the interpretation of
data concerning the investment in education the GDP per capita ratio only considers residents in this
country. In eight countries, the expenditure remained stable (fluctuations below PPS 1°000) while the
GDP per capita registered an increase between the two time-points of more than PPS 2°000. The ratio
of the countries in this group has also registered a decrease. Within this group of countries Lithuania
registered slight increase in the expenditure while the GDP per capita marked one of the highest
increases (by PPS 5°590), however the ratio between expenditure and GDP per capita decreased by
almost 5 percentage points. In 15 countries the expenditure increased together with an increase in the
level of GDP per capita. In this group of countries eight countries registered an increase of the ratio
while the remaining seven had a decrease. 13 countries registered a more intensive pace of GDP growth
compared to the level of increase in the expenditure per full-time student. In this group, despite the
growth of expenditure and GDP per capita, slightly more than half of the countries registered a decrease
in their ratio of expenditure per full-time equivalent student and GDP per capita. Eight countries with
GDP growth above PPS 2°000, registering expenditure increase of less than PPS°2°000, registered a
ratio decrease.

48
1.6. Conclusions
Despite the large diversity in education systems’ developments the EHEA total student population
continued to grow. In 2021 there were about 32.9 million tertiary education students enrolled in the
EHEA. Türkiye and Germany, accounted for about 35% of the EHEA total student population. Along
with the student population increase, the EHEA median of enrolment rates, raised to 16.9% with first
cycle studies showing the highest student enrolments (58.8%). Policy and institutional reforms, socio-
economic conditions or specific labour market development have played a role in the evolution of the
enrolment rates in EHEA countries. The educational background of parents and the family’s economic
conditions are factors that strongly influence the likelihood of young learners to engage in and
successfully complete higher education studies. In 62% of the countries the new entrants with highly
educated parents were a majority and the corresponding share of population with high educational
attainment level was around a third of the population or higher, indicating strong correlation between the
participation in higher education and the educational attainment of parents.

Ensuring access, participation, equal opportunities, and high education attainment are paramount goals
in the Bologna process. In 2021 the EHEA median share of female entrants increased to 55.4%. In 8 of
10 selected education fields, women outnumbered men, and reached above 70% at both bachelor’s and
master’s education levels in ‘Education’ and ‘Health and welfare’ fields. The number of adult graduates
(30-64) also continued to grow indicating adequate policies to support mature students. Part-time
student population aged 30-34 increased and continued to have bigger share than the part-timers aged
20-24, confirming the higher likelihood for older students to engage in part-time studies. In 2021, despite
the diversity of the country context across EHEA, the number of countries where foreign-born and native-
born students had similar chances for successful completion of studies in higher education has
increased.

The EHEA total academic staff increased by 11% in 2021. The evolution in the number of academic
staff did not necessarily match the student enrolments’ evolution. In nearly half of the countries across
EHEA the increase of the student enrolments was more important than the increase in the number of
academic staff. The EHEA median share of academic staff over 50 years of age grew, while the median
share of academic staff below 35 of age decreased, indicating tendency of ageing among the academic
staff, and raising concern about the human capacity renewal in EHEA education systems. The EHEA
median of female academic staff increased to 47% and registered steady growth. The number of higher
education institutions increased over the period. The most populous countries registered rate of
institutions per million population below the EHEA median, despite having the bigger number of higher
education institutions.

In 2020, the median public spending on tertiary education relative to GDP accounted for 1%, and slightly
decreased compared to 2015. The percentage of public spending as a share of GDP in 2020 varied,
with highest rates registered in Scandinavian countries. In 2020 the median EHEA annual (public and
private) spending per full-time tertiary education student increased and was PPS 11 367. Richer
countries tend to invest more per student, regardless of the size of the education sector. However, in
more than half of the countries, the public and private investment in higher education declined relative
to the country’s size of economy. The countries which registered continuous high level of spending per
full-time equivalent student between 2015 and 2020 also registered high enrolment rates indicating that
investment, especially in the long run provides for increased interest to follow higher education studies.
Reduction of the gap between high and low spending countries in tertiary education across EHEA was
also observed.

49
CHAPTER 2: KEY COMMITMENTS:
DEGREE STRUCTURES, RECOGNITION AND
QUALITY ASSURANCE

The 2020 Rome Communiqué

The 2020 Rome Communiqué, adopted by ministers of higher education of the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) in the Rome Ministerial Conference in November 2020, re-confirmed the
determination to see the three bologna key commitments (degree structures, quality assurance and
recognition) fully implemented ( 1).

The ministers committed to completing and further developing ‘the National Qualifications Frameworks
compatible with Overarching Framework of Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (QF-
EHEA)’ and asked the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG) ‘to update the criteria for self-certification to
include a stronger element of peer review of national reports’. The ministers also mandated the Network
of Qualification Frameworks (QF) correspondents to continue its work ( 2).

Furthermore, the governments agreed to strengthen the implementation of the Council of

Europe/UNESCO Lisbon Recognition Convention and apply its principles to qualifications and periods
of study outside the EHEA. They committed to ‘reviewing their legislation, regulations, and practice to
ensure fair recognition of qualifications held by refugees, displaced persons, and persons in refugee-
like situations, in accordance with Article VII of the Lisbon Recognition Convention’ ( 3). They also agreed
to further broadening the use of the European Qualifications Passport for Refugees (EQPR).

Moreover, the governments agreed to ‘make the necessary legislative changes to guarantee automatic
recognition at system level of academic qualifications delivered in EHEA countries where quality
assurance operates in compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in the
European Higher Education Area (ESG) ( 4) and where a fully operational national qualifications
framework has been established’ ( 5).

For the further development of quality assurance systems, the ministers committed: 1) to remove the
remaining obstacles, including those related to the cross-border operation of the agencies registered in
the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR) ( 6) and 2) to apply the European Approach for Quality
Assurance of Joint Programmes.

Referring to student-centred learning, the ministers evoked the importance of creating flexible and open
learning pathways (including microcredentials). They also recognised a growing demand and supply of
smaller and flexible units of learning leading to microcredentials and asked the BFUG to explore how
and to what extend such units can be defined, developed, implemented and recognised by the
institutions using EHEA tools.

(1) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

(2) Ibid. p. 7.
(3) Ibid. p. 7.
(4) ESG https://www.eqar.eu/kb/esg/
(5) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020, p. 7.
(6) EQAR https://www.eqar.eu/

51
Chapter outline
This chapter reviews progress made against the main commitments made by national governments to
achieve the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). It starts by examining the development of the
degree structure and the state of implementation of three Bologna tools: the Diploma supplement (DS),
the European credit Transfer and Accumulation system (ECTS) and national qualification frameworks
(NQF) (2.1).

Section 2.2 gives the latest state of play regarding policy commitments linked to the recognition of
qualifications. It also explores the use of the tools for recognition of refugees’ qualifications such as the
Council of Europe qualification passport for refugees (EQPR) as well as the toolkit for the recognition
developed by the ENIC-NARIC centres within an Erasmus + project ( 7).

Section 2.3 addresses developments in the implementation of quality assurance related commitments
since the Rome Communiqué. It provides an update of the main qualitative indicators and gives
empirical evidence on the stage of development of external Quality Assurance systems. Much of the
information for this section is provided by the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR).

2.1. Development of the degree structure and state of

implementation of three Bologna tools
The adoption of a higher education system based on a common degree structure is one of the key
commitments agreed within the Bologna Process, and arguably its most notable achievement. First
agreed through the 1999 Bologna Declaration ( 8) where the framework for two-cycle degree systems
was set, the ministers decided to include the doctoral level as the third cycle in the Bologna Process in
2003 ( 9). Hence, the Bologna Process has been promoting a three-cycle higher education structure
including undergraduate (first-cycle), graduate (second-cycle) and doctoral (third-cycle) programmes,
with the possibility of intermediate (short-cycle) qualifications linked to the first cycle. In the 2018 Paris
Communiqué, ministers added short-cycle qualifications ‘as a stand-alone qualification within the
overarching framework of qualifications of the EHEA (QF-EHEA)’ specifying that ‘each country can
decide whether and how to integrate short cycle qualifications within its own national framework’ ( 10).

This section starts by examining the implementation of degree structure commitments and looks at the
existence of the programmes that do not conform with the Bologna Process models (integrated/long
programmes and other programmes outside the Bologna-degree structure). A new composite indicator
summarises the progress that countries have made in the implementation of the common degree
structure. Then, the section depicts the countries where legal framework allows higher education
institutions to provide courses leading to microcredentials. This is the first attempt within the Bologna
Process Implementation Report to identify how countries are integrating microcredentials within their
higher education systems.

This section also evaluates the progress made towards the implementation of three Bologna
transparency tools: the Diploma Supplement (DS), the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation
system (ECTS) and national qualification frameworks (NQFs) aligned to a European framework. These
‘instruments’ were adopted or developed to support the implementation of political commitments aimed
at establishing the European Higher Education Area. Both DS and ECTS pre-date the Bologna Process
and were taken as key instruments to underpin its development. In the early years of the Bologna

(7) Refugees and Recognition – An Erasmus + Project: https://www.nokut.no/en/Refugees-and-Recognition/toolkit

(8) The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999.
(9) Realising the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher
Education, Berlin, 19 September 2003.
(10) Paris Ministerial Communiqué, 25 May 2018.

52
process NQFs were present only in some national systems. However, aligned to a European framework,
they become an important objective to support structural reforms through the Bologna process.

2.1.1. Workload of first-cycle programmes

Figure 2.1 depicts the workload of first-cycle programmes expressed in ECTS credits. It reveals the
coexistence of different credit models of first-cycle programmes and therefore confirms the statement
of the 2020 Bologna Process Implementation reports (see European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice,
2020, p. 46).

Figure 2.1: Share of first-cycle programmes with a workload of 180, 210, 240 or another number of ECTS credits,
2022/2023

180 ECTS 210 ECTS 240 ECTS Other

Source: BFUG data collection.
Notes:
Table 2.1 in Annex provides details on the share of first-cycle-programmes displayed in the figure.

The 180 ECTS workload remains the most widespread in the first cycle, characterising most
programmes in more than half of all EHEA countries. In Albania, France, Italy, Liechtenstein, San Marino
and Switzerland, this model applies to all first-cycle programmes, and in a further nine systems, 90% or
more programmes are concerned.
The second most widespread model of 240 credits applies to most first-cycle programmes in around
one-third of EHEA countries, mainly in south-eastern Europe. While in Kazakhstan and Türkiye, all first-
cycle programmes are concerned, in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Spain and
Ukraine, 90% or more programmes have a workload of 240 ECTS.
The 210 ECTS first-cycle programme model remains rather rare in Europe. It exists in less than a quarter
of all EHEA countries and concerns more than 20% of programmes only in Denmark, Finland, Germany,
and Poland. In Finland, for example, the number of first-cycle programmes with 210 ECTS workload
has slightly increased compared to the previous reporting. This is due to the increase of the programmes
in the field of health care and social services in response to labour-market needs.
Other workload models were reported by around half of the countries. Nevertheless, in most of them,
less than 10% of first-cycle programmes are concerned. In nine education systems the proportion is
10% or higher: Ireland (33%), the Netherlands (21%), Georgia (20%), the Holy See (20%), Croatia
(16%), the French Community of Belgium (14.5%), Latvia (14%) and Greece (10%).
Compared to the 2020 Bologna Progress Implementation report (European Commission / EACEA /
Eurydice, 2020, p. 46), no substantial reforms or changes in the use of different models of first-cycle
programmes can be observed.

53
2.1.2. Workload of second cycle programmes
Figure 2.2 depicts the workload of second-cycle programmes expressed in ECTS credits.

Figure 2.2: Share of second-cycle programmes with a workload of 60-75, 90, 120 or another number of ECTS credits,
2022/2023

120 ECTS 90 ECTS 60-75 ECTS Other

Source: BFUG data collection.

Notes:
The figure does not take into account integrated/long programmes, i.e. programmes leading directly to a second-cycle degree.
For more details on these programmes, see Section 2.1.5.

Table 2.2 in Annex provides details on the share of second- cycle-programmes displayed in the figure.

In the second cycle, the 120 ECTS model is by far the most widespread, being present in virtually all
EHEA systems. It is the sole second-cycle model in Andorra, France, Georgia, Italy, Kazakhstan,
Liechtenstein and San Marino and it applies to most second-cycle programmes in around three-quarters
of all EHEA countries.

The 60-75 ECTS model and 90 ECTS model are present in around a half of all EHEA countries. While
the 90 ECTS model is predominant in Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Lithuania, Ukraine and the United
Kingdom (Scotland), the 60-75 ECTS model applies to most second cycle programmes in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, the Netherlands, North Macedonia and Spain.

Second-cycle programmes with a workload outside the 60-120 ECTS interval were reported by less
than half of the EHEA countries and generally, when such programmes exist, their share in the total
does not exceed 10%. Only the French Community of Belgium, Ireland and Malta reported a higher
proportion of programmes: 25%, 16% and 14% respectively. In the French Community of Belgium,
180 ECTS are required for specialised master programmes, a system feature that has not been
reformed in line with Bologna commitments.

Compared to the 2020 Bologna Progress Implementation report (European Commission / EACEA /
Eurydice, 2020, p. 47) no substantial changes in the workload of the second-cycle programmes can be
observed. The most common workload remains 120 ECTS.

2.1.3. Combined workload of first- and second-cycle programmes

Building on the data depicted in the two previous figures, Figure 2.3 looks at the most common combined
(first and second cycle) workload. Although no Bologna process commitments have been made
regarding convergence of the first-and second- cycle programmes considered together, it may have
been an implicit assumption for ministers that efforts to make the first two cycles more convergent would
also result in greater similarity in the overall workload of the first and second cycles combined.

54
Figure 2.3: Most common total workload of first- and second-cycle programmes, 2022/2023

240 ECTS

300 ECTS

330 ECTS

360 ECTS

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Figure 2.3 shows that in most EHEA countries, the most common total workload of first-and second-
cycle programmes is set at 300 ECTS. Indeed, this is linked to the fact that the most common workload
of first-cycle programmes is 180 ECTS and second-cycle programmes is 120 ECTS (see Figures 2.1
and 2.2).
In the eastern part of the EHEA, the most common workload is higher. It corresponds to 360 ECTS
credits in Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Türkiye, which is mainly explained by a higher
workload of first-cycle programmes (see Figure 2.1). In a further six education systems (Cyprus, Greece,
Ireland, Lithuania, Ukraine and the United Kingdom − Scotland) the most common workload is
330 ECTS credits. In Malta, the most common workload is 240 ECTS.

It is important to highlight that in some higher education systems, the most common workload can be
followed closely by another widespread workload pattern. For example, in the Flemish Community of
Belgium, Switzerland and Denmark, the 300 ECTS pattern is only slightly more common than other
workload arrangements: 240, 270 and 330 ECTS in the three systems respectively.
In addition, it is not always possible to derive the most common workload simply by mechanically
combining the most common data displayed on Figures 2.1 and 2.2. This applies, in particular, to binary
higher education systems, i.e. systems with two main types of higher education institutions. For
example, in Finland, the first-cycle workload generally corresponds to 180 in universities, but 210 or
240 ECTS in universities of applied sciences. Those graduates who decide to enter a second-cycle
programme may enter a 90 or 60 ECTS programme offered by a university of applied sciences, or a
120 ECTS programme offered at a university. The Netherlands – another binary higher education
system – reports a comparable situation.

55
2.1.4. Short-cycle programmes
After many years of discussion about the place of short-cycle higher education programmes in the
EHEA, the governments eventually agreed in the 2018 Paris Communiqué ( 11) to integrate the short
cycle programmes into the overarching framework of qualifications for the European Higher Education
Area (QF-EHEA). Nevertheless, countries in the EHEA are still far from reaching a common under-
standing of short-cycle higher education that is comparable to the situation of the other three cycles.

In this report, short-cycle programmes are understood as higher education programmes of less than
180 ECTS (or lasting less than 3 years), leading to a qualification that is recognised at a lower level than
a qualification at the end of the first cycle. Higher education systems are responsible for deciding
whether credits obtained from short-cycle programmes may be recognised within first-cycle higher
education programmes. Since the adoption of the Paris Communiqué in 2018, short-cycle qualifications
are recognised as level 5 in the overarching framework of qualifications for the Framework for
Qualifications of the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA) and also at level 5 in the ISCED
classification ( 12).

Figure 2.4 shows the presence of short-cycle programmes considered as part of the national higher
education system – in line with the Paris Communiqué decision.

Figure 2.4: Presence of short-cycle programmes considered as part of higher education, 2022/2023

Short-cycle
higher education programmes exist

No short-cycle
higher education programmes

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Notes:
The presence of short-cycle programmes considered as part of higher education refers to situations where national qualifications
frameworks and/or top-level steering documents recognise the short cycle (or short-cycle qualifications) as part of the higher
education system.

(11) Paris Ministerial Communiqué, 25 May 2018.

( )
12
ISCED 2011: https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-isced-
2011-en.pdf

56
More than half of all EHEA countries report the existence of short-cycle programmes that are considered
as part of the national higher education system. In other EHEA systems, the short-cycle is either not
offered, or short-cycle programmes (ISCED 5) are not recognised within the higher education system.
When not recognised as 'higher education', short-cycle programmes are usually categorised as being
part of a vocational education system. Indeed, some countries that do not report the existence of short-
cycle higher education programmes have students enrolled in ISCED 5 programmes (see Chapter 1,
Figure 1.1).
Since the previous mapping (see European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2020, p. 49), one more
country has reported changes in this area. In Lithuania, after the adoption of a legal framework which
introduces this type of provision, the first short-cycle study programmes were evaluated and accredited
in 2022.
Georgia and North Macedonia reported that although their legal framework provides the possibility for
short-cycle programmes to exist, there are currently no short-cycle programmes in practice.
Overall, the short cycle remains a complex field covering a range of programmes that differ at national
level in terms of content, orientation and purpose, and where a common European vision is yet to be
fully developed and realised.

2.1.5. Integrated/long programmes leading to a second cycle degree

As shown in the previous sections, a three-cycle higher education structure with the possibility of short-
cycle provision has been implemented across all the EHEA countries. However, the programmes and
degrees that comply with the Bologna-degree structure often co-exist with other higher education
programmes that are structured differently. This section looks at programmes comprising both the first
and the second cycle and leading to a second-cycle qualification that are commonly referred to as
integrated (long) programmes.
Figure 2.5: Presence of integrated/long programmes leading to a second-cycle degree and the percentage of
students in these programmes, 2022/2023

Integrated/long programmes exist:

< 10% of students

10-19.9% of students

≥ 20% of students

% of students not available

No integrated/long programmes

Source: BFUG data collection.

Note:
Integrated/long programmes refer to programmes including both the first and the second cycle and leading to a second-cycle
qualification.

57
Figure 2.5 shows that integrated (long) programmes exist in around two-thirds of EHEA systems.
However, they involve different proportions of students. In 17 systems, only up to 10% of all first- and
second-cycle students are enrolled in such programmes. In 10 systems, the proportion is situated
between 10% and 19.9%. Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, the Holy See and Sweden report the highest
proportion of students in integrated programmes with 20% and above. In the remaining education
systems, either there is no data on the proportion of students involved in integrated (long) programmes,
or such programmes do not exist.

Compared to the 2020 Bologna Process Implementation report, in Armenia, Germany, Italy and
Portugal, the number of students enrolled in integrated (long) programmes has decreased. In all of them,
except Italy, less than 10% of students are now involved in integrated (long) programmes. While
Germany has recently decreased the number of integrated (long) programmes, Portugal has limited the
number of fields of study that can be organised as integrated programmes. In Armenia, the decrease is
mainly due to the reorganisation of some integrated (long) programmes into the Bologna-degree
structure.

Albania, Bulgaria and Georgia reported a higher number of students enrolled in integrated (long)
programmes compared to the previous reporting exercise. In Albania and Georgia, this is mainly due to
an increase in the number of integrated (long) programmes that are offered. Moreover, in Georgia, two
more study areas − veterinary medicine and teacher training have been restructured into integrated/long
programmes.

As reported in the 2020 Bologna Process Implementation report (see European Commission /
EACEA / Eurydice, 2020, p. 51), the most common fields for integrated programmes are medicine,
dentistry, veterinary medicine, architecture, pharmacy, teacher training, engineering, law and theology.
Several of these specialisations overlap with studies related to regulated professions. These are
occupations with specific legal requirements and standards that are enforced by government to ensure
public safety, protect consumers, and maintain professional standards. In the case of European Union
countries, the presence of long or integrated/long programmes is most commonly justified by the
Directive on regulated professions 2005/36/EC ( 13) that defines qualification requirements for specific
professions (medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and architecture), including the
duration of training. While the Directive stipulates the total length of a qualification that gives access to
the European labour market, it does not comment on the organisation of studies. Hence the decision to
organise programmes in one or two cycles remains with Member States.

Top-level authorities also explain the existence of certain integrated programmes on the grounds that
there is student demand, as well as cultural traditions (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice,
2018, p. 111).

2.1.6. Programmes outside the Bologna-degree structure

This section discusses higher education programmes other than integrated(long) programmes which do
not fully fall under the main Bologna-degree scheme. When considering the entry requirements and
qualifications awarded upon completion, these programmes can be clustered into three categories:
1. Intermediate programmes between first- and second-cycle studies, i.e. programmes requiring a first-
cycle degree for entry, but not leading to a second-cycle qualification.
2. Intermediate programmes within the second cycle, i.e. programmes requiring a first-cycle degree for
entry, leading to a second-cycle qualification, which, however, generally ( 14) do not open access to
the third cycle.

(13) Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional
qualifications. OJ L 255, 30.9.2005.
(14) In some countries, based on the recognition of prior non-formal and informal learning (RPL), there might be possibilities for

58
3. Intermediate programmes between second- and third-cycle studies, i.e. programmes requiring a
second-cycle degree for entry, but not leading to a third-cycle qualification.

Figure 2.6: Programmes outside the Bologna-degree structure (other than integrated/long programmes), 2022/2023

1. Intermediate programmes
between the first and second cycle
2. Intermediate programmes
within the second cycle
3. Intermediate programmes
between the second and third cycle

No relevant programmes

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Notes:
Within the Bologna Process, ministers committed themselves to implementing the three-cycle degree system, where first-cycle
degrees (awarded after completion of higher education programmes lasting a minimum of three years) should give access, in the
sense of the Lisbon Recognition Convention ( 15), to second-cycle programmes. Second-cycle degrees should give access to
doctoral studies (the third cycle). Within the three-cycle degree system, ministers recognised the possibility of intermediate
qualifications (the short cycle) linked to the first cycle, and through the Paris Communiqué added the short cycle as a stand-alone
qualification within the overall qualifications framework of the EHEA (QF-EHEA).
When referring to programmes outside the Bologna-degree structure, the figure refers to programmes that do not fully comply
with the above ministerial engagements. Integrated/long programmes, which can also be seen as programmes outside the
Bologna-degree structure, are excluded from the scope of the figure (they are covered by Figure 2.5).

As Figure 2.6 shows, programmes relevant for the scope of this analysis exist in around one third of the
EHEA countries.

Programmes falling under the first category usually include various short specialisations after first-cycle
studies. For example, in French and Flemish Communities of Belgium, there are specialised bachelors
(or ‘bachelor after bachelor’) of 60 ECTS building on the first cycle. Ireland offers intermediate
programmes, which are qualifications building on a bachelor’s degree, to increase access to medicine
and, in particular, radiography studies. Further programmes falling under this category exist in Finland,
Greece, Hungary, San Marino and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

The second category is programmes that lead to a second-cycle qualification, but do not open access
to the third cycle. These programmes exist in Albania, Iceland, Italy, Ireland, Norway, Türkiye and the
United Kingdom (Scotland). They are usually professional or labour market oriented masters’
programmes that do not open access to the third cycle. In Italy, first level master’s programmes (Master
universitario di primo livello) comprise 60 ECTS and aim at providing students with advanced knowledge

graduates of these programmes to integrate third-cycle studies. However, the programmes in question are not conceived
to prepare for doctoral studies. Thus, possibilities for the RPL are not considered here.
(15) Council of Europe Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region,
ETS No. 165.

59
in specific fields or further professional training relevant for the labour market. Albania offers professional
master’s programmes (60-120 ECTS) giving graduates the opportunity to enter the public or private
labour market, but not giving access to third-cycle programmes, while Türkiye reports similar
programmes called ‘non-thesis master’. In the United Kingdom (Scotland), postgraduate certificates
(30 ECTS) require a first-cycle degree for entry and target those already in a career.
Programmes in the third category are comparable to those reported under the first one, the only
difference being that they concern specialisations building on second-cycle studies. In the French and
Flemish Communities of Belgium, for instance, there are not only specialised bachelors (see above),
but also specialised master’s (or ‘master after master’) that are intended to develop the skills oriented
towards the needs of the labour market. To provide masters’ graduates with advanced knowledge for
better occupational opportunities, Italy offers second level masters’ programmes (Master universitaria
di secondo livello), while Croatia has created around 342 ‘university specialist programmes’ with 60-
120 ECTS workload. Further examples of intermediate programmes building on second-cycle studies
can be found in Finland, Georgia, Hungary and North Macedonia.
Higher education programmes in the first and third categories have many similarities with programmes
leading to microcredentials (see 2.1.8). All these programmes usually aim at developing specific skills,
knowledge or expertise in a particular area and therefore may be considered as part of a continuing
professional development and lifelong learning system.
Regardless of the category to which they belong, these programmes all raise the question of their
compatibility with the Bologna Process. On the one hand, they appear as a ‘deviation’ from the agreed
qualification structure. On the other hand, they claim to respond to specific needs, concerning
professional development and lifelong learning. While it is debatable whether or not such provision could
be incorporated within the agreed overall degree structure framework, as long as they continue to exist,
it is important to ensure and optimise cross-country readability.

2.1.7. Progress in the implementation of the commitments related to the degrees structure
To remove barriers and ease mobility and cooperation in higher education, as well as to ensure
international recognition of degrees, one of the key commitments agreed between the ministers withing
the Bologna process was the implementation of the common degree structure.

Figure 2.7 is a composite indicator that assesses where countries are now situated in the development
of such a common degree structure. It is based on two main aspects: 1) programmes’ compliance with
the agreed workload for the first and the second cycles; and 2) limitation of number of programmes
outside the Bologna degree structure.

The indicator is based on the four indicators presented in Figures 2.1, 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6, and considers
the following criteria as the norms for agreed degree structures:
• More than 90% of first-cycle programmes comply with agreed ECTS workload for the first cycle (at
least 180 ECTS).
• More than 90% of second-cycle programmes comply with agreed ECTS workload for the second
cycle (between 60-120 ECTS).
• Less than 20% of students are enrolled in integrated/long programmes.
• There are no programmes outside the Bologna degree structure, other than integrated/long
programmes.

The first two criteria conform to commitments made in the early years of the Bologna process. The
requirement for first-cycle programmes of at least 180 ECTS is taken in the Bologna Declaration ( 16),

(16) The Bologna Declaration, 19 June 1999.

60
while the credit range for second-cycle programmes was set at a 2002 official Bologna seminar held in
Helsinki. For the third criterion, the spirit of the Bologna Process commitments was that a small number
of integrated/long programmes, particularly those leading to qualifications for regulated professions,
could co-exist with the three-cycle degree structure. However, this spirit was not translated into concrete
decisions fixing limits on the number of programmes, or the number of students studying in programmes,
that would be considered compatible. The choice of 20% was taken after discussion in the BFUG. The
fourth criterion also aligns with the spirit of the Bologna process which aimed to converge all
programmes, with the exception of those integrated programmes previously mentioned, into the three-
cycle degree structure.

Figure 2.7: Scorecard indicator n°1: Implementation of agreed Bologna degree structures, 2022/2023

2022/2023

23

11

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories
All the following elements are fulfilled:
o >90% of first-cycle programmes comply with agreed ECTS workload for the first cycle (at least 180 ECTS);
o >90% of second-cycle programmes comply with agreed ECTS workload for the second cycle (between 60-120 ECTS);
o <20% of students are enrolled in integrated/long programmes;
o There are no programmes outside the Bologna degree structure, other than integrated programmes.

3 out of 4 commitments are fulfilled 2 out of 4 commitments are fulfilled 1 out of 4 commitments are fulfilled

None of the commitments are fulfilled Data not available

Note:
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ireland, Kazakhstan and the United Kingdom are reported in the category ‘data not
available’, as the data for some elements that compose the scorecard indicator is missing.

Countries where more than 90% of higher education programmes comply with the workload agreed for
the first and the second cycles, where the share of students enrolled in integrated (long) programmes is
less than 20%, and where there are no other programmes outside the Bologna degree structure are
found in the dark green category. The other categories reflect a diminishing number of commitments
being fulfilled.

As Figure 2.7 shows, slightly more than half of the education systems with available data fully comply
with the four criteria and are in dark green category.

61
About a quarter of the systems are in the light green category, they comply with 3 out of the 4 criteria
and are close to being fully aligned with commitments taken with regard to convergent degree structures.
Five education systems fulfilled two criteria and are in the yellow category and two systems are in the
orange category fulfilling only one criteria.

The findings for this indicator reflect the fact that revamping degree structures in line with the credit
ranges set through the Bologna process has been very successfully accomplished. However, while
many systems have taken a thorough approach to transforming all programmes, in some countries the
heritage of previous structures remains. While this may be a relatively minor issue in terms of the
numbers of programmes and students concerned, it is still worthy of reflection within the countries
concerned as to whether further reforms to ensure full alignment with Bologna degree structure
commitments might be beneficial.

2.1.8. Microcredentials
In the last decade, short and focused learning modules that differ from traditional degree programmes
and that are now often referred as to microcredentials have gained popularity among learners and
education providers. Until recently there was an absence of common definition, although the
characteristics of such modules could be recognised: they tend to be short, skill-focused and usually
labour market oriented. Microcredentials are typically designed to develop specific skills or knowledge
in a particular subject area and may be targeted at professionals seeking to enhance their expertise,
individuals looking to upskill or reskill, or anyone interested in gaining knowledge in a specific domain.

At the EU level, reflection on the place of microcredentials in the higher education landscape resulted
in the Council Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and
employability, adopted on 16 June 2022 ( 17). This Recommendation defines microcredentials as ‘the
record of the learning outcomes that a learner has acquired following a small volume of learning. These
learning outcomes will have been assessed against transparent and clearly defined criteria. Learning
experiences leading to micro-credentials are designed to provide the learner with specific knowledge,
skills and competences that respond to societal, personal, cultural or labour market needs. Micro-
credentials are owned by the learner, can be shared and are portable. They may be stand-alone or
combined into larger credentials. They are underpinned by quality assurance following agreed standards
in the relevant sector or area of activity’ ( 18). The Council Recommendation encourages the EU countries
to include microcredentials in national qualification frameworks and systems where relevant and in line
with national priorities and decisions to ensure the quality and transparency ( 19). The European
approach to microcredentials therefore suggests that the full potential of microcredentials can be
reached only with common standards ensuring their quality, transparency, cross-border comparability,
recognition and portability.

In the context of the Bologna process, the concept of microcredentials has been discussed, and
questions have been raised about their integration in the higher education landscape, their transparency,
and relationship to quality assurance and qualification systems. The potential benefits of
microcredentials such as making education more reactive to labour market needs and individual
interests, supporting lifelong learning and learning among under-represented groups, as well as its
flexibility, have all been acknowledged.

The Rome Ministerial Communiqué also acknowledges the potential benefits of microcredentials for
student-centred learning and considers them as an element of flexible and open learning pathways. It

(17) Council Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability, adopted on
16 June 2022; p. 13. Link: https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9237-2022-INIT/en/pdf
(18) Ibid. p. 13.
(19) Ibid. p. 18.

62
asks the BFUG to explore ‘how and to what extent these smaller, flexible units, including those leading
to microcredentials, can be defined, developed, implemented and recognised by the institutions using
EHEA tools’ ( 20).

To follow up to the Rome Communiqué request, this section first aims to identify the education systems
where legal framework offers possibility to higher education institutions to develop learning modules
leading to microcredentials. It also seeks to demonstrate whether such learning programmes are
included in NQFs and expressed in the ECTS credits.

Figure 2.8 shows education systems where there are modules leading to microcredentials and those
where microcredentials are not a common feature. Within the first category the distinction is made
between education systems that include microcredentials in NQFs and those that do not include them
in NQFs.

Figure 2.8: Inclusion of microcredentials in national qualifications frameworks, 2022/2023

Microcredentials are
included in NQF
Microcredentials are
not included in NQF

No microcredentials

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

As Figure 2.8 shows, in around two-thirds of the education systems, mainly in the northern and western
part of Europe, there are learning modules within higher education considered as, or comparable to,
microcredentials. Ten education systems (Belgium-Flemish Community, Croatia, Denmark, Ireland,
Italy, Malta, Romania, Sweden, the Holy See and the United Kingdom − England, Wales and Northern
Ireland), have taken the important step of including microcredentials in their NQF. Moreover, in almost
all of them, except for Italy and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) ( 21), learning
modules leading to microcredentials are expressed in ECTS. These systems are therefore the most
advanced in ensuring transparency and readability of microcredentials. Although microcredentials are
not yet integrated in their NQFs, Austria, Estonia, Greece and Spain use ECTS to measure workload
and thus facilitate the portability of these qualifications.

(20) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, Annex III, 19 November 2020, p. 4.

(21) The United Kingdom use a national credit system which allows to convert national credits into ECTS.

63
In 16 other education systems ( 22), the legal frameworks provide for the possibility for higher education
institutions to develop modules leading to microcredentials although such programmes are not included
in NQFs. In almost all of them, this possibility is stated in the national legislation such as Education Law,
Higher Education Law or Higher Education Act, while Czechia, Greece and Lithuania offer the possibility
to develop microcredentials within the lifelong learning framework. For example, the Greek legislation
on higher education and recognition makes provisions for the award of micro-credentials by lifelong
learning centres located in the Greek higher education institutions.

Other education systems, have neither incorporated microcredentials in NQF, nor in the legislation.
However, higher education institutions are able to develop learning modules leading to microcredentials
under their own autonomy. This is the case in the French Community of Belgium, Finland, France, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Switzerland.

Finally, in 15 EHEA education systems, short courses leading to microcredentials are not yet a common
feature. In some of them, however, the concept of microcredentials and the possible establishment of
an appropriate legal framework have been discussed at policy level (Armenia, Luxembourg and
Moldova).

2.1.9. Monitoring the implementation of the ECTS system

The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) is one the main instruments that was
adopted and further developed through the establishment of the European Higher Education Area.
ECTS has become the cornerstone of the implementation of curriculum reforms, focusing on workload
and learning outcomes. The crucial importance of reinforcing the Bologna tools and especially ECTS,
to indicate achieved learning outcomes and their associated workload has been again underlined in the
Rome Communiqué, 2020 ( 23).

The correct understanding and consistent implementation of ECTS is the key challenge to ensure that
ECTS delivers maximal benefits. The reference point for correct implementation is the 2015 edition of
the ECTS Users Guide, adopted throughout the EHEA in the Yerevan Ministerial Conference.

The scorecard indicator presented in Figure 2.9 has been developed to reflect national measures to
ensure correct implementation of the system in higher education institutions. It focuses on the role of
external quality assurance agencies in monitoring ECTS. External quality assurance is the best available
mechanism to provide information on the level of ECTS implementation in higher education institutions,
while respecting institutional autonomy. In higher education systems where external quality assurance
is required to monitor ECTS implementation, national authorities and stakeholders will have access to
sufficiently reliable data on the state of play of ECTS implementation, challenges and good practice.

The indicator applies equally to the different types of quality assurance systems in European higher
education – whether they focus on institutional or programme-level quality assurance or combine the
two. Institutional quality assurance processes tend to assess the extent to which higher education
institutions' internal quality assurance system monitor key policy areas, while programme-level
evaluation tends to check more directly defined quality aspects of individual higher education
programmes and their delivery within higher education institutions.

In systems with an institutional focus, it is expected that agencies would check that institutions’ internal
quality assurance mechanisms take full account of the 2015 ECTS Users’ Guide. External quality
assurance would thus not monitor ECTS implementation directly, but would check that the institution’s
internal quality assurance framework is sufficiently robust to ensure coherent implementation. However,

(22) Andorra, Austria, Czechia, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, North Macedonia,
Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Ukraine and the United Kingdom (Scotland).
(23) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, Annex III, 19 November 2020, p. 3.

64
in systems based on programme evaluation, external quality assurance would have a more direct role
in monitoring the use of ECTS.

The key issues which this indicator picks out from the ECTS Users’ Guide for consideration in external
quality assurance are:
• ECTS credits are allocated on the basis of learning outcomes & student workload;
• ECTS credit allocation is regularly monitored and followed up by appropriate revision if necessary;
• ECTS is used as a credit system for the accumulation of credits acquired within higher education
institutions;
• ECTS is used as a credit system for the transfer of credits for student learning outcomes acquired
in another institution in the country;
• ECTS is used as a credit system for the transfer of credits for periods of study abroad.
• The higher education institution has an appropriate appeals procedure to deal with problems of
credit recognition.

Figure 2.9: Scorecard indicator n°2: Monitoring the implementation of the ECTS system by external quality
assurance, 2022/2023

2022/2023

25

14

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories
The ECTS Users' Guide 2015 principles are required
to be used by external quality assurance as a basis to assess the implementation of ECTS in all higher education institutions.
All the following issues are monitored specifically:
o ECTS credits are allocated on the basis of learning outcomes & student workload;
o ECTS credit allocation is regularly monitored and followed up by appropriate revision if necessary;
o ECTS is used as a credit system for the accumulation of credits acquired within higher education institutions;
o ECTS is used as a credit system for the transfer of credits for student learning outcomes acquired in another institution in the country;
o ECTS is used as a credit system for the transfer of credits for periods of study abroad;
o The higher education institution has an appropriate appeals procedure to deal with problems of credit recognition.

65
 The ECTS Users' Guide 2015 principles are required
to be used by external quality assurance as a basis to assess the implementation of ECTS in all higher education institutions.
Four or five of the above issues are monitored specifically.
The ECTS Users' Guide 2015 principles are required
to be used by external quality assurance agencies as a basis to assess the implementation of ECTS in all higher education institutions.
One to three of the above issues are monitored specifically.
The ECTS Users’ Guide 2015 principles are NOT required
to be used by external quality assurance as a basis to assess the implementation of ECTS, BUT they are generally used in practice.

The ECTS Users’ Guide 2015 principles are NOT required

to be used by external quality assurance as a basis to assess the implementation of ECTS, AND they are generally NOT used in practice.

Data not available

On the evidence provided for this indicator, external quality assurance processes seem to pay a great
deal of attention to the correct use of ECTS in respect of the Users’ Guide. 25 education systems out of
48 (dark green) require external quality assurance agencies to monitor all key aspects of the
implementation of ECTS during their regular evaluation processes. In a further 14 systems (light green),
there are requirements for a number of these key issues to be considered. In San Marino, one to three
of the above issues are required to be monitored.

In six systems, the ECTS Users’ Guide principles are not required to be used by external quality
assurance, but they are generally used in practice (orange category). Finally, there are two systems
where there is no requirement to consider the 2015 ECTS Users Guide.

Compared to the data from the 2020 Bologna Implementation report (see European Commission /
EACEA / Eurydice, 2020, p. 55), some progress can be observed. Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary and
Lithuania, have moved into dark green category. Armenia, Czechia, Liechtenstein and Slovenia, have
made recent progress, but still need to step up action to ensure that external quality assurance agencies
monitor all key aspects of the implementation of ECTS during their regular evaluation processes. It can
be observed that external quality assurance agencies are less often required to monitor the existence
of an appropriate appeals procedure to deal with problems of credit recognition compared to other key
principles set in the ECTS Users’ Guide 2015.

2.1.10. Diploma Supplement (DS)

The Diploma Supplement is a document attached to a higher education diploma, providing a detailed
description of study components and learning outcomes achieved by its holder. The aim is to help higher
education institutions, employers, recognition centres as well as other stakeholders to easily understand
graduates' skills and competences. The Diploma Supplement is an integral part of several initiatives in
the field of higher education internationalisation and recognition of qualifications. The first of them – the
1997 Lisbon Recognition Convention ( 24) – calls upon signatory countries to promote the Diploma
Supplement or any equivalent document through national information centres or otherwise. The Diploma
Supplement is also one of the five Europass transparency tools promoted by the European
Commission ( 25).

The Bologna Process made the first reference to the Diploma Supplement already in 1999, when higher
education ministers agreed to adopt a system of easily readable and comparable degrees, also through
the implementation of the Diploma Supplement ( 26). In 2003, the ministers agreed that every student

(24) https://www.coe.int/en/web/higher-education-and-research/lisbon-recognition-convention
(25) Decision No 2241/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2004 on a single Community
framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass).
(26) The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999.

66
graduating as from 2005 should receive the Diploma Supplement automatically and free of charge, and
that the document should be issued in a widely spoken European language ( 27).

These four main ministerial engagements are brought together in Scorecard indicator n°3 on the
implementation of the Diploma Supplement in relation to first and second cycle (see Figure 2.10).

Figure 2.10: Scorecard indicator n°3: Stage of implementation of the Diploma Supplement, 2022/2023

2022/2023

39

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories
Diploma Supplement in the EU/CoE/UNESCO Diploma Supplement format is issued to first- and second-cycle graduates:
o to every graduate;
o automatically;
o in a widely spoken European language;
o free of charge.

Three of the above criteria are met. Two of the above criteria are met. Only one criterion is met.

None of the above criteria is met. Data not available

The indicator shows that all EHEA countries have introduced the Diploma Supplement and that most of
them (39 out of 48 systems with available data) now comply with all ministerial engagements, i.e. the
Diploma Supplement is issued to all first- and second-cycle graduates, automatically, in a widely spoken
European language and free of charge (dark green). Ten education systems do not comply with one of
these aspects (light green).

In almost all EHEA countries all first- and second-cycle graduates receive the Diploma Supplement. In
the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland), some institutions issue the Diploma
Supplement, others deliver the Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) – which is based upon
and virtually reflects the Diploma Supplement, whilst remaining distinctly British –, while some others
provide graduates only with a transcript. In France, the 2014 regulatory framework requires higher
education institutions to deliver the Diploma Supplement to all first- and second-cycle graduates, but
practice is not yet fully aligned with this obligation.

(27) Realising the European Higher Education Area. Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher
Education, Berlin, 19 September 2003.

67
In almost all countries Diploma Supplement is issued automatically. However, in Azerbaijan, Bulgaria,
Greece, North Macedonia and Spain ( 28), it is delivered upon request. To reduce the administrative
burden, in Norway the Diploma Supplement template has been successfully digitalised, and is now
integrated in the software used by all public higher education institutions for the registration of student
results.

The Diploma Supplement is generally issued free of charge. However, in Montenegro, graduates are
routinely expected to pay a fee for a printed Diploma including Diploma Supplement. When the Diploma
Supplement is issued free of charge, fees may still apply in some countries to services going beyond
the standard provision. For example, in Slovenia, the Diploma Supplement is issued for free in Slovenian
language and in one of the official EU languages, but for a fee in a second official EU language or a
non-EU language. In Slovakia, it is issued in the official language and English free of charge, whereas
a foreign-language version other than English is issued for a fee. In Ireland, Diploma Supplements
requiring an additional administrative workload may be linked to fees, while in Hungary, the duplicate is
always issued for a fee.

In all EHEA systems, except for San Marino, the Diploma Supplement is issued in a widely spoken
European language ( 29). In most cases, it is issued directly in the country language and in English. In
some countries, however, the version in a widely spoken language is issued only upon request (Estonia,
North Macedonia, Poland and Slovakia).

2.1.11. National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF)

National qualifications frameworks promote the readability and comparability of qualifications – both
within and across countries. They are used for describing and clearly expressing the differences
between qualifications in all cycles and levels of education. Qualifications frameworks are able to link
many of the structural elements promoted and developed by the Bologna Process – three-cycle degree
structures, ECTS credits, learning outcomes and quality assurance. This plays an important role in
increasing the transparency of qualifications systems.

The implementation of QF-EHEA compatible national qualifications frameworks was agreed as one of
the Bologna Process key commitments in the Paris Communiqué ( 30). In the 2020 Rome
Communiqué ( 31), ministers reconfirmed their determinations to complete and further develop the
National Qualifications Frameworks compatible with the Overarching Framework of Qualifications of the
European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA).

Scorecard indicator n°4 (see Figure 2.11) summarises the state of play of the development and
implementation of national qualifications framework for higher education. It is based upon eleven steps
to develop and implement a national qualification framework to be compatible with the QF-EHEA.

(28) In Spain, the diploma is delivered upon request and the DS is automatically delivered with the diploma.
(29) The 2003 Berlin Communiqué does not provide a definition of the concept of 'a widely spoken European language'.
However, according to the Eurobarometer survey (European Commission, 2012), when the mother tongue is considered,
German is the most widely spoken language, with 16% of Europeans saying it is their first language, followed by Italian and
English (13% each), French (12%), then Spanish and Polish (8% each). Regarding foreign languages, the five most widely
spoken foreign languages are English (38%), French (12%), German (11%), Spanish (7%) and Russian (5%). These
languages can therefore be seen as 'widely spoken European languages'.
(30) Paris Ministerial Communiqué, 25 May 2018.
(31) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

68
Figure 2.11: Scorecard indicator n°4: Implementation of national qualifications frameworks, 2022/2023

2022/2023
33

11
4
0
0
1

Source: BFUG data collection.

The colours in the figure indicate that the country has completed all steps related to a specific colour
and all preceding steps. The red colour is an exception, countries having completed step 1 or step 2
also obtain this colour.
Scorecard categories
Steps 10-11:
o 11. The final NQF and the self-certification report can be consulted on a public website.
o 10. The NQF has self-certified its compatibility with the Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education Area.
Steps 7-9:
o 9. Qualifications have been included in the NQF.
o 8. Study programmes have been re-designed on the basis of the learning outcomes included in the NQF.
o 7. Implementation of the NQF has started with agreement on the roles and responsibilities of higher education institutions, quality
assurance agency(ies) and other bodies.
Steps 5-6:
o 6. The NQF has been adopted in legislation or in other high level policy fora.
o 5. Consultation/national discussion has taken place and the design of the NQF has been agreed by stakeholders.
Step 4: The level structure, level descriptors (learning outcomes), and credit ranges have been agreed.

Steps 1-3:
o 3. The process of developing the NQF has been set up, with stakeholders identified and committee(s) established.
o 2. The purpose(s) of the NQF have been agreed and outlined.
o 1. Decision to start developing the NQF has been taken by the national body responsible for higher education and/or the
minister.

Data not available

Figure 2.11 shows that most countries have fulfilled their commitment to establish and use a national
qualifications framework. The 33 systems in dark green have established their national qualifications
frameworks for higher education and self-certified them to the QF-EHEA. In addition, in these countries,
the final NQF and the self-certification report can be consulted on a public website and is used by

69
national authorities for at least one of the agreed purposes ( 32). Albania, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have
now moved into this category having completed this process. In Ukraine, the NQF recently certified its
compatibility with the QF-EHEA. In 2021, the board of the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine
approved the self-certification report that was further made available on a public website ( 33).
In the 11 systems in the light green category, the NQF is in place. However, there are still processes to
finalise in relation to self-certification. Andorra and Azerbaijan have both made recent progress and
moved into this category. Both reported establishing the NQF in legislation and undertaking the work of
re-designing study programmes and including their qualifications in the NQF. To achieve the policy goals
that national authorities together with stakeholders set for the national qualifications framework, NQFs
need to be better integrated into public policy also in these countries.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Czechia and Slovakia are still at the mid-way stage of the indicator having not
made progress since adopting the NQF in legislation. They therefore now need to step up action to
ensure that the work so far undertaken is meaningful. Greece has made recent improvements adopting
the NQF in higher education legislation and has thus joined the yellow category.

2.2. Recognition
Fair and reliable recognition of foreign qualifications is an essential condition for the EHEA to be open,
inclusive and attractive space for students. This is why recognition of qualification has been high priority
for the participating countries through the Bologna process.

Various instruments aiming at facilitating fair recognition of foreign qualifications and/or study periods
abroad have been developed and adopted at the European, national, regional and institutional level.
From the start of the Bologna process, the Council of Europe/UNESCO Convention on the Recognition
of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region (Lisbon Recognition Convention
(LRC)) ( 34) has been providing a common and binding legal framework for recognition policies across
countries in Europe. The LRC sets out principles for recognition and implementation mechanisms. As
for any international treaty, the countries that ratified the LRC have an obligation to review and amend
their own national legislation to remove any contradiction. Throughout the Bologna Process there have
been various calls to member states to review their legislation and implement the LRC correctly. In the
Berlin Communiqué (2003) ( 35), Ministers set themselves the short-term objective ‘to improve the
recognition system of degrees and periods of studies’. They also ’underline the importance of the Lisbon
Recognition Convention, which should be ratified by all countries participating in the Bologna Process’.
The 2020 Bologna Process Implementation report highlighted that although almost all countries ratified
the LRC by 2020, not all of them embedded all its principles into national legislation (European
Commission /EACEA / Eurydice, 2020, p. 83). The report also states that a majority of EHEA countries
do not fully implement the article VII of the LRC that frames the recognition of qualifications held by
refugees, displaced persons and persons in a refugee like situation. Following this observation, in the
2020 Rome Communiqué, ministries commit to ‘strengthen the implementation of the LRC and apply its
principles to qualifications and periods of study outside the EHEA using common assessment criteria
and reports’ ( 36).

(32) The agreed purposes are: communication with employers/skills forecasting; qualification recognition policies; policy
coordination across levels and sectors of education.
(33) https://mon.gov.ua/ua/tag/natsionalna-ramka-kvalifikatsiy
(34) Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region. ETS No.165.
https://www.coe.int/t/dg4/highereducation/recognition/lrc_en.asp
(35) Berlin Ministerial Communiqué, 19 September 2003.
https://ehea.info/Upload/document/ministerial_declarations/2003_Berlin_Communique_English_577284.pdf
(36) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020, p. 7.

70
The section first takes stock of the implementation of the principles laid out in the Lisbon Recognition
Convention (2.2.1) and addresses whether procedures are in place for the recognition of refugee
qualification (i.e. implementation of the Article VII of the LRC) at national level (2.2.2). Then, it shows
whether and how often the European tools for recognition of qualification held by refugees are used at
national level (2.2.3).

For many years EHEA cooperation has focused on improving and simplifying recognition practices. In
the second decade of the Bologna Process, when countries made great progress in implementation of
trust building tools such as the three-cycle system, an overarching qualification framework, the ECTS
and quality assurance, the narrative around recognition of qualifications has shifted to the notion of
‘automatic recognition’. The progress towards the automatic recognition of qualification for academic
purposes is monitored in part 2.2.4 of this section.

2.2.1. Principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) in national Legislation

Figure 2.12 shows the extent to which the main principles of the LRC are specified in national legislation.

Figure 2.12: Principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention in national legislation, 2022/2023

All five LRC principles

specified in national legislation

Four of the principles

specified in national legislation

One to three of the principles

specified in national legislation

None of the principles

specified in national legislation

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

The principles highlighted in the indicator are:

1) applicants have right to fair assessment; 2) there is recognition if no substantial differences can be
proven; 3) legislation or guidelines encourage comparing of learning outcomes rather than programme
contents; 4) in cases of negative decisions the competent recognition authority demonstrates the
existence of substantial difference; 5) applicant's right to appeal of the recognition decision.
Implementation of these principles was identified by the Pathfinder Group ( 37) as an important step
towards automatic recognition.

(37) The 2012 Budapest Communiqué called for the establishment of ‘pathfinder group of countries exploring ways to achieve
the automatic academic recognition of comparable degrees’.
(http://www.ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/72/3/EHEA_Pathfinder_Group_on_Automatic_Recognition_Jan
uary_2015_613723.pdf).

71
Although the ratification of the Lisbon Recognition Convention has long been completed by almost all
EHEA countries, several countries have not embedded all principles into national legislation.

Progress has been made since the publication of the 2020 Bologna Implementation report (see
European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2020, p. 84). The Figure 2.12 shows that the number of
education systems where all of these main principles are specified in national legislation has risen to
31. Eight additional countries (Albania, Andorra, Austria, Croatia, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Ukraine)
have now embedded all principles in national legislations. Poland and Sweden have recently added the
5th principle, namely the right of applicants to appeal of the recognition decision, to legislation, while in
Austria the Universities Act 2002, amended in 2021 ( 38), promotes the comparison of learning outcomes
rather than programme contents for recognition purposes.

The number of systems where four of the principles are embedded in legislation is now 12. A further two
systems specify one to three principles. Ireland and the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Northern
Ireland and Scotland) does not legislate in this area as institutions have full autonomy over their
admissions, and for principles to be specified in national legislation would be considered a violation of
autonomy. Nevertheless, the governments and higher education institutions in these countries claim to
be strongly committed to open, fair and transparent admissions processes.

2.2.2. Implementation of Article VII of the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC)

In recent years, large numbers of individuals of all ages have been fleeing conflict zones and relocating
in other countries. Most recently, the number of refugees in Europe has dramatically increased with the
arrival of around 4 million non-EU citizens who fled Ukraine because of the Russian invasion in 2022 ( 39)
(see 6.3, Chapter 6).

Forced to interrupt studies or professional activity, many people bring with them competences and skills
acquired in their country of origin that can be further developed in the host country through further
studies, sometimes in higher education.

With requests from refugees, institutions responsible for the recognition of foreign qualifications may
face particular challenges in the recognition process. These are often associated with the lack of
established recognition procedures and policies for qualifications with insufficient or entirely lost
documentation, as well as a lack of information on legal obligations. In such cases, article VII of the LRC
serves as a framework for developing good practice. It states that: ‘Each Party shall take all feasible and
reasonable steps within the framework of its education system and in conformity with its constitutional,
legal, and regulatory provisions to develop procedures designed to assess fairly and expeditiously
whether refugees, displaced persons and persons in a refugee-like situation fulfil the relevant
requirements for access to higher education, to further higher education programmes or to employment
activities, even in cases in which the qualifications obtained in one of the Parties cannot be proven
through documentary evidence’ ( 40).

(38) https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20002128
(39) According to Eurostat data, on 31 May 2023: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?oldid=605154
(40) LRC, Art. VII (p.9): https://rm.coe.int/168007f2c7

72
Figure 2.13 shows the state of current implementation of Article VII of the LRC at national level.

Figure 2.13: Implementation of Article VII of the LRC at national level, 2022/2023

Legally required

Not legally required,

but procedures are in place

Not legally required,

and procedures are not in place

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

The analysed data reveal that despite the widespread ratification of the LRC, only slightly more than a
half of the education systems with available data (29 out of 48) have requirements in national legislation
for special recognition procedures to be in place for refugees, displaced persons and persons in a
refugee-like situation. More positively, clear legislation and procedures for refugees and displaced
persons with qualifications exist in the countries that are an important entry point to Europe from the
conflict zones in Africa (Italy and Malta), from Middle East (Türkiye) and from Ukraine (Czechia,
Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Romania).

Seven countries (Albania, Andorra, Austria, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Latvia, and Portugal) have recently
introduced a legal requirement for procedures to be followed. This can be considered as very significant
progress since the 2020 Bologna Implementation report (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice,
2020, p. 84).

14 other systems claim that procedures are in place even if there is no legal requirement for them.

Five countries (Cyprus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Montenegro and North Macedonia) have no requirement
for specific recognition procedures to be in place for refugees, displaced persons and persons in a
refugee-like situation. This represents a serious contradiction with the international legal commitment
undertaken by countries that have both signed and ratified the LRC.

2.2.3. Use of tools for recognition of qualifications of refugees

There are two main European tools developed to facilitate recognition of qualifications held by refugees
even in cases of missing documentation or where the qualifications are scarcely documented: the
European Qualification Passport for Refugees (EQPR) ( 41) and the ENIC-NARIC toolkit.

(41) For more details, see: https://www.coe.int/en/web/education/recognition-of-refugees-qualifications

73
The EQPR has been created by the Council of Europe and project partners, and consists of two parts:
an assessment section and an explanatory section. The methodology for the evaluation is a combination
of an assessment of available documentation and the use of a structured interview with a team of two
qualified credential evaluators. Through a standardised format, it explains the qualifications a refugee is
likely to have based on the available evidence. Although this document does not constitute a formal
recognition act, it summarises and presents available information on the applicant’s educational level,
work experience and language proficiency. Thus, the document provides credible information that can
be relevant in connection with applications for employment, internships, qualification courses and
admission to studies. The European Qualifications Passport for Refugees was welcomed by ministers
in the 2020 Rome Communiqué ( 42) and its use and future development were promoted.

The second tool for the recognition of refugees’ qualifications has been developed by the ENIC-NARIC
centres of several countries within a Refugees and Recognition − Erasmus+ project ( 43), which built
upon a previous project lead by Norway’s national recognition agency, NOKUT ( 44). The toolkit is a joint
effort to assist ENIC-NARIC centres in the development of practical approaches to credential evaluation
and recognition of the qualifications held by refugees, displaced persons and persons in a refugee-like
situation. The toolkit consists of three parts – principles, tools and approaches.

Figure 2.14: Use of tools for recognition of refugees’ qualifications: the Council of Europe Qualifications Passport
for Refugees (EQPR) and ENIC/NARIC’s toolkit for recognition of refugees’ qualifications, 2022/2023

EQPR ENIC/NARIC toolkit

Systematically used

Occasionally used

Not used

Data not available

No. of higher education systems

Source: BFUG data collection.

Figure 2.14 shows that despite the potential advantages of using the tools for recognition of refugees’
qualifications, their use is not widespread in the EHEA countries. According to the data provided, around
half of the education systems with available data use (occasionally or systematically) the EQPR (18 out
of 38), while two-third of the systems make use of the ENIC/NARIC toolkit (24 out of 37).

Albania, Italy and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) are the three counties that
systematically use both tools in dealing with applications from refugees. Six education systems
(Armenia, Belgium − Flemish Community, Croatia, the Holy See, Slovenia and Türkiye) use both tools,
but occasionally rather than systematically. Some education systems report using a national tool
equivalent to the EQPR. For example, Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands and Sweden are
issuing a national format of the qualification passport to record the available information on the
applicant’s educational level, qualifications, work experience and language proficiency. This document
is commonly called ‘background paper’, while Bulgaria labelled it ‘information card for acquired
educational degree’.

In around a quarter of the systems there is no data collection on the use of the above-mentioned tools.

(42) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

(43) https://www.nokut.no/en/Refugees-and-Recognition/toolkit
(44) For further information, see: https://www.nokut.no/om-nokut/internasjonalt-samarbeid/qualifications-passport-for-refugees/

74
2.2.4. System-level automatic recognition of degrees for academic purposes
The Lisbon Recognition Convention, addressed in section 2.2.1., has provided a clear legal framework
under which recognition policy operates at national and institutional level. However, in 2010, the EHEA
ministers of higher education recognised that procedures for the academic recognition of qualifications
continued to be often lengthy and burdensome. For this reason, in 2012 in Bucharest, the Ministers of
higher education across the EHEA committed themselves to the long-term objective of 'automatic
recognition' of comparable academic degrees ( 45).

While there has been much discussion and confusion about the notion of automatic recognition, several
texts have specified an understanding of the concept.

Within the Bologna Process, the first reference text was the report produced by the Pathfinder Group
on automatic recognition, which states: ‘Automatic recognition of a degree leads to the automatic right
of an applicant holding a qualification of a certain level to be considered for entry to a programme of
further study in the next level in any other EHEA-country (access)’ (EHEA Pathfinder Group on
Automatic Recognition, 2015, p. 10). This definition makes it clear that automatic recognition does not
imply automatic admission to any specific programme, but rather that holders of a qualification giving
access to a programme of study at the next level have the right to be considered for entry. The Pathfinder
Group reached the conclusion that automatic recognition is a necessary pre-condition for large-scale
academic mobility, and proposed a number of recommendations to improve the situation. The Pathfinder
Group recommended that a qualification based on the EHEA three-cycle structure from one EHEA
country should be recognised at the same level anywhere else in the EHEA. The principle under
examination is whether students who hold qualifications from other EHEA countries have the level of
their qualification recognised in the same way as holders of qualifications issued within the home
country. As the Pathfinder Group specified, the objective is that a bachelor is a bachelor across the
EHEA.

Meanwhile, in the Yerevan Communiqué in May 2015, ministers made the commitment ‘to ensure that
qualifications from other EHEA countries are automatically recognised at the same level as relevant
domestic qualifications’ ( 46). In the 2020 Rome Communiqué, ministers confirmed their determination to
make the necessary legislative changes to guarantee automatic recognition at systems level for
qualifications delivered in EHEA countries where quality assurance operates in compliance with the
Standards and Guidelines for quality assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) and
where a fully operational national qualifications framework has been established ( 47).

Within the European Union, the Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 took a further step in
promoting the automatic mutual recognition of qualifications as well as the recognition of learning
outcomes during study periods abroad ( 48), thus strengthening the 2012 commitment and increasing the
speed of implementation. Indeed, the Recommendation envisages achieving the automatic recognition
of qualifications by 2025 throughout the EU, providing further impetus to all participating countries in the
Bologna process to follow suit.

Scorecard indicator n°5 (see Figure 2.15) monitors progress towards the automatic recognition of
qualifications. A distinction is made between the higher education systems based on whether they have
implemented system-level automatic recognition of qualifications, and if they have, whether such
automatic recognition covers all EHEA countries.

(45) Bucharest Communiqué, 26-27 April 2012.

(46) Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Higher Education, Yerevan, 14-15 May 2015, p. 3
(47) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.
( )
48
Council Recommendation of 26 November 2018 on promoting automatic mutual recognition of higher education and upper
secondary education and training qualifications and the outcomes of learning periods abroad, OJ C444/01 10.12.2018.

75
Thus, for the dark green category, all higher education qualifications issued in other EHEA countries are
recognised on an equal level with qualifications in the home country without any additional procedures
in higher education institutions. Nevertheless, automatic recognition does not equate to immediate
recognition. A normal procedure would be to check that qualification is genuine and classified at the
correct level.

In the yellow category are all higher education systems where automatic recognition at system level
takes place with a subset of EHEA countries based on bilateral or multilateral agreements. For other
countries a separate recognition procedure is in place.

The red category groups education systems that do not apply the concept of automatic recognition, so
that separate recognition procedures are in place for all education qualifications issued in all other
countries.

Figure 2.15: Scorecard indicator n°5: System level (automatic) recognition for academic purposes, 2022/2023

2022/2023

19

16

13

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories
Automatic recognition is in place, meaning that all higher education qualifications issued in other EHEA countries are recognised at system
level on an equal level with comparable ( 49) academic qualifications in the home country and give the right to be considered for entry to a
programme of further study at the next level.

Automatic recognition at system level takes place with a subset of European countries.

There is no automatic recognition. Data not avalable

(49) The term ‘comparable’ implies that foreign qualifications are treated in the same way as national degrees (e.g. a first-cycle
degree from an EHEA country vs. a national first-cycle degree) for the purpose of further study at the next level without
additional recognition procedures.

76
Figure 2.15 reveals that the European Higher Education Area is still far from achieving widespread
automatic recognition. The distribution of education systems along the main categories is as follows.

There are 19 systems that practise automatic recognition for all EHEA countries, and that are shown in
dark green. The number of systems in this category has slightly increased since the 2020 edition of the
Bologna Process Implementation Report (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2020, p. 87).
Andorra, Austria, Croatia, Greece, the Holy See, Kazakhstan, Spain and Switzerland have seen recent
developments, and as a consequence have joined the dark green category.

While not yet having full system-level recognition for all EHEA countries, a further 16 systems report
that automatic recognition applies to some EHEA countries. This is usually based on regional, bilateral
or multilateral agreements on the mutual automatic recognition of qualifications. As a member of the
Eurasian Economic Union, Armenia has recently signed a mutual recognition agreement regarding
recognition of higher education qualifications both for academic and professional purposes with other
members of the Union. As this agreement includes automatic recognition of qualifications from
Kazakhstan, Armenia is now in the yellow category.

In 13 systems, there is no system-level automatic recognition as additional recognition procedures apply

for recognition of higher education qualifications issued in all other EHEA countries.

There is a relationship between degree structures, and in particular the workload of first-cycle
programmes, and automatic recognition of qualification for academic purposes. The education systems
where most of the first-cycle programmes comprise 180 ECTS (see Figure 2.1) usually apply automatic
recognition of qualification for academic purposes. Conversely, and with very few exceptions, education
systems where the workload of most first-cycle programmes is higher (240 ECTS) additional recognition
procedures for academic qualifications and degrees are in place. While this pattern can be observed
from the data gathered, more research would be required to understand this apparent relationship. Is
there a reason why countries with a high workload in first-cycle programmes appear to be more reluctant
to implement a system of automatic recognition of qualification and degrees for further academic
studies?

2.3. Quality Assurance

Quality assurance is one of the key commitments underpinning the EHEA. It ensures that higher
education institutions and programmes meet the standards of quality outlined in the Standards and
Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). This helps in building
trust in the value and outcomes of higher education among stakeholders and society both within and
beyond the EHEA.

This section addresses developments in the implementation of quality assurance commitments since
the Rome Communique. Section 2.3.1 discusses the stage of development of the external quality
assurance systems and in particular the share of higher education institutions reviewed by a quality
assurance agency registered on the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR).

The following sections consider the level of student and international participation in quality assurance,
which are two longstanding commitments dating back to the early years of the Bologna Process. Finally,
the section explores the level of openness of systems for higher education institutions to choose any
suitable EQAR-registered agency for their external quality assurance (in line with national
requirements), as well as the possibility of employing the European Approach for the Quality Assurance
of Joint Programmes.

77
Several sources of data have been used in this section. Some of the information was gathered directly
from EHEA member countries as part of the BFUG data collection exercise. Countries also provided
information through the QA FIT survey ( 50) and a third source is EQAR’s Knowledge Base ( 51). Further
information was extracted from the data uploaded by EQAR-registered agencies into the Database for
External Quality Assurance Results (DEQAR). This facilitated assessment of the extent of higher
education institutions’ compliance with the ESG as reviewed by an EQAR-registered agency, as well as
the methods used for undertaking external quality assurance of joint programmes. For the data related
to the level of student and international participation in quality assurance, information collected through
the BFUG data collection was cross-checked with that provided by the European Association for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), by national regulations and legal frameworks as well as with
external review reports of quality assurance agencies.

2.3.1. Stage of development of the external Quality Assurance systems

The key commitment on quality assurance is for external quality assurance to be conducted in
compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education
Area (ESG). The first appendix to the 2018 Paris Communiqué explained this key commitment, as
follows:

‘External quality assurance (be it at programme or institutional level) is performed by Agencies that have
demonstrably complied with the standards and guidelines stipulated in the current ESG. This is best
ensured where only those agencies registered on the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher
Education (EQAR) are allowed to operate in the country ( 52)’.

Guided by this Paris Communiqué text, EQAR registration is the EHEA measure that best demonstrates
that quality assurance agencies operate in substantial compliance with the ESG. EQAR registration also
provides legitimacy to quality assurance agencies that operate outside their national jurisdiction (whilst
complying with national requirements) as per the Bucharest Communiqué (2012), reinforcing trust
throughout the EHEA and beyond.

EQAR was established in 2008 following an agreement of Ministers responsible for higher education in
the London Communiqué (2007) with a commitment that ‘the register will be voluntary, self-financing,
independent and transparent’. To date it is the only body established through the Bologna Process. It
provides the public with clear and reliable information on quality assurance agencies operating in
Europe, and it is web-based and freely accessible. The primary condition for an agency to be listed in
the EQAR is that it ‘should be evaluated on the basis of substantial compliance with the ESG, evidenced
through an independent review process’.

Quality assurance agencies that are members of the European Association for Quality Assurance in
Higher Education (ENQA) but not registered in EQAR also operate in compliance with the ESG, as this
is the criteria to become ENQA members. ENQA was established as a network of quality assurance
agencies in 2000 and subsequently as an association in 2004. It is the designated stakeholder
organisation for quality assurance agencies within the EHEA, and its mission involves representing the
interests of these agencies internationally, supporting them nationally, and offering comprehensive
services and networking opportunities. Under ENQA’s umbrella, the community of agencies collaborates
to drive innovation in quality assurance processes.

(50) The Quality Assurance fit for the future (QA FIT) survey for ministries was carried out by EQAR and addressed all 47
governmental members of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Responses were collected between 7 November
2022 and 24 January 2023. 36 valid responses were received. See more here: https://www.eqar.eu/about/projects/qa-fit/
(51) EQAR‘s Knowledge Base is available at: https://www.eqar.eu/kb/country-information/
(52) Paris Ministerial Communiqué, 25 May 2018, Appendix I.

78
While the same external review reports may be used to apply for ENQA membership or EQAR
registration, the decision-making processes on ESG compliance differ between the two organisations.
The decision on ESG compliance in EQAR is taken by a Register Committee, with members nominated
from different stakeholder groups who serve in their personal capacity. The decision-making in ENQA
is under the responsibility of the ENQA Board. In practice, the ENQA Board normally uses EQAR
registration as de facto confirmation of ESG compliance, except in a small number of cases where it
only uses the external review report as the basis for its decision.

Figure 2.16 shows the extent to which national quality assurance systems are aligned with the Bologna
commitment of having a fully functioning quality assurance system where all higher education institutions
are subject to regular external quality assurance by an agency that has successfully demonstrated
compliance with the ESG. For the purposes of the EHEA monitoring this is measured through EQAR
registration. Dark green signifies that national systems are working with quality assurance agencies
verified to be compliant with the ESG, as evidenced by their EQAR registration. Yellow denotes
countries where only certain higher education institutions or programmes follow regular ESG-compliant
quality assurance processes. Orange represents countries where external quality assurance agencies
have not been externally assessed for ESG compliance, although some steps have been taken to
address this (i.e. quality assurance agencies are currently seeking EQAR registration). Red indicates
countries without an external quality assurance system.

Figure 2.16: Scorecard indicator n° 6: Stage of development of external quality assurance system, 2022/2023

2022/2023

33

Source: EQAR.

Scorecard categories
A fully functioning quality assurance system is in operation nationwide, in which all higher education institutions are
subject to regular external quality assurance by an agency that has successfully demonstrated compliance with the
Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA (ESG) through registration on EQAR.
A fully functioning quality assurance system is in operation nationwide, but only some higher education institutions are
subject to regular external quality assurance by an agency that has successfully demonstrated compliance with the
ESG through registration on EQAR.

A quality assurance system is in operation nationwide, but has not yet been fully aligned to the ESG.

No quality assurance system is in operation.

79
Currently 33 of the 49 EHEA higher education systems meet the requirement for the dark green category
(see Figure 2.16). Compared to the previous implementation report, progress can be noted for Greece
and Türkiye, following the positive decision from the EQAR Register Committee on the substantial
compliance with the ESG of the national quality assurance bodies.

For the nine countries in yellow, external quality assurance is not always carried out by an EQAR-
registered agency. Within this group, some national quality assurance agencies (Italy, Malta, Moldova
and Slovakia) have nevertheless taken concrete steps, initiating their applications for EQAR-registration.
In the case of Italy, the agency is a member of ENQA and is currently undergoing a new external review
in order to apply for listing on EQAR.

In the case of the United Kingdom (England), following a change in legal framework, institutions are no
longer subject to regular and systematic external quality assurance by an EQAR-registered agency,
although some quality assurance agencies registered in the UK carry out reviews in higher education
institutions in the country. The key commitment is therefore not fully met. The situation is however
different for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland where the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher
Education (QAA) is commissioned to carry institutional quality assurance for all higher education
providers. The map shows only a distinction between UK (Scotland) and a combined picture of the
remaining three higher education systems. However, the higher education system in Wales and
Northern Ireland meets the criteria for the dark green category while the higher education system in
England currently only meets the criteria for the yellow category within the scorecard.

In the remaining countries shown in orange, a quality assurance system is in operation nationwide but
further work is required to fully align the higher education system with the ESG. This can be achieved
through either the registration in EQAR of a national quality assurance body or by allowing the possibility
for higher education institutions within the country to choose an existing registered EQAR-registered
quality assurance agency to conduct their external quality assurance. This category includes the Holy
See where the quality assurance agency is a member of ENQA, and has therefore been externally
reviewed to demonstrate compliance with ESG. In this case, the agency has not requested registration
on EQAR.

The BFUG Thematic Peer Group for quality assurance has been supporting higher education systems
through a range of activities including submission of action plans, peer learning activities and staff
mobility activities. In addition, the involvement of six countries in an EU co-funded project (SEQA-
ESG) ( 53) led by ENQA to support national quality assurance agencies and national authorities in
creating an ESG-compliant quality assurance system has led to visible progress in three countries −
Malta, Moldova and Slovakia. These countries have made changes in their legal framework to enable
their national quality assurance agency to become compliant with the ESG.

There remains work to continue in the process of defining frameworks and methodologies for quality
assurance, in developing and consolidating standards for accreditation or revising such standards to
ensure their fitness for purpose and to be aligned with the expectations set out in the ESG.

The share of higher education institutions that have been reviewed by an EQAR-registered agency (at
programme and/or institutional level) provides additional information on the extent to which a country
has realised the key commitment on quality assurance. Data provided by almost all (see note below)
registered quality assurance agencies uploading their reports into the Database of External Quality
Assurance Results (DEQAR) ( 54) illustrate the coverage of higher education institutions subject to

(53) The ENQA led SEQA-ESG project carried out between 2020 and 2023 supported quality assurance agencies and national
authorities in meeting the expectations of the ESG. The participating countries were Albania, Czechia, Malta, Moldova,
Montenegro and Slovakia.
(54) DEQAR allows for a realtime tracking of almost all EHEA members country’s alignment with the Key Commitment on quality
assurance. The time period considered for the validity of external quality assurance is collected from each agency. From

80
external quality assurance in compliance with the ESG (see Figure 2.17). To date, DEQAR includes
over 90.000 quality assurance reports ( 55) dated from 2008 to 2023 from 50 EQAR-registered agencies.

Figure 2.17: Share of higher education institutions reviewed by an EQAR-registered quality assurance agency,
2022/2023

> 50% institutions or

programmes reviewed by an
EQAR-registered agency
Between 25-50% institutions or
programmes reviewed by an
EQAR-registered agency
< 25% institutions or
programmes reviewed by and
EQAR-registered agency

Data not available

Source: EQAR.

The data shows that 29 countries have had at least 50% of their higher education institutions reviewed
at programme or institutional level by an EQAR-registered agency − and Ireland and the Netherlands
would be added to this group if their reports had been uploaded in DEQAR. Four systems have between
26% and 49% of their higher education institutions or programmes reviewed by an EQAR-registered
agency. This leaves 14 systems where less than 24% of institutions and programmes have been
reviewed by an EQAR-registered agency.

The DEQAR data read together with the previous Scorecard Indicator (Figure 2.16 above) on the stage
of development of quality assurance provides a few insights that may otherwise be hidden. In particular
it reveals those countries where EQAR-registered quality assurance agencies have already covered a
significant part of the higher education system, even though the country’s main national quality
assurance agency is not registered in EQAR. This is the case for Moldova and Montenegro. The DEQAR
data further shows the extent of coverage for Liechtenstein and Luxembourg where quality assurance
reviews are regularly carried out by foreign EQAR-registered agencies, and proves that sufficient
coverage can be achieved even if a national agency is not in place.

2023 all except three (QQI − Ireland, NVAO-Netherlands and ANECA – Spain) EQAR-registered agencies have uploaded
their reports into DEQAR.
(55) https://www.eqar.eu/qa-results/search/

81
2.3.2. Student participation in external Quality Assurance
Students are not simply passive recipients of education but actively contribute to shaping their learning
journey. Their participation is understood as a fundamental value of the EHEA, and is underscored in
all areas of the Bologna process including quality assurance.

The scorecard indicator below (see Figure 2.18) provides insight into students’ involvement in external
quality assurance, and is based on responses to the BFUG questionnaire. The indicator evaluates
student engagement in five key areas of external quality assurance, deeming it satisfactory only if their
involvement is achieved in five different areas i.e., participation in governance structures of national
quality assurance bodies, in external review teams, in the preparation of self-evaluation reports, in the
decision-making process for external reviews and in follow-up procedures. A dark green rating confirms
full student participation across all areas, whereas red indicates minimal to no guaranteed involvement.

Figure 2.18: Scorecard indicator n° 7: Level of student participation in external quality assurance, 2022/2023

2022/2023

26

Source: BFUG Data Collection .

Scorecard categories
In all quality assurance reviews, students participate as full members at five levels:
o in governance structures of national Quality Assurance agencies;
o in external review teams;
o in the preparation of self-evaluation reports;
o in the decision making process for external reviews;
o in follow-up procedures.
Students participate at Students participate at
four of the five levels mentioned above. three of the five levels mentioned above.
Students participate at Students cannot participate or
Data not available
two of the five levels mentioned above. participate at only one level mentioned above.

82
Compared to the results of the 2020 implementation report, countries now indicate an increased
achievement in the dark green category, with 26 systems (compared to 20) having achieved a dark
green rating while 9 remain in light green. Thirteen others fall into the yellow or orange categories,
indicating the need for more progress towards comprehensive student involvement in quality assurance
processes.

Greece and Moldova report that new provisions have been established in law to ensure student
representatives participate in the governance of their quality assurance agency. For Moldova and Spain
new regulations also ensure student participation in external review panels. Croatia and Moldova now
also specify requirements for participation in follow-up procedures. While Andorra, Finland and the
United Kingdom (Scotland) do not legally mandate student involvement, many institutions and agencies
have taken the initiative to ensure it, in particular in their involvement in the preparation of self-evaluation
reports and in follow-up procedures. San Marino is in the process of making legislative changes that will
enhance student engagement in quality assurance.

ESU’s data for the 2024 edition of Bologna With Student Eyes sheds light on the reasons why student
engagement in quality assurance remains challenging. Close to two-thirds of student unions report a
lack of interest as a main barrier for students to become involved in external quality assurance
processes. While it is understandable that many students lack interest in quality assurance procedures,
over half of the student unions also explain that there is lack of information about quality assurance
provided to students, as well as a lack of training opportunities.

2.3.3. International participation in national quality assurance systems

Internationalisation has significantly influenced developments in quality assurance, evident in
collaborations among nations and quality assurance agencies alike. In view of the importance attached
to internationalisation in higher education, a scorecard indicator to monitor the engagement of
international experts in external quality assurance was developed in the first decade of the Bologna
Process, and has been used in all implementation reports.

The indicator measures the level of international participation in external quality assurance based on
four elements. The first important aspect is membership or affiliation of quality assurance agencies with
ENQA, which is considered as the most fruitful way to ensure international cooperation with other quality
assurance bodies across the EHEA. The indicator also refers to the involvement of international experts
in the governance structures of national quality assurance entities, the inclusion of international experts
as members or observers within evaluation teams, and their active participation in follow-up evaluation
procedures.

83
Figure 2.19: Scorecard indicator n° 8: Level of international participation in external quality assurance, 2022/2023

2022/2023

26

10

Source: BFUG Data Collection & ENQA list of members

Scorecard categories
In all cases the following four aspects are met:
o agencies are members or affiliates of ENQA;
o international peers/experts participate in governance of national quality assurance bodies;
o international peers/experts participate as members/observers in evaluation teams;
o international peers/experts participate in follow-up procedures.

Three of the four aspects are met. Two of the four aspects are met. One of the four aspects is met.

No international participation. Data not available.

Overall, there is a high level of international participation in quality assurance across the EHEA, with
36 systems fulfilling either all four criteria or three of them. Despite the two years where the pandemic
made a strong impact on internationalisation activities in higher education − reducing physical mobility
in the short-to-medium term (see Chapter 6), there has nevertheless been progress in six higher
education systems (Belgium – French Community, Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Türkiye and Ukraine) in
boosting international participation in external quality assurance.

The responses provided as part of the BFUG data collection exercise also reveal that five countries −
Armenia, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, and Slovakia − are performing less well on this indicator than in the
previous data collection.

In the context of internationalisation in quality assurance procedures, it is also relevant to note that the
pandemic period brought a notable expansion in the use of digital tools. There has therefore been an
increase in the implementation of online site-visits potentially facilitating inclusion of international experts
through exploiting the possibility of remote working.

2.3.4. Level of openness to cross border Quality Assurance of EQAR-registered agencies

The Berlin Ministerial Communiqué (2003) recognised and underlined higher education institutions’
responsibility for assuring the quality of education while the Communiques of Bucharest (2012), Yerevan

84
(2015) and Paris (2018) recognised higher education institutions’ right to choose a suitable EQAR-
registered quality assurance agency (in line with the national framework) for their compulsory external
quality assurance.

EQAR has monitored system-level developments in creating legal frameworks compatible with the ESG
and open to cross-border quality assurance. It also monitors the cross-border external quality assurance
activities of EQAR-registered agencies.

Figure 2.20 (below) draws on EQAR data to show systems’ level of openness to cross border higher
education. In the most favourable scenario (represented by dark green), all higher education institutions
and programmes have the liberty to opt for evaluation by an EQAR-registered agency outside their home
country to fulfil their external quality assurance requirements.

Figure 2.20: Scorecard indicator n° 9: Level of openness to cross border quality assurance of EQAR registered
agencies, 2022/2023

2022/2023

23

13

Source: EQAR.

Scorecard categories
All institutions and programmes can choose to be evaluated by a suitable quality assurance agency from outside the country to fulfil their
obligations for external quality assurance, while complying with national requirements. EQAR registration always serves as a criterion for
agencies to be allowed to carry out cross-border evaluation/accreditation/audit.
All institutions and programmes can choose to be evaluated by a suitable quality assurance agency from outside the country to fulfil their
obligations for external quality assurance, while complying with national requirements. EQAR registration does not always serve as a criterion
for agencies to be allowed to carry out cross-border evaluation/accreditation/audit.
In some cases, institutions and/or programmes can choose to be evaluated by a quality assurance agency from outside the country to fulfil
their obligations for external quality assurance, while complying with national requirements. EQAR registration always serves as a criterion for
agencies to be allowed to carry out cross-border evaluation/accreditation/audit.

Discussions are on-going or plans have been made to establish a legal framework allowing EQAR-registered agencies to operate in the country.

Institutions and programmes cannot be evaluated by quality assurance agencies from outside the country to fulfil their obligations for external
quality assurance, and no plans are being discussed.

In the light green category, EQAR registration does not always serves as a criterion for agencies to be
allowed to carry out cross-border external quality assurance, but all institutions and programmes may
choose to be evaluated by a suitable quality assurance agency from outside the country while fulfilling
their obligations for accreditation/evaluation/audit.

85
In the yellow category, only some institutions and/or programmes can choose to be evaluated by a
quality assurance agency from outside the country to fulfil their obligations for external quality
assurance, while complying with national requirements. In most of these countries quality assurance
agencies are limited to a certain type of external quality assurance procedure and they further need to
adapt their external quality assurance methodologies to specific national legislation.

Higher education systems in the orange category are in the process of planning the establishment of a
legal framework allowing EQAR-registered agencies to operate in the country.

In the most restrictive scenario (signified by red), institutions and programmes lack the option to be
evaluated by an external quality assurance agency from another country as part of their obligatory
external quality assurance process.

Nearly half (23) of the EHEA higher education systems are in the dark green category, with all higher
education institutions and programmes legally permitted to choose a suitable EQAR-registered agency
to fulfil their obligations for external quality assurance, while also complying with national requirements.

Recent progress has been made in France, the United Kingdom − Wales (although not visible on the
map) and Slovakia, where institutions have been enabled to opt for a suitable EQAR-registered agency
as an integral component of their compulsory external quality assurance procedures, subject to the
fulfilment of certain prerequisites. Notably, an agreement with the national quality assurance body or
authority is necessitated prior to undergoing a review.

There are two notable changes in the light green category. Greece has recently introduced changes in
its legal framework that allow higher education institutions in the country to be reviewed by a suitable
quality assurance agency (moving the country from orange to light green), while Kazakhstan’s decision
in 2023 to remove EQAR registration as a necessary condition for operation within the country means
a drop from the dark green to the light green category.

Six higher education systems are in the yellow category, restricting cross border evaluation to
specifically defined institutions or programmes. In the cases where cross border quality assurance is
permitted, EQAR registration for the foreign agency is a requirement. The latest addition in this category
(moving from red to yellow) is Spain. Higher education institutions within Catalunya may choose any
suitable foreign EQAR-registered agency to meet their external quality assurance requirement, following
the agreement of the regional quality assurance agency (Catalan University Quality Assurance Agency).
In addition, within Spain any form of cross-border accreditation by an EQAR-registered agency of any
joint programme is automatically recognised.

In the orange category, three countries (Croatia, Czechia and Italy) report that they are working to
establish a legal framework that would allow EQAR-registered agencies to operate within their borders.

Institutions and programmes in 13 systems lack the option to be evaluated by an external quality
assurance agency from another country as part of their obligatory external quality assurance process.
These systems, which report no policy discussions aimed at changing this reality, are shown in red.

Overall the picture has not progressed significantly in recent years. Compared to the information
published in the 2020 edition of the Implementation Report, the number of systems in the dark green
category has slightly decreased as a result of Kazakhstan dropping down to light green, while the only
system to move out of the red category is Spain. These findings show that this remains a commitment
where countries are divided. The commitment to cross border quality assurance is fully realised in a
significant number of systems, but apparently not being addressed in policy development in an important
minority of systems.

86
This information is confirmed by data collected by EQAR in the QA-FIT ministry survey, and also largely
corresponds to the information maintained by EQAR as part of its Knowledge Base ( 56).

Some additional points can also be concluded from EQAR’s data. Countries where cross-border quality
assurance procedures are recognised as part of the regular external quality assurance framework also
have a higher number of cross-border reviews actually taking place. It is notable that countries that
permit foreign agencies to undertake quality assurance in their system are more likely to have an EQAR-
registered agency that also carries out reviews across-borders. This clearly shows an openness of the
whole higher education system (legal framework, quality assurance agencies and higher education
institutions) towards cross-border quality assurance, and can be a new way of conceptualising the
internationalisation of quality assurance within the EHEA framework.

The majority of cross-border quality assurance procedures (64% of the total cross-border external
quality assurance activities) are carried out as voluntary/add-on activities, while mandatory external
quality assurance procedures represent 36% of such reviews carried out within the EHEA ( 57). While
there may of course be considerable value for higher education institutions and programmes to
undertake additional quality assurance procedures, this is arguably not the form of cross border quality
assurance that is most desired within the EHEA.

An array of practical impediments may also constrain the full realisation of the cross-border quality
assurance commitment. Stringent eligibility conditions may require institutions to seek approval from a
competent national body and demonstrate the benefits of foreign expertise. System level limitations
might restrict the scope of review to specific institutions or programmes. And recognition of reviews may
depend on approval (of the report and/or the decision) from a competent national body or the national
quality assurance agency.

2.3.5. The European Approach to the Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes in the EHEA
The European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes in the EHEA, adopted by ministers
in 2015, was developed to ea s e external quality a s s ura nce of thes e progra mmes . It seeks to remove
the complexities stemming from the diversity of national standards and differing accreditation processes
in European higher education. For joint programmes, different national quality assurance requirements
may create heavy administrative processes, based on varying criteria in partner countries, and
generating uncertainty. The European Approach is particularly relevant for higher education
programmes that require accreditation. For systems where there is no need for external programme
accreditation, the use the European Approach for joint programmes is still encouraged. The objective is
for the European Approach to be applied directly, circumventing the need for a variety of fragmented
quality assurance processes.

The European Approach is built on two foundational elements: a defined set of standards and a
predetermined procedure. The standards − Part 1 of the ESG − have been integrated with EHEA tools,
especially the EHEA's Qualifications Framework (QF-EHEA) and the European Credit Transfer and
Accumulation System (ECTS).

The predefined procedure is available for use by any eligible EQAR-registered quality assurance
agency, if one or more of the higher education institutions involved in the delivery of the joint programme
require external programme level accreditation. An online toolkit, available on the EQAR website, serves
as a comprehensive guide, including written explanations and step-by-step video guidelines.

(56) For more information, see EQAR’s mapping of system openness to cross-border quality assurance
https://www.eqar.eu/kb/cross-border-qa/mapping-system-openness-to-cbqa/
(57) Based on DEQAR data as of June 2023 provided by all except three EQAR-registered agencies. See also Search - EQAR

87
Despite the adoption of the European Approach by ministers in 2015, progress in implementation has
been slow. Figure 2.21 shows in which countries legislation permits higher education institutions and
programmes to make use of the European Approach.

Figure 2.21: Countries allowing the European Approach for quality assurance of joint programmes, 2022/2023

Permitted for all higher education

institutions/joint programmes
Permitted for some higher education
institutions/joint programmes

Not permitted

Source: EQAR.

In 2022/2023, seven years after the adoption of the European Approach at the EHEA ministerial
conference in Yerevan, 20 out of the 49 EHEA systems had embraced the European Approach for all
higher education institutions. This includes countries where quality assurance is largely conducted at
the institutional level (Armenia, Finland, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland).

Eleven more systems allow the European Approach to be employed, albeit only for certain institutions
or under specific conditions. For example, in Estonia, the use of the European Approach is possible if
the joint programme has previously undergone an assessment by an EQAR registered agency and the
other higher education partners have the right to provide instruction in the corresponding study
programme group and academic cycle.

In Greece, joint programmes offered by Greek higher education institutions participating within a
European University Alliance can make use of the European Approach, without any additional national
criteria. However, institutions that are not members of a European University Alliance are required to
undergo regular programme accreditation for any joint programmes they may offer.

In Georgia, the draft agreement of institutions implementing the joint higher educational programme
must be 'pre-approved’ by the national quality assurance body, who will check the content and
implementation of the joint programme, including whether the national rules for awarding a joint
academic degree and enrolment regulations are met.

In the remaining countries, the use of the European Approach cannot be used to replace compulsory
national or regional processes.

88
Figure 2.22 shows in which countries the European Approach has actually been used.

Figure 2.22: Countries using the European Approach for quality assurance of joint programmes, 2022/2023

European Approach has been used

European Approach has not been used

Source: EQAR.

Institutions within 29 EHEA member countries have successfully implemented the European Approach.
The highest number of institutions involved in European Approach evaluations can be found in France
(13) followed by Germany (12), Spain (11) and the Netherlands (6). All of these countries have
introduced a legal framework to facilitate the use of the European Approach for the external quality
assurance of joint programmes.

The European Universities initiative ( 58) has put increased focus on joint programmes, and in particular
by introducing and testing criteria for a European Degree Label with higher education institutions among
the alliances. This may lead to an increased awareness and use of the European Approach.

A total of 32 procedures using the European Approach have been completed between 2016 and 2023
according to DEQAR data. Although this is a low number, there has been an uptake in recent years.
This might be a sign that there is increasing familiarity with the procedure, and gives optimism that the
trend will increase in the coming years.

(58) For more information, see European Universities initiative | European Education Area (europa.eu)

89
2.4. Conclusions
2.4.1. Degree Structures
This section looked at the progress made in the implementation of a common degree structure and the
three transparency instruments (the Diploma Supplement, National Qualification Frameworks and the
European Credit, Transfer and Accumulation Systems). It also took stock of the programmes outside
the Bologna degree structure framework, and the percentage of students involved. Finally, it explored
the existence of training modules within higher education institutions that lead to microcredentials.

The analysis shows that there continues to be no single model of degree programme either for the first
or for the second cycle. In the majority of EHEA countries, the most common structures are those of
180 ECTS workload programmes for the first cycle and 120 ECTS credits for the second cycle. In the
first cycle, the 180 ECTS workload characterises the majority of programmes in more than half of all
EHEA countries. In the second cycle, the 120 ECTS model is present in virtually all EHEA systems. The
most common combined (first and second cycle) workload corresponds to 300 ECTS credits in around
three-quarters of all EHEA countries. In the eastern part of the EHEA, the most common workload is
often more substantial, corresponding to 360 ECTS credits. This is mainly due to a higher workload of
first-cycle programmes.

Slightly more than half of all EHEA systems offer short-cycle higher education programmes. In most
EHEA systems, integrated/long programmes which lead directly to a second cycle degree exist,
commonly justified by requirements of regulated professions.

Around one-third of EHEA systems also offer programmes outside the Bologna-degree structure, which
cannot be associated easily with the three cycle-degree-structure. These programmes claim to respond
to specific needs, often related to professional development and lifelong learning. They often aim to
develop the skills oriented towards labour market needs, and have some similarities in this respect with
programmes leading to microcredentials. Whether or not these programmes could be integrated into
Bologna degree structures (as other countries have done) cross-country readability remains a key issue
to ensure that these qualifications can be understood and used throughout the EHEA.

The results of the data analysis show that in more than half of the education systems with available data
(29 out of 48), mainly in Western Europe, higher education institutions offer learning modules or courses
that lead to microcredentials. Yet, only 10 of them place such courses in their NQFs, and even fewer
express their workload in ECTS. Despite the growing popularity of microcredentials in the EHEA, few
education systems have yet taken steps to ensure their transparency, cross-country readability and
portability. Moreover, legal frameworks regulating microcredentials reveal that the concept is not yet
understood in the same way across countries. In some education systems, microcredentials are closely
associated with lifelong learning, continuing professional development and re-skilling. While the majority
of countries have put in place enabling legal frameworks to ensure that higher education institutions
have the possibility to develop flexible modules leading to microcredentials, seven systems that report
the existence of microcredentials also report that legislation does not make provisions for them. Instead,
higher education institutions have used their autonomy to pursue their development. Further research
is needed to better understand the emerging role for microcredentials in the higher education landscape,
and to monitor the implementation of key aspects of the European Approach outlined in the 2022 Council
Recommendation.

With regard to key transparency tools, around a half of systems with available data (25 out of 48) require
external quality assurance agencies to monitor all key aspects of the implementation of ECTS during
their regular evaluation processes. All EHEA countries have introduced the Diploma Supplement, with
a large majority (39 out of 48 of the education systems with available data) fully complying to all

90
ministerial engagements (issued automatically, to all first- and second-cycle graduates, in a widely
spoken European language and free of charge). Most countries have fulfilled their commitment to
establish and use a national qualifications framework compatible with the QF-EHEA. Most education
systems (33 out of 48 the education systems with available data) have established their national
qualifications framework for higher education, self-certified them to the QF-EHEA and made them
available on public websites. In addition, in these countries, the NQF is used by national authorities for
at least one of the agreed purposes. Although good progress can be observed in the implementation of
national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) compatible with QF-EHEA, more actions are needed to fulfil
this key commitment across the EHEA in the near future.

2.4.2. Recognition
Formal compliance with the Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) is well established across the EHEA.
Significant progress can also be observed since the publication of the 2020 Bologna Implementation
report, as eight countries have recently embedded all main principles in national legislation. However,
despite the overarching legal framework established and the progress reported, many countries still
need to take action to ensure that all aspects of the convention are properly implemented in national
legislation.

Some countries report recent policy development in relation to the implementation of Article VII of the
LRC that offers refugees, displaced persons and persons in a refugee-like situation the opportunity to
have their qualifications recognised, including in cases where documents are missing. In total, 29 out of
48 education systems with available data now have a requirement in national legislation for specific
recognition procedures to be in place. Other countries claim that procedures are in place even if there
is no legal requirement for them. However, there are still five countries that have no requirement for
specific recognition procedures to be in place for refugees, displaced persons and persons in a refugee-
like situation, and this represents neglect to the implementation of an international legal commitment.

Despite the potential advantages of using the European Qualification Passport for Refugees and the
toolkit developed by ENIC-NARIC for recognition of qualifications held by refugees in cases where
documentary evidence may be lacking, few EHEA countries take advantage of these tools in practice.
Only three countries use both tools systematically, while seven countries make use of them occasionally.
In around a quarter of systems there is no information on the use of these tools.

System-level automatic recognition of qualifications and degrees for academic purposes applies in
around one-third of the education systems (19 out of 48 systems with available data). In slightly more
than one-third of the systems, automatic recognition applies to some EHEA countries, usually based on
regional, bilateral or multilateral agreements. The remaining systems still need to up their game to allow
qualitied learners automatic access to higher education in other countries.

A possible relationship can be observed between the workload of first-cycle programmes and automatic
recognition. Education systems where most of the first-degree programmes comprise 180 ECTS (see
Figure 2.1) are likely to apply automatic recognition of qualifications for academic purposes. However,
with few exceptions, education systems where the workload of most first-cycle programmes is
240 ECTS have not put in place a system to facilitate automatic recognition. More investigation would
be needed, however, to find out whether the high workload of first-cycle programmes is an obstacle to
the automatic recognition of qualifications.

2.4.3. Quality Assurance

The quality assurance section provides an overview of the evolving landscape of quality assurance, with
efforts being made to align national systems with Bologna commitments to further the trust and
transparency of European higher education.

91
The implementation of the key commitment on external quality assurance is picking up some speed.
Since the last implementation report, new countries have joined the green category, with efforts being
made in Italy, Malta, Moldova, and Slovakia to develop their national quality assurance agencies and
seek EQAR registration.

In some countries, student participation in quality assurance follows the agency’s alignment with the key
commitment, with several countries implementing measures to involve students in governance and
review processes. ENQA is playing a crucial role in supporting these efforts, as well as the
internationalisation goals of quality assurance agencies. This is particularly important at a time of
challenges to internationalisation in the post pandemic context.

Cross-border quality assurance remains an area of considerable variation, notably in the eligibility
conditions and requirements set in countries. While activities have increased in number, which is a sign
of progress, many institutions lack the option for the cross-border external evaluation to be recognised
in their own higher education system.

The use of European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes has increased in recent
years, albeit from a very low starting point. However various national regulations continue to hinder its
widespread adoption, with only 20 out of 49 EHEA systems fully embracing it.

92
CHAPTER 3: FUNDAMENTAL VALUES

The 2020 Rome Communiqué

‘The EHEA of our vision will fully respect the fundamental values of higher education and democracy
and the rule of law.’ (Rome Communiqué 2020, p. 4)

Even if fundamental values have been present from the beginning of the Bologna Process as an
underlying framework for the development of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), the Rome
Communiqué has for the first time specifically put forward the respect of fundamental values as the key
element of the EHEA vision and made certain that they are perceived as universal, even if not absolute,
values. Hand in hand with democracy and rule of law, fundamental values depict the European society
we wish to live in – a society that is embedded in creativity, critical thinking, and free circulation of
knowledge; and the opportunities offered by technological development for research-based learning and
teaching.

The Ministers have asked the Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG) to develop a framework for the
enhancement of the fundamental values of the EHEA ‘that will foster self-reflection, constructive
dialogue and peer-learning across national authorities, higher education institutions and organisations,
while also making it possible to assess the degree to which these are honoured and implemented in our
systems’ (Rome Communiqué 2020, p. 5). The Council of Europe’s Platform on Ethics, Transparency
and Integrity in Education (ETINED) was also noted for its possibility for all EHEA members, consultative
members and partners to cooperate to reach this goal.

Since 2020, the BFUG has overseen work to develop statements that ensure the common
understanding and shared definitions of the fundamental values, as well as the first stages of developing
an EHEA monitoring framework on implementation of fundamental values.

Chapter Outline
This chapter focuses on the presentation of the current state of affairs, regarding the six identified
fundamental values of the European Higher Education Area. It starts by recalling the commitments from
the Rome Communiqué, with references to fundamental values that have already appeared in previous
Communiqués.

The first value addressed is academic freedom, the only fundamental value for which the EHEA has
already adopted a definition and an accompanying statement in 2020.

This is followed by the fundamental values whose definitions and statements of common understanding
are currently in the development phase: academic integrity; institutional autonomy; and student and staff
participation in higher education governance. The section relating to the evaluation of the two
fundamental values of public responsibility for and of higher education is not based on data collected
through a specific part of the BFUG questionnaire, as the values themselves are too broad to be
captured in specific indicators. The section rather represents a reflection on future avenues for
monitoring and evaluation in a synthetic manner.

It is important to keep in mind that this chapter provides only an initial glimpse into the protection and
promotion of fundamental values within the EHEA. More fully developed definitions should be adopted
at the Ministerial meeting in Tirana in May 2024 and the aim is for a monitoring mechanism to be put
into place in the forthcoming years. As the policy framework further advances, the future versions of this
report will be more elaborate and detailed.

93
Introduction
Fundamental values have been at the core of the EHEA since the very beginning of the Bologna
Process. These values were initially assumed to be commonly understood and respected, and it seemed
as if there were no need for clear definitions or evaluation frameworks to ensure that they were
respected. Fundamental values moved more explicitly into policy discussions in the years prior to the
2015 Ministerial Conference. The Yerevan Communiqué (2015) presented a commitment to ‘support
and protect students and staff in exercising their right to academic freedom and ensure their
representation as full partners in the governance of autonomous higher education institutions’ (Yerevan
Communiqué 2015, p. 2). The commitment was repeated in the Paris Communiqué (2018) where the
values were identified as follows: academic freedom and integrity, institutional autonomy, participation
of students and staff in higher education governance, and public responsibility for and of higher
education; committing to promoting and protecting them through intensified political dialogue and
cooperation (Paris Communiqué 2018, p. 1).

Following the Rome Communiqué and the Statement on Academic Freedom adopted in 2020, this report
is the first attempt within the EHEA framework to investigate the protection and promotion of all
fundamental values. However, this exercise is necessarily limited. With neither adopted definitions of
the fundamental values, nor a monitoring framework, the methodological approach has focused almost
exclusively on data provided by the EHEA member states and concentrates on how values are
referenced in legislation and policy documentation. The analysis herewith is based on the BFUG data
collection unless explicitly stated otherwise.

The data collection privileged de jure aspects of the protection and promotion of fundamental values,
and it is understood that the picture can be only partial until de facto elements are also considered.
Additional reports and data provided by nongovernmental organisations and various stakeholders,
especially on academic freedom, can enrich the findings. As the report is also limited in volume, data
cannot be presented in a comprehensive manner, and it is strongly recommended to look further into
the references for further reading. Furthermore, it is important to underline that this report does not claim
that the data provided corresponds to the full scope of the EHEA understanding of fundamental values
currently being prepared for adoption at the Tirana Ministerial Conference, and nor does it advocate for
any specific definition. For each value presented only central concepts have been considered, and there
remain more elements to take into account in the future.

As the statement on academic freedom argues, academic freedom is deeply interconnected with all
other fundamental values. This principle applies to all the fundamental values. Thus any monitoring and
evaluation approach must necessarily be holistic − recognising the interdependence between the values
as a whole, as well as between each of them. This report can similarly only be understood as a whole,
and not as a set of separate elements. Most importantly, the values need not only to be protected, but
also promoted which demands an active engagement by all relevant stakeholders. Each of the sections
attempts to identify both elements.

It is important to take note of the developments under the auspices of the BFUG regarding the
fundamental values. The BFUG Working Group on Fundamental Values, continuing the work
undertaken by the Task Force on Fundamental Values between 2018-2020, has prepared statements
on academic integrity, institutional autonomy, student and staff participation in higher education
governance and public responsibility of and for higher education to be submitted for adoption at the
ministerial conference in Tirana, May 2024. The working group through its activities has also
encouraged peer learning and exchange of data and research on fundamental values in the EHEA and
as such has advanced the goals set in 2020.

Within the framework of the EU-funded project ‘New building blocks of the Bologna Process:
fundamental values’ (NewFAV) coordinated by the Executive Unit for the Financing of Higher Education,

94
Research, Development and Innovation (UEFISCDI) of the Republic of Romania, in partnership with the
Ministry of Education and Research of Norway, running from 2022 to 2024, further advancement on the
development of a monitoring framework for future reporting and indicators on de jure and de facto
implementation of fundamental values has taken place, including Peer Learning Activities (PLA) for all
fundamental values. The NewFAV project team has produced two reports: ‘Measuring fundamental
values: indicators, tools and initiatives. A Mapping Report’ (Matei et al., 2022) and ‘Assessment Report’
(Craciun et al., 2023). The reports concluded that the numerous existing indicators, tools and attempts
at measuring fundamental values in higher education differ in nature, scope and usefulness and that
none of them would be fully sufficient and appropriate for the needs of the EHEA. The project team
proposed a Technical Monitoring Framework of Indicators (Craciun et al., 2023), together with a Piloting
Methodology, and the final proposal will be based on the frameworks as shown in the following tables.

Table 1: Monitoring framework for rights/freedoms values

VALUES
TYPE OF MONITORING
Rights/Freedoms
De jure
Protection (adequate, intermediary, Outlook
inadequate) (negative, Participation
Promotion unchanged, of students
(absent, limited, significant) ( 1) positive) Academic Institutional
and staff in
freedom autonomy
De facto university
Infringements governance
Threats
Positive developments
Source: NewFAV project.

Table 2: Monitoring framework for obligations/duties values

VALUES
TYPE OF MONITORING
Obligations/Duties
De jure
Protection (adequate, Outlook
intermediary, inadequate) (negative,
Promotion unchanged, Public Public
(absent, limited, significant) (1) positive) Academic responsibility responsibility
integrity for higher of higher
De facto
education education
Degree of fulfilment
Threats
Positive developments
Source: NewFAV project.

The European Universities Association’s Autonomy Scorecard has been identified as the only existing
tool that fully complies with the proposed EHEA definition of institutional autonomy. However, from the
perspective of the proposed Technical Framework, it is missing data on infringements and partially on
threats, for the needs of de facto monitoring. It also only partially covers the promotion of commitments
(Craciun et al., 2023).

Through cooperation between the Council of Europe (CoE) and the Global Observatory on Academic
Freedom (GOAF), a working report was prepared with the aim of assessing the linkages between quality
assurance mechanisms and monitoring of fundamental values. Unfortunately, only 17 responses were

(1) Promotion of fundamental values will also include significant elements of de facto monitoring.

95
obtained from the 50 EQAR registered agencies addressed in the study, and only preliminary findings
could be made. Among the responses, the majority reported that inclusion of fundamental values into
quality assurance processes should be led in the EHEA through inclusion in the Standards and
Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG), and subsequently in
national policies. The agencies themselves should not take a lead in introducing fundamental values to
quality assurance processes.

The current version of the ESG acknowledges that institutional quality assurance policy is most effective
when it supports ‘academic integrity and freedom and is vigilant against academic fraud’ (ESG 2015,
p. 11); and requires the participation of staff and students in quality assurance. However, quality
assurance mechanisms and procedures have not been developed with fundamental values as priority
objectives; hence quality assurance systems cannot currently be relied upon as a source of effective
monitoring information.

As the work within the BFUG on the development of a technical monitoring framework on de jure and
de facto implementation and promotion of fundamental values continues, the hope is that this chapter
will also contribute to its successful realisation.

3.1. Academic freedom

In Rome 2020 the ministers of higher education in the EHEA adopted a statement outlining an agreed
common understanding of academic freedom (Rome Communiqué 2020, Annex I). Academic freedom
is defined as ‘freedom of academic staff and students to engage in research, teaching, learning and
communication in and with society without interference nor fear of reprisal’. Academic freedom is
considered as ‘an indispensable aspect of quality learning, teaching and research’ and ‘a necessary
condition for higher education institutions to produce and transmit knowledge as a public good for the
benefit of society’. It encompasses freedom of thought and inquiry, freedom to exchange openly,
freedom to communicate the results of research, freedom to teach, freedom to research and freedom
to learn (even if subject to administrative procedures and societal dialogue). However, it is framed by
rigorous scientific and professional standards, respect for the rights of others, ethical conduct and the
awareness of the impact of research on humans and their environment, and yet inseparable from
security of employment for academic staff.

Various mapping exercises at global level have tried to identify if the concept of academic freedom is
specifically mentioned in legislative frameworks. Among the most recent and significant of these are the
Global Mapping of Regulatory Frameworks ( 2) (2023), of the Global Observatory on Academic Freedom
(GOAF), or Academic Freedom in Constitutions Dataset (1789-2022) (Spannagel, 2023). The European
University Association (EUA) 2023 edition of the Autonomy Scorecard included a report on ‘Academic
freedom in national legislation’ based on the data provided by the EUA’s collective members (national
rectors’ conferences). All of these sources represent an important contribution to the data presented in
this report. The results of these research efforts show considerable diversity in the exact formulations
and wordings of academic freedom across the globe, sometimes mentioning only ‘freedom of science’
or ‘freedom of research’, ‘freedom of science and education’ or ‘freedom of scientific creativity’, and
illustrate the various ways in which academic freedom may appear in legislative frameworks.

(2) https://elkana.ceu.edu/global-mapping-regulatory-frameworks

96
The Academic Freedom Index ( 3) providing data as recently as December 2022 gives an insight into the
state of affairs for 179 countries and territories worldwide. It concludes that academic freedom is in
decline for over 50% of the world’s population, and stagnating in the majority of the countries.
Nevertheless, the EHEA countries in most cases remain in the top tiers of the Index with only
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, Hungary, Türkiye and Azerbaijan in the bottom 50% (AFI 2023, p. 3). This algns
with the 2018 Bologna Process Implementation Report which highlighted problematic cases in Hungary,
Russia and Türkiye, together with Belarus (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2018 and
Petrikowski and Becina, 2018).

The adoption of the Bonn Declaration (2020) within the European Research Area enhanced the
increased concern for protecting and promoting freedom of scientific research, and complemented the
work pursued in the EHEA context. The European Parliament’s President Roberta Metsola also
launched a new European Parliament Science and Technology Options Assessment (STOA) initiative
‘The European Parliament Forum for Academic Freedom’ in 2022, urged by the findings of the report
‘State of play of academic freedom in the EU member states: Overview of de facto trends and
developments’ (Maassen et al., 2023). This report claimed that only in one EU member state, Hungary,
structural de facto violations are taking place while in other EU member states there are individual threat
incidents but no structural infringements.

Under the European strategy for universities there is also a concrete action to produce guiding principles
on protecting fundamental academic values. This work is being based on the work of the EHEA and in
synergy with on-going work under the European Research Area to protect the freedom of scientific
research.

The European Students’ Union (ESU) has raised serious concerns about the patterns of student
repression in countries like Belarus, Russia, Türkiye and Hungary, and has launched important
initiatives ( 4) for awareness-raising on academic freedom, institutional autonomy and academic integrity
among students. A survey conducted by ESU ‘Survey on Academic Freedom, Institutional Autonomy
and Academic Integrity’ (2023), where the majority of responses came from Hungary, Austria, Romania,
France and the Czechia, concluded that small numbers of students feel pressured about their study
choices, with significant numbers reporting that they have self-censored in fear of consequences from
their higher education institutions if they expressed some of their personal beliefs.

It is also important to keep in mind that different instruments may take different perspectives, such as
de facto or de jure, and produce different results: for example legal protection of academic freedom has
in some studies been lowly ranked in Estonia, Malta, Slovenia or Sweden (Beiter et al., 2016), while in
the Academic Freedom Index these were all considered among the countries with the highest level of
academic freedom (Kováts and Rónay, 2023).

Based on the data provided by member states for this report, the majority of EHEA countries has the
concept of academic freedom specifically mentioned in legislation. The only exceptions are: Belgium
(Flemish Community), Estonia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Malta, and San Marino. All other countries have
the concept mentioned either in the constitution or constitution-level regulations; in education or higher
education legislation or in other legislation, as shown in the map below – Figure 3.1.

Inclusion of the concept of academic freedom in the legislative framework does not mean that the
formulation is in accordance with the EHEA definition. Neither does it follow that a country which does
not mention academic freedom is necessarily worse in terms of protection and promotion from a de facto
perspective.

(3) https://academic-freedom-index.net/
()
4
https://esu-online.org/projects/academic-freedom/

97
Figure 3.1: Concept of academic freedom in national legislation, 2022/2023

In the constitution

In education or higher education

legislation

In other legislation

Not mentioned in legislation

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Out of the countries which include the concept of academic freedom in their legislative frameworks,
around half of them define it ( 5). There are quite diverse approaches to defining academic freedom,
resulting in considerable variation in definitions, as well as important differences regarding the
categories of the academic community that are covered by the concept (e.g. academic freedom may be
considered more in relation to academic staff than to students). At this stage it is not known whether or
how countries plan to align their definitions of academic freedom with the EHEA definition.

Some of the current definitions already encompass all the crucial elements, and some even go beyond.
In Czechia, for example, participation of staff in governance is considered a constitutive element of
academic freedom:

‘The following academic freedoms and rights are guaranteed at the university:
1. Freedom of science, research and artistic creation and the publication of their results;
2. Freedom of teaching, consisting in particular in its openness to different scientific views,
scientific and research methods and artistic trends;
3. The right to learn, including the freedom to choose the focus of study within study programmes
and the freedom to express one's own views in teaching;
4. The right of members of the academic community to elect representative academic bodies;
5. The right to use academic insignia and to hold academic ceremonies”( 6)’.

However, some national definitions remain limited. For example, in Azerbaijan the law focuses on
freedom to teach and freedom to research but does not mention freedom to learn nor to exchange
openly or communicate results of research ( 7). In Switzerland legislation guarantees only the freedom

(5) The countries which define the concept are: Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Czechia, Germany, Greece, France,
Croatia, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia,
Türkiye, Ukraine, UK EWNI, UK Scotland, and Holy See.
(6) https://www.msmt.cz/file/43791_1_2/
()
7
Law on Education, provision 33.2., https://e-qanun.az/framework/18343

98
of research and the freedom to teach, except for the Federal Institutes of Technology which are also
granted freedom of learning ( 8).

In Greece, academic freedom applies only within the university premises ( 9), and the wording of the law
in Romania seems to indicate the same (Education Law 1/2011, Article 304(3)) ( 10). While indeed
campus integrity and the sanctity of academic freedom within the university premises are of utmost
importance for both academic freedom, and student and staff participation in higher education
governance, limiting academic freedom to particular geographical settings does not ensure the right to
communication in and with society. Such definitions therefore reflect a narrower vision of academic
freedom than the one adopted within the EHEA.

Academic freedom cannot be understood as a concept with no boundaries. In Germany, while

proclaiming the freedoms, it is stated in Article 5(3) of the Grundgesetz (constitution) that ‘The freedom
of teaching shall not release any person from allegiance to the constitution’ making sure that academic
freedom is not understood in absolute terms and is limited by provisions or laws related to defamation,
hate speech, or national security ( 11). In Türkiye academic freedom does not include ‘the liberty to
engage in activities against the existence and independence of the State, and against the integrity and
indivisibility of the nation and the country’ (Article 130 of the Constitution).

Importantly, academic freedom cannot exist without the right for staff and students to express critical
reflections on the university system(s) and higher education institutions themselves. In Croatia, the Act
on Higher Education and Scientific Activity (2022) includes in Article 3 the ‘freedom of expressing
opinions about the system and institution in which they operate, the right to mutual cooperation and
association, and the right to participate directly and indirectly in collegial management bodies and
professional bodies of institutions in the system of higher education, scientific and artistic activities’ ( 12).

Iceland is the only country making a reference to the exercise of academic freedom to teach regardless
of the ownership of the higher education institution: ‘The choice of research and teaching subjects in
individual academic disciplines pursued at a higher education institution shall be free of the influence of
the owners and financial backers of the institution’ ( 13), and Luxembourg specifically identifies possible
influences as ‘political, economic, religious or ideological’ ( 14). Freedom to learn, formulated as ‘freedom
of studies’ is explicitly set out and defined in Latvia (Law on Higher Education Institutions, Article 6) ( 15)
and also in North Macedonia (Law on Higher Education, Article 8).

The majority of the countries stated that academic freedom is indeed defined as a right, and not only a
value. However, in the absence of any common definition of ‘a right’, it remains to be more fully evaluated
in future monitoring exercises whether countries’ definitions accord with the EHEA understanding.

Requirements for an external body to evaluate the exercise of academic freedom in higher education
institutions seem to be in place in slightly less than half of the EHEA countries, as shown in the map

(8) Federal Constitution Art. 20: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1999/404/en#art_20 ;

Higher Education Act Art. 5: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2014/691/en#art_5 ;
ETH Act Art. 5: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/210_210_210/en#art_5
(9) Law 4957/2022, art. 4.
( )
10
https://legislatie.just.ro/Public/DetaliiDocument/125150
( )
11
Artikel 5 Absatz 3 Grundgesetz: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_5.html and https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/hrg/__4.html
(12) https://www.sabor.hr/hr/o-saboru/vazniji-propisi/ustav-republike-hrvatske-narodne-novine-broj-561990-1351997-81998-
1132000 27/04/2023; https://narodne-novine.nn.hr/clanci/sluzbeni/2022_10_119_1834.html
(13) https://www.government.is/publications/legislation/lex/2017/11/22/Higher-Education-Act-No-63-2006/
( )
14
https://www.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2018/06/27/a587/jo#art_19;
https://www.legilux.public.lu/eli/etat/leg/loi/2018/06/27/a587/jo#art_1er
(15) https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/)legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.343430

99
below (Figure 3.2). When asked if there are any requirements for an external body to evaluate how the
exercise of academic freedom is ensured in higher education institutions, countries indicate external
quality assurance agencies as the bodies bearing this responsibility, with only Azerbaijan having another
public agency −the Higher Attestation Commission − dealing with the task.

How and to what extent quality assurance processes integrate the evaluation of values depends on
many features of the national context. It is, however, a significant finding that countries identify quality
assurance agencies as the body where such work is taking place. The relationship of quality assurance
and fundamental values is therefore important to consider throughout the EHEA. It is highly relevant to
note that any promotion or protection mechanisms of academic freedom would need to include all the
academic community, including students and staff, beyond the higher education institutions’ governing
and management bodies or state representatives.

Figure 3.2: Requirements for evaluation of academic freedom in higher education institutions, 2022/2023

Required by legislation

Not required in legislation

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Promotion of academic freedom

Looking into the support and promotion mechanisms, only about a fifth of the EHEA countries ( 16) have
developed guidelines and other mechanisms to support the exercise of academic freedom. While some
confusion among the specificity of guidelines for academic freedom and guidelines for academic integrity
appears in questionnaire replies, most countries did not report any top-level actions to support and
enhance academic freedom. Among the exceptions, particular reports have been identified, notably in
Sweden where a special report on promotion and protection of academic freedom by higher education
institutions by the Swedish Higher Education Authority (UKÄ) is expected to be published in spring 2024;
and in Norway, where a report on ‘Academic freedom of expression’ was published on 21 March
2022 ( 17).

(16) Countries that have developed guidelines and other mechanisms to support the exercise of academic freedom: Switzerland,
Germany, Georgia, Italy, Kazakhstan, Norway, Poland, Sweden, Türkiye, and UK (EWN).
(17) Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, Official Norwegian Reports NOU 2022:2, ‘Academic Freedom of
Expression’, Accessible at: https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/ec388f0a1dcc4a628fda2fe95e5ddba7/en-
gb/pdfs/nou202220220002000engpdfs.pdf

100
3.2. Academic integrity
Academic integrity is a fundamental value that has been coupled with academic freedom in EHEA
communiqués, yet in reality remains a distinct value. While a statement to develop a common
understanding of academic integrity is being developed within the EHEA, it is clear that the concept
builds on elements such as honesty, transparency, fairness, trust, responsibility, respect and courage.

Academic integrity is clearly linked to academic freedom – a concept that comprises the responsibility
for members of the academic community to act with integrity. Without rigorous adherence to research
ethics and academic integrity, it would be impossible to establish much needed trust in science and
education within our societies, and between diverse higher education systems. These principles need
to be shared by the whole academic community, encouraging collegiality and solidarity. Academic
integrity today is endangered by new challenges such as the development of artificial intelligence, and
old challenges including cheating, misconduct, and corruption. Academic integrity also remains
inseparable from, and interdependent on, the other fundamental values.

Efforts to develop better systems of student information have been taken forward through initiatives such
as the ‘FraudS+ project – False Records, Altered Diploma and Diploma Mills Qualifications
Collection’ ( 18). The project builds on the FraudSCAN database ( 19), a tool that collects the scanned
copies of fraudulent qualifications and qualifications issued by Diploma Mills. The database provides
credential evaluators with a useful tool to carry out assessments and to prevent the circulation and the
use of fraudulent qualifications, building on the expertise and experience of colleagues from ENIC-
NARIC centres. It is accessible to staff of the ENIC-NARIC centres only.

Another important effort is being undertaken by the European Network for Academic Integrity
(ENAI) ( 20), an association gathering higher education institutions and individual academics interested
in maintaining and promoting academic integrity. They provide several free resources, including a
glossary on academic integrity and a database of educational materials, as well as a victim support
portal.

In an ESU survey in 2020, the majority of students reported that they are not aware either of their options
in cases of academic misconduct, nor of their rights. Even if students do not have sufficient information
on possible mechanisms to combat academic misconduct, in the majority of the EHEA member states,
academic integrity is specifically mentioned in legislation and most notably, in (higher) education
legislation, as depicted in Figure 3.3 below.

(18) Co-financed in the framework of Erasmus+ programme of the European Union with project partners: ESU and ENIC-NARIC
centers - CIMEA (Italy), Éducation International (France), Ständige Konferenz der Kultusminister der Länder in der
Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Germany), Quality and Qualifications Ireland, Nuffic (the Netherlands), and Swedish Council
for Higher Education.
(19) http://fraudscan.cimea.it/
( )
20
https://www.academicintegrity.eu/wp/

101
Figure 3.3: Concept of academic integrity in national legislation, 2022/2023

In higher education legislation

In other legislation

Not mentioned in legislation

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

In countries in which academic integrity is mentioned in legislation other than higher education
legislation, this mostly refers to legislation regarding property rights and copyright laws, as in the case
of Azerbaijan or Spain, where both higher education and other legislation refer to academic integrity.
However, the topic of academic integrity including issues like plagiarism, fraud and contract cheating
have been gaining traction in most EHEA countries. To date, however, Montenegro is the only country
that has adopted a specific Law on Academic Integrity ( 21), which it did in 2019.

Among the countries which mention academic integrity in legislation, it is defined in only one fifth. As
much as these definitions diverge in volume and complexity, they all encompass issues of plagiarism
and research misconduct. In some cases, like in Estonia and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and
Northern Ireland), they focus more narrowly on student practices. France has one of the more
comprehensive definitions and legislative frameworks, as a whole decree is dedicated to academic
integrity in which the concept is defined as ‘the set of rules and values that should govern research
activities to ensure that they are honest and scientifically rigorous’ ( 22). Another example of a
comprehensive definition comes from Latvia where academic integrity is understood as ‘performing
academic work in accordance with the highest standards of professionalism and precision, objectivity,
and veracity, principles of morality and ethics, and honesty, including the prevention of plagiarism, the
provision of true information and precision in academic publications, and communication and publicity
measures that constitute an image of the academic environment’ ( 23).

(21) Zakon o akademskom integritetu 2019, Republika Crna Gora. Available at: https://www.gov.me/dokumenta/5825374f-0da5-
41df-8d52-f9273d88a44b
(22) Décret n° 2021-1572 du 3 décembre 2021 relatif au respect des exigences de l'intégrité scientifique par les établissements
publics contribuant au service public de la recherche et les fondations reconnues d'utilité publique ayant pour activité
principale la recherche publique. Available at: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000044411360
(23) Ministru kabineta noteikumi Nr. 26, Rīgā 2018. gada 9. janvārī (prot. Nr. 2 23. §), Darbības programmas "Izaugsme un
nodarbinātība" 8.2.3. specifiskā atbalsta mērķa "Nodrošināt labāku pārvaldību augstākās izglītības institūcijās" pirmās un
otrās projektu iesniegumu atlases kārtas īstenošanas noteikumi. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/id/296514-darbibas-
programmas-izaugsme-un-nodarbinatiba-8-2-3-nbspspecifiska-atbalsta-merka-nodrosinat-labaku-parvaldibu-
augstakas%20(point%202.1

102
While in most countries, responsibility for compliance with academic integrity lies with individual
academics − staff or students − higher education institutions are sometimes held responsible for
oversight and monitoring. This is the case in Sweden, for example, where higher education institutions
are required to ensure that “good research practices”, as they are called, are in place ( 24).

In the case of the only EHEA country with a specific law on academic integrity, Montenegro, the definition
understands integrity as academic behaviour in line with the principles of academic integrity, respect for
legal regulations and aiming at truth. Beyond that, it outlines that it is behaviour ‘ensuring preservation
of academic honour, professional dignity, quality of work and work results, spirit of equal cooperation
with all participants of the academic process’ ( 25).

Even if academic integrity is not defined in most of the EHEA countries, it seems to be clear what
constitutes its breach. Academic fraud is most often considered a punishable offence in administrative
terms. Only when it is combined with criminal offences does it become a punishable crime. When the
acts in question remain within the scope of administrative offences, perpetrators can most usually face
exclusion from studies or the working place; annulment of their degrees/diplomas/grades; and retraction
of scientific works from being published.

About half of the countries have requirements for an external body to evaluate the exercise of academic
integrity in higher education institutions - see Figure 3.4 below. Out of those, the majority indicates the
external quality assurance agency as the responsible body. Another public agency or body was
indicated only in the cases of Azerbaijan, Finland, Poland, Romania, Sweden and Türkiye. In Sweden,
this is a recent development, as the Swedish National Board for Assessment of Research Misconduct
(NPOF) was established only in 2020 as a central governmental agency, subordinate to the Ministry of
Education and Research, with the task of investigating if any misconduct has taken place, based on the
2019 law on responsibility for good research practice.

Figure 3.4: Legislative requirement to evaluate academic integrity, 2022/2023

Required by legislation

No legislative requirement

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

(24) Lag (2019:504) om ansvar för god forskningssed och prövning av oredlighet i forskning. Available at:
https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/lag-2019504-om-ansvar-for-god-
forskningssed_sfs-2019-504
(25) Zakon o akademskom integritetu 2019, Republika Crna Gora. Available at: https://www.gov.me/dokumenta/5825374f-0da5-
41df-8d52-f9273d88a44b

103
Beyond evaluation, for successful monitoring and evaluation of academic integrity, transparency plays
an important role. However, an overwhelming number of countries do not collect data on academic
misconduct in higher education institutions, and among those that do, this data is not publicly available
in many − see Figure 3.5 below. In the countries where data is publicly available, independent bodies
are often charged with data collection and analysis. For example, in Finland, the National Board on
Research Integrity (TENK) monitors responsible conduct of research and compiles statistics on
violations which are then published in annual reports beginning in 2002 (also in English) ( 26). In
Denmark, annual reviews are published on the site of the Danish Board on Research Misconduct (only
in Danish) ( 27).

Figure 3.5: Data collection on academic misconduct, 2022/2023

Information is collected
and is publicly available
Information is collected
but is not publicly available

No information is collected

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Promotion of academic integrity

Top-level authorities require higher education institutions to offer training to staff and/or students on how
to identify and reduce plagiarism, contract cheating and/or academic fraud in approximately a third of
EHEA countries ( 28). However, data collected for ESU’s 2024 edition of Bologna With Student Eyes,
suggests that in only a handful of countries such training is systematically taking place in higher
education institutions, while it often takes place in around half of the countries.

According to the responses to the BFUG data collection, Austria, Moldova, Malta and Romania require
training only for students and on all three above mentioned topics, while other countries require training
for both students and staff on all or some topics. Contract cheating seems to be the least offered and
the least demanded training topic.

(26) https://tenk.fi/en/tenk/annual-reports
(27) https://ufm.dk/forskning-og-innovation/rad-og-udvalg/Naevnet-for-Videnskabelig-Uredelighedelighed
( )
28
Top-level authorities require higher education institutions to offer training to staff and/or students on plagiarism, contract
cheating and/or academic fraud in: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Ireland, Iceland, Kazakhstan,
Latvia, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Romania and Türkiye.

104
A little over half of the countries report that top-level authorities have developed guidelines for higher
education institutions and/or other mechanisms to support higher education institutions with issues such
as plagiarism, contract cheating and fraud. Both in guidelines and other mechanisms, the topic of
plagiarism seems to have received the most attention. However, the ‘Survey on Academic Freedom,
Institutional Autonomy and Academic Integrity’ by the European Students Union (ESU) (European
Students Union 2023) with responses predominantly from Hungary, Austria, Romania, France and
Czechia, claims that in almost a quarter of higher education institutions the mechanisms do not exist.

Among the various other mechanisms top-level authorities have implemented, the Czech ministry,
through the Centralized Development Project, has supported joint projects of public universities which
focused on topics such as cyber security, strengthening of ethical principles, or supporting the
development of internal review boards. Denmark has adopted the Danish Code of Conduct for Research
Integrity ( 29), similar to the Charter of Scientific Integrity ( 30) in France supported by the Office for
Scientific Integrity, and the Code of conduct for scientific integrity ( 31) in Switzerland. In Ukraine
extensive recommendations on academic integrity and plagiarism have been adopted ( 32); and in
Montenegro, in addition to the special law, in June 2021, the Ethics Committee adopted an Ethics
charter ( 33) which defines guidelines and principles for respect and preservation of academic integrity,
aimed at the whole academic community.

Without academic freedom and academic integrity, the creation of knowledge within the collegial
relationships of the academic community would be difficult to imagine. But for an academic community
to flourish, it is absolutely necessary that it organises on the basis of institutional autonomy.

3.3. Institutional autonomy

Institutional autonomy is generally considered as a precondition for academic freedom (Popovic et al.,
2022) and a prerequisite for universities to develop their institutional profiles and fulfil their missions.
Beyond that, institutional autonomy is a significant element of the public responsibility for higher
education as a primary aspect of public authorities’ responsibility is to protect higher education
institutions from any undue interference. Last but not least is the understanding that the principle of self-
governance demands strong participation of staff and students, a fundamental value on its own. All the
while, higher education institutions remain accountable to society in the exercise of their autonomy - an
element of the value of public responsibility of higher education. Recognised in the Magna Charta
Universitatum (1998/2020), and in the Council of Europe’s Recommendation on public responsibility for
academic freedom and institutional autonomy (2012), institutional autonomy should encompass the
autonomy of teaching and research (academic autonomy), as well as financial, organisational, and
staffing autonomy.

As previously outlined, the data collected for this report are limited. The focus is largely on the
composition of governing bodies (organisational), which does not in any way imply that other aspects of
institutional autonomy are less important.

(29) https://ufm.dk/en/publications/2014/files-2014-1/the-danish-code-of-conduct-for-research-integrity.pdf
(30) https://www.hceres.fr/fr/CharteFrancaiseIntegriteScientifique
( )
31
https://www.swissuniversities.ch/fileadmin/swissuniversities/Dokumente/Forschung/Kodex_Layout_en_Web.pdf
( )
32
Recommendations on academic integrity for HEI 2017, https://zakononline.com.ua/documents/show/124272___124272;
MESU letter regarding academic plagiarism 2018 https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/akredytatsiya/instrukt-list/1-11-
8681-vid-15082018-rekomendatsii-shchodo-zapobigannya-akademichnomu-plagiatu.pdf; MESU letters regarding
academic integrity 2017 https://mon.gov.ua/storage/app/media/npa/5a1fe9d9b7112.pdf, 2020
https://mon.gov.ua/ua/npa/do-pitannya-uniknennya-problem-i-pomilok-u-praktikah-zabezpechennya-akademichnoyi-
dobrochesnosti
(33) Etička povelja 2021, Republika Crna Gora. Available at: http://etickikomitet.edu.me/post/139

105
The European University Association’s Autonomy Scorecard 2023 ( 34) looked into 35 higher education
systems in Europe, and provided detailed information on organisational, financial, staffing and academic
autonomy. There are certainly different approaches to reflecting on these dimensions of institutional
autonomy, and their relationship with other fundamental values could sometimes be in tension. For
example, while tenure is highly beneficial, and may even be considered a prerequisite for academic
freedom, it could also be considered as lowering institutions’ staffing autonomy. These relationships
must be kept in mind in the attempts to evaluate and monitor fundamental values from a holistic
perspective.

Table 3 presents the changes in institutional autonomy across the four different dimensions of autonomy
examined in the EUA report.

Table 3: System changes across autonomy dimensions

Autonomy
Increased Decreased Stable
dimension
AT, BE fr, BE nl, CH, CY, CZ, DE-bb, DE-he, DE-nrw,
Organisational EL, IE, LU, LV, NL, PL, SK 7 DK, EE, SI 3 22
ES, FI, FR, HR, IS, IT, LT, NO, PT, RS, SE, TR, UK-ENG
BE fr, BE nl, CH, CY, DE-bb, DE-he, DE-nrw, DK, EE, EL,
Financial CZ, PL 2 AT, LU, NL, NO, SK, TR 6 24
ES, FI, FR, HR, IE, IS, IT, LT, LV, PT, RS, SE, SI, UK-ENG
BE fr, BE nl, CH, CZ, CY, DE-bb, DE-he, DE-nrw, DK, EE,
Staffing AT, FR, IE, LU, NL, PL, SI 7 HR, SK 2 23
EL, ES, FI, IS, IT, LT, LV, NO, PT, RS, SE, TR, UK-ENG
BE fr, CH, CY, DE-bb, DE-he, DE-nrw, ES, FI, HR, IE,
Academic AT, BE nl, CZ, EL, FR, LT, LV 7 DK, EE, 2 23
IS, IT, LU, NL, NO, PL, PT, RS, SE, SI, SK, TR, UK-ENG
Source: EUA Autonomy Scorecard 2023.
Notes:
Three German higher education regional systems are included in the EUA project: DE bb Brandenburg; DE-he Hessen; DE-nrw
North Rhine Westphalia.

The EUA data shows that the situation remains stable in most of the researched countries across these
four autonomy dimensions. Decreased autonomy has been identified only in a small number of cases −
Denmark, Estonia and Slovakia declining in more than one dimension. Increased autonomy across more
than one dimension has been noted in eight countries: Austria, Czechia, France, Greece, Ireland,
Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Poland.

In almost all EHEA countries, the concept of institutional autonomy has specifically been mentioned in
legislation, as shown below in Figure 3.6, The exceptions are only Belgium (Flemish Community),
Greece, Malta, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland).
However, although institutional autonomy is not mentioned in Greek legislation, the related concept of
self-governance is mentioned both in the Greek Constitution (art. 16) and in the higher education law
4957/2022, art. 3, par. 1.

(34) https://eua.eu/resources/publications/1061:university-autonomy-in-europe-iv-the-scorecard-2023.html

106
Figure 3.6: Institutional autonomy in national legislation, 2022/2023

In the Constitution

In education or higher education

legislation

In other legislation

Not mentioned in legislation

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Out of the countries that mention the concept, the majority also defines it. In most of these cases simple
definitions are provided: stating higher education institutions’ independence from executive public
authorities, political or other external influences, while remaining bound by the constitutional and legal
order of the country in question. Within the definition of institutional autonomy four countries − Bulgaria,
Croatia, North Macedonia, and Slovakia − specifically include campus integrity, which means that state
security officials, such as police or army, are not allowed onto campus without an explicit request from
the higher education institution’s leader.

In Romania, university autonomy is exercised only under the condition of higher education institutions
assuming public responsibility. In Armenia, principles of self-management and collegiality are
highlighted, staffing autonomy is directly proclaimed, as is autonomy in student recruitment, self-
governance, teaching, financial matters (except for tuition fees determined for certain categories of
students), and organisational autonomy. In Czechia, autonomy is elaborated through specific bullet
points, encompassing internal organisation; admission procedures; programmes’ design; quality
assurance; staffing autonomy; international cooperation and financial autonomy.

Such extensive definitions are also noted in the case of Croatia, which demands freedom from not only
political pressure but also economic power, while reminding higher education institutions of their
responsibility towards the social community; or in Latvia, North Macedonia, Slovenia, and Slovakia
where also political activities of political parties and political movements are not allowed. This is an
example where the tension between fundamental values can be noticed, as restrictions on political
activities can raise questions about academic freedom and/or staff and student participation in higher
education governance.

107
Participation in system-level policymaking in higher education
A large majority of countries have a legal requirement for the ministry in charge of higher education to
be included in policymaking, while most other countries point out that ministry representatives are
usually involved, even if there is no legal requirement. The only exceptions are Norway, San Marino and
the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

In almost half of the countries surveyed, the law also demands the involvement of a ministry or ministries
other than the one in charge of higher education. If added to the cases in which this is common practice
but not required by law ( 35), it again means that a majority of EHEA countries involve other relevant
ministries in national higher education policymaking.

Quality assurance and accreditation bodies are less often required by law to be included in policy making
endeavours at national level. Again, however, if the countries where these bodies are usually involved
even if not required by law are included, quality assurance and accreditation bodies actively participate
in the national policy making processes in a substantial majority of countries.

For associations and networks of higher education institutions, including national rectors’ conferences,
legal requirements exist in approximately one third of countries, but they are also usually included in
another 28 countries. This is not the case only in Kazakhstan, Montenegro, San Marino and the United
Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland).

Labour market and employer representatives together with civil society and non-governmental
organisations are required to be included in less than a third of countries. In approximately 40% of the
countries, these organisations are usually included. In Luxembourg it is required by law only for labour
market and employer representatives; and in Belgium (French Community) and Sweden it is only civil
society. In Croatia, civil society and non-governmental organisations are usually included even if not
required by law, and that is the same case for labour market organisations in Estonia, Germany, Ireland,
Lithuania and Moldova.

In a handful of countries, other actors are legally required to be included. They are usually included only
in five: Andorra, Finland, Iceland, Ireland and Latvia. Out of those, in most of them indication of ‘other’
refers to all interested citizens, which is the case in Armenia, Switzerland, Hungary and Croatia. In
Spain, France and Ukraine other actors refer to representatives of regional governments and/or local
authorities. In Andorra and Finland the category refers to national or international individual experts.

Participation in higher education institutional governance structures

The structures of governing bodies of higher education institutions reveal crucial information about the
state of institutional autonomy. In approximately 60% of cases government/top-level authority
representative(s) are not included. In the minority of cases where they are, there is a specific
requirement set out by law.

As student and staff participation is analysed as a separate value here the focus is on all other actors.

Complexity arises regarding representatives such as employers and others – see Table 3.1 in Annex.
For over half of the countries, there is a legal requirement for employer representative(s) to be included
in governing bodies. In several countries, the inclusion of other representative(s) is required by
legislation, or if not, they are nevertheless usually included. In Andorra a member representing private
entities collaborating with the university is included, while PhD students are represented in various
Lander in Germany. In Denmark, regional and local governments appoint board members for

(35) Countries in which there are no legal requirements for other ministries to be involved but they are usually included: Albania,
Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Luxembourg, Latvia, Moldova,
North Macedonia, Malta, the Netherlands, Sweden, Slovenia, and Holy See.

108
professional bachelor higher education institutions, and similarly in Croatia members from the local
community – county or city, or ministry − are required by law in universities of applied sciences, or similar
professional higher education institutions.

In a small number of countries, other groups are required by law to participate in higher education
institutions’ internal steering bodies, or in three countries (Holy See, Montenegro and Ukraine) they are
not required but usually participate. In Spain this refers to society representative(s) through the Social
Council, in France it refers to local authorities and in Montenegro it is non-governmental organisations.
In Poland, it is expected that 50% of the higher education institution’s council should be comprised of
external members.

None of the systems specify only the proportion of staff. However, eight systems focus only on the
proportion of students, while 28 specify both student and staff proportions. Twelve systems have no
legal requirements in this respect.

Among the countries which specify the proportions of students and/or staff, proportions vary largely –
mostly according to the type of the governing body in question, as well as the type of higher education
institution. Universities and universities of applied sciences for example tend to have diverse governance
systems often with different levels of student and staff representation. Overall staff have larger numbers
guaranteed than students. The systems with the highest levels of student representation in governance
bodies are Belgium (French Community) and Czechia.

Contributing to all issues and participating in decision-taking

Certainly, participation in governance bodies alone does not reflect the full scope of the involvement of
different actors. It is equally important to understand if all members can actually contribute to all issues,
or only specific ones – usually the ones directly related to their assumed field of interest. In the large
majority of EHEA countries, the legislation stipulates that all members of governing bodies have full
rights to contribute to all issues; and even in systems where this is not legally required, it usually
happens. Poland and Latvia are the only two countries that indicated that it is not legally required for all
members to be able to contribute on all issues and that this usually does not happen.

While contribution to all issues is a widespread right for all members of governing bodies, the situation
is somewhat different when it comes to taking decisions on all issues. This is not required and usually
does not happen in Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Liechtenstein, Latvia, Norway and
Poland. In Poland, not all stakeholders can take decisions on professors’ appointments, while in
Switzerland decision-taking rules are in the hands of the cantonal authorities overseeing higher
education institutions. In Denmark, the Chairman of the Board has specific exclusive responsibilities,
including dialogue with the minister and responsibility for property issues; and vice-rectors participate in
the Senate without voting rights. In Liechtenstein the Senate does not have full rights to take decisions
on all issues; in Luxembourg the University Rector and the Government Commissioner have
consultative rights in the Governance Council; and in Sweden students can participate in some, but not
all, decisions that have a bearing on their courses or programmes or the situation of students.

Deciding the responsibilities of governing bodies

In approximately 40% of the EHEA systems, higher education institutions decide on the responsibilities
of their governing bodies, yet within a legislative framework that sets some boundaries (see Table 3.2
in the Annex). Iceland is the only country where the higher education institutions’ governing body enjoys
absolute autonomy on this issue. In all other countries, it is defined by legislative frameworks – at least
for the publicly funded institutions.

109
Appointments and dismissals
Appointment and dismissal of higher education institution leaders (Rectors or equivalent) is an important
and complex aspect of institutional autonomy represented in Tables 3.3 and 3.4. in the Annex.
Appointment is the responsibility of the higher education institution’s highest governing body, or an
internal higher education institution steering body in a little over half of EHEA systems. Albania and
Slovenia indicate that it is the responsibility of staff and students, although it remains unclear within
which framework this takes place. In the rest of the countries, it is the government or public authority
that makes the decision. In some countries this is done together with higher education institutional
bodies or other actors. However, in Azerbaijan, Moldova and Sweden it is an exclusive responsibility of
public authorities.

For dismissal, the situation is only marginally different. In slightly less than half of the countries, the
higher education institutions’ highest governing body is responsible for decisions, and in several others,
responsibility lies with an internal higher education institution steering body. Staff and students were
indicated as having a particular role in Italy, Romania and the Holy See. The government/public authority
is involved in dismissal decisions in around a fifth of EHEA systems, but only has an exclusive
responsibility for dismissal in Albania, Azerbaijan, Belgium (French Community), Bulgaria, and Sweden.
Public authorities therefore more frequently play a role in dismissal than they do in cases of appointment.

Whenever other actors are involved, this usually refers to specific higher education institution bodies: in
case of dismissal, for example, in Greece it is the Disciplinary Board; in France it is the academic council
consisting exclusively of teacher-researchers; or in the Netherlands it is the Supervisory Board of higher
education institutions.

The situation regarding the appointment of higher education institutional faculty leaders (Deans or
equivalent), remains largely similar with the exception of a (much) lower level of involvement of
government/public authorities. For appointment of deans in the large majority of cases it is higher
education institution bodies that are responsible: either the higher education institutions’ highest
governing body or an internal higher education institution steering body. Together with these bodies, or
through them, staff are responsible in Italy and the Holy See. It is exclusively a staff responsibility in the
case of Azerbaijan, and a shared responsibility of staff and students in Albania and Slovenia. Belgium
(French Community) is the only system where the appointment of deans is exclusively a responsibility
for the government/public authority. As with appointment of Rectors, some countries also indicated the
involvement of other actors.

Higher education institutional bodies also take a leading responsibility in the case of dismissal of higher
education institution faculty leaders. The highest governing body and internal higher education institution
steering bodies again share responsibility. Azerbaijan is the only system where staff are entirely
responsible for the dismissal of deans. The government/public authority is jointly responsible with
institutional bodies in Sweden, and exclusively in Albania and Belgium (French Community). In a small
number of countries, it is exclusively another body that is responsible. For example, in Georgia it is the
faculty council; in Andorra, Finland and Türkiye it is the Rector; and in Greece it is again the Disciplinary
Board. For all these procedures there are usually multiple bodies and levels of authorities involved, so
this is necessarily a simplified overview.

110
Responsibility for higher education programmes
Beyond the appointment and dismissal of higher education institutions’ leaders, an important element
to establish the state of institutional autonomy is the extent of governments’/public authorities’ influence
in the programme offer. This is increasingly important in the contemporary world where scientific
disciplines have been prohibited, and certain departments closed for ideological reasons for a perceived
‘lack of profitability’. The most direct influence on study programmes is certainly reflected in situations
where the government/public authority can require or forbid particular programmes.

The histogram below (Figure 3.7) sets out the main roles played by governments/public authorities in
relation to higher education institutions’ programmes offers.

Figure 3.7: Government/public authority role in higher education institutions’ programme offers, 2022

May decide whether or not to fund particular programmes

May advise higher education institutions

to offer particular programmes
May require higher education institutions
to offer particular programmes
May forbid higher education institutions
to offer particular programmes

Source: BFUG data collection.

The two most frequent occurrences are for the government/public authority to be able to advise higher
education institutions to offer particular programmes, and/or to have a decisive influence through funding
decisions. This can be understood as the exercise of soft power over higher education institutions and
suggests that attention is paid with regard to boundaries of institutional autonomy.

It is only in a few countries that governments/public authorities maintain the power to require higher
education institutions to offer particular programmes, again suggesting that government influence may
generally be exercised through more persuasive approaches. Only six systems acknowledge that the
government has the power to forbid higher education institutions from offering particular programmes.

It is noticeable that certain de jure framework allowing governmental interference in the programme offer
does not necessarily equate to a low level of institutional autonomy. For example, in the case of Austria,
the government has the possibility to require higher education institutions to offer particular programmes,
yet Austria still scores very highly (85% − 10th place) in the EUA Autonomy Scorecard ranking of 2023
for academic autonomy. Academic autonomy, as defined by EUA, encompasses capacity to decide on
overall student numbers; ability to select students; ability to introduce programmes; ability to terminate
programmes; ability to choose the language of instruction; capacity to select quality assurance
mechanisms and providers; and ability to design content of degree programmes. In many countries this
is considered a delicate balancing act. In Spain, for example, higher education authorities can make
proposals regarding the programmes’ offer, but the final decision remains with universities.

111
Evaluation of institutional autonomy
Figure 3.8 (below) shows the systems where there is legal requirement for institutional autonomy to be
evaluated.

Figure 3.8: Evaluation of institutional autonomy in higher education institutions, 2022/2023

Required by legislation

No legislative requirement

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Approximately half of the countries require external bodies to evaluate the exercise of institutional
autonomy in higher education institutions. In almost all these cases, this demand is placed on an
external quality assurance agency, although no information was gathered on how this demand is
formulated and exercised in practice.

Finland is the exception, both for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, as there is no specific
body to evaluate these issues, but rather the Chancellor of Justice of the Government of Finland serves
as a supreme guardian of the law, overseeing the legality of all activities under the responsibility of
public authorities, including higher education institutions. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also plays a
role in supervising and promoting legality and implementation of fundamental and human rights. As
such, these bodies serve as guardians of institutional autonomy, even if not being tasked with
undertaking specific monitoring.

Higher education institutions in most EHEA countries have the possibility of legal redress in cases of
infringement. However, this does not mean that there exist external bodies which are specifically
charged for the monitoring and evaluation of some or all the fundamental values.

112
3.4. Participation of students and staff in higher education
governance
Student and staff participation is at the core of the principle of self-governance, one of the elements of
institutional autonomy. It is also a value embedded in the idea of sense of ownership, accountability and
responsibility of the members of academic community. Closely intertwined to academic freedom,
exercising the fundamental value of student and staff participation enables students and staff to organise
without fear of reprisal, pressure or undue interference from public authorities, governing bodies or other
stakeholders, and to actively participate in both decision-making and decision-taking processes.
Democracy within the governance structures of higher education institutions, as well as student and
staff organisations, is a key prerequisite for the successful development of democratic citizens and the
exercise of public responsibility for higher education.

Too few students claim that they are fully aware about the representative student bodies’ structures,
funding, functions and (s)election processes of their representatives, and even less about overall funding
and governance structures of higher education institutions. ESU’s publication Bologna with Student
Eyes 2020 (European Students Union, 2020) reported some worrying trends regarding the strength of
student voices within higher education institutions and underlined the need to strengthen the principle
of collegiality. Election and appointment processes within the representative organisations and
governance bodies play a very significant role: students and staff can indeed be present in all relevant
structures, but if they are not democratically elected, independent, and autonomous the situation cannot
be considered as satisfactory in terms of democratic legitimacy. Moreover, financial independence and
sustainable funding play a key role in ensuring independence among students and staff representatives.

Student participation in higher education institutions’ governance structures has evolved significantly
across Europe after decades of student activism seeking student representation (Klemenčič, Bergan
and Primožič eds., 2015). Now, student participation is required by legislation in nearly all countries.
The clear exception is the Netherlands, where student participation is not required by legislation, and
students are usually not included in higher education institutions' governing bodies. In Kazakhstan and
the Holy See, student participation is also not required by legislation, but in these countries students are
usually included. The situation is identical for staff representative(s).

In the important interconnection of institutional autonomy with the fundamental value of student and staff
representation in governance, the map below (Figure 3.9) considers the specificity of legislation
regarding the proportions of students and staff in higher education institutions’ governing bodies.

113
Figure 3.9: Required proportions of students and staff in higher education institutions' governing bodies, 2022/2023

Both student and staff proportions are

specified in legislation
Only student proportions are specified in
legislation

No legal requirements

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

None of the systems specify only the proportion of staff. However, eight systems focus only on the
proportion of students, while 28 specify both student and staff proportions. Twelve systems have no
legal requirements in this respect.

Among the countries which specify the proportions of students and/or staff, proportions vary greatly –
mostly according to the type of the governing body in question, as well as to the type of higher education
institution. Universities and universities of applied sciences for example tend to have diverse governance
systems often with different levels of student and staff representation. Overall staff have larger numbers
guaranteed than students. The systems with the highest levels of student representation in governance
bodies are Belgium (French Community) and Czechia.

The previous sections point to insufficient attention being given to the academic freedom of students,
while infringements of academic integrity are most often considered as infringements made by students,
notably through practices such as plagiarism and cheating. When developing national higher education
policy, various actors may be included. Figure 3.10 outlines the requirements related to student and
higher education staff associations and unions.

114
Figure 3.10: Legal requirements for staff and students to participate in national HE policymaking, 2022/2023

Requirements for involvement of higher

education staff associations/ unions
Requirements for involvement of student
associations/unions

No legal requirements

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Just over a third of systems have legal requirements in place to include student and/or staff
representatives in higher education policymaking. In most of these countries, both student and staff
associations/unions are included. The exceptions are Austria, Czechia, Italy and Ukraine where only
student associations/unions are included by law. These countries report, however, that higher education
staff associations and unions are usually included.

In almost 40% of the countries, although not a legislative requirement, student associations and unions
are usually included in national policymaking. However, according to national responses, students and
staff are less frequently included in national policy development than in higher education institutional
governance.

Participation in institutional steering bodies

Figure 3.11 shows the EHEA higher education systems where legal requirements are in place to ensure
the participation of higher education staff and/or associations/unions and students/student unions in
institutional internal steering bodies.

115
Figure 3.11: Legal requirements for staff and students to participate in HEIs’ internal steering bodies, 2022/2023

Requirements for involvement of

higher education staff and/or associations/ unions
Requirements for involvement of
students and/or associations/unions

No legal requirements

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Legal requirements for student and/or student union, and staff and/or staff trade union representatives
to be included in higher education institutions’ internal steering bodies are in place in 39 systems.
Moreover, even when not required by law, student and/or student representatives usually participate
(Belgium – Flemish Community, Estonia, Kazakhstan, North Macedonia, and Holy See). This is the
same for staff/staff trade union representatives.

Students and staff are overwhelmingly present in the higher education institutions’ internal steering
bodies. The decision-making responsibilities of these internal steering bodies are most frequently set
through legislation (in close to half of the EHEA systems). In about a third of systems, it is both the
legislators and the institutions’ themselves that determine these responsibilities. For approximately 20%
of the countries, this is an exclusive competence of higher education institutions’ internal steering
bodies. In Switzerland the situation varies from canton to canton; while in Estonia it varies depending
on the type of decisions being made.

Malta, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Türkiye clearly state the decisions in which staff and students
cannot participate. In France, students cannot participate in decisions regarding employment of teacher-
researchers. Students in Poland are not allowed to take decisions regarding academic degrees. In
Türkiye student participation remains restricted to ‘student problems of the faculty, conservatory, or
vocational school it represents’.

Half of the countries give the right to students and staff to participate in all decisions: However further
exploration would be required to understand if that right means that students and staff fully participate
in decision-taking.

116
3.5. Public responsibility for and of higher education
The two last fundamental values were not formulated as specific sections in the BFUG questionnaire,
as they are both very broad values referring to a number of policy issues covered to some extent by
other parts of the report. Public responsibility for higher education represents the obligation of the public
sector to higher education systems – especially regarding public funding of higher education. Public
responsibility of higher education focuses on the obligation of higher education towards the society –
especially in its mission to share knowledge, as a public good, and to empower students with civic
engagement and active citizenship skills.

Much of the information presented throughout the report can be considered relevant to public
responsibility for higher education. In Chapter 1, information on public investment in higher education
provides a basis for assessing whether the level of expenditure indicates a high level of public
responsibility and provides sufficient funding for higher education institutions to fulfil their missions.
Chapter 4 on the social dimension is addresses the public responsibility for ensuring equitable access
to higher education, ensuring student welfare and support services, supporting lifelong learning, and as
a consequence fostering societal development. Meanwhile information on quality assurance presented
in Chapter 2 on Key Commitments also relates to the public responsibility for higher education.

With regard to the issues of public funding, a useful additional source is the EUA’s Public Funding
Observatory ( 36) which captures the latest funding trends. The data is laid out in a series of reports
and the interactive online tool ( 37), which is updated regularly, currently contains data from 34 systems,
with the latest data from 2020/2021. Public responsibility for higher education, mainly exercised at the
level of the national higher education system, encompasses also political, public policy, regulatory and
legal obligations as proposed by the BFUG's draft statement under development for adoption in the
Tirana Ministerial conference. The draft statement also refers to the responsibility of safeguarding all
proclaimed fundamental values, so all previous sections of this chapter provide further insight into the
level of involvement in protection and promotion of fundamental values by national authorities.

Public responsibility for higher education is also exercised at regional and local level, as well as at supra-
national level. Public authorities are also expected to ensure the implementation of freedom to learn and
the provision of anti-discrimination frameworks that enable this. Relevant data analysis on this aspect
can also be found in Chapter 4 on the social dimension.

Regarding the public responsibility of higher education, analysis in chapter 4 focuses on support to
community engagement. This addresses a part of the public responsibility of higher education
institutions to engage actively with the local community and society at large. This may involve partnering
with community organisations, addressing social issues, providing expertise and resources to solve
community problems, and promoting civic engagement. Issues tackled at local level may also be
mirrored by broader engagement with societal challenges at national, regional and global level. The
draft statement also invites higher education institutions to be at the forefront of implementation and
promotion of all other fundamental values. This involves bearing a responsibility in communicating
research results, sharing knowledge with the wider society and actively engaging in tackling challenges
of our contemporary world. While this report focuses more on the national and system level situation,
further monitoring would have to also encompass activities of higher education institutions in promotion
of fundamental values and communication of research results within society.

(36) Available at: https://eua.eu/resources/projects/586-public-funding-observatory.html

( )
37
https://efficiency.eua.eu/public-funding-observatory

117
3.6. Conclusions
This chapter takes a first step towards the monitoring of the EHEA fundamental values – academic
freedom already defined in the Rome communiqué, and the other five to be submitted for adoption at
the forthcoming Ministerial meeting in Tirana in May 2024. In parallel, work continues to develop a
technical framework for monitoring fundamental values. The focus of this exercise is on legal protection
of values, and as such represents a limited exercise.
De jure protections of fundamental values are widespread throughout the EHEA. While this is a positive
finding, the protections have been developed in specific national and cultural contexts and there may
be considerable variety in the way in which values are defined. Comparative analysis of these legal
realities must also be enriched with reliable de facto assessments, as the legal situation might differ
significantly from the situation on the ground.
While values are sometimes defined in national contexts, and sometimes not, the existence of a
definition is not sufficient to ensure that the value is understood in a way that aligns with the EHEA
understanding. When statements have been adopted it will be important in future monitoring exercises
to consider how closely national definitions of values align with or diverge from the concepts of the EHEA
fundamental values statements.
From a first analysis of national definitions of academic freedom, not all aspects of academic freedom
as specified in the EHEA statement are encompassed in national definitions. For example, the concept
of freedom to learn – integral to the EHEA understanding of academic freedom − has been identified as
an element of national legal definitions in only two countries − Latvia and North Macedonia.
The attention given to academic integrity seems to be on the rise throughout the EHEA, although some
phenomena are far more frequently reported than others. Plagiarism seems to be identified by all
member states as a burning issue, while academic fraud and contract cheating receive much less
attention from public authorities.
Governance and institutional autonomy are topics that will require both examination at national and
system level, as well as considering developments such as the rise of European University Alliances
and other trans-institutional structures. Diversity of governance structures is a reality, and each system
will need to be understood in context. Again, de facto information will be required to assess how
governance structures work in the everyday life of higher education institutions. This report has
highlighted the reality that external evaluation of institutional autonomy takes place in half of the EHEA
systems and is almost always entrusted to quality assurance agencies.
Of all existing assessment and monitoring tools, the EUA Autonomy Scorecard has been identified as
the most usable for an indispensable comparative and complementary tool to the self-reporting from the
BFUG.
The current data provides an initial assessment of de jure implementation of student and staff
participation in higher education governance, indicating a more embedded approach at institutional than
national level. Legislation requiring student and staff representatives to participate in national
policymaking is in place in just over a third of the EHEA systems.
De facto assessment would require self-evaluation by the stakeholders themselves, particularly from
student and staff associations and trade unions. Student and staff participation is better established at
the institutional than at the national level, and this will be important for public authorities to recognise
when promoting participation.
There is an urgent need for the ministers to adopt the corresponding definitions for each of the
fundamental values of the EHEA so that public authorities and all stakeholders are able to further
operationalise their common protection and promotion.

118
CHAPTER 4: SOCIAL DIMENSION

The 2020 Rome Communiqué

The 2020 Rome Communiqué, adopted by Ministers of Higher Education of the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) in the Rome Ministerial Conference in November 2020, envisions ‘an inclusive,
innovative and interconnected EHEA by 2030’ ( 1). According to this vision, ‘every learner will have
equitable access to higher education and will be fully supported in completing their studies and
training’ ( 2). In this Communiqué, Ministers committed to reinforcing social inclusion in higher education,
most importantly by adopting the Principles and Guidelines to Strengthen the Social Dimension of Higher
Education in the EHEA – henceforth referred to as the Principles and Guidelines (P&Gs) – developed
by the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG) ( 3).

The Principles and Guidelines build on the definition of the social dimension of higher education provided
in the 2007 London Communiqué, which emphasised that ‘the composition of the student body entering,
participating in and completing higher education at all levels should reflect the diversity of our
populations’ ( 4). In 2020, the BFUG Advisory Group 1 on Social Dimension enlarged this definition,
stressing that the social dimension ‘also encompasses the creation of an inclusive environment in higher
education that fosters equity, diversity, and is responsive to the needs of local communities’ ( 5). The
P&Gs were developed having this broader understanding in mind.

The document includes principles and guidelines in ten areas to be followed by national education
authorities in order to ‘interconnect the principles of accessibility, equity, diversity and inclusion into all
laws, policies and practices concerning higher education in such a way that access, participation,
progress and completion of higher education depend primarily on students’ abilities, not on their
personal characteristics or circumstances beyond their direct influence’ ( 6). This essentially means the
mainstreaming of social inclusion and equity principles, where all higher education policies serve the
purpose of ‘leaving no one behind’ ( 7). As such, most P&Gs point towards measures creating the
necessary conditions for an accessible, equitable, diverse and inclusive higher education.

Chapter outline

This chapter follows the structure of the Principles and Guidelines, focusing on the ten areas addressed
by the document: higher education strategies addressing the social dimension; flexible study modes
enabling widening access to, participation in and completion of higher education studies; the
inclusiveness of the entire education system throughout lifelong learning; collecting reliable data for an
evidence-based improvement of the social dimension of higher education; effective counselling and
guidance for potential and enrolled students; sufficient and sustainable funding and financial autonomy
to higher education institutions; inclusive learning environments and inclusive institutional cultures;
fostering the participation of students and staff from vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented
backgrounds in international mobility programs; community engagement in higher education promoting

(1) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

(2) Ibid., p. 4.
(3) Principles and Guidelines to Strengthen the Social Dimension of Higher Education in the EHEA, Annex II of the Rome
Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.
(4) London Communiqué: Towards the European Higher Education Area: responding to challenges in a globalised world,
18 May 2007, p. 5.
(5) Final Report of the Bologna Follow-up Group (BFUG) Advisory Group 1 on Social Dimension, p. 23.
(6) Principles and Guidelines to Strengthen the Social Dimension of Higher Education in the EHEA, Annex II of the Rome
Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020, p. 3.
(7) Ibid.

119
diversity, equity and inclusion; and policy dialogue with higher education institutions and other relevant
stakeholders about implementing these principles and guidelines.

These areas will be discussed in turn. Each section starts by a reference to the principles and guidelines
as they feature in the strategic BFUG document. Then the sections discuss the indicators that were
chosen to be monitored in this report. Based on these indicators, composite scorecard indicators have
been developed for eight of the areas separately. In the area of strategic commitment, a more exhaustive
mapping has been favoured over the development of a composite scorecard indicator. Similarly, no
scorecard indicator has been included for community engagement as in this case, the P&Gs are mostly
targeted at higher education institutions.

4.1. Strategic commitment towards diversity, equity and

inclusion in higher education
Principle:
The social dimension should be central to higher education strategies at system and institutional level, as well
as at the EHEA and the EU level. Strengthening the social dimension of higher education and fostering equity
and inclusion to reflect the diversity of society is the responsibility of a higher education system as a whole and
should be regarded as a continuous commitment.

Guidelines:
Strategic commitment to the social dimension of higher education should be aligned with concrete targets that
can either be integrated within existing higher education policies or developed in parallel. These targets should
aim at widening access, supporting participation in and completion of studies for all current and future students.
In the process of creating strategies there should be a broad-based dialogue between public authorities, higher
education institutions, student and staff representatives and other key stakeholders, including social partners,
nongovernmental organisations and people from vulnerable, disadvantaged and underrepresented groups.
This broad-based dialogue is to ensure the creation of inclusive higher education strategies that foster equity
and diversity, and are responsive to the needs of the wider community.

The first area addresses the need for a strategic commitment of educational authorities towards the
social dimension of higher education, including setting concrete, measurable targets through which
progress can be assessed. According to the guidelines, the preconditions of creating an inclusive higher
education strategy include a broad-based dialogue between public authorities, higher education
institutions, student and staff representatives and other key stakeholders.

Strategic commitment to the social dimension of higher education can take many different forms.
Education authorities may choose different paths to foster equity, diversity and inclusion. For this reason,
instead of selecting a limited set of indicators to be monitored through a scorecard, this section aims to
map these diverse approaches in more detail. Providing a broad overview of the different policy
approaches can serve as a starting point for developing scorecard indicators in this area in the future.

The analysis below distinguishes between mainstream and targeted policies, and more centralised and
more decentralised approaches. These different strategies, policies and measures are not necessarily
mutually exclusive, but can complement each other to contribute more effectively to the strengthening
of the social dimension.

As a first approach, some countries (e.g. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) have opted
for mainstreaming equity and inclusion principles into the structures, organisation and financing of higher
education rather than following a policy model based on targeted strategies that could more frequently
be subject to political change. The approach is based on the belief that 1) if social dimension conditions
are favourable to all students, there is a greater likelihood of de facto equity; and 2) mainstreaming

120
equity consideration in all policies and strategic planning is necessary in order to ensure equity and
inclusion among students and staff.

In this approach, free education, gender equality and the rights of people with disabilities are the norm
in legislation. Higher education institutions should operate based on this broad legislative framework,
and they need to embed these principles in their strategic planning. Traditionally, the mainstreaming
model has been applied mainly to gender equality, but the approach has been widened towards diversity
mainstreaming as well.

Given that the role of top-level authorities is to ensure the broad legislative framework, the
mainstreaming model relies on higher education institutions in a more decentralised fashion. For
example, in Norway, public higher education institutions need to develop their own equity and diversity
action plans in order to strengthen equity, diversity and inclusion among both students and staff ( 8).

Alternatively, to demonstrate their strategic commitment to the social dimension of higher education,
education authorities may opt for a more targeted approach, designing policies that specifically target
disadvantaged and vulnerable groups of students and staff. This approach rests on the assumption that
while general policy measures may also benefit disadvantaged groups, the vulnerable position of
students and staff from under-represented groups requires policy action targeting their specific needs.

A common way to implement targeted strategic action, as the guidelines also specify, is through national
(top-level) strategies or policy plans, which include the main strategic objectives, potential targets, and
the main policy measures to be undertaken by the different stakeholders in higher education. Besides
national strategies, creating legislation requiring the active participation of higher education institutions
in ensuring equity and inclusion is also an option for educational authorities. Having a national strategy,
a similar major policy plan or a set of targeted measures concerning students and staff is a clear signal
that the top-level education authority regards equity as a policy priority that they are willing to act upon.
Figure 4.1 therefore depicts education systems with strategies addressing the social dimension in higher
education, for students, staff, or both. The figure includes all reported strategies (see also Table 4.1 in
the Annex).

The majority of education systems with available data have strategies or action plans currently in place
on the social dimension of higher education. Two thirds of these strategies target both students and
academic staff, while one third of them address the situation of students only. Norway has a strategic
commitment towards gender equality among academic staff.

Inclusion, diversity and equity in higher education may be included in strategies concerning the
education system as a whole (as in Albania, Armenia, Estonia, Georgia, Greece, Italy, Latvia,
Montenegro, Romania and Türkiye), or in general higher education strategies or policy plans (as in
Bulgaria, Czechia, France, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Malta and Slovenia). Specific strategies or policy
plans on the social dimension of higher education have been adopted in Austria, Croatia, Finland,
Ireland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In Belgium (French
Community), the inclusivity of higher education is the explicit aim of a decree on inclusive higher
education, which contains a set of measures similar to that of a strategic document. Finally, in five
education systems (Liechtenstein, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Ukraine), inclusion or equity
strategies or action plans going beyond the field of education include provisions for higher education.

These strategies should ideally be agreed upon through a broad dialogue between the different
stakeholders. Almost all countries reported having implemented a social dialogue before the adoption
of their strategy, except for Kazakhstan and the United Kingdom.

(8) For more details, see the website of kifinfo.no.

121
Figure 4.1: Strategic commitment to the social dimension of higher education: top-level targeted strategies, action
plans and measures, 2022/2023

Top-level strategies addressing the social

dimension for both students and
academic staff
Top-level strategies addressing the social
dimension for students
Top-level strategies addressing the social
dimension for academic staff

No top-level strategy

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

As also stressed by the guidelines, strategic commitment through targeted strategies can be further
strengthened by the inclusion of concrete, measurable targets aiming ‘at widening access, supporting
participation in and completion of studies for all current and future students’. However, only a small
minority of the above-mentioned strategies include such targets on the social dimension of higher
education (see Table 4.2 in the Annex). Most of them concern the percentage of disadvantaged students
entering or attending higher education programmes, where disadvantage is defined in terms of the
educational background of parents (Austria), migrant status (Austria), ethnic minority status (Georgia
and Ireland), disability or special educational needs (Georgia, Ireland and Ukraine), and socio-economic
status, including living in disadvantaged areas (Ireland and the United Kingdom – Scotland). The targets
of Armenia and Romania relate to institutional infrastructure. In Armenia, the target concerns the
proportion of higher education institutions offering environments with reasonable physical adaptations
for students with special educational needs; while Romania has a target on attributing a share of new
and upgraded infrastructure to disadvantaged learners. Only Austria is addressing gender disparities
between higher education programmes with a specific target. At the same time, the two education
systems having targets on academic staff both address the proportion of women among academic staff
(Sweden and Switzerland; see Table 4.2 in the Annex for more details).

Besides demonstrating strategic commitment to the social dimension of higher education through
national or top-level targeted strategies, plans or measures, educational authorities may also implement
a more decentralised approach, giving more responsibility to higher education institutions for developing
their own policies, measures and projects enhancing equity, diversity and inclusion. In the Netherlands,
for example, while there is no national target, the National Network of Women Professors ( 9) asked all
higher education institutions to establish targets for the percentage of female professors, which they all
did. According to the EUA Trends 2024 survey, out of the 475 higher education institutions answering

(9) https://www.lnvh.nl/monitor2020/

122
the question related to the social dimension across the EHEA, 88% reported having strategies and
policies addressing inclusion, equity and diversity ( 10).

Education authorities have various tools to provide incentives for higher education institutions to
implement the necessary strategic measures. First, the legislative framework may oblige the institutions
to develop such strategic commitment, as demonstrated by the example of Norway above. Second, a
relatively common way of ensuring the commitment to the social dimension at the level of higher
education institutions is requiring quality assurance agencies to monitor what higher education
institutions do for promoting equity and inclusion. As Figure 4.2 shows, this requirement exists in almost
half of the education systems analysed in this report. This means that in 23 EHEA systems, it is likely
that higher education institutions promote diversity, equity and inclusion, and more precise information
is available in the reports from the quality assurance agencies.

Figure 4.2: Strategic commitment to the social dimension of higher education: requirement for quality assurance
agencies to monitor higher education institutions’ (HEIs’) strategies on the social dimension, 2022/2023

Quality assurance agencies are required to

monitor HEI strategies on the social
dimension

No such requirement exists

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Educational authorities may also delegate the role of coordinating and developing inclusion measures
and projects to specialised, external bodies. One example is from Belgium (Flemish Community), where
the Support Centre Inclusive Higher Education (SIHO) ( 11), established by a decree, serves both
policymakers and higher education institutions in the development and implementation of equity and
inclusion measures for inclusive higher education, for example through developing guidelines,
coordinating projects, and assisting students. The main role of education authorities in this case is to
provide the necessary legal framework and ensure the appropriate funding.

The large majority of education systems analysed in this report have implemented at least one of the
strategic measures analysed in this section. However, there is a need for more strategic commitment in
almost all education systems to address the social dimension of higher education more holistically.

(10) Data refers to Question 37 in the EUA Trends 2024 survey: ‘How does your institution address inclusion, equity and
diversity? Please select one option per line.’ The data is based on the percentage of ‘yes’ answers given for the option ‘The
institution has strategies and policies addressing this’ (n=475).
(11) For more details, see the SIHO website.

123
4.2. Flexibility
Principle:
Legal regulations or policy documents should allow and enable higher education institutions to develop their own strategies
to fulfil their public responsibility towards widening access to, participation in and completion of higher education studies.
Guidelines:
Legal regulations and administrative rules should allow sufficient flexibility in the design, organisation and delivery of study
programmes to reflect the diversity of students’ needs. Higher education institutions should be enabled to organise full-time
and part-time studies, flexible study modes, blended and distance learning as well as to recognise prior learning (RPL), in
order to accommodate the needs of the diverse student population.
Public authorities should promote recognition of prior non-formal and informal learning (RPL) in higher education, because it
has a positive impact on widening access, transition and completion, equity and inclusion, mobility and employability. RPL
enables flexible modes of lifelong learning in the entire education sector, including higher education. Implementing RPL will
require effective cooperation amongst the higher education system, employers and the wider community and to enable this,
national qualifications frameworks should facilitate transparent recognition of learning outcomes and reliable quality
assurance procedures.

The second principle and the related guidelines stress the need for creating conditions for higher
education institutions to widen ‘access to, participation in and completion of higher education studies’.
This is envisaged to be achieved in two important ways: first, by enabling flexible study modes such as
part-time studies, blended and distance learning; and second, by recognising prior non-formal and
informal learning experiences, both for accessing and for the fulfilment of higher education programmes.

On this basis, the following indicators were selected to be monitored in this policy area:
1) Existence of top-level regulations allowing higher education institutions to offer flexible pathways
like part-time studies, blended or distance learning programmes.
2) Existence of regulatory frameworks allowing candidates to enter higher education based on
recognition of prior non-formal and/or informal learning in all higher education institutions.
3) Existence of regulatory frameworks enabling the contribution of prior non-formal and informal
learning towards the fulfilment of a higher education study programme.
4) Existing requirements for quality assurance agencies to address the recognition of prior non-
formal and/or informal learning in higher education in their external evaluation procedures.

The guidelines emphasise that higher education systems have to adapt to different categories of
learners, providing adequate learning opportunities for as many as possible. Enabling flexible study
modes is essential for those students who cannot allocate all their time for their studies, but have to
reconcile several engagements: for instance, higher education studies and employment. One way to
achieve this, for example, is through part-time studies. Other alternative, flexible modes of study include
blended and distance learning. Blended learning is a mode of learning that combines online teaching
with classroom-based learning, while distance learning refers to the education of students who are not
present at an institution. This may be through online education or correspondence courses.

These flexible study modes (part-time studies, blended and distant learning) are all prevalent across the
EHEA. The large majority of education systems report that organising study programmes in flexible ways
is legally possible for all higher education institutions (see Table 4.3 in the Annex for details). In most
countries, institutions can make use of all three possibilities; and the only education system where none
of the three modes of study are legally possible in higher education is Albania. Nevertheless, a few
education systems only allow one or two flexible modes of organising higher education studies, or limit
such flexibility to certain institutions. For example, in Cyprus, only private higher education institutions
can provide these flexible study modes in the first cycle. In Moldova, it is not possible to study medicine
and pharmacy through part-time studies. Other legal restrictions may also apply, regarding the number

124
or share of credits that can be gained through distance or blended learning, for example. More
information on these restrictions is presented in Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3.

The importance of the recognition of knowledge and skills gained through non-formal and informal
learning has been stressed by communiqués of ministerial conferences for years. With the Bucharest
Communiqué ministers explicitly agreed to ‘step up [their] efforts towards under-represented groups to
develop the social dimension of higher education, reduce inequalities and provide […] alternative access
routes, including recognition of prior learning' ( 12). For countries of the European Union, the recognition
of prior learning has been encouraged through a Council Recommendation on the validation of non-
formal and informal learning ( 13).

RPL enables flexible modes of lifelong learning in two important respects: first, it facilitates access to
higher education for ‘non-traditional’ learners: students without formal entry qualifications to access
higher education programmes. Second, it eases the completion of higher education programmes, as
students’ previous non-formal and informal learning experiences can contribute to the completion of
their studies.

Figure 4.3 depicts legal frameworks for the recognition of prior learning in accessing first-cycle higher
education and for the fulfilment of first-cycle study programmes. As the figure illustrates, accessing first-
cycle higher education based on the recognition of prior learning – and thus without the standard entry
qualifications – is much less widespread than allowing prior experiences to be recognised for the
fulfilment of higher education studies. Accessing the first cycle based on RPL is only possible in
21 education systems, mostly situated in western Europe. Out of these 21 education systems, Austria
only allows such access in the case of Universities of Applied Sciences. In addition, not all education
systems recognise all types of learning experiences: only 10 systems report doing so. While most
education systems with RPL recognise learning experiences resulting from work / professional activity,
non-formal education and training courses or in-company training, only around half of them allow access
to higher education based on experiences resulting from daily activities related to family or leisure.

Many of the education systems making it possible for non-traditional learners to access higher education
through RPL also offer other alternative ways to do so. For entrants without formal entry qualifications,
some countries offer the possibility of taking an entrance exam or admission test. This is not to be
confused with special aptitude tests offered to the most talented, most prevalent in the field of arts. In
order to be regarded as alternative routes, these examinations should be open to a wider group of
learners (e.g. all applicants or applicants over a certain age). Such special entrance examinations exist
for example in Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Sweden and
Switzerland. These entrance exams are often offered to mature learners (or ‘delayed transition
students’), above a certain pre-defined age (in Andorra, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and Sweden).

Some education systems organise preparatory or trial higher education programmes, or programmes
leading to alternative entry qualifications. Such programmes exist for example in Belgium (Flemish
Community), Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta and Spain. Upon their
successful completion, students can gain access to higher education degree programmes, with or
without gaining a special qualification or certificate in addition. As another alternative, online ‘open
universities’ offer degree programmes to all learners in Finland and the United Kingdom (England, Wales
and Northern Ireland).

(12) Bucharest Communiqué: Making the Most of Our Potential: Consolidating the European Higher Education Area,
26-27 April 2012, pp. 1-2.
(13) Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning, 20 December 2012 (2012/C 398/01).

125
Figure 4.3: Recognition of prior learning in accessing and for the fulfilment of first-cycle higher education study
programmes, 2022/2023

Accessing the first cycle is possible based

on RPL in all HEIs
Accessing the first cycle is possible based
on RPL in some HEIs
RPL can contribute to the fulfilment of first-
cycle study programmes in all HEIs
RPL can contribute to the fulfilment of first-
cycle study programmes in some HEIs

No RPL

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

RPL can contribute to the fulfilment of first-cycle higher education study programmes in 35 education
systems, so more than half of the countries analysed in this report. As such, allowing previous
experiences to count towards the fulfilment of a study programme is more widespread than allowing
‘non-traditional’ candidates enter higher education this way. Nevertheless, education systems often
define some limits to such recognition, either in terms of the types of higher education institution that
can make use of it, or concerning the workload / number of credits that can be recognised or validated
(see Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3 for more information). In addition, similarly to recognition procedures
providing access to higher education, only few education systems allow all types of non-formal and
informal experiences to be recognised, with experiences resulting from daily activities related to family
or leisure being the least likely to be accepted.

Finally, as higher education institutions play a crucial role in implementing recognition procedures, it is
also important to examine whether quality assurance agencies are required monitor the implementation
of RPL. Quality assurance agencies are required to address the implementation of the recognition of
prior non-formal and informal learning in higher education in their external evaluation process in around
two thirds of the education systems where RPL is legally possible (see Table 4.4 in the Annex for
details).

Figure 4.4 shows the summary indicator for this policy area related to flexibility. Eight education systems
(the French Community of Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal and
Switzerland) fulfil all the conditions identified by this scorecard indicator: they allow all flexible study
modes and the recognition of prior learning (in access to and the fulfilment of study programmes) for all
higher education institutions. Moreover, quality assurance agencies are also required to monitor higher
education institutions in their implementation of RPL. Nevertheless, legal restrictions and limitations on
such flexible study modes and the recognition of prior learning may apply also in these cases (see
Chapter 5, Section 5.3.3).

126
Figure 4.4: Scorecard indicator n°10: P & G 2: Enabling flexible modes of lifelong learning in higher education,
2022/2023

2022/2023

20

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories
Enabling flexible modes of lifelong learning in higher education through the following four elements:
• Top-level regulations allow higher education institutions to offer flexible pathways like part-time studies, blended and distance learning
programmes.
• Candidates are allowed to enter first-cycle higher education based on recognition of prior non-formal and/or informal learning in all
higher education institutions.
• Prior non-formal and informal learning counts towards the fulfilment of a higher education study programme in the first cycle.
• Quality assurance agencies are required to address the recognition of prior non-formal and/or informal learning in higher education in
their external evaluation procedures.
Enabling flexible modes of lifelong learning in higher education Enabling flexible modes of lifelong learning in higher education
through three of the four mentioned elements. through two of the four mentioned elements.
Enabling flexible modes of lifelong learning in higher education No possibility for flexible modes of learning in higher education
through one of the four mentioned elements. through the four mentioned elements.

Data not available

A further 20 education systems still do fairly well when it comes to the flexibility of higher education
studies, most often either only missing the quality assurance requirement, or not allowing access to first-
cycle studies on the basis of recognition of prior learning. Six education systems are in the yellow
category, and seven in orange, providing the necessary legal framework in two or only one area,
respectively. Finally, seven education systems do not fulfil their public responsibility towards widening
access to, participation in and completion of higher education studies.

127
4.3. Synergies and lifelong learning
Principle:
The inclusiveness of the entire education system should be improved by developing coherent policies from
early childhood education, through schooling to higher education and throughout lifelong learning.
Guidelines:
It is important to create synergies with all education levels and related policy areas (such as finance,
employment, health and social welfare, housing, migration etc.) in order to develop policy measures that create
an inclusive environment throughout the entire education sector that fosters equity, diversity, and inclusion, and
is responsive to the needs of the wider community.
The social dimension policies should not only support current students, but also potential students in their
preparation and transition into higher education. Participation in higher education has to be a lifelong option,
including for adults who decide to return to or enter higher education at later stages in their lives. An inclusive
approach needs to involve wider communities, higher education institutions and other stakeholder groups to
co-create pathways to higher education.
Equity, diversity and inclusion should play a key role in the training of pre-higher education teachers.

The third principle focuses on the education system as a whole, situating higher education studies within
a lifelong learning perspective. This principle and its guidelines stress that the inclusiveness of the entire
education system is important, and policies fostering equity, diversity and inclusion in higher education
should be developed in synergy with policies concerning other educational levels and even other policy
sectors. In addition, following up on the lifelong learning approach, the guidelines highlight that social
dimension policies in higher education should also support and target potential students, especially adult
learners returning to education later in life. Finally, the last guideline addresses how higher education
can contribute to equity and inclusion at lower educational levels: through teacher training. The
guidelines stress the importance of training future teachers in matters of equity, diversity and inclusion.

These guidelines are translated into the following indicators to be monitored in this report:

1) Existence of top-level coordination structures and/or mechanisms between different levels of

education with a mandate including questions related to diversity, equity and inclusion in
education.

2) The systematic involvement of representatives of other related policy areas, such as finance,
employment, housing, or other social services in policy discussions on diversity, equity and
inclusion in education.

3) Existence of top-level measures aiming to support those who wish to access higher education
during adulthood (delayed transition students).

4) Existence of top-level requirements specifying the development of competencies related to

diversity, equity and inclusion within initial teacher education (ITE) programmes.

Figure 4.5 depicts existing coordination structures or mechanisms between different levels of education
reported by EHEA systems. The figure details whether such coordination structures or mechanisms
have been established; whether they include questions related to diversity, equity and inclusion in
education in their mandate; and whether representatives of other related policy areas, such as finance,
employment, health, housing, or other social services are systematically involved in policy discussions
on diversity, equity and inclusion in education.

128
Figure 4.5: Top-level coordination structures and mechanisms between different levels of education, 2022/2023

Top-level coordination structures or mechanisms

between different levels of education, with a mandate including
questions related to diversity, equity and inclusion
Top-level coordination structures or mechanisms
between different levels of education without such mandate
Systematic involvement of representatives of other related
policy areas

No top-level coordination structures or mechanisms

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

More than one third of EHEA systems report having established top-level coordination structures and/or
mechanisms between different levels of education. There are two main types of such structure or
mechanism. First, some education systems have established separate bodies responsible for
coordinating policies across education levels. This is, for example, the Flemish Education Council
(Vlaamse Onderwijsraad, ‘Vlor’) in the Flemish Community of Belgium ( 14), the National Skills Council
in Ireland ( 15), the Stakeholder Council in Poland ( 16), the National Educational Council (Conselho
Nacional de Educação) in Portugal ( 17), or the State School Council (Consejo Escolar del Estado) in
Spain ( 18). While most of these bodies include questions related to diversity, equity and inclusion in their
mandate, some of them have been established primarily for this purpose. This is the case, for example,
of the National Group for Enhancing Social Dimension in Higher Education in Croatia, which consists of
representatives of higher education, pre-tertiary education, vocational and adult education, experts,
students, chamber of commerce, and other stakeholders. Second, other education systems designated
specific top-level committees or other bodies/secretariats for the implementation of cross-sectoral or
lifelong learning strategies. This is the case for example in Cyprus (National Committee of Lifelong
Learning), Estonia (Education and Youth Board) and Italy (Interinstitutional Working Group on Lifelong
Learning).

The large majority of these coordination structures also systematically include representatives of other
policy areas in their discussions, most often employment, but also stakeholders from areas such as
social welfare, health, or budget planning.

The second topic within this area concerns support provided to adult learners, often referred to as
‘delayed transition students’. This support is strongly related to alternative access routes discussed in

(14) https://www.vlor.be/about-the-vlor
(15) https://www.gov.ie/en/organisation-information/7637e6-national-skills-council/
(16) https://kwalifikacje.gov.pl/o-zsk/rada-interesariuszy
(17) https://www.cnedu.pt/pt/
(18) https://www.educacionyfp.gob.es/mc/cee/portada.html

129
the previous section: many alternative access measures explicitly target mature students – that is,
students above a pre-defined age threshold. For this reason, not surprisingly, all education systems
allowing candidates to access higher education programmes based on the recognition of prior learning
or other alternative routes report having measures supporting delayed transition students.

In addition, education systems list other ways of supporting adult learners: through financial support that
is accessible with a high upper age limit, or no age limit at all (e.g. in Austria, Cyprus, Germany, Hungary,
Norway, Poland, Sweden and the United Kingdom – Scotland), financial support that is accessible
specifically to students combining work and studies (e.g. in Belgium – Flemish Community, Finland and
Luxembourg), support for the development of micro-credentials (e.g. in Czechia, Hungary and Spain),
modular higher education accessible for a low fee (in Belgium – French Community), or the preferential
treatment of adult learners (e.g. in Cyprus and Türkiye). All in all, the majority of education systems
provide support to adult learners (see Table 4.5 in the Annex for details).

Finally, the last indicator in this section concerns whether top-level authorities require the development
of competencies related to diversity, equity and inclusion within initial teacher training programmes.
Around half of the education systems (25) report having such requirements concerning initial teacher
education programmes. A further nine education systems state that there are top-level
recommendations on the development of competencies related to diversity, equity and inclusion within
ITE programmes (see Table 4.6 in the Annex for details). At the same time, continuous professional
development (CPD) activities are provided and/or supported for practicing teachers in the large majority
of EHEA systems.

Figure 4.6 shows the scorecard indicator developed on synergies within the education system and
lifelong learning. Based on the four indicators described above, only four education systems are placed
in the highest, green category: Estonia, Germany, Spain and Switzerland. Nevertheless, the majority of
EHEA countries create some of the conditions that could facilitate synergies within the education system
as a whole for an inclusive lifelong learning, most often through supporting delayed transition students
and requiring ITE programmes to focus on questions of diversity, equity and inclusion when training
future teachers. However, education systems often lack top-level coordination structures or mechanisms
between different levels of education with a mandate linked to the social dimension of education; and in
eight education systems, none of the conditions identified in this section are present.

130
Figure 4.6: Scorecard indicator n°11: P & G 3: Facilitating synergies for an inclusive lifelong learning, 2022/2023

2022/2023

10

14

10

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories

Facilitating synergies for an inclusive lifelong learning through the following four elements:
• Top-level coordination structures and mechanisms between different levels of education with a mandate including questions related to
diversity, equity and inclusion in education.
• Representatives of other related policy areas, such as finance, employment, housing, or other social services are systematically
involved in policy discussions on diversity, equity and inclusion in education.
• Top-level measures aiming to support those who wish to access higher education during adulthood (delayed transition students).
• Initial teacher education programmes are required to develop competencies on diversity, equity and inclusion in education.

Facilitating synergies for an inclusive lifelong learning through Facilitating synergies for an inclusive lifelong learning through
three of the four mentioned elements. two of the four mentioned elements.

Facilitating synergies for an inclusive lifelong learning through No synergies for an inclusive lifelong learning through
one of the four mentioned elements. the four mentioned elements.

Not applicable Data not available

131
4.4. Monitoring and data collection
Principle:
Reliable data is a necessary precondition for an evidence-based improvement of the social dimension of higher
education. Higher education systems should define the purpose and goals of collecting certain types of data,
taking into account the particularities of the national legal frameworks. Adequate capacities to collect, process
and use such data to inform and support the social dimension of higher education should be developed.
Guidelines:
In order to develop effective policies, continuous national data collection is necessary. Within the limits of
national legal frameworks, such data collection should provide information on the composition of the student
body, access and participation, drop-out and completion of higher education, including the transition to the
labour market after completion of studies, and allow for the identification of vulnerable, disadvantaged and
underrepresented groups.
In order to make such data collection comparable internationally, work on categories for administrative data
collection that are relevant for the social dimension should be developed at the EHEA level through Eurostudent
or similar surveys. With the aim to rationalize the process and avoid administrative burden on public
administration and higher education institutions, this development should take account of existing national
practices and relevant data collection processes.
Such national data collection exercises could, where relevant and necessary, be complemented by higher
education institutions undertaking additional surveys, research and analysis to better understand vulnerability,
disadvantages, and underrepresentation in education, as well as transitions of students across the education
system.

This principle and its guidelines focus on monitoring systems that are an essential aspect of policy-
making and development. The first step towards widening participation is actually collecting information
on the existing situation regarding the participation of under-represented or disadvantaged groups in
higher education. Such information collected through systematic monitoring can provide evidence to
education authorities also on the effectiveness of measures aiming to improve the inclusiveness of
higher education. The principle highlights that data should be relevant to the goals that have been set.
In addition, if data is collected but not used to support the further development of social dimension
policies, then this is also insufficient.

The guidelines outline the kind of national processes that are required within a successful equity policy.
First, it is important to collect relevant information on the composition of the student body, access and
participation, as well as drop-out and the completion of higher education and the transition into the
labour market. While there may be some limits to the nature of data on personal characteristics that are
collected in some systems (e.g. legislation may forbid collecting data on ethnicity), wherever there are
vulnerable, disadvantaged and under-represented groups, it is important that they can be identified
through the data collected. The guidelines also encourage national authorities to participate in the
Eurostudent and similar surveys – as this allows following progress at European level form a
comparative perspective.

On this basis, the following indicators have been selected to be analysed in this section:

1) Monitoring student characteristics at entry to higher education based on administrative data.

2) Monitoring the completion rate of vulnerable, disadvantaged and underrepresented groups of

students.

3) Monitoring completion rates at the end of the first year of the first cycle, which can be broken
down by student characteristics.

4) Participation in the Eurostudent survey.

132
The composition of the student/graduate body can be monitored at four different stages: at entry, during
higher education studies, at graduation and after graduation. Monitoring entrants can provide
information on the inclusiveness of admission systems; monitoring students during higher education can
give an insight into differences in drop-out rates based on students’ specific characteristics; monitoring
graduates can reveal the chances of specific groups of students to complete higher education; and
finally, monitoring graduates some years after graduation is typically used to analyse employment
patterns of graduates as a whole, as well as that of specific groups of young people.

Regarding higher education completion and drop-out, research indicates that drop-out rates are the
highest at the end of the first academic year. First-year students are in a particularly vulnerable situation,
since their expectations might be very different from what they actually encounter. This might be even
more the case for disadvantaged learners. Therefore, monitoring drop-out rates at the end of the first
year is especially crucial.

Figure 4.7 shows whether education systems monitor student characteristics other than age and gender
at entry to higher education, at the completion of the first cycle, and at the end of the first year of the
first cycle. The criterion ‘other than age and gender’ has been added, as regular monitoring tends to
include these two student characteristics in all cases.

Figure 4.7: Monitoring student characteristics other than age and gender at higher education (HE) entry, at the
completion of the first cycle, and at the end of the first year of the first cycle, 2022/2023

Monitoring student characteristics at HE entry only

Monitoring student characteristics at HE entry and at
completion of the first cycle
Monitoring student characteristics at completion of the first
cycle and at the end of the first year of the first cycle
Monitoring student characteristics at HE entry, at
completion of the first cycle and at the end of the first year
of the first cycle
No monitoring

Not applicable

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Monitoring student characteristics at higher education entry is reported to be a widespread practice

across the EHEA. The large majority of education systems (42) report collecting administrative data on
students at this stage. Other than age and gender, monitoring most often includes disability or special
educational needs, migrant or refugee status, and socio-economic status. Collecting data on completion
rates at the end of the first cycle is less widespread, reported by less than half (21) of education systems.
Seventeen education systems report systematically collecting data at the end of the first year that can
be broken down by student characteristics other than age and gender.

133
More than half of the education systems covered in this report (30) have participated in the Eurostudent
survey (either in the previous or in the current round), which monitors the social and economic conditions
of student life in Europe (see Table 4.7 in the Annex and the website of the Eurostudent survey for more
details ( 19)).

The composite scorecard indicator is depicted on Figure 4.8. For this scorecard indicator, more than a
quarter of education systems are in the top category, as they monitor higher education students at all
stages and by all means identified in this section: at entry, at the end of the first year of the first cycle,
at the end of the first cycle, and through the Eurostudent survey. Only two education systems report not
having any of the defined monitoring mechanisms in place: Kazakhstan and Montenegro.

Figure 4.8: Scorecard indicator n°12: P & G 4: Monitoring and data collection, 2022/2023

2022/2023

12

14

10

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories

Monitoring and data collection in higher education by the following four means:
• Student characteristics other than age and gender are monitored at entry to higher education based on administrative data.
• Completion rates of students are monitored at the end of the first cycle, and data can be broken down by (at least some)
characteristics of students other than age and gender.
• Completion rates of students are monitored at the end of the first year of the first cycle, and data can be broken down by (at least
some) characteristics of students other than age and gender.
• Participation in the Eurostudent survey.

Monitoring and data collection in higher education by Monitoring and data collection in higher education by
three of the four mentioned means. two of the four mentioned means.

Monitoring and data collection in higher education by

No monitoring and data collection in higher education.
one of the four mentioned means.

Not applicable Data not available

(19) https://www.eurostudent.eu/

134
4.5. Policies to ensure effective provision of academic and
careers guidance, and psychological counselling services
Principle:
Public authorities should have policies that enable higher education institutions to ensure effective counselling and guidance
for potential and enrolled students in order to widen their access to, participation in and completion of higher education
studies. These services should be coherent across the entire education system, with special regard to transitions between
different educational levels, educational institutions and into the labour market.
Guidelines:
Public authorities should create conditions that enable collaboration between different public institutions that provide
counselling and guidance services together with higher education institutions in order to create synergies and omit duplication
of similar services. These services should uphold the principles of clarity and user-friendliness, because end users must be
capable to understand them easily.
Within a diverse student body, special attention should be directed towards students with physical and psychological health
challenges. These students should have access to professional support to secure their success in accessing and completing
higher education studies. Special focus should be placed on prevention of psychological challenges caused by the
organisation of study and students’ living conditions.
Public authorities should also consider setting up ombudsperson-type institutions that will have the capacity and knowledge
to mediate any conflicts, particularly related to equity issues that may arise during accessing or participating in higher
education, or conflicts that hinder the completion of studies.

This principle and its guidelines focus on the capacity of guidance and counselling systems to support
both potential and enrolled students to succeed to the best of their abilities. The principle draws attention
to the need for coherence in service provision across the entire education system.

The first guideline points to the conditions that enable collaboration and notes the need for clarity and
user-friendliness of services. The guidelines also emphasise support not only to enrolled students but
also to potential students, stressing the need for flexibility in system design and for individuals to be able
to move back into the education system at any time during their lives. Finally, the guidelines highlight
the need for institutions to have the capacity to mediate conflicts, particularly related to equity issues.

On this basis, the following indicators were selected to monitor effective guidance and counselling
services:
1) The existence of a top-level legal requirement and support to provide free, accessible, and
timely academic and careers counselling and guidance services to potential and enrolled
students in higher education.
2) The existence of a top-level legal requirement to provide free, accessible and timely
psychological counselling and guidance services to potential and enrolled students in higher
education.
3) Existing requirements for quality assurance agencies to monitor career, academic as well as
psychological counselling and guidance services in higher education.
4) Existence of public institution(s) with a formal role in conflict resolution and in mediating conflicts
related to social dimension in higher education.

The services under consideration can help actual and potential students in many different ways,
including instilling confidence to achieve academic success; developing skills to improve organisation,
study habits, and time management; working through personal problems that may affect capacity to
study effectively and live well; identifying interests, strengths, and aptitudes, and preparing for future
academic, career, and social challenges. Because of the many potential benefits, the principle and its
guidelines recommend that services are accessible to all actual and potential students and provided
free of charge.

Figure 4.9 focuses on whether there is a top-level legal requirement to provide academic, careers and
psychological counselling services to potential or actual students. The first criterion for the indicator is

135
that the top-level legal requirement should specifically address at least one of the two categories –
students already enrolled in higher education institutions or potential students (i.e., upper secondary
school students or adults interested in entering higher education). The second criterion is that the
services should be free of charge.

Figure 4.9: Legal requirement for free guidance and counselling services for actual and/or potential students in
higher education, 2022/2023

Legal requirement for free psychological counselling

in higher education institutions
Legal requirement for free academic and careers
guidance in higher education institutions

No legal requirement

Not applicable

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Only five EHEA systems (Croatia, Latvia, North Macedonia and the UK education systems) have no
legal requirement for either academic, careers or psychological guidance services. It is important to
point out, however, that even in these systems higher education institutions may often provide such
services despite having no legal obligation to do so. This is the case in Croatia. Academic and careers
guidance services are legally required in 38 systems while for psychological counselling services the
requirement exists in 27 systems.

While this picture is rather positive – particularly given the fact that services may also be provided in the
countries which do not have a legal requirement – the indicator is unable to assess whether in reality all
students or potential students who need these services are actually able to benefit from them. This key
question cannot be answered from the type of data received from ministry representatives. It would
require qualitative research to be undertaken with potential and actual students and higher education
institutions.

This topic is also explored by the European Students Union in the survey for the 2024 edition of Bologna
With Student Eyes. Student unions were asked to evaluate the accessibility and timely availability of
services. Only 35% considering psychological counselling to be available in a timely manner, and even
fewer (24%) responding positively for academic counselling. On the question of costs, 70% reported
career counselling services to be free, while this was the case in only 49% of cases with regard to
psychological counselling.

The next issue under consideration is the requirement for quality assurance of these support services.
National respondents were asked whether quality assurance of these services is required by law. More
specifically respondents were asked whether quality assurance agencies have standards and criteria to

136
check in their external evaluations whether higher education students have access to academic, career
and/or psychological counselling services? According to the responses, 33 EHEA systems specify
requirements for quality assurance of services within the mandate of quality assurance agencies (see
Annex, Table 4.8).

The fourth indicator with regard to this set of principles and guidelines concerns the existence of public
institutions that provide formal mediation for conflicts. Where such an institution exists, the mediation
role needs to include issues related to diversity, equity and inclusion in order to be considered here.
Around a third of the EHEA systems (16) have such conflict mediation institutions (see Annex,
Table 4.9).

Figure 4.10 shows the scorecard indicator developed on the basis of the four indicators outlined above.

Figure 4.10: Scorecard indicator n°13: P&G 5: Effective guidance and counselling services, 2022/2023

2022/2023

10

18

10

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories

Effective guidance and counselling services are demonstrated through the following four elements:
• Legal requirement to provide free academic and careers counselling services to potential and enrolled students in higher education.
• Legal requirement to provide free psychological counselling services to potential and enrolled students in higher education.
• Requirement for quality assurance of career, academic and psychological counselling, and guidance services in higher education.
• Existence of public institution(s) with a formal role in conflict resolution and in mediating conflicts related to social dimension in higher
education.

Three of the four Two of the four

mentioned elements are implemented. mentioned elements are implemented.

One of the four None of the four

mentioned elements is implemented. mentioned elements are implemented.

Not applicable Data not available

Overall, 38 systems are in the top three categories, with 10 in dark green, 18 in light green and 10 in
yellow. In all of these systems two or more of the criteria are met. Seven systems are in the orange
category with only one of the four criteria being met. Only one system is in the red category. This

137
indicates that in most higher education systems requirements are in place for the type of services
covered in this principle and its guidelines. Nevertheless, there remains room for improvement to extend
the coverage and ensure the quality of such services.

4.6. Policies to ensure sustainable funding for equity, inclusion

and diversity in higher education
Principle:
Public authorities should provide sufficient and sustainable funding and financial autonomy to higher education
institutions enabling them to build adequate capacity to embrace diversity and contribute to equity and inclusion
in higher education.
Guidelines:
Higher education funding systems should facilitate the attainment of strategic objectives related to the social
dimension of higher education. Higher education institutions should be supported and rewarded for meeting
agreed targets in widening access, increasing participation in and completion of higher education studies, in
particular in relation to vulnerable, disadvantaged and underrepresented groups. Mechanisms for achieving
these targets should not have negative financial consequences for higher education institutions’ core funding.
Financial support systems should aim to be universally applicable to all students, however, when this is
not possible, the public student financial support systems should be primarily needs-based and should make
higher education affordable for all students, foster access to and provide opportunities for success in higher
education. They should mainly contribute to cover both the direct costs of study (fees and study materials) and
the indirect costs (e.g. accommodation, which is becoming increasingly problematic for students across the
EHEA due to the increased housing, living, and transportation costs, etc.).

This principle and its guidelines focus on two key objectives of higher education public funding: first, that
it should be sufficient and sustainable, and second, that higher education institutions should have and
use autonomy to embrace diversity and enhance equity and inclusion.

The first guideline proposes that higher education funding systems should be closely aligned to strategic
objectives related to the social dimension. Higher education institutions should be supported and
rewarded for meeting agreed targets, such as widening access, increasing participation in, and
completion of, higher education studies, especially in relation to vulnerable, disadvantaged and
underrepresented groups. However, this should not be done at the expense of core funding.

The second guideline focuses on financial support systems to students. The aim should be for financial
support to be universally applicable. However, where this is not possible, support should be primarily
need-based, rather than rewarding academic performance. Support should also contribute to direct and
indirect costs of study.

The following indicators were selected to monitor sufficient, sustainable and equitable funding:
1) Public funding for higher education institutions that meet targets in widening access, increasing
participation or completing higher education, in particular in relation to underrepresented,
disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.
2) Public provision of universal or need-based grants for first-cycle students that cover direct and
indirect costs of study.
3) Public provision of top-level student financial support for indirect costs of study.
4) Eligibility of part-time students for the same direct or indirect financial support as full-time
students.

The first element – attributing funding to higher education institutions that meet targets in widening
access, increasing participation or completing higher education, in particular in relation to

138
underrepresented, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups – remains very much a minority feature of
European higher education today (see Annex, Table 4.10).

Only eight systems report system-level funding that corresponds to this approach. The countries where
funding is most directly used for targeting social dimension objectives are Austria and Romania. In
Austria, the funding follows the objectives of the national strategy on the social dimension of higher
education. Every public university has a performance agreement with the ministry which includes
measures regarding the social dimension, and the foreseen earmarked part of budget is only transferred
if these social dimension measures are implemented. Meanwhile in Romania, a part of higher education
institutional financing is based on the share of the number of students from socio-economically
disadvantaged backgrounds in the total number of students.

Czechia, Estonia and Norway attribute additional funding to higher education institutions in relation to
completion rates. While improving completion is an important objective, it has only an indirect impact on
disadvantaged students, as they are not specifically targeted by the measure. In contrast, Italy uses a
funding mechanism which targets completion of the first year of higher education studies. This is the
year in which students, and especially vulnerable students, are most likely to drop out. Germany also
has funding mechanisms that, particularly at state (Land) level, may target social dimension objectives
such as attracting first-generation students.

The second indicator focuses on grants. This is a form of public financial support that is provided directly
to students and, in contrast with loans, does not need to be paid back. Government support through
grants can contribute to promoting social mobility by providing equal opportunities for students from
diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. By ensuring that financial constraints do not hinder access to
higher education, governments can help to engender a more equitable society where individuals can
achieve their full potential regardless of their economic circumstances.

When all students are eligible for grants with no other criterion than student status involved (such as
academic performance or financial status), the type of grant system is understood as ‘universal’. This is
the model which is seen as the gold standard in the principle and its guidelines. Disadvantaged students
are not specifically targeted, but due to the universal approach, benefit from it. As all students are treated
equally, there is no potential for any stigma in relation to receiving a grant.

In many systems, grants are awarded on the basis of assessed financial need. Eligibility is determined
on the basis of a set of socio-economic criteria, the most frequent being family income. These systems
intend grants to reach those students with the greatest financial need, and are therefore designed to
support the participation of disadvantaged students.

Figure 4.11 depicts the use of universal and need-based grants in the EHEA. The first cycle is chosen
as this cycle has the largest enrolment of students. Need-based grants are shown in relation to the
percentage of recipients – under 10%, between 10 – 30% and over 30%.

Universal grants are provided in seven EHEA systems, with the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland,
Sweden and Norway joined by Azerbaijan, Luxembourg and Malta. Need-based grants are far more
widespread in the EHEA, with 34 systems providing them. In 16 systems they are provided for under
10% of the student population. This may indicate that there has been a decision to support only those
students who have the greatest financial need, but it may also indicate a relatively low level of investment
in student support. In 11 systems need-based grants reach between 10 – 30% of students, and in seven
systems they are attributed to over 30% of students. Six systems provide no need-based grants at all.
In these systems the student support funding model is not aligned with the philosophy of the principle
and guidelines.

139
Figure 4.11: Grants awarded in the first cycle of higher education, 2022/2023

Need-based grants for <10% of students

Need-based grants for 10 – 30% of students

Need-based grants for >30% of students

Universal grants

No need-based grants

Not applicable

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

The third indicator related to this principle and its guidelines is whether the public authority provides top-
level student financial support for indirect costs of study. Indirect financial support means all other forms
of public subsidy to students that are not received directly as are grants and loans. The main forms
considered here are subsidies for student accommodation, transport and meals, but subsidies for study
materials such as books and Information Technology equipment are also very relevant.

Governments providing indirect financial support to higher education students can help higher education
become more affordable and accessible for students from lower-income backgrounds. This allows
students to focus more on their studies rather than worrying about related expenses. Indirect financial
support can also enable students to access better educational resources and facilities, including
research materials, laboratories, and library resources. This can contribute to improved educational
outcomes and a higher quality of educational experience. Indirect financial support can therefore add to
the incentives for students to pursue higher education.

Some level of indirect financial support is provided by the majority of EHEA countries. Indeed it is only
in eight systems that no indirect financial support is put in place for transport, meals or accommodation
(see Annex, Table 4.11).

The fourth indicator in this section relates to part-time students and assesses whether or not the forms
of student support that are in place for full-time students are also in place for part-time students.
Providing financial support to part-time higher education students plays an essential role in ensuring
equal access, encouraging lifelong learning, fostering social mobility and addressing skills gaps. The
guidelines also aim to promote the idea that financial support should be provided for all students,
whether studying full or part time.

With respect to this indicator, part-time students are far from being treated equitably across the EHEA
(see Annex, Table 4.12). Indeed it is only in about one-third of countries that they are entitled to grants
on the same basis, pro-rata, as their full-time counterparts. They are also unable to access indirect
financial support in around two-thirds of countries. This evidence means that there is a clear equity
policy issue to be tackled in many EHEA systems.

140
Figure 4.12 is the scorecard indicator encompassing the four indicators outlined above.

Figure 4.12: Scorecard indicator n°14: P & G 6: Sustainable funding for equity, inclusion and diversity in higher
education, 2022/2023

2022/2023

13

19

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories

Sustainable funding for equity, inclusion and diversity is demonstrated through the following four elements:
• Public funding is attributed to higher education institutions that meet targets in widening access, increasing participation or completing
higher education, in particular in relation to underrepresented, disadvantaged and vulnerable groups.
• Public authority provides universal or need-based grants for first cycle students that cover direct and indirect costs of study.
• Public authority provides top-level student financial support for indirect costs of study.
• Part-time students are eligible for the same direct or indirect financial support as full-time students.

Three of the four Two of the four One of the four

mentioned elements are implemented. mentioned elements are implemented. mentioned elements is implemented.

None of the four

Not applicable. Data not available
mentioned elements are implemented.

Nine systems are in the dark green category, and therefore score positively on all four elements
included. 14 systems are in light green, and 18 in yellow. In these cases, the systems lack one or two
of the elements. Five systems are in the orange category which means that only one of the four elements
is adequately addressed. However, there are no countries that are in the red category, and this is a
positive reality as it indicates that there is some attention to sustainable funding supporting equity,
inclusion and diversity in all EHEA systems.

141
4.7. Policies to create inclusive learning environments and
institutional cultures
Principle:
Public authorities should help higher education institutions to strengthen their capacity in responding to the
needs of a more diverse student and staff body and create inclusive learning environments and inclusive
institutional cultures.
Guidelines:
Public authorities should support and provide adequate means to higher education institutions to improve initial
and continuing professional training for academic and administrative staff to enable them to work professionally
and equitably with a diverse student body and staff.
Whenever possible, external quality assurance systems should address how the social dimension, diversity,
accessibility, equity and inclusion are reflected within the institutional missions of higher education institutions,
whilst respecting the principle of autonomy of higher education institutions.

This principle and its guidelines focus on the relationship between public authorities and higher
education institutions regarding their capacity to respond to the diversity of the student and staff body.
It considers the learning environment and the learning culture.

The first guideline focuses on the role of public authorities in supporting and providing adequate means
to higher education institutions to improve initial and continuing professional training for academic and
administrative staff in the area of diversity and inclusion. Working ‘equitably and with a diverse student
body and staff’ is not necessarily easy or obvious. Therefore, appropriate training can help academic
and administrative staff to respond better to the needs of a diverse student body and to work better with
colleagues of different backgrounds and/or orientations.

The second guideline considers the topic from the perspective of quality assurance. It examines whether
quality assurance systems focus on equity and inclusion, and also whether these issues are integrated
into the institutional missions of higher education institutions and/or their study programmes. The second
guideline, therefore, is about whether equity and inclusion inform the core values of the higher education
institutions and/or of their study programmes.

The following indicators were selected to monitor this policy area:

1) Existence of top-level requirements or recommendations for higher education institutions to offer
training on diversity, equity or inclusion to academic and administrative staff.
2) Existence of support offered by top-level public authorities to higher education institutions to
offer training on diversity, equity or inclusion to academic and administrative staff.
3) Existence of guidelines issued by public authorities to quality assurance agencies to consider
whether social dimension is addressed in the mission and strategy of higher education
institutions.
4) Public provision of financial means to higher education institutions to make their buildings and
infrastructure easily accessible and adjusted to the needs of underrepresented, disadvantaged
and vulnerable students and staff.

Figure 4.13 shows aspects of the first two indicators. It considers both whether top-level requirements
or recommendations are in place for higher education institutions to provide training to staff on equity,
inclusion and diversity, and whether targeted financial support is provided for such activity.

142
Figure 4.13: Support to higher education institutions (HEIs) for staff training on equity, inclusion and diversity,
2022/2023

Targeted financial support to HEIs to

provide training on staff on equity, inclusion
and diversity
Top-level requirement or recommendation
to provide training to staff on equity,
inclusion and diversity
No requirements, recommendations or
targeted financial support for training staff
on equity, inclusion and diversity

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

The majority of systems (28) have no requirements or recommendations, and offer no specific financial
support to higher education institutions to undertake staff training on equity, inclusion and diversity.
There is therefore significant scope for future action, and the minority of systems that already take action
can offer examples of practice to build upon.
The Flemish Community of Belgium has established an organisation called the Support Centre Inclusive
Higher Education (SIHO, Steunpunt Inclusief Hoger Onderwijs) ( 20) to support inclusive higher
education. Its primary objective is to ensure that students with disabilities or specific educational needs
have equal opportunities and access to higher education. However, the concept of inclusion is also
considered more broadly, so that in 2023, for example, financial support was given through SIHO to
develop and organise training on student mental health issues.
In Germany, the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) is funding the German Rectors'
Conference (HRK) to develop an initiative called ‘Diversity at German Universities’ ( 21). The initiative
aims to promote diversity at universities through concrete projects and campaigns at individual
institutions as well as through cross-project dialogue and exchange at national level.
Finland develops work in this area through ministry-commissioned research projects. The idea is to
provide new knowledge on the state of equality advancement in higher education institutions, as well as
new tools and approaches which can be adopted by different institutions.
While Belgium (French Community) has no requirements in place regarding staff training, it has put in
place measures to contribute to a safer and more secure learning environment. These are gender-
balanced measures on campus and include the establishment of a gender contact point to be used in
cases related to sexual harassment.
The third indicator concerns the role of quality assurance agencies, and more specifically illustrates
whether public authorities issue guidelines requiring social dimension issues to be addressed in the
mission and strategy of higher education institutions. Around half of the higher education systems (23)
reported that such guidelines are issued to quality assurance agencies in their system (see Annex,
Table 4.13).

(20) For more details, see the SIHO website.

(21) See https://www.hrk.de/themen/hochschulsystem/diversitaet/initiative-vielfalt-an-deutschen-hochschulen/

143
The fourth indicator is about the role of public authorities in ensuring that higher education institutions
are accessible and that the built infrastructure is adjusted to the needs of underrepresented, vulnerable
and disadvantaged students and staff. It shows that only about a quarter of EHEA systems (12) provide
support systematically to higher education institutions to make infrastructure improvements for the
benefit of students and staff that have access issues (see Annex, Table 4.14).

In most of countries where such support is provided, it is within a broader framework of accessibility to
buildings and infrastructure. For example in Lithuania, all new buildings must include the criteria of
universal design, while all infrastructure renewal projects must fulfil criteria related to accessibility if
public money is to be awarded.

Figure 4.14 presents the scorecard indicator that comprises the elements outlined above. Austria,
Czechia and Malta are the only countries that fulfil all criteria. At the other extreme, there are 11 systems
in red that currently fulfil none of the criteria. The large majority of systems (34) therefore fulfil one or
more of the criteria.

It is clear from this picture that this is a topic where there is much policy development work to be
undertaken in future years if the commitment to an inclusive learning environment is to be realised.

Figure 4.14: Scorecard indicator n°15: P&G 7: Inclusive learning environment and institutional culture, 2022/2023

2022/2023
3

15

10

11

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories
Inclusive learning environment and institutional culture is demonstrated through the following four elements:
• Top-level requirements or recommendations for higher education institutions to offer training on diversity, equity or inclusion to
academic and administrative staff.
• Support offered by top-level public authorities to higher education institutions to offer training on diversity, equity or inclusion to
academic and administrative staff.
• Public authority issues guidelines to quality assurance agencies to consider whether social dimension is addressed in the mission and
strategy of higher education institutions.
• Public authority provides financial means to higher education institutions to make their buildings and infrastructure easily accessible
and adjusted to the needs of underrepresented, disadvantaged and vulnerable students and staff.
Three of the four Two of the four One of the four
mentioned elements are implemented. mentioned elements are implemented. mentioned elements is implemented.
None of the four
Data not available
mentioned elements are implemented.

144
4.8. Mobility
Principle:
International mobility programs in higher education should be structured and implemented in a way that foster
diversity, equity and inclusion and should particularly foster participation of students and staff from vulnerable,
disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds.
Guidelines:
International experiences through learning mobility improve the quality of learning outcomes in higher
education. Public authorities and higher education institutions should ensure equal access for all to the learning
opportunities offered by national and international learning and training mobility programmes and actively
address obstacles to mobility for vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented groups of students and staff.
Besides further support to physical mobility, including full portability of grants and loans across the EHEA, public
authorities and higher education institutions should facilitate the use of information and communications
technology (ICT) to support blended mobility and to foster internationalisation at home by embedding
international online cooperation into courses. Blended mobility is the combination of a period of physical mobility
and a period of online learning. Such online cooperation can be used to extend the learning outcomes and
enhance the impact of physical mobility, for example by bringing together a more diverse group of participants,
or to offer a broader range of mobility options.

Not all students have equal access to learning mobility opportunities. Evidence shows that students from
low socio-economic backgrounds and students with disabilities are less likely to participate in such
programmes (Hauschildt et al., 2021; European Commission, 2019). Disadvantaged students therefore
miss out on the benefits conferred by these experiences, further deepening the divide with their peers.
Disadvantaged groups of staff – e.g. staff with special needs – may also face additional difficulties when
going on international mobility. The first guideline related to mobility therefore emphasises the need for
public authorities and higher education institutions to ensure equal access for all students and staff to
all opportunities offered by mobility programmes. The second guideline focuses on the support provided
by public institutions in fostering student participation in both physical and blended mobility.

On this basis, this section examines the following indicators related to supporting disadvantaged
students and staff in international mobility programmes:
1) Existence of top-level measures supporting vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented
students in international learning mobility.
2) Existence of a top-level mobility policy focused on vulnerable, disadvantaged or
underrepresented groups of staff.
3) Collecting data on and monitoring the participation and experiences of beneficiaries in all types
of international mobility programmes, including their background characteristics (gender, age
and at least one other student characteristic) based on a standardised methodology.
4) Existence of top-level support to higher education institutions to foster blended learning mobility
and/or internationalisation at home.

Institutions need to address difficulties or impediments that might hinder or even completely prevent
access to mobility programmes especially for students from vulnerable, disadvantaged or
underrepresented groups. Top-level authorities can provide the necessary framework conditions and
incentives for institutions for this to happen. In this section, the following three forms of top-level
measures supporting vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented students in international learning
mobility are monitored: 1) targeted or universal mobility grants, 2) top-level recommendations or
incentives provided to higher education institutions to introduce targeted measures encouraging the
participation of disadvantaged learners, and 3) top-level measurable targets on the participation of
disadvantaged learners. Most of these measures require a specific focus on disadvantaged learners.
While general or mainstream policy measures may also enhance the participation of these groups of

145
students in learning mobility, given the vulnerable position of students from under-represented groups,
this indicator aims to capture the presence of targeted policies in the education systems under analysis.
The exception from this rule is universal grants, as providing mobility grants to all (or almost all) students
will necessarily reach disadvantaged learners as well.

Figure 4.15 shows the presence of these policy measures across the EHEA. The most widespread
measure is providing mobility grants (targeted or universal), which exist in the majority of education
systems with available data. It is important to note that in this category, only grants which are either
provided specifically for mobility purposes, or explicitly and purposefully designed to be used for studying
both at home or abroad are taken into account. This means that portable domestic grants are not
included on the figure. Regarding portability, more information is presented in Chapter 6, Section 6.2.1.

Less than one third of EHEA systems report providing recommendations or incentives for higher
education institutions to introduce targeted measures encouraging or enabling more disadvantaged
learners to participate in international mobility. When they exist, such top-level policy incentives,
guidelines or recommendations are often formulated in higher education or internationalisation
strategies and action plans (e.g. in the Flemish Community of Belgium, Austria, Czechia, Greece, Ireland
and Portugal). In Spain, national regulations establish that universities should promote the participation
of students with disabilities in international mobility programmes, establishing the relevant quotas,
guaranteeing sufficient funding in each case, as well as information and cooperation systems between
the units that cater for these students ( 22). Financial incentives exist in Italy, where the proportion of
disadvantaged students and students participating in learning mobility programmes are taken into
account in the funding awarded to higher education institutions.

Figure 4.15: Top-level measures supporting vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented students in

international learning mobility, 2022/2023

Top-level recommendations/incentives
to HEIs

Top-level measurable targets

Targeted or universal mobility grants

No targeted measures

Not applicable

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

(22) Article 18 of the Royal Decree 1791/2010 of 30 December, approving the Statute of the University Student,
https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-2010-20147#a18

146
Top-level measurable targets are long- or short-term quantitative objectives set by top-level authorities
for the proportion of disadvantaged students participating in learning mobility, signalling a strong political
commitment towards increasing the participation of disadvantaged students in learning mobility
programmes. However, these targets are rather rare, as they exist only in six education systems
(Austria, Belgium – Flemish and French Communities, Greece, Malta and Portugal). Long-term
objectives (over one year) on the participation of disadvantaged students in mobility programmes are
usually set as part of top-level strategies on higher education or learning mobility, as in Austria and
Belgium. Alternatively, year-on-year targets are typically defined by national Erasmus+ agencies, as in
Greece, Malta and Portugal. For more details on top-level targets, see Table 4.15 in the Annex.

While top-level policy measures concerning the mobility participation of disadvantaged students exist in
the majority of education systems, this is not the case for disadvantaged or underrepresented groups of
staff. Only five education systems report providing targeted support for disadvantaged groups of staff
for mobility purposes: Finland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and Türkiye. In all five cases, extra financial
support is provided for staff (academic and non-academic) with a disability or special needs.

Monitoring systematically the participation and experiences of beneficiaries in all types of international
mobility programmes, where data can be broken down by students’ background characteristics (other
than age and gender) is reported by 17 education systems (see Table 4.16 in the Annex). This means
that while all countries participating in the Erasmus+ programme are required to monitor participation in
this specific programme, this monitoring is not always extended to all types of mobility experiences.

Finally, the last element concerns the importance of new technologies in supporting blended mobility
and promoting internationalisation at home. Integrating physical mobility with online learning could
facilitate the bringing together of a more diverse group of participants as well as offering a broader range
of mobility options. However, less than half of education systems across the EHEA report providing
systematic support to higher education institutions to foster blended learning mobility and/or
internationalisation at home (see Table 4.17 in the Annex). The organisation of blended learning and
the implementation of internationalisation at home are supported by just above a quarter of EHEA
systems each, often within the framework of the Erasmus+ programme.

Figure 4.16 depicts the composite scorecard indicator in the area of international mobility. There are
only two education systems providing systematic support to vulnerable, disadvantaged or
underrepresented groups of students and staff by all the means outlined in this section: Finland and
Türkiye. Seven education systems fulfil almost all conditions, most often lacking a top-level policy
concerning disadvantaged groups of staff or a systematic monitoring practice. However, the majority of
education systems are placed in the two bottom categories, orange and red. Thus, in most EHEA
countries, there is still a lack of clear political commitment towards facilitating the participation of
disadvantaged students and staff in learning mobility.

147
Figure 4.16: Scorecard indicator n°16: P&G 8: Supporting vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented groups of
students and staff in participating in international mobility, 2022/2023

2022/2023

12

15

11

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories

Supporting the participation of disadvantaged learners and staff in international mobility by the following four means:
• Top-level measures supporting vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented students in international learning mobility.
• Top-level mobility policy focused on vulnerable, disadvantaged or underrepresented groups of staff.
• Monitoring the participation and experiences of beneficiaries in all types of international mobility programmes, including their
background characteristics (gender, age and at least one other student characteristic) based on a standardised methodology.
• Top-level support to higher education institutions to foster blended learning mobility and/or internationalisation at home.

Supporting the participation of disadvantaged learners and staff in international mobility by

three of the four mentioned means.

Supporting the participation of disadvantaged learners and staff in international mobility by

two of the four mentioned means.

Supporting the participation of disadvantaged learners and staff in international mobility by

one of the four mentioned means.

No targeted support provided for the participation of disadvantaged learners and staff in international mobility in higher education.

Not applicable

Data not available

148
4.9. Community engagement
Principle:
Higher education institutions should ensure that community engagement in higher education promotes diversity,
equity and inclusion.
Guidelines:
Community engagement should be considered as a process whereby higher education institutions engage with
external community stakeholders to undertake joint activities that can be mutually beneficial. Like social
dimension policies, community engagement should be embedded in core missions of higher education. It
should engage with teaching and learning, research, service and knowledge exchange, students and staff and
management of higher education institutions. Such engagement provides a holistic basis on which universities
can address a broad range of societal needs, including those of vulnerable, disadvantaged and
underrepresented groups, while enriching their teaching, research and other core functions.
Community stakeholders (e.g. local authorities, cultural organisations, nongovernmental organisations,
businesses, citizens) should be able to meaningfully engage with higher education actors through open
dialogue. This will enable genuine university-community partnerships, which can effectively address social and
democratic challenges.

This principle and its guidelines highlight the important role of higher education institutions in developing
community engagement activities. Community engagement is understood as a process whereby higher
education institutions engage with external community stakeholders to undertake joint activities that can
be mutually beneficial. Such stakeholders can be local authorities, cultural organisations, non-
governmental organisations, businesses and citizens or citizens’ groups. Higher education institutions
and external community stakeholders may collaborate on issues that concern the local or regional
environment and the general wellbeing of citizens.

In contrast to the other Principles and Guidelines, this one is more specifically focused on higher
education institutions rather than on public authorities. One of the difficulties in assessing the way in
which community engagement action takes place is that it may be undertaken without the awareness of
public authorities. As this report is unable to compare the nature and extent of community engagement
activities, there is no scorecard indicator for this topic.

Information on community engagement activities of higher education institutions can, however, be found
in the European University Association (EUA) Trends 2024 survey, the results of which will be published
in May 2024. The survey highlights issues that are most frequently addressed by higher education
institutions in their community engagement work. Preliminary information shared by EUA identifies the
top three issues for higher education institutions as skills development relevant for the labour market,
regional and local development and environmental sustainability and greening.

This report focuses on the actions of public authorities in supporting community engagement activities.
The following indicators were selected to monitor top-level support to community engagement:
1) Financial support provided by top-level authorities to higher education institutions in developing
community engagement activities focused on diversity, equity and inclusion.
2) Existing public support for higher education institutions to train their staff and students on how
to increase their community engagement activities focused on diversity, equity and inclusion.
3) Existing networks initiated and supported by top-level authorities at the local, regional or national
level for both staff and students in implementing community engagement activities, particularly
those focused on diversity, equity and inclusion.
4) Existence of requirements for external quality assurance agencies to evaluate community
engagement activities of higher education institutions focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion.

149
Figure 4.17 shows the extent to which public authorities provide funding to higher education institutions
for social engagement activities. It distinguishes between those countries where institutions are able to
use general funding for community engagement activities, and those where additional funding is
provided specifically for community engagement.

Figure 4.17: Top-level funding of higher education institutions (HEIs) for community engagement activities,
2022/2023

Additional funding available to HEIs for

community engagement activities
HEIs able to use general funding for
community engagement activities
No funding for community engagement
activities

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

The most common EHEA reality – to be found in 29 systems – is for no funding to be provided for
community engagement activities. Additional funding specifically for community engagement actions is
provided in nine EHEA systems, while in 14 systems there are opportunities for higher education
institutions to use general funding sources for community engagement activities. In four countries –
Switzerland, Spain, Romania and Türkiye – there is the possibility for higher education institutions to
benefit from both additional funding and general funding. In all the other systems there is no funding
with community engagement role in mind.

The paucity of funding suggests that there is currently a relatively low level of interest for community
engagement from public authorities. This picture is confirmed when looking at other support that may
be provided, as this is even less common. Only five EHEA systems (Switzerland, Italy, Lithuania, Türkiye
and the Holy See) reported the provision of public support to organise training for students and staff on
social dimension topics (equity, inclusion and diversity) within the remit of community engagement.
Similarly only five systems (Switzerland, Czechia, France, Türkiye and the Holy See) reported
involvement of public authorities in initiating and supporting networks at the local, regional or national
level for both staff and students in implementing community engagement activities.

150
External quality assurance requirements for community engagement actions are, however, more
commonly found − even if this remains a practice for a minority of systems. As illustrated in Figure 4.18,
11 EHEA systems require external quality assurance agencies to evaluate the community engagement
activities of higher education institutions. Curiously in three countries (Albania, Armenia and Portugal)
quality assurance agencies are required to assess community engagement activities even though there
is neither public funding nor other public support provided by top-level authorities. In these systems it
appears that public authorities set requirements for quality assurance agencies in areas where they
provide no funding or support.

Figure 4.18: External quality assurance requirements for community engagement activities, 2022/2023

External quality assurance of community

engagement activities is required

No requirements for quality assurance

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Overall, the data collected for this report signals an absence of funding and support to community
engagement activities by public authorities. This is the case for 31 systems. Only three systems –
France, Switzerland and Türkiye – appear to offer a high level of support to higher education institutions
for community engagement activities focused on the social dimension. In the majority of countries, there
are some foundations in place that can be developed in the future. Nevertheless, there is little tangible
evidence of a strong concern to support the community engagement work of higher education
institutions.

151
4.10. Policy dialogue
Principle:
Public authorities should engage in a policy dialogue with higher education institutions and other relevant
stakeholders about how the above principles and guidelines can be translated and implemented both at national
system and institutional level.
Guidelines:
Such policy dialogue should allow to develop fit for purpose policy measures, which should respect institutional
autonomy, avoid any unnecessary administrative burden, and thus enable concrete progress towards diversity,
equity, and inclusion in higher education.
Within the scope of the above principles and guidelines, peer support and exchange of good practices are
crucial among EHEA countries in order to facilitate progress towards the inclusiveness of higher education
systems.

This principle and its guidelines focus on the implementation of the overall set of Principles and
Guidelines. It aims to ensure that dialogue between public authorities, higher education institutions and
other relevant stakeholders is established to take forward the implementation of the different P&Gs.

The following indicators were selected to monitor this policy dialogue:

1) Existence of a policy dialogue established by top-level authorities in a specific forum dedicated
to the implementation of the Principles and Guidelines.
2) Representation of key stakeholders (higher education institutions, students and staff) in the
established policy dialogue.
3) Existence of international peer learning activities and exchange of good practices on
strengthening social dimension of higher education in which top-level authorities participate.
4) Existence of policy developments as a result of a policy dialogue.

Figure 4.19 covers the main aspects of the first two indicators. It shows whether or not a policy dialogue
has been established to address the implementation of the principles and guidelines, and it also shows
which stakeholders are represented in this dialogue.

The most significant observation is that, so far, more than half of the EHEA countries have not yet
established a national policy dialogue focusing on the implementation of the principles and guidelines.
While some may consider that only two years passed from the adoption of the commitment to implement
principles and guidelines in 2020 and the data collection for this report, nevertheless it would be
reasonable to expect that an issue that is a policy commitment would have stimulated action during this
period.

Among the 20 systems where policy dialogue has been established, considerable variety in stakeholder
participation can be observed. Only five systems (Finland, Poland, Sweden, Türkiye and Ukraine)
involve representatives of all the key stakeholders – higher education institutions, students and staff.
Overall in the EHEA systems where policy dialogue has been established, higher education institutions
and students are the most widely represented (15 systems). Representatives of staff are less likely to
be included in this policy dialogue, as only eight systems include them.

152
Figure 4.19: Participants in policy dialogue to implement the principles and guidelines on the social dimension,
2022/2023

HEIs involved in policy dialogue

Students involved in policy dialogue

Staff involved in policy dialogue

Policy dialogue involving government

bodies, but no stakeholders

No policy dialogue

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

The third indicator concerns international peer learning activities related to the social dimension. Here
countries that answered positively (see Annex, Table 4.18) tended to refer to activities established at
European level, such as European projects or structures such as the Bologna process working group
on the social dimension. Very few countries reported action that they had initiated at international level.
One notable exception is the Flemish Community of Belgium which points to its role in initiating and
coordinating several international projects on inclusion and mobility in cooperation with its specialised
organisation dealing with issues of inclusion in higher education, SIHO (Steunpunt Inclusief Hoger
Onderwijs).

The final indicator looks at the outcomes of policy dialogue, and addresses the question of whether
dialogue has led to any concrete policy developments. Despite relatively little time since the policy
dialogue has been established, 14 systems nevertheless claim that policy changes have already
resulted from this dialogue (see Annex, Table 4.19). In many of these cases, the development builds on
a process that was already established. For example, in Armenia the dialogue has provided input into
draft legislation, in Estonia it has fed into the development of performance agreements with higher
education institutions and in Georgia it has been considered with regard to updating institutional
accreditation requirements. In other cases, policy is in the process of changing. Poland has reviewed
its legislation in view of the principles and guidelines, Spain and Finland are in the process of ensuring
that higher education institutions have fully developed accessibility plans and Croatia also has
developed a draft plan of measures at national level. Ireland is developing two pathways into higher
education, the first based on universal design principles and the second focusing particularly on the
needs of traveller and Roma communities.

Clearly, around Europe, there has been a response to the adoption of the principles and guidelines, and
this is also visible in Figure 4.20, the scorecard indicator that brings together the indicators outlined
above.

153
Figure 4.20: Scorecard indicator n°17: P & G 10: Policy dialogue on implementation of principles and guidelines,
2022/2023

2022/2023

12

10

19

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories

The establishment of policy dialogue is demonstrated through the following four elements:
• Top-level authorities have established policy dialogue dedicated to the implementation of the Principles and Guidelines.
• The key stakeholders (higher education institutions, students and staff) are represented in the established policy dialogue.
• Top-level authorities support and participates in international peer learning activities and exchange of good practices on strengthening
social dimension of higher education.
• Policy dialogue has led to policy developments.

Three of the four Two of the four One of the four

mentioned elements are implemented. mentioned elements are implemented. mentioned elements is implemented.

None of the four

Data not available
mentioned elements are implemented.

There is much room for progress, as no country has yet met all the criteria. There are also 19 systems
in red indicating that no policy dialogue has yet begun with regard to the implementation of the principles
and guidelines. Seven systems are far advanced and in light green. As these systems are spread
throughout several regions of the EHEA, this suggests that geographical factors have little influence in
the decision to take forward social dimension objectives seriously. A further 12 countries are in yellow
having taken some steps in this area, and 10 in orange which also indicates the first step in
implementation has been taken.

154
Conclusions
This chapter examined how and to what extent EHEA education systems have implemented policies
aiming to strengthen the social dimension of higher education. The chapter followed the structure of the
Principles and Guidelines developed by the BFUG ( 23), focusing on the ten areas addressed by the
document. In eight of the ten areas, a scorecard indicator has been constructed to be able to monitor
and evaluate the overall policy picture in relation to the P&Gs. The elements of the scorecard indicators
were developed on the basis of the guidelines outlined in the Principles and Guidelines document. In
the areas of strategic commitment and community engagement, the chapter opted for a more detailed
analysis instead of developing scorecard indicators. Nevertheless, such scorecard indicators might be
constructed in the future.

Having scorecard indicators also enables the relative progress made by EHEA education systems in
the different policy areas to be compared. Indeed, the scorecard indicators reveal considerable variance
concerning the degree of implementation of the ten principles. While some scorecard indicators show a
strong commitment towards social dimension principles in the EHEA, others uncover a relatively lower
level of attention to certain policy areas.

The principles with the highest degree of implementation are related to sustainable funding for equity,
inclusion and diversity in higher education, and to academic and career guidance and counselling
provision. For these two scorecard indicators, around half of EHEA education systems with available
data are in the top two categories. All EHEA education systems provide some form of financial support
to higher education students, and there are only two countries with no academic or career guidance
provision. When it comes to financial support, the large majority of countries provide both need-based
grants and other forms of support covering the indirect costs of education to higher education students.
At the same time, progress still needs to be made when it comes to targeted support provided to the
institutions themselves. Regarding guidance, while most education system provide guidance and
counselling services that are also monitored by quality assurance agencies, only a minority of them have
established public institutions specialised in conflict resolution and mediating conflicts.

EHEA countries do relatively well in monitoring and data collection as well as in enabling flexible learning
conditions. In these areas, there are still more education systems in the top two than in the bottom two
categories, though there are more education systems in the bottom categories than for the first two
areas on funding and guidance. At the same time, it is the indicator on monitoring and data collection
that has the highest number of education systems (12) in the top, dark green category. The weakest
area within this scoreboard indicator is collecting data on the completion of first year students in the first
cycle. The scorecard indicator on enabling flexible lifelong learning covers flexible learning modes (such
as part-time, blended and distance learning) as well as the recognition of prior non-formal and informal
learning for accessing and contributing towards the fulfilment of higher education programmes. Among
these elements, most progress is needed in establishing legal frameworks allowing access to higher
education through RPL, and requiring quality assurance agencies to monitor how this is implemented
by higher education institutions.

The scorecard indicators that take middle position in terms of overall implementation levels relate to the
principles on synergies and lifelong learning and creating inclusive learning environments and
institutional cultures. For these two indicators, more than a third of EHEA education systems are in the
bottom two categories, but still more than a quarter of them are in the top two. This relative distribution
shows that most education systems still lack significant elements when it comes to these policy areas.
Most countries are yet to establish top-level coordination structures or mechanisms between different

(23) Principles and Guidelines to Strengthen the Social Dimension of Higher Education in the EHEA, Annex II of the Rome
Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

155
levels of education with a mandate linked to the social dimension, and most education systems could
invest more in teacher training on diversity, equity and inclusion and in making existing infrastructure
more accessible and inclusive.

Finally, the principles with the lowest level of implementation are on international mobility and policy
dialogue. The scoreboard indicators on mobility and policy dialogue show more than half of EHEA
education systems in the bottom two categories. This result is particularly disappointing, as the need to
support disadvantaged learners in mobility programmes has been on the EHEA policy agenda for more
than a decade. The fact that many EHEA education systems have not yet established a policy dialogue
between public authorities, higher education institutions and other stakeholders for the implementation
of the Principles and Guidelines could be considered as more expected, given that this document was
adopted in 2020. Nevertheless, given the importance of the issues addressed by the Principles and
Guidelines, the lack of apparent urgency in tackling implementation should be examined.

156
CHAPTER 5:
LEARNING AND TEACHING

The 2020 Rome Communiqué

The 2020 Rome Communiqué, adopted by ministers of higher education of the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) in the Rome Ministerial Conference in November 2020 ( 1), puts emphasis on
innovative learning and teaching practices. In this communiqué, ministers committed to support higher
education institutions in further implementing student-centred learning and teaching by adopting the
Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and
Teaching in the EHEA ( 2) prepared by the Bologna Follow-Up Group (BFUG) Advisory Group on
Learning and Teaching.

The recommendations build on the 2018 Paris Communiqué, in which ministers announced that the
time has come ‘to add cooperation in innovative learning and teaching practices as another hallmark of
the EHEA’ ( 3). In this context, they committed to ‘developing new and inclusive approaches for
continuous enhancement of learning and teaching across the EHEA’ […] ‘in full respect of academic
freedom and institutional autonomy’ ( 4).

The recommendations adopted within the 2020 Rome Communiqué promote increased support for all
learners, and for teaching and non-teaching higher education staff. They are structured around three
interconnected themes, namely 1) the need for student-centred learning, 2) the fostering of continuous
enhancement of teaching, and 3) the strengthening of higher education institutions’ and systems’
capacity to enhance learning and teaching. The recommendations also underline the crucial importance
of reinforcing the Bologna tools and the other Bologna key commitments.

The BFUG has been asked to support the implementation of the recommendations and to report on the
results in the framework of this report.

Chapter outline
This chapter follows closely the content and organisation of the BFUG questionnaire, which was
developed in collaboration with the BFUG Advisory Group on Learning and Teaching. The questionnaire
considered both the recommendations adopted within the 2020 Rome Communiqué and the type of
information accessible to national higher education administrations.

The chapter starts by exploring system-level strategies and other policy measures to support learning
and teaching in higher education. In its initial sections, the chapter also examines the extent to which
policy developments in this area are subject to dialogue with different stakeholders, and the role of
quality assurance agencies in relation to learning and teaching in higher education.

The chapter then moves to student-centred learning. In this context, it investigates how top-level
(national) steering documents address and understand this concept, to what extent learning outcomes
are used in higher education, and whether there are any legal requirements or restrictions potentially
limiting the implementation of flexible student-centred learning.

(1) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

(2) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.
(3) Paris Communiqué, 25 May 2018, p. 3.
(4) Ibid.

157
The final part investigates policy measures to enhance high-quality teaching, by exploring training
requirements and opportunities for higher education teachers, students’ views on their teachers, as well
as the role of teaching in the recruitment and promotion of academics.
The chapter is mainly based on data collected within the BFUG data collection. This main data source
has been complemented by two additional sources, namely the Trends 2024 survey of the European
University Association (EUA) and the Eurostudent 8 survey ( 5).

Information presented in this chapter complements and develops data provided in some other chapters,
in particular Chapters 2 and 4. Therefore, when relevant, the chapter guides the reader to data in other
parts of this report.

5.1. Top-level strategies and other policy measures

The recommendations adopted within the 2020 Rome Communiqué call for ‘including the enhancement
of learning and teaching in national higher education strategies and approaches’ ( 6). Considering this
objective, this section starts by mapping top-level (national) strategies that include major references to
the enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education. The section than explores policy levers
other than top-level strategies that follow the same objective.

5.1.1. Top-level strategies promoting learning and teaching in higher education

Figure 5.1 shows that in slightly more than half of the higher education systems surveyed (27 out of 47
for which data are available) there is an ongoing top-level strategy that includes major references to the
enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education. The figure and the related table ( 7) also
demonstrate that the reported strategies differ in terms of their thematic focus and coverage. Three
types of strategies can be distinguished in this regard.

First, there are strategies that focus on higher education (Austria, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany,
France, Hungary, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Malta ( 8), Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Türkiye and Ukraine). For
example, following its higher education strategy, Bulgaria aims to update existing and create new higher
education curricula, to introduce flexible forms and methods of learning and teaching, and to improve,
more generally, the organisation and effectiveness of higher education studies. In Czechia, the higher
education strategy promotes inclusive and interactive teaching at universities with a focus on
competence building. In Hungary, the focus is on the implementation of learning outcomes, flexible
programmes, and practice-oriented learning and teaching. The higher education strategy in Ukraine, in
turn, refers to the enhancement of the student-centred learning, especially by promoting learning
technologies and different modes of programme delivery.

Second, there are strategies covering all sectors of education, including higher education
(Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Moldova and
Switzerland). Although higher education is only one area treated in these strategies, there are explicit
references to the enhancement of learning and teaching in this sector. For example, the education
strategy reported by Albania includes, among its different objectives, an objective to improve teaching
and research competences of academic staff by creating centres at universities for training in teaching
and research. The education strategy in Croatia promotes the improvement of digital maturity of higher
education institutions, including the provision of hybrid and online teaching and learning.
Third, there are strategies that extend beyond education but still include explicit references to the
enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education (Italy, Lithuania and Romania). More

(5) For details regarding different data sources, see the Glossary and methodological notes section.
(6) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020, p. 4.
(7) Table 5.1 in Annex lists all the reported strategies.
(8) The strategy reported by Malta covers two education sectors: further and higher education (see Table 5.1 in Annex).

158
specifically, Lithuania formulates in its National Progress Plan an objective to renew and financially
support the implementation of guidelines to improve competences of academics, in particular their
foreign language skills and digital competences. In Italy, the National Recovery and Resilience Plan
calls for the innovation in the higher education sector and, in this context, it refers to broadening of
scientific, technological and linguistic skills of higher education students and teachers. The same plan
in Romania promotes the digitalization of higher education, including the development of digital
competences of both students and teachers.
Figure 5.1: Top-level strategies with major references to the enhancement of learning and teaching in higher
education (by the type of strategy), 2022/2023

Strategy on higher education

Strategy on education

Strategy with a scope wider than education

No relevant strategy

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Notes:
Respondents from the systems with several relevant strategies were asked to report the most important (ongoing) strategy in
relation to the enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education.
Table 5.1 in Annex lists the reported strategies.

Regardless of the type of strategy, most countries with a relevant ongoing strategy reported that the
strategy includes an implementation plan as well as measurable targets. Moreover, the implementation
of most strategies has been supported by dedicated funding, which commonly combines national and
international resources, such as European Union funding.
A rather striking feature of Figure 5.1. is a relatively high number of countries with no ongoing strategy
including major references to the enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education. However,
this finding would benefit from further research, in particular research looking at how national data
providers understand and interpret their existing top-level strategies in relation to the concept of
enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education. Indeed, a wider or narrower understanding
and interpretation of this concept could lead to cross-country differences in data provided and could (at
least partly) explain the lack of relevant strategies ( 9). Moreover, some strategies could have been under
preparation during the academic year 2022/2023, which is not captured by data displayed in Figure 5.1.

(9) In this context, it is noteworthy to mention findings of the Trends 2018 survey (Gaebel et al., 2018). Within this survey, 31%
of responding higher education institutions indicated a dedicated national strategy for higher education learning and teaching
and further 47% reported a national higher education strategy that includes learning and teaching among other matters
(ibid., p. 23). However, responses from different higher education institutions within the same country often did not converge,
which suggests that this question may be subject to different interpretations.

159
5.1.2. Policy levers other than strategies
Top-level strategies are not the only policy approach to manage and shape learning and teaching in
higher education. Indeed, as displayed in Figure 5.2, in most higher education systems investigated (34
out of 47 for which data are available), national authorities promote the enhancement of learning and
teaching in higher education through other measures.

Figure 5.2: Top-level policy measures (other than top-level strategies) to support learning and teaching in higher
education, 2022/2023

At least one top-level policy measure in place

No relevant policy measure(s)

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

The most widespread measure (other than top-level strategies) consists of system-level (national)
projects to enhance learning and teaching in higher education.

Although the system-level (national) projects differ in terms of their scope, thematic focus and size, one
recurring area on which they concentrate is the digitalization and digital transformation in higher
education. For example, national authorities in France launched, in 2021, a call for expressions of
interest ‘Digital Demonstrators in Higher Education’ (Démonstrateurs numériques dans l’enseignement
supérieur) ( 10), which supported 17 institutional projects experimenting different dimensions of the digital
transformation in higher education (total budget of EUR 100 million). These projects should now inspire
further initiatives, with a view to generalise the digital transformation in higher education on a national
scale. Finland, in turn, has been conducting the national programme ‘Digivisio 2030’ ( 11), which involves
all Finnish higher education institutions and aims at building flexible and easily accessible learning
opportunities, particularly by using digital facilities. In Switzerland, one national project ( 12) aims to
strengthen digital skills in higher education teaching, by subsidising measures focusing on both students
and teachers, and, more generally, on higher education institutions (CHF 30 million for the period 2019-
2024). Lithuania has been conducting the project ‘EdTech’ ( 13), which aims at changes in the education

(10) https://www.gouvernement.fr/enseignement-et-numerique
(11) https://digivisio2030.fi/en/frontpage/
(12) https://www.swissuniversities.ch/en/themen/digitalisierung/digital-skills
(13) https://www.edtechlithuania.com/

160
system (at all levels) through education technologies. In the field of higher education, the project aims
to provide academics with knowledge and skills related to digital learning and teaching innovations.

The system-level (national) projects cover also other areas than digital transformation. For example, in
Sweden, during 2021-2023, national authorities launched two initiatives (calls for expressions of
interest): one aiming to boost higher education pedagogy (SEK 5 million in 2022; at least SEK 15 million
in 2023) and one concentrating on quality of distance education ( 14). These initiatives allow higher
education institutions to apply for funding to develop related projects. The Netherlands has been running
the eight-year national programme ‘Npuls’ (2022-2030) ( 15), which covers different types of institutions
(all vocational education and training institutions, research universities, and universities of applied
sciences) and includes several objectives, among which are technological improvements (ICT
infrastructure) and the creation of a centre for learning and teaching in every institution.

It is noteworthy that the system-level (national) projects often use international support, especially
international financial assistance. For example, Moldova has conducted the World Bank Project
‘Moldova Higher Education Project’ ( 16) that enables national authorities to finance various initiatives
enhancing teaching and learning practices in higher education. In Ukraine, national authorities, in
cooperation with the British Council and other organisations, have been implementing the ‘Ukraine
Higher Education Teaching Excellence Programme’ ( 17), which aims to foster teaching and learning
excellence in the sector. In Latvia, academic staff development and training activities are addressed
under the EU structural funds programme ‘Growth and employment’, the sub-programme ‘Strengthening
academic staff of higher education institutions in areas of strategic specialisation’ ( 18).

Less common compared to system-level (national) projects are recent regulatory changes aiming to
enhance learning and teaching in higher education. Greece, for instance, adopted in 2022 a legal
framework ( 19) stipulating that every Greek higher education institution should establish a learning and
teaching support centre. Ireland adopted in 2022 a new higher education act ( 20) reforming the higher
education sector and impacting the governance as well as learning and teaching (see also
Section 5.1.3). A slightly longer time ago, in 2018, France adopted a legal framework ( 21) reinforcing
learning support for undergraduate students through various means (new curricula, modularisation,
personalised support for each student, etc.), with the aim to increase study completion rates.

Outside the main types of measures identified above, there are other policy measures across the
EHEA that may positively impact learning and teaching in higher education. The most noteworthy is the
establishment of top-level (national) bodies – in Germany, Ireland and Kazakhstan – that focus on the
enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education (see Section 5.1.3). Further examples of
measures include national teaching awards (Austria and Denmark), a dedicated national fund to
increase the collaboration between higher education institutions, with a focus on enhancing the quality
of education and research (Iceland), and changes in national quality assurance frameworks aiming to
improve the evaluation of learning and teaching in higher education (Georgia).

(14) https://hpu.uhr.se/utvecklingsprojekt/
(15) https://npuls.nl/en/
(16) https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/loans-credits/2020/03/05/moldova-higher-education-project
(17) https://www.britishcouncil.org.ua/en/programmes/education/teaching-excellence-programme
(18) Implementing regulations of 9 January 2018 for the first, second and third project applications selection round of specific
objective 8.2.2 ‘To strengthen academic staff of higher education institutions in the areas of strategic specialisation’ of the
Operational Programme ‘Growth and employment’.
(19) Law 4957/2022, Article 129.
(20) Higher Education Authority Act 2022.
(21) Law n° 2018-166 of 8 March 2018 relating to the orientation and success of students.

161
5.1.3. Top-level bodies supporting learning and teaching in higher education
Building on the analysis presented in the previous section, Figure 5.3 emphasises one specific policy
measure: the presence of top-level (national) bodies dedicated to supporting learning and teaching in
higher education institutions. Currently, such dedicated bodies exist only in 3 higher education system
(out of 48 for which data are available): Germany, Ireland and Kazakhstan.

Figure 5.3: Top-level bodies dedicated to supporting learning and teaching in higher education institutions,
2022/2023

In place

Not in place

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

More specifically, in Germany, the federal government and the states (Länder) established, in 2020, the
Foundation for Innovation in Higher Education (Stiftung Innovation in der Hochschullehre) ( 22), which
started operating in 2021 under the auspices of a non-profit organisation. The objective of the foundation
is to promote innovation in academic study and teaching, provide stakeholders with networking
opportunities, and support the transfer of knowledge. Based on this objective, the foundation provides
funding for projects conducted in higher education institutions. All funding (EUR 150 million per year) is
provided by the federal and state governments.

Ireland re-established, in 2022, the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning in
Higher Education (National Forum) ( 23). This body now operates under the auspices of the Higher
Education Authority, which is a statutory body that leads strategic developments in the Irish higher
education system. The National Forum is responsible for advising on the enhancement of teaching and
learning in higher education, and it provides and administers funding for projects in this area. One
example is the project (funding allocation) ‘Strategic Alignment of Teaching and Learning Enhancement
Funding in Higher Education’ ( 24) with financing initiatives focusing on education for sustainable
development, digital transformation and academic integrity (EUR 6.4 million during 2022-2023).

(22) https://stiftung-hochschullehre.de/
(23) https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/; the re-establishment of this body follows the Higher Education Authority Act 2022 that
is referred to in Section 5.1.2.
(24) https://www.teachingandlearning.ie/funding/#!/Funding-Calls

162
Kazakhstan established, in 2018, a national council dedicated to learning and teaching in higher
education: the Republican Education and Methodology Council for Higher and Postgraduate
Education ( 25). This body cooperates with consultative and advisory units (so called ‘academic
methodological associations’) established in higher education institutions ( 26).

Even if top-level (national) bodies dedicated to supporting learning and teaching in higher education
institutions are scarce, other types of bodies exist across Europe that contribute to this cause. These
can be clustered into several categories.

First, the highest decision-making body responsible for higher education, which is generally the ministry
of education, may be directly involved in activities that support innovative practices in higher education
learning and teaching (e.g. through the coordination of top-level strategies or other policy measures).
Moreover, national quality assurance agencies can also intervene in this area since their activities aim
at guaranteeing that some minimum requirements of quality in learning and teaching are met, and that
the quality of learning and teaching is continuously improved.

Second, some countries have in place national bodies – other than ministries of education and/or quality
assurance agencies – with a range of roles, including roles relating to the enhancement of learning and
teaching in higher education. For example, in Sweden, the Swedish Council for Higher Education ( 27)
conducts several activities, among which is the coordination of two recent national initiatives that aimed
at boosting higher education pedagogy and distance education (see Section 5.1.2 for details). In other
words, while the Swedish Council for Higher Education is not specifically and explicitly dedicated to the
enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education, it manages projects comparable to those
that are managed by the dedicated agencies operating in Germany and Ireland. Similar bodies with a
wider role exist in several other EHEA countries.

Third, there are bodies that do not benefit from direct national subsidies, but still conduct activities
supporting innovations in learning and teaching in the higher education sector. One key example is the
organisation Advance HE ( 28), which is a member-led British charity (membership organisation) that was
created in 2018 by merging some previously existing organisations. Advance HE covers various areas
related to higher education, including teaching and learning, governance, leadership development and
equality, diversity and inclusion. The organisation uses different channels to deliver its support, including
professional development programmes, events, fellowships, awards and consultancy services.

In addition to the above-mentioned bodies, higher education institutions themselves may provide
relevant services through dedicated learning and teaching centres ( 29). As shown is Section 5.1.2, these
centres are sometimes established within national policy projects or measures. For example, one
objective of the ongoing national project ‘Npuls’ in the Netherlands is to create a centre for teaching and
learning in every institution (see Section 5.1.2 for details).

Overall, the BFUG data collection points to a scarcity of publicly funded bodies specifically dedicated to
supporting learning and teaching in higher education institutions. At the same time, the data collection
shows that other types of bodies and policy approaches can be used to enhance learning and teaching
innovations in the higher education sector.

(25) Based on the Order of the Minister of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 12 October 2018 no.
562.
(26) See, for example: https://www.kaznu.kz/en/25736/page/
(27) https://www.uhr.se/en/start/
(28) https://www.advance-he.ac.uk/
(29) The report presenting findings of the EUA Trends 2018 survey (Gaebel et al., 2018, p. 18) indicates that 65% of higher
education institutions have a dedicated learning and teaching centre or unit for the entire institution.

163
5.2. Stakeholders’ involvement
The recommendations on learning and teaching adopted within the 2020 Rome Communiqué not only
call for the inclusion of the enhancement of learning and teaching in national higher education strategies
and approaches but also specify that ‘[t]he design and implementation of such strategies and
approaches should serve as a basis for a structured and continuous dialogue with higher education
institutions and other stakeholders in the learning and teaching community’ ( 30). Building on this
objective, this section starts by exploring the involvement of different stakeholders in policymaking
related to learning and teaching in higher education. The section then looks at the role of quality
assurance agencies in this area.

5.2.1. Stakeholders involved in policy developments

The development of national higher education learning and teaching policies may involve a range of
stakeholders. Figure 5.4 displays some key stakeholders that may have an interest in influencing
learning and teaching in the higher education sector. The figure indicates the number of higher education
systems (out of 48 higher education systems for which data are available) that reported a common
involvement of a specific stakeholder in the development of national higher education learning and
teaching policy.

Figure 5.4: Stakeholders commonly involved in the development of national higher education learning and teaching
policy (number of systems reporting different stakeholders), 2022/2023

Ministry in charge of higher education

Associations and networks of HEIs, including

national rectors’ conference
Student associations/unions

Quality assurance and accreditation bodies

Labour market and employment representatives

Higher education staff associations/unions

Ministries other than the one in change of higher

education

Wider community and civil society organisations

Other
Source: BFUG data collection.

Note:
The figure is based on data supplied by 48 higher education systems.

As the figure shows, the development of national learning and teaching policies most commonly involves
the national ministry responsible for higher education (47 systems), and associations and networks of
higher education institutions (47 systems). Indeed, these stakeholders have been reported by virtually
all the higher education systems investigated.

Alongside the above stakeholders, student associations and unions are also commonly involved in the
development of national learning and teaching policies (41 systems), as well as national quality
assurance and accreditation bodies (40 systems). Further quite frequently represented parties are
labour market and employment organisations (34 systems) and higher education staff associations and
unions (33 systems). All these stakeholders have been reported by more than half of the higher
education systems investigated.

(30) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020, p. 4.

164
Less commonly involved stakeholders include ministries responsible for areas other than higher
education (19 systems), and the wider community and civil society organisations (19 systems).

In a limited number of higher education systems (6 systems), additional stakeholders come into play.
For example, in Spain, alongside all the stakeholders listed in Figure 5.4, regional authorities are
commonly involved in the development of national higher education learning and teaching policy. In
Germany and Switzerland, which are both federal systems, other stakeholders include national
coordinating bodies, namely the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs
(Germany) and the Swiss Conference of Cantonal Ministers of Education (Switzerland). The Flemish
Community of Belgium involves in the development of higher education learning and teaching policy the
Flemish Education Council (Vlaamse Onderwijsraad), which is a strategic advisory council on education
and training that includes representatives from the entire educational landscape. Slovenia, in turn,
involves the National Academy of Science and Art (Slovenska akademija znanosti in umetnosti).

5.2.2. Role of quality assurance agencies

National quality assurance agencies play a crucial role in ensuring the quality, credibility, and continuous
improvement of higher education within a country. Figure 5.4 has shown that they are commonly
involved – as one of the stakeholders – in the development of higher education learning and teaching
policies. Figure 5.5 provides further information on their role in relation to learning and teaching in higher
education.

Figure 5.5: Role of quality assurance agencies in relation to learning and teaching in higher education (number of
systems reporting different roles), 2022/2023

Conduct quality assessment reviews related to

learning and teaching in higher education
Verify that a coherent institutional learning and
teaching strategy is in place at HEIs level
Develop reference points and guidance on
learning and teaching for HEIs
Conduct or commission research on learning
and teaching in higher education

Other

Source: BFUG data collection.

Note:
The figure is based on data supplied by 47 higher education systems.

As the figure demonstrates, the most common role of quality assurance agencies in relation to learning
and teaching in higher education is to conduct quality assessment reviews (45 higher education systems
out of 47 with data). These may involve various approaches, including site visits, data analysis and
stakeholder feedback. In around two thirds of the systems surveyed (32 systems), quality assurance
agencies verify, within their reviews, that higher education institutions have in place a coherent
institutional learning and teaching strategy. In around half of the systems (26 systems), quality
assurance agencies develop reference points and guidance on learning and teaching for higher
education institutions. A slightly less common role for quality assurance agencies is to conduct or
commission research on learning and teaching in higher education (15 systems).

In supporting the quality enhancement of learning and teaching, quality assurance agencies may also
conduct other activities. For example, in Armenia, they commonly organise workshops for higher
education institutions to exchange on practices related to learning and teaching.

165
5.3. Student-centred learning
Student-centred learning has been part of the Bologna Process for more than a decade. Already in
2009, ministers responsible for higher education incorporated this concept in their communiqué,
highlighting that ‘[s]tudent-centred learning requires empowering individual learners, new approaches
to teaching and learning, effective support and guidance structures and a curriculum focused more
clearly on the learner in all three cycles’ ( 31). In this context, the ministers put forward ‘the necessity for
ongoing curricular reform geared toward the development of learning outcomes’ ( 32). The shift towards
learning outcomes was specified as a means to achieve ‘high quality, flexible and more individually
tailored education paths’ ( 33).

The ministers reiterated the topic of student-centred learning in their subsequent communiqués. Most
recently, student-centred learning was put forward in the 2020 Rome Communiqué, in which the
ministers highlighted that ‘[f]lexible and open learning paths, part of the original inspiration for the
Bologna Process, are important aspects of student-centred learning and are in increasing demand in
our societies’ ( 34). Moreover, the ministers have committed to support higher education institutions in
further implementing student-centred learning and teaching by adopting the Recommendations to
National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA ( 35).

This section examines student-centred learning in three parts. First, it investigates whether and how
top-level (national) steering documents related to higher education define this concept and which
elements are put forward in the national definitions. Second, the section examines the implementation
of learning outcomes, by investigating the extent to which they are required to be used in higher
education. The final part looks at the existence of regulatory barriers that may limit the provision of
flexible and individualised studies. This part can be complemented by the analysis provided in
Chapter 4, Section 4.2, which covers flexibility in higher education.

5.3.1. Student-centred learning in top-level steering documents

Policy documents related to the Bologna Process understand student-centred learning as a
multidimensional theme. They associate it with a range of closely related topics, such as learning
outcomes, individually tailored and flexible learning paths, active involvement and participation of
students in the learning process, high-quality and innovative teaching as well as appropriate assessment
methods. Considering these different aspects, the BFUG data collection examined whether top-level
(national) steering documents define the concept of student-centred learning and, if they do, what
elements are incorporated in the national definitions.
Figure 5.6 shows that in around one third of European higher education systems (14 out of 48 for which
data are available), national steering documents related to higher education do not mention the term
‘student-centred learning’ (or an equivalent expression in the state language). In more than half of the
systems (28 out of 48 with data), the term is mentioned, but it is not defined. It follows that in only a few
higher education systems (6 out of 48 with data), student-centred learning is both mentioned and defined
in national steering documents.

(31) Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Leuven and Louvain-la-Neuve,
28-29 April 2009, p. 3.
(32) Ibid.
(33) Ibid.
(34) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020, p. 6.
(35) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

166
Figure 5.6: References to student-centred learning in top-level steering documents, 2022/2023

Student-centred learning is mentioned and defined

Student-centred learning is mentioned but not defined

Student-centred learning is not mentioned

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

An example of national definition of student-centred learning has been provided by Ukraine, which refers
to student-centred learning in its national law on higher education ( 36) and defines the concept as
follows:

Student-centred learning is an approach to organising the educational process that involves:

• encouraging students to take on the role of autonomous and responsible agents in the educational process;
• creating an educational environment that is focused on meeting the needs and interests of students, including providing
opportunities for individual learning trajectories;
• building the educational process on principles of mutual respect and partnership among participants in the educational process.

In Finland, a definition was provided from an external quality assurance manual ( 37) stating that
[i]n the student-centred approach, students are encouraged to take an active role in the learning process. This can be done, for
example, by supporting students’ motivation, self-assessment abilities and well-being, as well as enabling flexible study paths.

Romania dedicates one chapter of its national education law ( 38) to ‘promoting student-centred
university’ and, within this chapter, specifies that ‘students are considered partners of higher education
institutions and equal members of the academic community’. A more detailed definition of student-
centred learning is provided in an external quality assurance manual ( 39).

The above examples suggest a general alignment of national interpretations of student-centred learning
with the Bologna Process conceptualisation. Still, the main outcome of the investigation is that national
steering documents rarely define student-centred learning and, quite commonly, they do not even
mention it. At the same time, country replies show that even when the term 'student-centred learning' is
not explicitly used, national steering documents commonly refer to different aspects associated with

(36) Law of Ukraine on higher education, non-official translation from Ukrainian.

(37) Audit manual for higher education institutions, p. 6.
(38) Law No. 1/2011 of 5 January 2011 - National Education Law, Chapter X, Article 199.
(39) Due to its length, the definition in question cannot be presented in this chapter, but can be consulted in the Methodology of
external evaluation and of the list of performance indicators of the Romanian Agency for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education, Section 4.IP.B2.1.4 on student-centred learning.

167
student-centred learning. Moreover, what may count more than the presence of a definition is the
existence of actual measures aligned with the idea of student-centred learning. One of these measures
– the implementation of learning outcomes – is discussed in the next section.

5.3.2. Use of learning outcomes

Learning outcomes, which refer to statements describing what the individual knows, understands and is
able to do on completion of a particular course, module, or programme ( 40), have been widely referred
to in the Bologna Process ministerial communiqués. They have been closely associated not only with
the concept of student-centred learning, but also with the implementation of the European Credit
Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and the Framework of Qualifications for the European
Higher Education Area ( 41). When it comes to student-centred learning, learning outcomes are expected
to support flexible and individually tailored learning paths. This relates to the idea that clearly defined
learning outcomes may facilitate the recognition of various forms of learning, including non-formal and
informal learning.

Figure 5.7 looks at the presence of top-level (national) requirements or recommendations on the use of
learning outcomes in higher education and specifies areas covered by these requirements or
recommendations.

Figure 5.7: Use of learning outcomes as required or recommended in top-level steering documents, 2022/2023

Higher programmes should include explicit

intended learning outcomes
Documents accompanying higher education
qualifications should specify achieved learning
outcomes
No top-level framework on the use of learning
outcomes in higher education

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

As the figure shows, top-level requirements or recommendations on the use of learning outcomes exist
virtually everywhere in Europe, namely in 45 higher education systems out of 47 with data (Slovakia and
the United Kingdom – Scotland are the only systems reporting no relevant requirements or
recommendations). In almost all the systems with top-level requirements or recommendations (42 out
of 45), steering documents indicate that all higher education programmes should include explicit
intended learning outcomes. In around two thirds of the systems (30 out of 45), there are requirements

(40) For the full definition of ‘Learning outcomes’, see the Glossary and methodological notes.
(41) For the definition of ‘European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System’ and ‘Framework of Qualifications for the European
Higher Education Area’, see the Glossary and methodological notes, and for the related analysis, see Chapter 2.

168
or recommendations stipulating that documents accompanying higher education qualifications should
specify achieved learning outcomes. France, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands are the only systems
with requirements or recommendations covering only the second aspect, but not the first one.

Although Figure 5.7 does not make a distinction between ‘requirements’ and ‘recommendations’,
country data suggest that learning outcomes are most often covered by (at least some) top-level
requirements. Indeed, learning outcomes are commonly referred to in steering documents that have a
binding character, including the main higher education legislation (the higher education act or similar),
legal frameworks related to the implementation of national qualifications frameworks and/or documents
stipulating quality assurance procedures. In addition to the above, learning outcomes may also be
referred to in various guiding documents having a non-binding character (type ‘recommendation’).
Kazakhstan and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) are the only systems,
among those with the relevant steering documents, addressing learning outcomes only in top-level
recommendations and not in binding top-level steering documents.

Overall, Figure 5.7 and the related analysis suggest that, from a policy perspective, learning outcomes
have become an integral part of the design and implementation of higher education programmes
throughout the EHEA.

A similar finding is provided by the EUA Trends 2024 survey within which higher education institutions
across European countries were asked to report on the implementation of learning outcomes
(Figure 5.8). Out of 484 institutions, 71% reported that learning outcomes have been implemented in all
courses ( 42) and further 18% indicated the implementation in some courses (a total of 89% when
considering the implementation in both all and some courses).

Figure 5.8: Implementation of learning outcomes in higher education institutions (% of institutions), 2023

Yes, for all courses across the Yes, for some Not yet, but Information unavailable / Not
No
institution courses planned applicable
Source: EUA.
Notes:
Data refer to Question 30 in the EUA Trends 2024 survey: ‘Have learning outcomes been implemented? Please select one option’.
The figure displays the options that were proposed.
The figure is based on data supplied by 484 higher education institutions.

The EUA Trends 2024 survey also shows (Figure 5.9) that higher education institutions often do not
face problems with specific aspects of the implementation of learning outcomes (33% to 42% of the
institutions reported no problems regarding the aspects surveyed) or are able to overcome initial
difficulties (20% to 37% of the institutions). However, the implementation of learning outcomes remains
a challenge for many institutions. For example, one third of higher education institutions (33%) that have
been using learning outcomes struggle with insufficient resources to support staff in implementing this
approach. Other common ongoing issues include the impact on the workload of students (27% of
institutions using learning outcomes face this issue), the necessity to revise assessment methods (27%),
time pressure for introducing learning outcomes (24%), the lack of understanding among staff regarding
learning outcomes (20%) and, finally, the challenge to design curricula based on learning outcomes
across the institution (18%).

(42) When it comes to the implementation of learning outcomes in all courses, data from previous editions on the Trends survey
point to a steady increase between 2010 and 2018, namely 53% in 2010, 64% in 2015 and 76% in 2018 (Gaebel et al.,
2018, p. 35). In this context, the most recent data displayed in Figure 5.8 suggest some stagnation in this field.

169
Figure 5.9: Problems encountered by higher education institutions when implementing learning outcomes (% of
institutions), 2023

Workload for students

Designing curricula based on

learning outcomes across the institution
Revising student assessment
to align with the learning outcomes approach

Insufficient resources to support

staff in implementing learning outcomes

Time pressure for

introducing learning outcomes
Lack of understanding and
shared definition among staff

Has been Was a problem, Continues to cause No information /

no problem but has been solved problems Not applicable
Source: EUA.
Notes:
Data refer to Question 30.1 in the EUA Trends 2024 survey: ‘How would you describe issues encountered when implementing
learning outcomes?’. The figure displays the options that were proposed.
The figure is based on data supplied by 433 higher education institutions, namely those where learning outcomes have been
implemented in all or some courses (see Figure 5.8).

5.3.3. Regulations potentially limiting flexibility and individualisation of studies

The previous section concentrated on learning outcomes, which, when appropriately implemented, are
expected to facilitate flexible and individually tailored learning paths. Several additional approaches can
be used to create flexible learning environments. Many of these approaches have already been outlined
in Chapter 4, in Section 4.2. This section complements the previously presented data by focusing on
legal requirements and restrictions potentially limiting flexible and individualised higher education
studies.

Figure 5.10 indicates some specific requirements and restrictions that may limit flexibility and
individualisation in higher education, and it displays the number of higher education systems in which
these requirements or restrictions exist.

As the figure shows, there are commonly regulatory restrictions regarding the recognition of prior non-
formal and informal learning (RPL), i.e. learning taking place outside formal higher education
programmes. These restrictions have been identified in 31 higher education systems out of 48 for which
data are available. Two main categories of higher education systems can be distinguished regarding
the RPL restrictions.

First, there are higher education systems without possibilities for RPL. This means that all learning that
can be recognised and counted towards a higher education qualification must take place within formal
higher education programmes. These countries, which are included in the numbers displayed in
Figure 5.10, are specified in Chapter 4, Figure 4.3 (category ‘No RPL’ ( 43)).

Second, there are countries with possibilities for RPL, but which have restrictions regarding the extent
to which non-formal and informal learning can be recognised and counted towards a higher education

(43) In addition to the category ‘No RPL’, Figure 4.3 in Chapter 4 demonstrates that in several countries RPL can contribute to
the fulfilment of study programmes but cannot be used for accessing studies. This limitation (when not accompanied by
other RPL limitations) is not considered in this section as the present discussion focuses on flexibility and individualisation
during higher education studies.

170
qualification. These restrictions are expressed in various ways. Often, they refer to the maximum number
or proportion of ECTS credits that can be validated through RPL. For example, in Italy, the recognition
is limited to 12 ECTS credits in each programme; in Spain to 15% of ECTS credits; in Austria to 60 ECTS
credits; and in the French Community of Belgium, in the higher education sector dedicated to mature
students, to 120 ECTS credits in the first cycle and 60 ECTS credits in the second cycle. When referring
to ECTS credits, some countries do not specify the maximum extent of RPL, but rather indicate the
minimum number of credits that must be achieved in formal higher education programmes. This is the
case in Luxembourg and Norway, where at least 60 ECTS credits must be obtained through courses in
the higher education institution awarding the degree. Beyond references to ECTS credits, there are
other closely related ways of expressing RPL restrictions, including the proportion of programme
workload that can (or cannot) be recognised. For example, in Andorra, RPL cannot exceed 20% of the
programme workload; in Ukraine, the maximum, which depends on the programme, is situated between
25% and 50% of the workload; and in Hungary, at least one third of the programme must be completed
in the degree-awarding institution. Latvia, in turn, specifies that RPL cannot replace the final examination
and/or the thesis.

Figure 5.10: Legal requirements or restrictions that may limit flexibility and individualisation in higher education
(number of systems reporting different requirements or restrictions), 2022/2023

Legal restrictions regarding the recognition of prior

non-formal and informal learning

Legal requirements regarding assessment methods

Legal restrictions regarding the use of online, blended

or distance learning
Other legal requirement or restrictions that may limit
flexibility and individualisation of higher education

Source: BFUG data collection.

Note:
The figure is based on data supplied by 48 higher education systems.

Another aspect that may limit flexibility and individualisation in higher education is the existence of legal
requirements covering assessment methods. These have been identified in half of the higher education
systems investigated (24 out of 48 with data). Commonly, the requirements in question specify some
compulsory type of assessment that all students (or all students in specific programmes) must
undertake. They often cover the final stage of degree studies and include elements such as the final
degree examination and/or the thesis. For example, in Czechia, legislation stipulates that each degree
programme is completed with the final state examination, and, in addition, there is the thesis deference,
which is voluntary in the first cycle and compulsory in the second and the third cycle. A comparable
framework is in place in Estonia, where all first- and second-cycle programmes end with the thesis or
the final examination, and the third-cycle programmes with the thesis. In the Holy See, regulations
require a comprehensive examination or equivalent test at the end of the first and the second cycle. In
addition to these examples, there are restrictions related to assessment methods and RPL, namely
those that exclude the final examination and/or the thesis from the scope of RPL (see the above example
of Latvia).

In a considerable number of EHEA systems (21 out of 48 with data), there are regulatory restrictions
related to online, blended or distance learning. The related restrictions sometimes specify the amount
of learning that can (or cannot) take place through these modes of study. For example, in Lithuania, at
least 10% of full-time and 5% of part-time studies should take place face-to-face; in Luxembourg, at
least 50% of ECTS credits in first- and second-cycle programmes must be achieved through in person
classes; in Latvia, the remote study can comprise up to 50% of the total number of contact hours related

171
to each programme; and in Türkiye, 30% of ECTS credits, at most, can be delivered through distance
education. In Romania, study programmes cannot be delivered entirely online, meaning that the blended
learning format must be used. Montenegro, in turn, has in place regulations specifying that examinations
must take place in the premises of higher education institutions, while the teaching process may be
organised online. In addition to these examples, as discussed in Chapter 4, Section 4.2, countries’ legal
frameworks sometimes regulate the extent to which different types of higher education institutions can
(or cannot) provide blended and/or distance learning. These restrictions, which have been incorporated
in Figure 5.10, are mapped in Table 4.3 in Annex.

There are also other legal requirements that may potentially limit the implementation of flexible and
individualised learning pathways in higher education (identified in 12 higher education systems out of
48 with data). For example, as outlined in Chapter 4 and shown in Table 4.3 in Annex, some countries
have in place legal restrictions related to the provision of part-time studies, meaning that part-time
studies are either legally possible only in some higher education institutions or not possible at all.
Examples of additional restrictions include limited or no possibilities for students to extend their studies
while benefiting from public funding (e.g. Ukraine), the obligation to organise programmes leading to
regulated professions only as full-time studies (e.g. Albania), the necessity for higher education
institutions to deliver programmes in full alignment with the conditions under which they were accredited,
which implies, for instance, that distance learning is only possible if a degree programme has been
accredited as a distance learning programme (e.g. Czechia and Portugal).

Figure 5.11 looks at all the discussed requirements and restrictions from a country perspective,
distinguishing between higher education systems where at least one requirement or restriction – among
those displayed in Figure 5.10 – has been identified and the systems with no requirement(s) or
restriction(s) identified. The figure clearly shows that virtually everywhere in Europe, there are some
regulations potentially limiting flexibility and individualisation of higher education programmes.

Figure 5.11: Presence of legal requirements or restrictions that may limit flexibility and individualisation in higher
education, 2022/2023

At least one requirement or restriction

identified

No requirement or restriction identified

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

172
These findings raise the question of whether EHEA systems are sufficiently responding to the claimed
Bologna Process objective to provide flexible and individualised learning pathways and, more generally,
student-centred learning. Indeed, data in Figures 5.10 and 5.11 demonstrate that students may be
facing regulatory barriers when seeking to achieve a higher education qualification in a flexible and/or
non-traditional way. At the same time, contextual information reported by countries suggests that legal
requirements potentially impacting flexibility of higher education programmes often aim to guarantee
that all students meet the necessary standards of their higher education degree or qualification.
Therefore, there seems to be a challenging balancing exercise for policymakers who need to find the
right equilibrium between regulatory standards and requirements, on the one hand, and flexible and
individualised study opportunities, on the other hand.

5.4. Enhancing the quality of teaching

One key objective of the Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher
Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA ( 44) adopted within the 2020 Rome Communiqué ( 45) is
to foster continuous enhancement of higher education teaching. Different means and approaches are
specified in this context, including the necessity to foster new and innovative teaching methods in higher
education and to support higher education institutions in enhancing the continuous professional
development of their teaching staff.

Considering the objective to enhance higher education teaching, this section starts by investigating
whether top-level policy frameworks specify the necessity for higher education teaching staff to follow a
training in teaching. The section that looks at top-level measures other than compulsory training, which
may encourage academics with a teaching role to take part in teacher training. The section is
complemented by data from the EUA Trends 2024 survey capturing teaching support measures
available in higher education institutions, and Eurostudent data looking at the degree of students’
satisfaction with the quality of teaching.

5.4.1. Requirements for academics with a teaching role to receive training in teaching
Prospective teachers at levels below higher education commonly follow programmes combining subject
knowledge, pedagogical theory and classroom practice (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice,
2021). When it comes to higher education, the situation is more complex and varied. Within doctoral
studies, which commonly precede academic careers, teaching is most often not specified as a standard
element to be included in all programmes (European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2017).
Moreover, beyond doctoral studies, other pathways may lead to teaching in academia. This raises the
question of whether academics with a teaching role receive, systematically, training in teaching.

Figure 5.12 explores the above question by looking at the presence of top-level regulations requiring
academic staff with a teaching role to receive training in teaching. The figure shows that only a few
EHEA systems (7 out of 48 with data) have in place top-level regulations specifying such a requirement.

(44) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.
(45) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

173
Figure 5.12: Top-level regulations requiring academic staff with a teaching role to receive training in teaching,
2022/2023

Regulatory requirement in place

No regulatory requirement

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Note:
Table 5.2 in Annex provides details on the regulatory requirements displayed in the figure.

In two higher education systems – the French Community of Belgium and Kazakhstan – the requirement
in question covers only some higher education institutions or programmes. More specifically, in the
French Community of Belgium, the requirement concerns only higher education institutions other than
universities, namely Hautes Écoles and higher education establishments for social advancement
(établissements d’enseignement supérieur de promotion sociale), and it specifies that those teaching in
these institutions have to obtain, within six years, a teaching aptitude certificate (Certificat d’Aptitude
Pédagogique Approprié à l’Enseignement Supérieur). In Kazakhstan, the requirement concerns only
academics involved in the delivery of online higher education programmes. They are requested to
complete a training related to this study modality lasting at least 72 hours.

Sometimes, the training requirement is a pre-requisite for teaching in academia. This is the case in
Moldova, where anyone teaching in higher education should complete a teacher training module, which
can be either followed during studies or taken additionally as a microcredential prior to being engaged
in the teaching process.

In some other cases, the requirement covers mainly the early contract stage and/or early stage of
teaching in academia. This is the case in France, where lecturers are initially appointed as trainees for
a period of one year and, during this period, they are requested to follow training aimed at deepening
their pedagogical skills ( 46). In Spain, professors and assistant professors must undertake, in the first
year of the contract, an initial teacher training course defined by universities’ units responsible for
training and innovation.

(46) In addition to this requirement, regulations in France also provide some specifications regarding doctoral studies, stating
that training in pedagogy is provided within doctoral studies when it contributes to the doctoral student's professional activity
or project. This is not considered in Figure 5.12.

174
Regulations may also emphasise training in teaching in relation to higher academic ranks. For example,
in Denmark, lecturers must complete professional postgraduate teacher training
(universitetspædagogikum) and this training is a prerequisite for higher academic positions, including a
professorship. In Norway, there is a regulatory expectation for academic staff with a teaching role to
follow a 200-hour teacher training course, but professors need to document further qualifications than
the minimum.

Although Figure 5.12 indicates that there are only a few EHEA systems requiring academics with a
teaching role to follow training in teaching, some further aspects and measures need to be considered.
First, many EHEA countries have in place regulatory frameworks which specify, in a general way, that
academics should (continuously) improve their teaching skills (or skills in general) and/or that higher
education institutions should provide continuing learning opportunities for their staff. These regulations
are not considered in Figure 5.12 since they are not enough explicit and prescriptive regarding the
participation in and/or completion of teacher training. Second, when there is no system-level requirement
for academics to follow training in teaching, higher education institutions may still have in place a
systematic provision of such training and may even make it obligatory, through their internal regulations.
The institutional practice is outside the scope of Figure 5.12 but is discussed at the end of Section 5.4.2
and in Section 5.4.3.

5.4.2. Other systems-level measures promoting teacher training for academic staff
Apart from regulations requiring academics to follow training in teaching, other system-level measures
are in place across the EHEA to stimulate the provision of teacher training for academic staff and the
participation in it. These measures fall under various categories and are comparable only to a limited
degree. For this reason, they are not displayed in a dedicated figure. Nevertheless, some key clusters
of measures are outlined below.

To start with, there are top-level measures aiming to systematise the provision of teacher training for
academic staff across the higher education sector. For example, in Austria, public universities conclude
performance agreements with the Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research every three
years ( 47) and, within these agreements, they commit to provide pedagogical training to their teaching
staff. In Spain, according to legislation adopted in 2023 ( 48), universities should develop initial and
continuous teacher training, provide tools and resources necessary to achieve quality teaching, and
continuously evaluate teaching (including through student surveys). In Norway, all universities and
colleges must offer skills development in university and college pedagogy, either at their own institution
or in collaboration with other institutions. Slovenia attempts to systematise the provision of teacher
training for academic staff with support from the European Social Fund. More specifically, between 2018
and 2022, the country conducted the public tender ‘Innovative and flexible forms of teaching and
learning’, which concentrated on training for academic staff related to new teaching methods and
innovative work with students.

When it comes to the actual development of teacher training, one important operational aspect is the
definition of skills and competence to be achieved. It follows that the development of competence
frameworks for academic positions can contribute to the development of relevant training provision.
Activities in this area are taking place in several EHEA systems. For example, France adopted, in 2019,
the competence benchmarks for academic positions (Repères pour l'exercice du métier d'enseignant-
chercheur) ( 49), which aim to guide the development of initial and continuing training for academic staff,
including the compulsory pedagogical training for newly appointed lecturers (see the previous section).
In Ireland, already in 2016, the National Forum (see Section 5.1.3) published the National Professional

(47) https://www.bmbwf.gv.at/Themen/HS-Uni/Hochschulgovernance/Steuerungsinstrumente/Leistungsvereinbarungen.html
(48) Organic Law 2/2023 of 22 March on the University System, Articles 6.4 and 6.5.
(49) Benchmarks for the exercise of the profession of teacher-researcher.

175
Development Framework for all Staff who Teach in Higher Education ( 50). The same body coordinates
the Open Courses for Professional Development ( 51), which are aligned with the above framework and
target all those who teach in higher education. In Ukraine, policy documents adopted in 2020 and
2021 ( 52) define professional competences for higher education teachers, including teaching
competences. It is explicitly recommended that higher education teachers follow training leading to the
expected competences. Lithuania adopted, in 2020, the guidelines for the development of competences
of higher education teachers ( 53) that refer to three types of competences: teaching and learning,
research, and general competences. The aim of the guidelines is to encourage higher education
institutions to develop an effective training system for their staff.

Networking activities represent yet another way to stimulate the provision of higher education teacher
training and the participation in it. For example, in Germany, there are several university networks on
academic teaching in the individual Länder. One example is the Network for Higher Education Teaching
in North Rhine-Westphalia ( 54), which promotes academic teaching at universities in this state. The
network runs the programme Professional Teaching Competence for Higher Education leading to a
teaching qualification. Another example is the Higher Education Network ‘Digitalization of Teaching’ in
Baden-Württemberg ( 55) that focuses on the development of digital teaching and learning.

Beyond system-level measures, the information reported by several countries suggests that higher
education institutions themselves are often active both in providing teacher training and in encouraging
academics to take part in it ( 56). For example, in Finland, many higher education institutions developed
pedagogical guidelines and strategies, and some make teacher training even mandatory for academic
involved in teaching. In Sweden, higher education institutions commonly offer training courses in higher
education teaching (usually around 10 weeks) to both newly hired and more senior employees. A rather
extensive training provision for academic staff has also been reported by Switzerland, where continuing
education courses covering teaching competences can built up to a certificate of advanced studies (one
example is the certificate offered by the University of Zurich ( 57)). These examples suggest that it is
useful to complement data on national support measures related to higher education teacher training by
data on institutional activities in the same area. This is the focus of the next section.

5.4.3. Support provided by higher education institutions to their teaching staff

The EUA Trends 2024 survey shows that higher education institutions commonly have in place
measures to support their teaching staff (Figure 5.13). They frequently provide exchange and
collaboration opportunities for teachers, digital skills training opportunities, training in pedagogy and
didactics, and support related to technical issues (80% to 90% of the institutions surveyed). Slightly less
common, but still widespread, are open online repositories for educational materials (72%) and learning
and teaching units supporting teachers in enhancing their teaching (63%).

(50) National Professional Development Framework for all Staff who Teach in Higher Education.
(51) https://opencourses.ie/
(52) Order of Ministry of Education of Ukraine of 4 December 2020 n°1504 regarding professional development of academic
staff, and Order of Ministry of Economics of Ukraine of 3 March 2021 n°610 on approval of professional standard on
professions group ‘Higher education teachers’.
(53) Ministerial order approving guidelines for the development of competences of higher education teachers.
(54) https://hd-nrw.de/
(55) https://www.hnd-bw.de/
(56) This can partly be explained by the content of the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher
Education Area (ESG) which specify, in Section 1.5, that higher education institutions should assure themselves of the
competence of their teachers and should apply fair and transparent processes for the recruitment and development of the
staff.
(57) https://www.weiterbildung.uzh.ch/en/hochschuldidaktik/ls/cas.html

176
Figure 5.13: Support provided by higher education institutions to teaching staff (% of institutions), 2023

Exchange and collaboration opportunities

for teachers (online and/or physical)

Digital skills training opportunities

Training courses in pedagogy and didactics

A centre/unit that supports teachers on all

technical issues (e.g. IT, using material or
technology in learning spaces)
Open online repositories
for educational materials

A learning and teaching centre/unit that

supports teachers in enhancing their teaching

Yes Not yet, but planned No No information / Not applicable

Source: EUA.
Notes:
Data refer to Question 33 in the EUA Trends 2024 survey: ‘Does your institution support teaching staff with […]’. The figure
displays the options that were proposed.
The figure is based on data supplied by 483 higher education institutions.

The EUA Trends 2024 survey also allows to evaluate the extent to which training courses for higher
education teachers, when provided by higher education institutions, are compulsory (Figure 5.14). Data
reveal that almost half of all institutions providing training courses for teachers [in pedagogy and
didactics] (44%) make them compulsory for all teaching staff. This shows that while top-level (national)
regulations rarely impose teacher training on higher education teachers (see Figure 5.12 and the related
analysis), higher education institutions commonly do so. The compulsory training [in pedagogy and
didactics] may also focus on specific categories of academic staff, including newly hired teachers or
early-stage teachers, and/or doctoral candidates.

Figure 5.14: Categories of academic staff for which training courses for teachers are compulsory (% of institutions
reporting different categories), 2023

All teaching staff

Newly hired teaching staff

Doctoral candidates, as part of their education

Mainly early-stage teachers and researchers

All teaching staff except those not permanently
employed (such as experts)
Other

Source: EUA.
Notes:
Data refer to Question 33.3 in the EUA Trends 2024 survey: ‘If your institution offers training courses for teachers, for which
categories of staff are the enhancement courses compulsory? Please select all applicable options.’ The options that were
proposed within the survey are displayed in the figure. The question concerned only those institutions that indicated, under
Question 33 (see the previous figure), that they provide training courses in pedagogy and didactics.
Data cover 406 institutions, namely those institutions (out of 438) that reported the provision of training for teacher [in pedagogy
and didactics].

177
 5.4.4. Students’ perspective
After having discussed different approaches to enhancing the quality of teaching, the question of how
higher education students perceive their teachers (lecturers) can be raised. The Eurostudent survey
addresses this question by surveying students’ views on different aspects of teaching, namely the quality
of explanations, the provision of feedback and teachers’ contribution to students’ motivation.

Figure 5.15 covers 23 countries for which Eurostudent data on the above aspects are available. The
figure shows that, among the three aspects surveyed, students in almost all the countries are the most
positive about the quality of explanations. On average, across the 23 countries, 53% of students agree
or strongly agree that their lecturers are extremely good at explaining things. This aspect is followed by
the provision of helpful feedback, with 49% of students across the countries agreeing or strongly
agreeing that their lecturers normally give them helpful feedback on how they are doing. 46% of
students, on average, agree or strongly agree that the lecturers motivate them to do their best work.

There are substantial variations in the assessment of the three aspects across countries. Students in
Azerbaijan show the highest degree of satisfaction with their lecturers in relation to all the aspects: 84%
rate (very) positively the feedback they receive, 77% the contribution of the lecturers to their motivation
and 75% the quality of explanations. Students in Georgia, Iceland, Latvia and Norway are also relatively
positive regarding all the aspects surveyed since 50% or more agree or strongly agree with all the
statements regarding their lecturers displayed in the figure. In contrast, in Portugal, only 28% of students
evaluate (very) positively the provision of helpful feedback by their lecturers, 37% the contribution of the
lecturers to their motivation and 39% the quality of explanations. Germany shows a pattern
characterised by substantial differences between how students evaluate different teaching aspects: 64%
of the students are (very) satisfied with explanations provided, but only 41% indicate a (high degree of)
satisfaction with the feedback received and with how lecturers motivate them to do their best work.

Figure 5.15: Percentage of students (strongly) agreeing with different statements related to their lecturers, 2022

The lecturers are extremely The lecturers normally give me helpful

The lecturers motivate me to do my best work
good at explaining things feedback on how I am going

% AZ DE IS GE NO LT EE LV SE NL PL MT SK DK RO HU CZ IE HR FI AT ES PT Ø
The lecturers are
75 64 63 62 61 61 61 59 53 53 52 52 51 50 50 50 50 49 46 45 44 41 39 53
extremely good at explaining things
The lecturers normally give me
84 41 59 58 61 53 52 58 39 48 43 48 38 38 48 46 54 47 34 43 48 54 28 49
helpful feedback on how I am going
The lecturers motivate me
77 41 61 56 52 48 47 50 37 41 37 49 41 42 39 48 42 44 39 41 43 43 37 46
to do my best work
Ø = refers to the average across the 23 countries with data
Source: Eurostudent.

178
Notes:
The figure refers to the following question in the Eurostudent 8 survey questionnaire: ‘3.1. Generally, to what extent do you agree
with the following statements regarding your studies? The #lecturers normally give me helpful feedback on how I am going; The
#lecturers motivate me to do my best work; The #lecturers are extremely good at explaining things.’ Items in this question were
adapted from the Course Experience Questionnaire 2017 in the Student Experience Survey (Australia).
The Eurostudent survey used a five-level scale ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to ‘do not agree at all’. The indicator displays the
percentage of students who indicated either the most positive rating or the rating just below. It follows that the indicator covers
students who ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’ with different statements.
Data are sorted by the percentage of students who (strongly) agree that their lecturers are extremely good at explaining things.
The reference year indicated in the figure (2022) is the reference year of data for most countries. Data for some countries have
different reference years. For details, see the description of the Eurostudent survey in the Glossary and methodological notes
section.
Apart from the 23 countries displayed in the figure, the Eurostudent 8 survey also covers France and Switzerland (25 countries in
total), which however do not provide data for this indicator.

5.5. Recognition of teaching in the recruitment and promotion of

academic staff
The Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and
Teaching in the EHEA ( 58) adopted within the 2020 Rome Communiqué ( 59) invite policymakers in
charge of higher education to foster continuous enhancement of teaching, by ‘structural measures to
assure the parity of esteem for teaching and research’ ( 60). In this context, the recommendations specify
that, ‘[i]f needed, academic career schemes should be revised to ensure a better recognition for teaching
in academic careers’ ( 61). Considering the above objective, this section investigates criteria (to be)
considered in the recruitment and promotion of academic staff as specified in top-level policy documents
(regulations or recommendations).

Figure 5.16 shows that in most higher education systems participating in the Bologna Process
(36 systems out of 47 for which data are available), top-level policy documents specify at least some
criteria to be considered within the recruitment and/or promotion of academic staff. The figure also
displays that in most higher education systems, top-level policy documents refer to the criteria related
to both the recruitment and the promotion. In a limited number of the systems, top-level policy
documents cover only one of these two areas.

Although the figure does not make a distinction between requirements (which refer to rules that must be
followed) and recommendations (which refer to suggestions or proposals), most higher education
systems have in place at least some top-level requirements covering the recruitment and/or promotion
of academic staff. Indeed, this area is often covered by higher education legislation, which generally
sets a broad framework for the recruitment and/or promotion processes. In addition to the requirements,
there may be different recommendations. In a few higher education systems, there are no relevant
requirements, but recommendations covering these areas are in place. This is the case in Finland and
Iceland (recruitment and promotion), and Lithuania (promotion).

(58) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.
(59) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.
(60) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020, p. 4.
(61) Ibid.

179
Figure 5.16: Existence of top-level requirements or recommendations specifying criteria that should be considered
within the recruitment and promotion of academic staff, 2022/2023

There are top-level requirements or recommendations

specifying criteria to be considered within the
recruitment of academic staff
There are top-level requirements or recommendations
specifying criteria to be considered within the
promotion of academic staff

No relevant requirements or recommendations

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Requirements or recommendations referring to the recruitment and promotion of academic staff may
include different specifications. For example, they may specify criteria to be considered in the evaluation
process such as research outputs, teaching performance, leadership roles, etc. They may also comprise
specifications related to the composition of recruitment or promotion committees, the documentation
required, the evaluation and decision-making processes, and the appeal procedures. Moreover, they
may explicitly prohibit discrimination based on factors such as gender, race, ethnicity, religion, disability,
or age.

Figure 5.17 considers those higher education systems that have in place top-level requirements or
recommendations specifying (at least) some criteria to be considered within the recruitment and
promotion of academic staff (see Figure 5.16). The figure depicts four criteria that may potentially be
referred to in regulations or recommendations covering the recruitment and promotion of academic staff,
namely research performance, teaching performance, international collaboration and experience, and
professional experience acquired outside academia.

The figure shows that among the four criteria listed, research performance is the most frequently
specified. This means that top-level policy documents commonly include some indications regarding the
necessity for those who want to pursue academic careers to demonstrate their research capabilities, for
example, by displaying the quantity, quality, and impact of their research. Teaching performance, while
slightly less prominent than research performance, is also commonly referred to in top-level policy
documents. In this context, regulations may, for instance, specify the necessity to present proofs of
pedagogical experience when applying for different positions. Compared to the research and teaching
performance, international collaboration and experience is less commonly specified in top-level policy
documents. Even less common are explicit references to professional experience acquired outside
academia.

180
Figure 5.17: Criteria that should be considered within the recruitment and promotion of academic staff as specified
in top-level requirements or recommendations (number of higher education systems), 2022/2023

Recruitment Promotion

Research performance

Teaching performance

International collaboration and experience

Professional experience acquired outside academia

Source: BFUG data collection.

Note:
The figure is based on data supplied by those higher education systems that have in place top-level requirements or
recommendations specifying (at least) some criteria to be considered within the recruitment and promotion of academic staff.
These higher education systems can be identified in Figure 5.16.

Figure 5.18 looks at the above data from a country perspective and focuses on the criterion ‘teaching
performance’. It demonstrates that in almost all higher education systems with top-level policy
documents covering the recruitment and/or promotion of academic staff, teaching performance is
referred to among the criteria (to be) considered. Only five higher education systems with relevant policy
documents do not specify teaching performance among various criteria included (Andorra, the French
Community of Belgium, Iceland, Italy and Lithuania). Moreover, as discussed previously (see
Figure 5.16 and the related analysis), 11 higher education systems do not have in place top-level policy
documents specifying criteria that should be considered within the recruitment and promotion of
academic staff.

Figure 5.18: Teaching performance as a criterion specified in top-level requirements or recommendations related to
the recruitment and promotion of academic staff, 2022/2023

Teaching performance specified as a criterion

in relation to the recruitment
Teaching performance specified as a criterion
in relation to the promotion
Teaching performance not specified in the
reported requirements or recommendations

No relevant requirements or recommendations

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

181
Overall, the analysis of top-level frameworks suggests that while research performance remains the
main criterion valued in academic careers, teaching performance – alongside research – plays a role,
albeit a lesser one, in the recruitment and promotion of higher education staff. However, it must be noted
that top-level regulations or recommendations often provide only a broad framework regarding the
recruitment and promotion of academic staff. This means that higher education institutions can
commonly complement national rules and guidelines by their own policies and, potentially, prioritise (or
not) certain criteria within their recruitment and promotion processes. In other words, this area cannot
be fully comprehended through the analysis of top-level policy documents and the analysis needs to be
complemented by the exploration of institutional practices.

The EUA Trends 2024 survey provides some insight into institutional practices by surveying directly
higher education institutions across Europe. Within the survey, the institutions were asked to specify the
role of teaching performance evaluations in the promotion and career progression of teaching staff
(Figure 5.19). Half of the institutions surveyed (50%) indicated that these evaluations play an important
role and, in contrast, only 9% reported no role. The remaining institutions (41%) recognised that teaching
performance evaluations play some role in the promotion and career progression of teaching staff;
however, a minor role compared to other criteria.

Figure 5.19: Role of teaching performance evaluations in the promotion and career progression of teaching staff
(% of institutions reporting different roles), 2023

Important role A minor role compared to other criteria No role at all

Source: EUA.
Notes:
Data refer to Question 34 in the EUA Trends 2024 survey: ‘Do teaching performance evaluations play an important role in the
promotion and career progression of teaching staff?’. The survey proposed the following answers: ‘Yes’, ‘A minor role compared
to other criteria’ and ‘No role at all’. The figure displays the answer ‘Yes’ under the category ‘Important role’.
The figure is based on data supplied by 484 higher education institutions.

The comparison of the above data with the previous edition of the Trends survey suggests that teaching
performance evaluations play a more important role nowadays than some years ago. More specifically,
within the previous survey round, only 39% of participating institutions indicated that teaching
performance evaluations play an important role in the promotion and career development of teaching
staff, 48% indicated some role and 12% no role (Gaebel et al., 2018, p. 69).

182
5.6. Conclusions
Building on the Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education
Learning and Teaching in the EHEA ( 62) adopted within the 2020 Rome Communiqué ( 63), this chapter
examined whether and how higher education systems across the EHEA support quality and innovation
in higher education learning and teaching. Following the content of the recommendations, the chapter
investigated three interconnected thematic areas: system-level policies and measures, student-centred
learning and initiatives fostering continuous enhancement of teaching.

Starting with system-level policies and measures, the BFUG data collection shows that slightly more
than half the EHEA systems have in place an ongoing system-level strategy with major references to
the enhancement of learning and teaching in higher education. Alongside the strategies, there are other
system-level policy measures promoting learning and teaching in higher education. For example,
several countries have been conducting national projects concentrating on areas such as digitalization
of higher education and/or higher education pedagogy. There have also been regulatory changes in
some EHEA countries that intend to boost learning and teaching innovations, and three countries
(Germany, Ireland and Kazakhstan) have recently established national bodies to support learning and
teaching in higher education institutions.

The development of national policies and measures related to learning and teaching in higher education
most commonly involves the national ministry responsible for higher education and higher education
institutions (through their associations and networks). Alongside these most frequently cited
stakeholders, other commonly involved parties are student associations and unions, quality assurance
agencies, labour market and employment organisations, and higher education staff associations and
unions. Although they may be strongly affected by the outcomes of policies and measures, it is less
common for ministries responsible for matters other than higher education and for the wider community
and civil society organisations to be involved in policy development consultations related to higher
education learning and teaching.

Looking more precisely at quality assurance agencies, data show that their most common role regarding
learning and teaching in higher education is to conduct quality assessment reviews. Within this central
role, in around two thirds of the EHEA systems, quality assurance agencies verify that higher education
institutions have a coherent institutional learning and teaching strategy in place. In around half of the
EHEA systems, quality assurance agencies develop reference points and guidance on learning and
teaching for higher education institutions. A slightly less common role for quality assurance agencies is
to conduct or commission research on learning and teaching in higher education.

Moving to the concept of student-centred learning, the analysis has shown that this term is not always
specified in national policy documents and, even when specified, it is rarely defined at national level.
Nevertheless, the few national definitions captured within the BFUG data collection suggest a general
alignment of national interpretations of student-centred learning with the Bologna Process
conceptualisation.

The BFUG data also demonstrate that learning outcomes, which are acknowledged to support student-
centred learning, have become a common feature of higher education programmes across the EHEA.
Indeed, in almost all EHEA systems, top-level policy documents specify that higher education
programmes should include explicit intended learning outcomes, and in around two thirds of the
systems, documents accompanying higher education qualifications must specify achieved learning

(62) Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA,
Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.
(63) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

183
outcomes. The EUA Trends survey, which surveys higher education institutions directly, confirms a high
degree of implementation of learning outcomes.

Alongside learning outcomes, student-centred learning has been closely associated with flexible
learning. Building on the analysis provided in Chapter 4 (Section 4.2), this chapter looked at regulatory
requirements and restrictions that may limit flexible study arrangements in higher education. Such
requirements and restrictions have been identified in most EHEA systems. Commonly, higher education
systems have in place restrictions related to the recognition of prior non-formal and informal learning,
requirements regarding obligatory assessment methods and/or limitations concerning online, blended
and distance learning, or part-time studies. These restrictions are often motivated by quality assurance
concerns. However, policy makers need to find the right balance between these concerns and the
provision of adequate learning opportunities for all learners, including non-traditional and self-directed
learners.

In its final sections, the chapter concentrated on policy measures to foster high-quality teaching. It has
shown that, contrary to teachers at lower education levels, higher education teachers are rarely
systematically required to follow training in teaching. Indeed, the BFUG data collection has identified
only a few systems with top-level regulations imposing training in teaching to (at least some categories
of) higher education staff. However, data provided directly by higher education institutions within the
EUA Trends survey suggest that higher education institutions often make training in pedagogy and
didactics compulsory for their teaching staff. In other words, requirements set at institutional level
regarding training in teaching for academics commonly go beyond those specified at national level.

Apart from compulsory courses, other measures are in place across the EHEA to stimulate the provision
of teacher training for academic staff and their participation in it. For example, some countries have
been using national resources to systematise the provision of relevant training across the higher
education sector and some other countries have invested in the development of competence
frameworks for academic positions, which can in turn support the development of adequate training
provision.

Closely related to the provision of teacher training for academic staff is the question of how satisfied
students are with the quality of their teachers (lecturers). The Eurostudent survey shows that, on
average, around half of the students in the countries surveyed agree or strongly agree that their lecturers
are extremely good at explaining things, providing feedback or motivating them. This can be seen as a
relatively satisfactory result. However, in every country surveyed, there is some room for improvement.

Finally, regulatory information provided within the BFUG data collection suggests that while research
performance remains the main criterion valued in academic careers, teaching performance – alongside
research – also plays a role, albeit a lesser one, in the recruitment and promotion of higher education
staff. The EUA Trends survey complements the regulatory analysis by showing that higher education
institutions commonly see teaching evaluations as an important element influencing careers of higher
education teaching staff. Moreover, the comparison between different EUA Trends survey rounds
suggests that teaching performance evaluations play a more important role nowadays than some years
ago.

184
CHAPTER 6: INTERNATIONALISATION

The 2020 Rome Communiqué

The 2020 Rome Communiqué, adopted by ministers of higher education of the European Higher
Education Area (EHEA) in the Rome Ministerial Conference in November 2020 ( 1), puts emphasis on a
shared commitment to mobility. This is part of the key concept of an interconnected EHEA, where ‘our
shared frameworks and tools will continue to facilitate and enhance international cooperation and
reform, exchange of knowledge and mobility of staff and students.’

The Communiqué reaffirms the commitment that at least 20% of those graduating in the EHEA should
have experienced a study or training period abroad. In addition to this recognition of the importance of
physical mobility, ministers ‘further commit to enabling all learners to acquire international and
intercultural competences through internationalisation of the curricula or participation in innovative
international environments in their home institutions, and to experience some form of mobility, whether
in physical, digitally enhanced (virtual) or blended formats.’

Ministers also acknowledge the role of European programmes in supporting mobility, noting in particular
the importance of the Erasmus programme.

Chapter outline
This chapter combines both statistical analysis and more qualitative information. The first section (6.1)
focuses on recent mobility trends and considers the 2020 target, set by ministers in Leuven/Louvain-la-
Neuve in 2009, that at least 20% of those graduating in the EHEA should have had a period of higher
education-related study or training period abroad. This is followed by a section on qualitative data
addressing the issues of portability of grants and loans, which is a long-term commitment first made by
ministers in the Berlin Communiqué, 2003. Finally, section 6.3 deals with a specific issue where
internationalisation and solidarity intersect: the response of EHEA countries in supporting Ukrainian
higher education following the invasion by Russia in February 2022.

6.1. Assessing student mobility flows

This section provides data and analysis on student mobility flows, building on indicators previously
published in the 2020 Bologna Process Implementation Report. Specific terms are used to describe the
different forms of student mobility. Firstly, degree mobility is the physical crossing of a national border
to enrol in a tertiary level degree programme in the country of destination. Credit mobility is a short-
term form of mobility – usually a maximum of one year – aiming at the acquisition of credits in a foreign
institution in the framework of on-going studies at the home institution. The minimum length of stay
should be at least three consecutive months, or 15 ECTS credits.

There is also a distinction to be drawn regarding the direction of mobility flows. Inward mobility takes
the perspective of the country of destination – the country to which the student moves to study. The
inward mobility rate may therefore be considered as an indicator of the country's attractiveness, relative
to the size of its tertiary education system. Outward mobility takes the perspective of the country of
origin – the country from which the student moves. The outward mobility rate may be considered as an
indicator of a pro-active policy for students to acquire international experience (particularly for credit
mobility). However, it may also be an indicator of insufficiencies or lack of capacity in the education
system of the country of origin (particularly for degree mobility).

(1) Rome Ministerial Communiqué, 19 November 2020.

185
Before 2013, the UNESCO OECD Eurostat (UOE) joint data collection defined ‘mobile students’ as
foreign students (non-citizens of the country in which they study) who have crossed a national border
and moved to another country to study. Starting from 2013, the UOE definition is based on the country
of origin understood as the country where the upper secondary diploma was awarded and not the
country of citizenship. However, 14 countries in the EHEA still use citizenship/nationality as the criterion
to define mobile students. While for many students the country of origin will be identical to the country
of the student's citizenship, this is not the case for all students. It is therefore more accurate to consider
the country of permanent/prior residence or prior education rather than citizenship/nationality for data
collection purposes. Citizenship/nationality provides a reliable estimation of the foreign student
population but is not an accurate indicator of inward learning mobility and introduces bias to the data.

This section looks at three aspects of student mobility flows: outgoing (outward) mobility, incoming
(inward) mobility and mobility balance. The report presents the total rates, and then takes a closer look
at the differences in levels of student mobility between degree and credit mobility in the different cycles
of higher education. Throughout the analysis, degree and/or credit mobility flows are examined
separately. The number of incoming degree-seeking students is utilised as a proxy for assessing the
attractiveness of the EHEA countries and the level of internationalisation achieved. For outward mobility
towards countries outside the EHEA, only Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Japan, New
Zealand and the United States have been included due to issues with data availability and quality. For
more information on the EHEA country coverage, see the ‘Glossary and methodological Notes’.

The analysis presents data from 2020/2021. It should be acknowledged that, although this is the most
recent dataset available for this report, it is not representative regarding longer-term trends. This is
because the Covid-19 pandemic was at its height at this time and undoubtedly had a significant impact
on students’ choices or capacity to study abroad – whether for credit or degree mobility. For this reason,
comparing data between different time points could result in misleading results. Therefore, comparisons
with 2016/2017, which was the reference year for the data presented in the 2020 Bologna Process
Implementation Report, are limited and should be read with caution.

6.1.1. Outward mobility

The Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve ministerial conference in 2009 set a target to be achieved by 2020 ( 2),
that at least 20% of those graduating in the EHEA should have had a period of higher education-related
study or training period abroad. This section of the report discusses outward mobility flows in EHEA
countries in relation to this target by reporting the mobility rates in relation to the total student
populations, and by identifying the type and level of mobility.

The degree and credit outward mobility rate of a country for tertiary graduates shows the number of
students who graduated abroad or spent a study-related period abroad, as a percentage of the total
number of graduates from that country. For a given country (of origin), the compilation of outward
degree-mobile students/graduates relies on the records of all other countries in the world. Indeed, only
each hosting country can collect data on students/graduates from this country of origin in its own tertiary
education system. Unlike for degree mobility, data on credit mobility are collected from the country of
origin, defined as the country where the graduates are regularly enrolled/obtain their diploma. Where
graduates are degree mobile and have also previously been credit mobile (dual mobility status) to avoid
double counting, degree mobility takes precedence over any credit mobility. Therefore, throughout the
analysis credit mobility data concerns students who were only credit and not degree mobile.

(2) Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué: the Bologna Process 2020 – The European Highed 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, p. 4.

186
Figure 6.1 presents the outward (degree and credit) mobility rate of graduates originating from the
EHEA. It highlights the different incidence of the two mobility components across the EHEA countries.
The figure shows the state of mobility in the EHEA in relation to the 20% target set in the
Leuven/Louvain-la-Neuve Communiqué.

Figure 6.1: Outward (degree and credit) mobility rate of graduates (ISCED level 5-8) by country of origin, 2020/2021
(%)

2020 target

Credit Mobility Degree Mobility

2020/2021 SM AD LU CY FR SK LT DE NL MD EE CH SE IS AT LV BA MT BG CZ EL FI
A. Credit Mobility : 1.3 8.9 0.5 15.6 0.6 5.5 11.1 12.6 : 5.4 8.4 9.7 : 7.2 5.3 : 3.9 1.4 6.0 : 6.6
B. Degree Mobility 87.5 85.4 74.9 29.3 3.6 16.9 11.3 5.0 3.1 15.4 9.2 5.3 3.8 13.3 6.0 7.8 13.0 8.2 10.3 5.4 11.3 4.6
A and B 87.5 86.7 83.8 29.8 19.2 17.5 16.8 16.1 15.7 15.4 14.6 13.7 13.5 13.3 13.2 13.1 13 12.1 11.7 11.4 11.3 11.2
2021 NO ES AZ PT BE RS MK DK RO GE AL HR SI IE HU IT UK PL UA AM TR EHEA
A. Credit Mobility 3.6 7.4 : 4.0 4.0 1.7 : 5.5 1.0 : : : : : : : 2.9 1.3 : : 0.1 4.8
B. Degree Mobility 6.9 2.1 9.4 5.0 4.5 6.6 7.9 1.7 6.1 6.5 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.3 4.7 4.7 1.0 1.7 2.9 2.4 0.7 3.6
A and B 10.5 9.5 9.4 9 8.5 8.3 7.9 7.2 7.1 6.5 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.3 4.7 4.7 3.9 3 2.9 2.4 0.8 8.4
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries, OECD.
Notes:
Data are sorted in descending order according to the total outward (degree and credit) mobility rate.
EHEA refers to the EHEA weighted average. It includes all countries for which at least one of the components (credit or degree mobility) is available. Countries
for which credit mobile data are not available are considered as having zero credit mobile graduates (degree mobile numbers are included for total graduates
in the nominator) and the total graduate population originating from EHEA is used as denominator. Countries with no distinction for graduates with dual mobility
are presented with data on degree mobility only (details available in the Glossary and methodological note). As data for credit mobility are not available for
some countries, the value of the EHEA average for credit mobility and the total EHEA average for credit and degree mobility could be underestimated.
Total outward mobility rates for country X are calculated as (outward degree-mobile graduates from country X + outward credit-mobile graduates who were
not degree mobile from country X)/graduates originating in country X. Graduates originating in country X are calculated as (total graduates in country X –
inward mobile graduates from any other country to country X + outward mobile graduates from country X to any other country).
No information is available on EHEA-origin degree mobile graduates who graduated in the US, which implies potential underestimation for some countries.

When it comes to outward mobility data show a total of 569 860 graduates who had an international
mobility experience in 2020/2021 either in the framework of a study period abroad (credit mobility) or in
the form of a full degree. This corresponds to an 8.4% share of outward mobile graduates in the total
EHEA graduates’ population (all ISCED levels combined) for countries with available data. It falls a long
way short of the ambition of 20% set in 2009.

The share of graduates in tertiary education (all ISCED levels considered), who had a temporary
experience abroad (credit mobility) was 4.8%, while 3.6% graduated abroad (degree mobility). The total
credit mobility graduates’ population (328 669) accounted for 57.7% of the EHEA total mobile graduates’
population in 2020/2021, demonstrating stronger outward credit mobility flows across EHEA countries
compared to degree mobility.

187
Figure 6.1 shows that for all education levels considered, 10 of 43 countries with available data ( 3)
registered a share of mobile graduates above 15%. Among these countries with substantial total outward
mobility flows, France (credit mobility rate 15.6%), the Netherlands (credit mobility rate 12.6%) and
Germany (credit mobility rate 11.1%) registered a larger share of credit mobile than degree mobile
graduates. Conversely, Slovakia (17.5%), Lithuania (16.8%) and several small education systems had
larger degree mobility flows. San Marino, Andorra, Luxembourg, and Cyprus surpassed the learning
mobility benchmark of 20%. Nevertheless, the size of the outward mobility flows in these four countries
accounted for just 0.1% of total EHEA outward mobility. In all four countries, the small size of the higher
education system clearly operated as a factor inciting many students to study abroad. 13 countries
registered mobility flows ranging between 10% and 15% with Norway at the lower (10.5%) and Estonia
the upper end (14.6%). A share of less than 10% was found in 20 countries ( 4) – close to half of the
countries with available data. The lowest share (less than 5%) of outgoing students ranged between
0.8% in Türkiye and 3.9% in the United Kingdom, with Armenia, Poland and Ukraine also registering
mobility rates within this range. The share of the outward mobility population in these countries
accounted for 2.2% of the total EHEA outward mobility population.

Compared to the 2016/2017 data reported in the 2020 Bologna Process Implementation Report, most
countries maintained the same proportions of credit and degree mobility. The trend of higher outward
credit mobility activity across the EHEA was also apparent in 2016/2017. However, in Norway the
balanced shares of credit and degree mobility have changed and in 2020/2021 the country registered a
higher rate of degree mobility. In Portugal, Belgium, and Italy degree mobility rates were higher than
credit mobility in 2020/2021 while in 2016/2017 credit mobility was the preferred option.

Figure 6.2 shows the outward degree and credit mobility rate of graduates originating from the EHEA in
2020/2021. The mobility rates are shown per ISCED level and with the ISCED 5-8 average. The figure
provides a comparative and more differentiated view of overall mobility from EHEA countries.

Figure 6.2: Outward degree and credit mobility of graduates, by country of origin and level of educational
attainment, 2020/2021, (%)

ISCED 6 ISCED 7 ISCED 8 – ISCED 5-8

(3) Moldova and San Marino: no data on credit mobility.

(4) No data on credit mobility is available for AL, AM, AZ, BA, GE, IE, IS, MK, UA. Degree mobile numbers are included for total number of graduates.

188
 % SM AD LU CY FR SK LT DE NL MD EE CH SE IS AT LV BA MT BG CZ EL FI
ISCED 5 : 75.0 10.5 9.6 4.4 31.0 : 10.4 1.7 0.7 : 46.4 2.0 35.7 0.3 4.5 : 9.1 : 43.9 : :
ISCED 6 79.8 85.6 92.9 50.6 15.5 17.4 16.4 13.5 16.0 19.0 13.3 10.6 13.4 6.9 18.0 15.8 10.7 9.6 13.4 9.0 5.4 10.3
ISCED 7 93.0 90.6 83.4 16.7 34.0 16.6 13.3 21.9 16.0 22.9 13.1 20.4 19.3 21.6 19.9 14.6 16.4 14.6 7.7 13.6 20.3 12.4
ISCED 8 94.7 20.0 79.0 56.2 18.6 19.0 30.9 9.8 14.3 21.8 25.4 21.3 15.6 50.7 34.0 24.0 49.0 62.7 15.9 16.3 31.8 8.3
ISCED 5-8 87.5 86.7 83.8 29.7 19.1 17.5 16.8 16.1 15.6 15.4 14.6 13.7 13.6 13.3 13.2 13.1 13.0 12.1 11.7 11.4 11.3 11.1
NO ES AZ PT BE RS MK DK RO GE AL HR SI IE IT HU UK PL UA AM TR EHEA
ISCED 5 4.2 1.7 : 6.3 3.1 : : 1.7 : : 9.0 : 3.9 2.6 15.6 5.6 0.8 44.5 : 0.2 0.1 1.8
ISCED 6 8.0 16.1 9.5 7.2 6.9 6.4 4.9 6.6 6.6 4.8 4.9 5.1 3.4 3.4 2.8 3.7 5.6 2.3 3.9 1.9 0.7 7.7
ISCED 7 16.5 7.6 21.3 12.4 11.9 11.3 14.4 9.5 6.6 11.2 7.2 6.0 8.3 9.6 5.6 6.4 2.3 3.6 3.2 5.8 4.4 13.5
ISCED 8 10.6 35.3 12.5 20.8 15.2 27.4 29.1 30.6 13.4 9.8 14.0 14.3 30.4 20.6 26.3 11.5 4.4 16 6.6 12.5 6.8 16.0
ISCED 5-8 10.5 9.4 9.4 9.0 8.5 8.4 7.9 7.2 7.1 6.5 6.1 6.0 5.7 5.3 4.7 4.7 3.9 2.9 2.9 2.4 0.8 8.4
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries, OECD.
Notes:
Data are sorted in descending order according to the total outward (degree and credit) mobility rate.
Total outward mobility rates for country X are calculated as (outward degree-mobile graduates from country X + outward credit-mobile graduates who were
not degree mobile from country X)/graduates originating in country X. Graduates originating in country X are calculated as (total graduates in country X –
inward mobile graduates from any other country to country X + outward mobile graduates from country X to any other country).
EHEA refers to the EHEA weighted average for credit and degree mobility compared to the total EHEA graduate population. It is based on available data for
all countries for which at least one of the components (credit or degree mobility) is available.
The weighted averages per ISCED level are calculated based on the total graduates’ population at the respective education level.
For countries with partial data (see Glossary and methodological notes), the available data are included in the presentation and in the calculated EHEA
averages. Countries with no distinction for graduates with dual mobility are presented with data on degree mobility only (details available in the Glossary and
methodological note). Since data for credit mobility are not available for some countries, the value of the EHEA averages could be underestimated.
ISCED 5 data is limited and included only in the table.
No information is available on EHEA-origin degree mobile graduates who graduated in the US, which implies a potential underestimation for some countries.

Data show that the greatest interest in outward mobility studies occurred at doctoral level (ISCED 8),
with a decreasing rate of participation at master’s (ISCED 7) and bachelor’s (ISCED 6) levels. However,
the total number of graduates at ISCED 6 was almost twice the number of ISCED 7 graduates, while
the number of ISCED 8 graduates was equivalent to just 3.5% of the ISCED 6 graduate population. The
difference between the actual number of outward mobile graduates at ISCED 6 and ISCED 7 was small,
and this is explained by the higher mobility rate at ISCED 7. The preferred type of outward mobility at
ISCED 6 and ISCED 7 levels was credit mobility, while at ISCED 8 most of the mobile graduates chose
to follow outward degree studies.

In 23 of 41 countries with data available for ISCED 6-8 education levels, the share of outward mobility
graduates increased as ISCED levels raised. The number of countries reaching the 20% target also
increased from ISCED 6 to ISCED 8, registering a jump from 4 countries ISCED 6, 10 at ISCED 7 and
22 countries at ISCED 8. Conversely, the number of countries registering lower outward mobility rates
(below 10%) decreased with the increase of education level.

The mobility flows in large and small systems followed different trends. Small education systems showed
very high outward mobility rates at all education levels with preference for degree mobility studies. Large
education systems (above 500 000 graduates) showed diverse mobility rates at the different education
levels. Graduates in France and Germany showed greater interest for studies abroad at master’s level.

Credit mobility was the preferred type at bachelor’s and master’s level, while at doctoral level the degree
outward mobility was more popular. Graduates from Türkiye preferred degree to credit mobility in all
education levels, with the highest interest in outward doctoral degree studies. Conversely graduates
from Spain showed a preference for credit mobility at all education levels with the highest share at
doctoral level. Graduates from the United Kingdom were more mobile at bachelor’s level, with a
preference for credit mobility. Lower levels of mobility were registered in the second and third cycles,
where degree mobility was the preferred form.

189
The EHEA total mobility rate in the first cycle (ISCED°6) was 7.7%. Mobility rates of 20% or higher were
registered in four countries – all small education systems. Credit mobility, accounting for 61% of the total
mobility flows, considerably outnumbered degree mobility. 12 ( 5) of 43 systems registered a rate above
15%. Among these, four ( 6) countries registered a higher rate of credit than degree mobility (see also
Figure 6.1 for reference). In 24 systems, the mobility rate at this level did not exceed 10%. In
11 countries within this group, the total mobility rate was below 5%.

At ISCED 7, the EHEA average mobility rate was 13.5% − considerably higher than at ISCED 6. As in
the first cycle, credit mobility accounted for nearly 60% of the total mobility flows at this level. In 10 of
43 countries, the share of outward mobility reached or exceeded 20%. San Marino, Andorra, and
Luxembourg registered the highest mobility rates (above 80%), followed by France (34%) and Moldova
(22.9%). France and Germany, the systems with the largest number of outward mobile graduates in this
group, had a significantly higher share of credit mobile graduates. Fifteen countries had mobility rates
below 10%. The United Kingdom, Poland and Ukraine were among the countries with the largest total
graduates’ populations (above 100 000) at this education level but registered outward mobility rates
below 5%.

At doctoral level (ISCED 8), the EHEA average mobility rate was 16%, higher than the rates at both
ISCED 6 and ISCED 7 levels. However, the size of the graduates’ and mobile graduates’ populations
was much smaller compared to the other education cycles. Contrary to the trends at ISCED 6 and
ISCED 7 levels, degree mobility outstripped credit mobility. In 22 of 43 countries the share of outward
mobility graduates was 20% or higher. Seven countries had a mobility rate between 15% and 20%. Only
six countries had a rate lower than 10%. Two of the countries with a large total graduate population
(above 10 000) at this education level − Germany and Spain − registered mobility participation rates of
respectively 9.8% and 35.3%. In Spain the mobile graduates preferred by far to follow credit mobility
activities. The United Kingdom, while having the second largest graduate population at this level, was
the only country among the 43 with a mobility rate below 5%.

When observing the differences between ISCED 6 and ISCED 7, 31 out of 43 countries had higher
mobility rates at ISCED 7 level. Very large gaps between the mobility rates at ISCED 6 and ISCED 7
(more than 10 percentage points) were observed in six countries, with France registering an ISCED 7
mobility rate 18.5 percentage points higher than at ISCED 6. Conversely, Cyprus registered a
significantly lower mobility rate at ISCED 7 level (33.9 percentage points difference compared to
ISCED 6).

32 out of 43 countries had a higher mobility rate at ISCED°8 level compared to ISCED°7. 19 countries
registered large differences (more than 10 percentage points) between the mobility rates at ISCED 7
and ISCED 8. Andorra (70.6 percentage points), France (15 percentage points) and Germany
(12 percentage points) showed higher outward mobility rates at ISCED 7 compared to ISCED 8 level.

The EHEA total mobility rate in the first cycle dropped from 9.6% in 2016/2017 to 7.7% in 2020/2021.
Overall, the levels of outward mobility for second-cycle students across EHEA countries in 2020/2021
marked a decrease from 16.1% in 2016/2017 to 13.5% in 2020/2021. At doctoral level, the outward
mobility in 2020/2021 showed a slight decrease from 17% to 16%. The impact of the COVID-19
pandemic should be considered in contextualising this drop.

Data reported in 2016/2017 indicated that in 18 out of 33 (54%) of the countries with available data, the
interest in engaging in outward mobility activities was higher at the second and third cycles compared
to the first cycle. This trend was confirmed for 2020/2021, where in 23 out of 41 countries with available

(5) Moldova and San Marino: data available for degree mobility only.
(6) Austria, Spain, France, the Netherlands.

190
data, the outward mobility rates at ISCED 7 and ISCED 8 registered higher share of mobile participants
compared to ISCED 6.

25 of 43 countries with available data achieved the 20% target in at least one of the education levels.
However, the share of graduates (all ISCED levels considered in all EHEA countries with available data)
who had at least one study experience abroad was still far from the 20% target.

Figure 6.3 presents the percentages of outward credit mobility graduates by ISCED level. It looks at
credit mobility in particular to show the differences between ISCED levels across EHEA countries for
this type of mobility. The figure depicts 27 countries with available data.

Figure 6.3: Outward credit mobility rate – tertiary mobile graduates from the EHEA as a percentage of the total
number of graduates from the country, by country of origin and level of educational attainment, 2020/2021 (%)

ISCED 6 ISCED 7 ISCED 8 – ISCED 5-8

Source: Eurostat, OECD.

% FR NL DE SE LU CH ES AT FI CZ DK LT EE LV PT BE MT
ISCED 6 11.2 14.6 10.4 10.1 15.8 7.5 14.1 10.8 6.8 4.3 5.4 6.3 6.3 7.1 3.7 3.8 6.4
ISCED 7 29.9 10.3 14.1 14.2 : 10.9 4.1 10.6 6.5 8.3 6.8 3.7 4.5 5.1 5.8 5.3 0.1
ISCED 8 5.4 : : 5.5 1.2 8.7 26.5 7.0 1.8 9.1 21.6 8.6 : 1.7 0.6 : 2.4
ISCED 5-8 15.6 12.6 11.1 9.7 8.9 8.4 7.4 7.2 6.6 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.4 5.3 4.0 4.0 3.9
IT NO HU HR UK SI RS EL BG PL AD RO SK CY TR EHEA
ISCED 6 : 3.4 : : 5.1 : 1.7 : 1.6 1.0 : 1.1 0.5 0.9 0.2 6.0
ISCED 7 : 4.8 : : 0.1 : 1.6 : 1.0 1.9 : 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.1 10.6
ISCED 8 : 0.1 : : 1.7 : 4.4 : 2.3 2.5 : 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.3 6.8
ISCED 5-8 : 3.6 : : 2.9 : 1.7 : 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.1 6.1
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries, OECD.
Notes:
EHEA weighted average includes countries for which credit mobility data are available.
Total outward mobility rates for country X are calculated as (outward credit mobile graduates who were not degree mobile from country X)/graduates originating
in country X.
Credit mobility is calculated considering only one component at the numerator. Data on countries with no distinction for graduates with dual mobility are not
presented (details available in the Glossary and methodological note). Since data for credit mobility is not available for all education levels in some countries
and for countries with dual mobility counting, the value of the EHEA averages for credit mobility could be underestimated.
Data are sorted in descending order based on the ISCED 5-8 values reported.

The total number of credit mobility graduates in 2020/2021 was 328 669 corresponding to a share of
outward credit mobility across EHEA countries of 6.1%. The education level with the largest graduates’
population was ISCED 6 and was almost the double of the graduates’ population at ISCED 7. Despite
the larger number of outward credit mobility graduates at bachelor’s level (165 105), the difference in
the number of outward credit graduates between bachelor’s and master’s level was of only 15 150,
hence the higher outward credit mobility rate at ISCED 7 level. Indeed, in nearly half of the countries
with available data the outward credit mobility rate at ISCED 7 was higher compared to ISCED 6
indicating that the graduates at master’s level were more interested to engage in credit mobility studies

191
abroad compared to their counterparts at bachelor’s level. The total number of graduates at ISCED 8
was considerably lower corresponding to respectively 2.8% of the total graduates’ population at ISCED 6
and 3.1% of the total graduates’ population at ISCED 7 level. 11 of 26 countries with data available for
both education levels, registered higher credit mobility rate at master’s compared to doctoral level.
Conversely, 15 countries registered higher outward credit mobility rates at ISCED 8 compared to
ISCED 7. Large education systems (more than 500 000 graduates) registered different outward credit
mobility activity (all ISCED levels considered). France had the largest number of outward credit mobility
graduates, followed by Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, while Türkiye had a
very limited number of credit mobile graduates, despite being the country with the largest total graduates’
population. In the United Kingdom 97% of the total outward credit mobility occurred at bachelor’s level.
France had considerably larger shares of outward credit mobility at master’s level, compared to
bachelor’s and doctoral levels.

Data for all ISCED levels combined (ISCED 5-8) ( 7), show that France had the highest outward credit
mobility rate (15.6%), followed by the Netherlands and Germany with respectively 12.6% and 11.1%.
France, Spain, and Denmark reached the 20% threshold in at least one of the education levels. All
ISCED levels considered, France had the second largest total graduates’ population
(826 823 graduates) and registered the highest number of outward credit mobility graduates
(128 638 graduates) for 2020/2021. Very large number of countries (24 of 27 with available data for all
education levels) registered rates below 10% while 13 of those had mobility rates below 5%. Türkiye
having the largest graduate’s population (1 157 630) had a very low level of mobility participation (1 041
outward credit mobility graduates) which was also below the median for the EHEA countries with
available data (3 474 graduates) and registered a credit mobility rate of 0.1%. Interestingly, the
Netherlands, with significantly less numerous total graduates’ population (150 556) registered total
credit mobility rate slightly lower than France and higher than all the other large education systems.
Small education systems had limited total credit outward mobility.

At ISCED 6, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain, France, Austria, Germany, and Sweden showed the
highest credit mobility rates (above 10%). The combined credit outward graduates’ population of these
countries accounted for 74 of the total outward credit degree population at ISCED 6 level. 19 out of
26 countries with available data registered credit mobility rates below 10%, while 11 of these countries
had credit mobility rate below 5%.

At ISCED 7, France reached the highest outward credit mobility rate of 29.9% and was the only country
reaching the threshold of 20%. Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands registered
rates between 10% and 15%. The number of outward credit graduates of the countries reaching rates
of above 10% accounted for 87% of the total outward credit graduate’s population at this level. 19 out
of 25 countries with available data had credit mobility rate of less than 10%, while 13 countries in this
group didn’t reach 5%.

At doctoral level, Spain (26.5%) and Denmark (21.6%) achieved a rate above 20%. The remaining
countries with available data didn’t reach 10% and 14 of these had rates below 5%. The total number
of outward credit mobility graduates registered at ISCED 8 level was significantly lower at this level
compared to ISCED 6 and ISCED 7.

(7) BG, DE, EE, EL, IT,LT, LU, HU, AT, RO, SK, FI, NO, CH: total excludes ISCED 5.

192
Figure 6.4 focuses only on outward degree mobility graduates, i.e., the number of graduates originating
from EHEA countries who have received a degree in a country within or outside EHEA compared to the
total graduates’ population of the country of origin.

Figure 6.4: Outward degree mobility of graduates by country of origin and level of educational attainment,
2020/2021, (%)

ISCED 6 ISCED 7 ISCED 8 – ISCED 5-8

Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries, OECD.
Notes:
Data are sorted in descending order according to the total outward degree mobility rate.
Total outward mobility rates for country X are calculated as (outward degree-mobile graduates from country X to any other country within and outside the
EHEA)/graduates originating in country X. Graduates originating in country X are calculated as (total graduates in country X – inward mobile graduates from
any other country to country X + outward mobile graduates from country X to any other country).
No information on EHEA-origin degree mobile graduates who graduated in the US, which implies potential underestimation for some countries.

% SM AD LU CY SK MD IS BA LT EL BG AZ EE MT MK LV NO RS GE AL RO AT
ISCED 6 79.8 85.6 77.1 49.7 16.9 19.0 6.9 10.7 10.2 5.5 11.8 9.5 7.0 3.3 4.9 8.7 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.4 7.2
ISCED 7 93.0 90.6 83.4 16.5 15.9 22.9 21.6 16.4 9.6 20.3 6.7 21.3 8.6 14.5 14.4 9.5 11.6 9.7 11.2 7.2 5.7 9.4
ISCED 8 94.7 20.0 77.8 55.4 18.3 21.8 50.7 49.0 22.3 31.8 13.6 : 25.4 60.2 29.1 22.3 10.5 23.0 9.8 14.0 12.5 27.0
ISCED 5-8 87.5 85.4 74.9 29.3 16.9 15.4 13.3 13.0 11.3 11.3 10.3 9.4 9.2 8.2 7.9 7.8 6.9 6.6 6.5 6.1 6.1 6.0
HR SI CZ CH IE DE PT IT HU FI BE SE FR NL UA AM ES PL DK UK TR EHEA
ISCED 6 5.1 3.4 4.6 3.2 3.4 3.1 3.6 2.8 3.7 3.5 3.1 3.3 4.3 1.5 4.0 2.0 2.1 1.3 1.2 0.5 0.6 3.0
ISCED 7 6.0 8.3 5.3 8.6 9.6 7.8 6.6 5.7 6.4 6.0 6.6 5.1 4.0 5.7 3.2 5.9 3.5 1.8 2.8 2.1 4.4 5.8
ISCED 8 14.3 30.4 7.2 12.5 20.6 9.8 20.1 26.3 11.6 6.6 15.2 10.1 13.2 14.3 6.6 12.5 8.9 13.5 9.1 3.6 6.5 12.5
ISCED 5-8 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.5 3.8 3.6 3.1 2.9 2.4 2.1 1.7 1.7 1.0 0.7 3.5

The EHEA total outward degree mobility population was smaller compared to the outward credit degree
flows, hence the lower outward degree mobility rate of 3.5% compared to the 6.1% outward credit
mobility rate for 2020/2021. 19 of 42 countries with available data registered increase of the mobility
rates with moving to a higher education level. Similarly, to the trends reported for the outward credit
mobility flows, the total graduates’ population at ISCED 6 was twice larger compared to ISCED 7. The
number of graduates pursuing a degree programme abroad however was almost the same at both
levels, explaining the higher EHEA outward degree mobility rate at ISCED 7 level (5.8%) compared to
ISCED 6 (3%). Nearly half of the countries (20 of 42) registered rates of 20% in at least one of the
education levels, seven reached the threshold in two education cycles and another three countries
reached the threshold in all education levels. The education level with highest number of countries (19
of 42) reaching the 20% benchmark was ISCED 8. For comparison, only four countries reached the 20%
threshold in at least one education level observing the outward credit mobility flows. Data for all ISCED
levels combined (ISCED 5-8), show that most of the graduates in small education systems chose to
study abroad reaching and largely overpassing the 20% threshold in all three education cycles. Data in
Figure 6.4 shows also that five countries had rates between 10% and 20% while 32 of 43 countries with

193
available data noted outward degree mobility rates below 10%. Within this group, 14 countries registered
rate of below 5%. All ISCED levels considered, in the countries with the largest graduates’ populations
(above 500 000) the level of outward mobility varied considerably. Germany, France, and Spain, despite
having the largest outward degree mobility populations as well, registered mobility rates of 5% and
below. These countries, however registered large shares of outward credit mobility flows (see
Figure 6.3). The United Kingdom and Türkiye, with outward degree mobility population below 10 000
registered the lowest outward degree mobility rates of 1% and below. Considering the total outward
mobility rates (see Figure 6.2), the finding may also indicate that a considerable number of graduates
(all education levels considered) in the United Kingdom and Türkiye preferred to obtain a degree in their
country of origin.

At ISCED 6, in four countries, more than half of the graduates engaged in outward degree studies and
in most of the countries (34 of 43), less than 10% of the graduates decided to follow degree studies
abroad. Türkiye was the country with the largest graduates’ population but only 0.6% of the graduates
chose to study abroad. The countries with the large total graduates’ population (above 100 000) at this
level registered very low outward mobility rates of 5% and below. France registered almost the same
outward mobility rates at both ISCED 6 and ISCED 7 levels, while the graduates in Germany, Italy and
Poland registered a higher rate of participation at master’s level. In the Netherlands the total number of
graduates at ISCED 6 was more than the double compared to ISCED 7, while the outward degree
graduates’ rate at ISCED 7 (5.7%) was nearly four times bigger than ISCED 6 rate, indicating enhanced
interest of graduates at master’s level to engage in degree studies abroad. At ISCED 6 more than 70%
of the graduate’s population in small education systems chose to study abroad for obtention of a degree.
In 19 of 32 countries with available data for both outward credit and degree mobility, at this level the
interest in outward degree mobility was lower compared to credit mobility.

At master’s level, seven countries reached rates of above 20%. Similarly, to bachelor’s level, small
education systems registered the highest outward degree mobility rates, while in education systems
with large graduates’ populations at this level, the share of graduates interested to follow degree studies
abroad was of less than 10% (Germany and Italy) or even less than 5% (France, Spain, Poland, and
the United Kingdom). More than half of the countries (37 of 42) with available data registered higher
shares of outward degree mobile graduates at master’s level compared to bachelor’s level. In terms of
total number of outward degree graduates, comparing with the credit mobility flows at this level, the
degree mobility shares were less important.

At ISCED 8, the EHEA outward degree mobility rate was 12.5%, largely overpassing the ISCED 6 and
ISCED 7 levels. The total number of graduates at this level was significantly lower compared to the other
two education cycles and so was the total number of outward degree mobility graduates. However, the
outward degree mobility rates indicate that, compared to bachelor and master levels, at doctoral level
larger shares of the graduates followed degree studies abroad. Indeed, the level of achievement of the
20% target at this level concerned much higher number of countries – 19 of 42 compared to the other
two education levels. Smaller education systems except Andorra, registered the highest participation
rates in this education level as well. Large education systems (more than 10 000 graduates) at this level
registered different outward mobility rates. Germany, the United Kingdom, and Spain didn’t reach 10%,
while Italy reached 26.3%. About half of the doctoral level graduates in Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Iceland chose to study abroad which was a considerably higher share compared to bachelor’s and
master’s level. In 15 countries, between 10% and 20% of the graduates studied abroad for obtention of
a doctoral degree.

194
6.1.2. Inward degree mobility
Figure 6.5 presents the percentage of mobile students coming from inside the EHEA to individual EHEA
countries. It compares the share of mobile students with the total student population in the EHEA
destination country per education level. The purpose of this indicator is to provide an estimation of the
attractiveness of each EHEA country for degree-mobile students who originate from another EHEA
country and their distribution across the education levels.

Figure 6.5: Inward degree mobility rate per level of educational attainment within the EHEA, 2020/2021

ISCED 6 ISCED 7 ISCED 8 – ISCED 5-8

LI SM LU AD AT CH CZ SK MT CY NL DK BG BA HU BE EE UK LV IS MK RO
ISCED 6 80.4 84.2 21.1 17.0 16.4 8.0 8.8 9.1 6.3 10.5 7.6 4.6 3.1 5.8 4.8 5.2 4.1 6.3 2.8 3.1 4.6 3.0
ISCED 7 80.3 51.8 55.2 53.9 20.6 18.2 12.7 10.7 9.9 8.4 11.1 15.5 14.9 7.5 9.4 8.8 7.9 5.6 16.1 6.0 4.1 7.4
ISCED 8 85.0 75.0 55.3 72.0 28.9 39.6 15.5 9.7 70.7 19.9 22.6 21.0 6.0 9.5 9.1 7.8 12.2 12.7 7.2 24.1 4.2 2.2
ISCED 5-8 81.4 81.0 36.2 21.9 15.7 12.9 10.5 9.5 9.4 9.2 8.4 8.0 6.9 6.4 6.2 5.9 5.8 5.6 5.5 4.6 4.5 4.4
RS DE MD LT PL IE SE HR EL FI PT NO FR ES AZ AM AL IT GE UA TR EHEA
ISCED 6 3.8 2.7 3.2 1.9 3.3 1.7 1.2 2.0 2.7 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.0 1.7 1.3 0.5 0.9 1.0 1.5 0.8 2.7
ISCED 7 4.9 4.9 5.6 7.2 2.9 4.1 3.8 2.7 0.3 3.0 3.6 2.1 1.8 3.1 0.2 0.8 2.4 1.4 0.4 : 1.6 4.6
ISCED 8 4.8 8.0 23.9 4.8 4.1 12.8 13.4 6.4 1.3 8.0 3.9 10.5 8.1 4.9 0.0 0.5 1.6 2.8 0.5 0.4 1.1 8.3
ISCED 5-8 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.2 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.9 0.8 0.6 2.9
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
EHEA = EHEA weighted average.
Data are sorted in descending order according to the total incoming mobility rate.

In 2020/2021, the inward degree mobility across EHEA countries all ISCED levels considered rated
2.9%. Compared to 2016/2017 rates reported in the Bologna Process Implementation Report, 2020, the
attractiveness of ISCED 6 education level remained the same while for all the other education levels,
the incoming mobility flows registered for 2020/2021 increased. In 2021, the largest number of incoming
students was registered at bachelor’s level. However, the total number of students at this level
considerably outnumbered the students at the other education levels and therefore the inward mobility
rate at ISCED 6 was much lower compared to the other education cycles. Similarly, to outward degree
mobility flows, the inward mobility flows increased with the education level indicating ISCED 7 (4.6%)
and ISCED 8 (8.3%) as more attractive education cycles for inward mobility students compared to
ISCED 6 (2.7%). The number of countries with rate above 10% increased with the education level,
doubling between first (ISCED 6) and second (ISCED 7) cycle and reaching at third cycle (ISCED 8) 18
of 43 countries. All education levels considered, Austria, Switzerland, and Czechia (rates above 10%),
together with small education systems (rates above 80%) showed high shares of degree-seeking
students. 11 out of 43 countries had the lowest rate of incoming degree students (less than 2%). Small
education systems like Liechtenstein and San Marino registered very high inward mobility rates of above
80%, followed by Luxembourg and Andorra with 36.2% and 21.9% respectively. However, the total

195
number of inward students for this group of countries represent 0.5% of the total inward mobility
population in EHEA.

All education levels considered, the country with the largest number of inward degree mobility students
was the United Kingdom (167 382) and was third as regards the total graduates’ population (2 993 903
students). However, with an inward mobility rate of 5.6%, the United Kingdom ranked 18th among the
43 countries with available data. On the other side, Liechtenstein, despite the highest rate of inward
degree mobility (81.4%), with 790 inward degree students was among the three countries with the lowest
number of inward mobility population (less than 800 students) and had a total number of student
population of 971 students.

At ISCED 6 the EHEA inward mobility rate was 2.7%. The largest inward degree graduates’ population
was registered in the United Kingdom (115 740) registering rate of 6.3% The highest-ranking countries
in terms of inward mobility rate were Liechtenstein and San Marino with rates above 80%. However,
Liechtenstein and San Marino, had inward degree population of respectively 348 and 680 and were
among the five countries with the lowest number of total student population (below 1 000). On the other
side Albania, Italy, Ukraine, and Türkiye registered a rate below 1%. 29 of 43 (67% of the countries with
available data) registered rates of below 5%, indicating that at this education level, in most of the
countries the share of inward degree mobility students in the total student population was low.

At ISCED 7 level, the EHEA average rate for inward degree mobility (4.6%) was higher compared to
ISCED 6 rate. The total inward mobility population at this level was 235 823 and was smaller compared
to ISCED 6 inward mobility population as was the total student population, hence the difference in the
inward mobility rates. Only Liechtenstein registered a rate of above 80%, while San Marino, Luxembourg
and Andorra had rates of above 50%. In much smaller number of countries (19 of 42 − 45% of the
countries with available data), compared to ISCED 6, the rate of inward degree mobility was below 5%,
indicating a higher share of inward degree mobility students in the total student population at ISCED 7
compared to ISCED 6 level. Germany was among the countries which registered low inward mobility
rate (4.9%). However, Germany had the largest student population both in terms of inward degree
mobility (55 027 students) and total student population (1 115 918).

At doctoral level, the total inward mobility population and the total student population were significantly
lower compared to ISCED 7, thus explaining the larger rate. Switzerland (39.6%), Austria (28.9%) and
the Netherlands (22.6%) registering rates above 20% and being among the 20 countries with large total
students’ population (above 10 000), hosted more than a third of the total inward mobile students at this
education level. The Scandinavian countries, except Finland also reached high rates (above 10%) of
inward student mobility, with Iceland reaching 24% and Denmark achieving 21%. Estonia registered
12.2% inward mobility rate while the other Baltic countries remained with rates below 10%. Czechia,
among the Central European countries, showed higher rates of degree-seeking incoming mobile
students of above 10%. Inward mobile graduates in Ireland, Sweden and Norway were more interested
to follow doctoral studies, indicated by the higher mobility rate at ISCED 8 (10%) compared to the other
education levels. Austria Iceland, Moldova, the Netherlands, and Denmark, registered a rate above 20%
at ISCED 8 level. However, while Austria registered rather balanced distribution of incoming degree
students among the three education levels, this was not the case in the other countries. At ISCED 6 and
ISCED 7, rates of incoming students in Moldova and Iceland were rather low, and not exceeding 6%,
while in Denmark and the Netherlands the rates at ISCED 6 level were respectively 4.6% and 7.6%.
Similarly, to ISCED 7, at ISCED 8 level, Liechtenstein registered the highest rate of 85%. In 15 of 43
(34% of the countries with available data), the rate was below 5%. The largest number of incoming
degree students was registered in Germany (15 284), followed by the United Kingdom (14 418) and
Switzerland (10 549). Germany had the largest student population at this level (192 270), the United
Kingdom was the third largest (113 877). Switzerland had a much smaller total number of students

196
(26 656) but had the highest inward degree mobility rate (39.6%) among the three countries. The EHEA
average inward degree mobility rate for this level (8.3%) was higher compared to ISCED 6 and ISCED 7.

10 out of 42 countries with available data had a lower share of incoming degree mobility students at
ISCED 7 compared to ISCED 6 level while 12 registered lower shares at ISCED 8 compared to ISCED 7
level. A lower number of countries (8 of 42) registered a decrease between ISCED 6 and ISCED 8 level.

6.1.3. Mobility balance

The concept of balanced mobility was formulated as a desirable objective in the 2012 Bucharest
ministerial communiqué, but increasingly acknowledged as a complex issue for policymaking and
comprising various aspects in which balance may not be the only consideration. For example, assuming
that mobility is desirable, balanced mobility at low levels of mobility (low inward and low outward mobility
rates) may be perceived as less positive than balanced mobility at high levels (high inward and high
outward mobility rates).

Figure 6.6 provides information on the degree mobility balance of students in 2021. It does not factor in
credit mobility. Whereas the X axis indicates the mobility balance, it does so with reference to the
outward degree mobility rate of the respective country depicted in the Y Axis. Hence, the figure shows
how balanced the mobility flow of the respective country is with regards to its outward flows.

The figure shows the relationship between inward and outward degree mobility. Both axes include
mobility flows within and outside the EHEA. Positive balance indicates higher flows of incoming students
(attractive education systems), while negative balance indicates higher flows of outgoing students.
Countries placed near the X axis are called “open systems” with balanced inward and outward flows.

197
Figure 6.6: Extent of balance in degree mobility flows within and outside the EHEA, ISCED 5-8, 2020/2021
X = Balance

Y = Outward degree Mobility rate (%)

Y = Outward degree Mobility rate (%)

X = Balance

% LI AD LU SM CY SK MD BA AZ IS BG AL LT MK EE
Balance -0.30 -0.73 -0.72 0.29 -0.57 -0.51 -0.69 -0.59 -0.84 -0.36 -0.31 -0.85 -0.21 -0.05 0.38
Outward rate 89.51 87.49 77.47 75.55 39.12 19.97 18.01 14.75 12.96 11.88 11.18 10.05 9.13 7.81 7.58
MT IE AT LV CH RO HR RS GE HU PT EL NO UA CZ
Balance 0.62 0.30 0.69 0.53 0.70 -0.05 -0.54 -0.20 0.40 0.63 0.60 -0.42 -0.12 0.09 0.76
Outward rate 7.03 6.69 6.65 6.48 6.39 6.35 5.59 5.58 5.49 5.36 5.06 4.76 4.69 4.47 4.26
DE IT SI FR BE FI SE AM PL NL ES DK UK TR
Balance 0.66 -0.14 0.59 0.59 0.66 0.59 0.58 0.64 0.62 0.87 0.45 0.82 0.94 0.78
Outward rate 4.12 3.99 3.98 3.86 3.54 3.51 2.93 2.61 2.16 2.03 2.00 1.99 1.50 0.62
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
For presentation purposes, the scale has been adjusted to 20%.
For graphical readability purpose, balance is computed as the absolute difference (incoming – outgoing students). The results are
more readable when plotted than taking the ratio (incoming/outgoing) which is below 1 for most countries.
Balance is computed as the absolute difference (incoming – outgoing students) divided by the total number of incoming students
(when the balance is positive) or by the total number of outgoing students (in case of negative balance).

In the left quadrant of the graph 19 of 44 countries with available data show higher share of outgoing
students resulting in a negative balance between outward and inward mobility flows. On the other side,
in the right quadrant of the graph, 25 countries show the inverse trend, with higher share of inward
mobility flows demonstrating a positive balance.

Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom are situated on the right side of the X-axis and show
positive balance extending towards 100% (respectively 82%, 87% and 94%) determined by the
significantly larger inward mobility shares (8%, 8.4% and 5.6% respectively per country) compared to
the outward mobility rates (1.7%, 3.1% and 1% respectively). 19 out of 44 countries with available data
registered a positive balance above 50%.

Among the countries with negative balance, on the left side of the graph, there are two countries
(Azerbaijan and Albania) with significant difference between the outward and inward flows (above

198
10 percentage points), showing considerably higher outward mobility rates compared to inward mobility.
9 out of 44 countries, registered negative rates of above 50%.

The distribution of the countries with positive and negative balance indicates that there are slightly more
countries registering higher inward mobility flows.

In 2020/2021, the countries considered “open systems” were minority within the EHEA. Romania and
North Macedonia (-0.05% balance), show rather balanced inward and outward mobility shares, with a
slightly larger share of the outward mobility flows, while Ukraine with a positive (0.09%) balance shows
a slightly larger number of inward mobility graduates.

Figure 6.7 denotes the number of incoming tertiary students enrolled in a given country from the top
three countries of origin inside and outside EHEA, as a percentage of all incoming students enrolled in
the country. Just like Figures 6.5 and 6.6, this indicator covers only degree mobility. The purpose of this
indicator is to provide an estimation of the diversity in the origin of mobile students who may come from
different parts of the world. The percentage indicates the share of students originating from the top
inward mobility countries among the total inward mobility of the receiving country.

Figure 6.7: Student mobility flows: Top three countries of ORIGIN (INWARD) in %, 2020/2021

Top 1 Top 2 Top 3 Other

% SM MK MD LI BA RS AZ AM EL CY AL CZ HR PT SK PL AT RO CH BE LV LU
Top 1 % 97.8 46.9 51.3 39.6 41.4 54.9 45.3 30.9 63.3 36.1 38.4 42.8 48.9 37.5 31.8 41.8 41.6 36.6 20.0 35.9 21.5 24.0
Top 2 % 0.5 38.5 26.1 26.5 29.4 25.3 22.1 29.4 5.9 23.8 25.3 15.1 9.7 11.4 20.7 12.2 11.7 8.8 19.0 7.9 17.1 12.9
Top 3 % 0.4 6.2 11.6 21.5 12.8 3.3 8.6 14.8 5.3 13.8 8.3 8.3 4.3 10.1 5.9 3.6 3.3 7.6 10.4 5.1 10.3 10.5
Other % 1.2 8.3 11.1 12.4 16.4 16.5 24.0 24.9 25.4 26.3 28.0 33.9 37.1 41.1 41.7 42.5 43.4 47.0 50.6 51.2 51.2 52.6
% BG UA UK TR MT EE IE AD FR LT ES NL IS DK FI HU SE DE IT NO GE
Top 1 % 23.1 24.6 24.3 21.2 22.1 22.3 14.5 28.5 13.8 12.0 12.8 18.7 11.6 11.0 8.5 9.0 8.8 10.2 7.9 6.4 6.5
Top 2 % 15.4 10.5 14.0 10.6 9.2 9.3 11.2 3.9 9.3 9.5 8.9 5.0 8.1 9.6 8.1 7.2 7.6 7.7 5.5 5.3 2.6
Top 3 % 8.7 7.4 3.5 8.7 9.0 6.6 9.9 0.9 9.2 8.8 8.1 4.2 7.1 5.0 7.9 7.0 6.8 4.4 5.4 4.9 1.5
Other % 52.8 57.5 58.2 59.6 59.7 61.9 64.4 66.6 67.7 69.8 70.2 72.0 73.3 74.4 75.5 76.8 76.9 77.7 81.3 83.4 89.4
SM MK MD LI BA RS AZ AM EL CY AL CZ HR PT SK PL AT RO CH BE LV LU
Top 1 country IT TR RO AT HR BA TR IN CY EL IT SK BA BR UA UA DE MD FR FR IN FR
Top 2 country UA XK IL DE RS ME IR RU AL IN XK RU DE CV CZ BY IT FR DE NL UZ DE
Top 3 country MK RS IN CH ME HR GE GE DE NP EL UA FR GW DE IN BA IL IT CM DE BE
BG UA UK TR MT EE IE AD FR LT ES NL IS DK FI HU SE DE IT NO GE
Top 1 country EL IN CN SY IT FI CN ES MA BY FR DE US DE VN DE CN CN CN CN AZ
Top 2 country UK MA IN AZ IN RU IN FR CN UA CO IT DE NO RU CN IN IN IR SE RU
DE TM NG TM UK NG US PT, DZ IN IT CN PH SE CN RO DE SY IN DE UK
Top 3 country
CA
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Data are sorted in decreasing order by the rate for the ‘other’ category.

199
The rate of diversity of inward mobility was above 50% in 25 out of 43 countries, indicating greater
diversity in geographical backgrounds of incoming mobile students in more than half of the EHEA
countries with available data. In countries with diversity rate above 70% in this group (11 of 25), the top
three destination countries’ combined shares ranged between 29.8% in Spain (other countries’ share of
70.2%) and 10.6% in Georgia (other countries’ share of 89.4%).

At the other end of the spectrum, in 18 out of 43 countries, more than 50% of the inward mobility students
came from the top 3 countries combined, evidencing limited geographical diversity of the incoming
student flows. In this group, 11 countries registered a share of inward mobility from the top 3 countries
above 70%. The diversity rate in these 11 countries was below 30% and ranged between 1.2% in San
Marino and 28% in Albania. In five countries more than 50% of the inward mobility came from the top 1
country. The diversity rate in these countries ranged from 1.2 in San Marino to 25.4% in Greece.

Large education systems, receiving the highest number of incoming students (above 200 000), all
registered diversity rates above 50%, with Germany noting the highest rate of 77.7%. Only 10.2% of the
incoming mobility in Germany came from the top 1 country. The United Kingdom with diversity rate of
58.2% was the country with the largest incoming mobility population and had 24.3% of inward mobility
originating from the top 1 country. The Netherlands with incoming mobility above 100 000 also registered
a very high diversity rate of 72%. The finding indicates that in these countries the origin of the inward
mobility had a very diverse geographical background.

Small education systems like Liechtenstein, San Marino, Luxembourg, Andorra, Malta, and Cyprus
presented very diverse patterns of mobility flows. There were large disparities in the total incoming
degree mobility rates (all ISCED level considered) in this group ranging between more than 80%
(Liechtenstein and San Marino) and around 9% in Malta and Cyprus (see Figure 6.5). Liechtenstein,
San Marino, and Cyprus showed limited diversity receiving incoming students mostly from the top 1
country (Austria, Italy, and Greece respectively), eventually indicating interest determined by language
or geographical proximity. Conversely, more than half of the inward student population in Luxembourg
(52.6%), Malta (59.7%) and Andorra (66.6%) had diverse origin.

Geographical proximity as well as a common language of instruction or cultural and historical legacies
are factors influencing the origin and the size of the incoming student population from distinct countries.
For instance, such factors may explain the pattern of students received in Serbia (from Montenegro,
Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina), Portugal (from Cabo Verde, Guinea-Bissau, and Brazil) and
Switzerland (from France, Germany, and Italy).

EHEA countries attract large number of students from outside EHEA countries. Indian students have
registered high interest in following graduate studies in EHEA countries. Indian students formed the
highest share of incoming students in Latvia (21.5%), Armenia (30.9%) and Ukraine (24.6%), while for
six EHEA recipient countries it was the second largest inward mobility flow accounting for 23.8% of the
inward mobility in Cyprus, 7.7% in Germany, 9.2% in Malta, 7.6% in Sweden, 14% in the United Kingdom
and 11.2% in Ireland. For Italy, Lithuania, Poland and Moldova, India was the third ranking country of
origin for inward mobility students. Inward student mobility originating from China represented the largest
share of inward mobility for the United Kingdom (24.3%) and Ireland (14.5%). China was the first country
of origin also for the inward student flows in Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Norway. Chinese students
were the second ranking inward mobility share in France (9.3%) and Hungary (7.2%). For Finland (7.9%)
and the Netherlands (4.2%), Chinese students were third important flow of the total inward mobility.
Students from the United States were the highest share of inward mobility for Iceland (11.5%) and the
third ranking flow for Ireland (9.9%). Most incoming students in Ukraine originated from India (24.6% of
the total incoming mobility). For Ireland, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, and Portugal
the greatest shares of incoming mobility originated outside the EHEA. These countries however, also
registered considerably high rate of incoming student diversity.

200
Figure 6.8 shows the top three countries of destination, computing the number of mobile tertiary students
of a given country of origin enrolled in the top three destination countries, as a percentage of all mobile
tertiary students of that country. Again, this indicator considers degree mobility only. The variety of
destinations is impacted by certain restrictions in the data collection of mobility beyond the EHEA. Only
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States are covered in
the collection of data when it comes to outward degree mobility outside the EHEA. At national level, the
various measures aimed at fostering student mobility also have an impact on the extent of diversity,
since they usually prioritise specific geographical regions, sub-geographical areas, or countries for
privileged cooperation.

Figure 6.8: Student mobility flows: Top three countries of DESTINATION (OUTWARD) in %, 2020/2021

Top 1 Top 2 Top 3 Other

% SM LI AD VA CY MD SK AZ BA AT IE ME MT UA LT LU PL PT CH BG CZ LV BE MK
Top 1 % 95.0 77.5 73.7 39.8 56.1 74.5 69.9 65.6 44.9 63.9 59.5 56.1 61.8 49.6 44.0 41.4 38.1 44.4 32.4 23.2 25.9 30.4 25.9 25.9
Top 2 % 1.1 13.7 21.0 27.8 31.5 5.0 6.7 12.1 20.5 7.4 9.8 14.3 5.4 10.6 14.2 15.0 18.1 10.7 23.1 22.0 24.5 17.3 17.1 17.5
Top 3 % 1.0 4.9 1.1 23.9 3.3 3.3 5.4 4.1 15.7 6.4 5.5 3.6 4.0 7.9 8.4 9.7 9.3 8.0 6.7 16.9 11.1 12.1 15.9 14.9
Other % 2.9 4.0 4.2 8.6 9.2 17.2 18.0 18.3 18.9 22.3 25.2 26.0 28.7 32.0 33.5 34.0 34.5 36.9 37.7 37.9 38.5 40.3 41.2 41.8
% IS RO DE ES NL NO AM AL EE GE HU FI DK HR SI SE TR KZ FR UK EL IT RS
Top 1 % 33.0 35.9 26.7 27.9 23.7 25.5 31.5 25.1 25.6 23.5 18.7 20.6 26.5 24.5 21.3 21.4 23.1 18.8 18.6 22.2 23.2 17.2 16.4
Top 2 % 14.4 12.4 19.9 14.8 20.3 20.1 12.1 18.4 15.1 17.4 16.5 18.3 12.5 12.6 13.9 15.0 15.6 15.5 13.7 13.8 10.6 12.0 11.8
Top 3 % 10.1 7.9 9.4 12.7 11.3 9.5 11.1 10.4 12.8 12.0 16.4 12.5 11.4 12.0 13.0 11.1 8.2 11.3 12.8 8.7 10.3 11.4 10.7
Other % 42.5 43.8 44.1 44.6 44.7 44.9 45.3 46.2 46.6 47.1 48.4 48.7 49.6 51.0 51.8 52.5 53.1 54.5 55.0 55.3 55.9 59.5 61.2
Country SM LI AD VA CY MD SK AZ BA AT IE ME MT UA LT LU PL PT CH BG CZ LV BE MK
Top 1 IT CH ES DE EL RO CZ TR RS DE UK RS UK PL UK DE UK UK DE DE SK UK NL BG
Top 2 CA AT FR AT UK DE UK UA AT UK NL BA NL DE NL BE DE ES UK UK UK NL UK TR
Top 3 UK DE UK IT DE IT HU DE HR CH US TR US SK DE AT NL NL IT TR DE DE DE DE
IS RO DE ES NL NO AM AL EE GE HU FI DK HR SI SE TR KZ FR UK EL IT RS
Top 1 DK UK AT UK BE UK DE IT UK DE UK SE UK BA AT UK DE TR BE US UK UK HU
Top 2 US NL NL DE UK DK US DE NL UA DE UK DE UK DE US US CZ UK DE DE DE BA
Top 3 UK DE UK US DE US FR EL FI AM AT NL US DE UK DK UK US CA NL CY AT AT
Source: Eurostat, UOE and additional collection for the other EHEA countries.
Notes:
Data are arranged by the sum of top three destination countries out of the total outgoing students.

There was a great diversity in the outward mobility flows across EHEA in 2020/2021. 10 out of
47 countries with available data, registered diversified outward mobility with more than half of the
students choosing other than the first three high-ranking destinations. Conversely, in half of the countries
with available data, the three most preferred countries of destination attracted the majority of the outward
mobility students.

The United Kingdom was the preferred destination of a fourth of the mobility students in EHEA countries
with available data, while 18% of all mobile students (first three destination countries considered) chose
Germany for their studies abroad.

201
The United Kingdom was the most preferred outward mobility destination for outward mobile students
across EHEA countries (outward students from 32 countries chose the United Kingdom as one of the
three most preferred destinations). For 15 out of 47 EHEA countries (nearly 33% of EHEA countries)
the United Kingdom was the first destination country, while for 11 countries it was the second most
preferred destination. For the outward mobility students in 6 of 47 countries it was the third most chosen
country of destination. The outward mobility rate of the United Kingdom was 1% (all ISCED levels
considered) indicating that the country was mostly mobility flows receiver. The outward mobility
destination diversity was 55.3%, indicating that most of the UK outward students targeted a variety of
destination countries. The preferred study destination of UK students was the United States of America
(22.2% of outward mobility students), followed by Germany (13.8%) and the Netherlands (8.7%).

Germany was the preferred study destination for the students of 8 out of 47 countries (17%), and the
second most chosen destination country for the outward students in 11 countries, and a third option for
outward studies of the students in another 11 countries. The outward mobility of German students was
less diversified (44% diversity rate) compared to the United Kingdom. Most of the German outward
students preferred to study in Austria (26.7%), and the Netherlands (19.9%), while the United Kingdom
was the third preferred destination for 9.4% of the students originating from Germany.

Certain level of reciprocity was observed in the mobile students’ exchanges among Germany, the
Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. In each of these three countries, the other two were second or
third preferred destination.

The preferred destination of outward students from the Netherlands was Belgium (23.7%), while the
United Kingdom was the second preferred destination (20.3%), and Germany was the third choice of
11.3% of the outward students in the country.

Among the countries with available data, small education systems which registered the highest rates of
outward mobility (above 80%) and had the most limited diversity of the outward mobility flows (San
Marino and Andorra with diversity rate below 5%), the preferred destination seemed to be determined
by language and/or geographical proximity. Most students from Montenegro and Liechtenstein chose
as preferred outward study destination neighbouring countries. Luxembourg also registered a very high
outward mobility (above 70°%) but evidenced a more balanced diversity of destination (more than a
third of the outward mobility was directed towards other than the 3 top destination countries). Germany,
despite being a large education system registered diversity rate below 50% and the most preferred
destination (Austria) seemed to be determined by language and/or geographical vicinity. Conversely,
other large education systems like the United Kingdom, Italy, and France registered diversity rates of
above 50%, indicating that the choice of mobility destination for the larger share of mobile students was
influenced by factors other than language and/or geographical proximity. In terms of reciprocity, there
were divergencies among the observed countries. For example, Cyprus (diversity rate below 10%) sent
nearly 56% of its mobile students to Greece (top 1 destination), while 10% of the Greek mobile students
(diversity rate above 50%) chose to study in Cyprus (third-raking choice for Greek students), indicating
that a very small proportion of the Greek outward students undertook studies in Cyprus. In Slovakia
(diversity rate 18%), the majority of the outgoing students choose Czechia as first destination for their
studies abroad. Conversely, Slovakia was the preferred choice for 25.9% of the Czech (diversity rate
38.5%) outgoing students. Germany was the top destination for the outward students in Austria (63.9%),
Luxembourg (41.4%) and Switzerland (32.4%). However, while Austria was the top destination for
German outward students as well (26.7%), Luxembourg and Switzerland were not among the top 3
destinations for German outward mobility students. Language and geographical proximity seemed to
determine the choice for outward mobility of students from Moldova where 74.5% of the outgoing degree
mobility students went to Romania. This was, however, not the case for Romanian outward students,
the majority of which chose the United Kingdom as study destination.

202
6.2. Qualitative Data
6.2.1. Portability of public grants and publicly-subsidised loans
One important aspect of mobility funding is the possibility for students to take domestic grants and/or
loans to another EHEA system. This possibility – that is referred to as 'portability' – should ideally apply
to both short-term study visits in the framework of a home-country programme (credit mobility) and
entire-degree courses (degree mobility).

The commitment to portability was first made by ministers in the Berlin Communiqué, 2003. The text
stated:

‘With a view to promoting student mobility, Ministers will take the necessary steps to enable the
portability of national loans and grants.’

Previous editions of the Bologna Process Implementation Report have shown that during the two
decades following this commitment, very few countries have actually taken those ‘necessary steps’.

The indicators that follow start by examining portability of domestic public grants and publicly subsidised
loans (see Figures 6.9 and 6.10). These two aspects are then brought together in Scorecard indicator
n°12 on portability (see Figure 6.11).

Figure 6.9 shows the main characteristics of portability in the case of grants. It distinguishes between
portability for short-term study visits which lead to credits in the framework of a home country programme
(credit mobility) and portability for an entire degree course (degree mobility).

Figure 6.9: Portability of public grants, first and second cycle, 2022/2023

Portability for credit and degree mobility

Portability only for credit mobility

Portability restrictions

No portability OR portability only in

exceptional cases

No public grants

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Notes:
The figure covers domestic public grants, i.e., different types of grants issued by public authorities in the home country. It excludes
public grants dedicated specifically to mobility.
The figure focuses on the portability of grants within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
When the category ‘portability for credit and degree mobility’ is combined with ‘portability restrictions’, it means that there are
restrictions related either to both types of portability (i.e., credit and degree) or to one type only (i.e., credit or degree).

203
Moreover, the figure provides details on portability restrictions, which means additional requirements
that students and/or the chosen study programme abroad need to fulfil for the grant to be portable.
These include, for example, specifying the countries to which students can take their grants (e.g.,
portability within the European Economic Area only) or placing limits on the time spent abroad. The most
severe restriction is when students can only take their grants abroad to study if no equivalent programme
is available in the home country. Since this means that portability is allowed only in exceptional cases,
countries applying this condition are depicted in the same way as those having ‘no portability’.

In 22 EHEA systems, grants are portable for both credit and degree mobility purposes. Seven of these
systems apply portability restrictions (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, and the
United Kingdom – Scotland). For example, Germany limits degree portability to EU countries and to
Switzerland, whereas the United Kingdom (Scotland) applies even stricter criteria, limiting portability to
a small number of selected higher education institutions. Ireland provides a further example of portability
restrictions, limiting credit portability to mobility explicitly required by home country programmes, and
portability for degree purposes to EU countries only. In Estonia, two grant schemes (need-based study
allowance and scholarships for students with special needs) are fully portable, but the portability of other
grants is limited to credit mobility.

The figure indicates that the most restrictive policies in terms of grant portability are found in Albania,
Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Georgia, Serbia, and Ukraine.
Students from these countries cannot use their domestic grants when studying abroad, whether for a
short period of time (credit mobility) or for a longer period (degree mobility).

The French Community of Belgium used to be among this group of restrictive countries. However, it
reformed its legislation and practice in 2021. Contrary to the previous system where grants were portable
only if there were no equivalent programme in the home system, this condition of not having similar
programmes is no longer applied.

For around one third of all higher education systems considered, grant portability is limited to credit
mobility, i.e., when students move abroad for a short period of time (e.g., a semester or an academic
year) in the framework of their home-country programme. Some of these systems apply portability
restrictions (Armenia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and the United
Kingdom – England, Wales, and Northern Ireland), limiting, in particular, the portability of grants to
programme exchanges within recognised schemes such as Erasmus+ (e.g., Greece, Latvia, Lithuania,
Portugal, and Spain.)

Figure 6.10 examines whether publicly subsidised loans are portable and, if so, whether there are any
specific restrictions on portability. As with information on grants, the figure distinguishes between
portability for credit and degree mobility and identifies countries with portability restrictions.

204
Figure 6.10: Portability of publicly-subsidised loans, first and second cycle, 2022/2023

Portability for credit and degree mobility

Portability only for credit mobility

Portability restrictions

No portability OR portability only in

exceptional cases

No publicly-subsidised loans

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Notes:
The figure covers publicly subsidised loans, i.e., different types of loans subsidised by public authorities in the home country. It
excludes publicly subsidised loans dedicated specifically to mobility.
The figure focuses on portability within the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).
When the category ‘portability for credit and degree mobility’ is combined with ‘portability restrictions’, it means that there are
restrictions related either to both types of portability (i.e., credit and degree) or to one type only (i.e., credit or degree).

The figure shows that no publicly subsidised loans are offered in 17 EHEA systems. This form of support
is therefore less widespread than public grants. Moreover, among the higher education systems that
offer loans, only a negligible proportion of students take up the offer. For example, fewer than 1% of
students take out a publicly subsidised loan in the French Community of Belgium, France, Italy, Slovakia,
and Switzerland. In these systems loans cannot be regarded as a major element of national student
support and their portability is not considered in Scorecard indicator n°x – Figure 6.11).

In general, countries that offer publicly subsidised loans allow at least a certain level of portability.
Exceptions to this pattern are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, San Marino, and Ukraine, where students
cannot benefit from their loans if they study abroad, whether for credit or degree purposes.

Among systems where loans are portable, nine limit portability to credit mobility (France, Italy,
Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Portugal, and the United Kingdom. In some of these systems
(e.g., Lithuania and the United Kingdom) loans are only portable if the mobility experience takes place
within a recognised exchange scheme.

Most systems that offer publicly subsidised loans allow portability for both credit and degree mobility
(with or without restrictions). While the overall geographical pattern is very similar to the portability of
grants, some countries with limited grant portability – in particular Hungary, Slovakia, and Türkiye – are
more flexible when it comes to the portability of publicly-subsidised loans (i.e., loans are portable – with
or without restrictions – for credit as well as degree mobility, whereas grants are only portable for credit
mobility). Iceland is another noteworthy case, as although there is no standard grant package, publicly
subsidised loans are portable with no restrictions.

205
Scorecard indicator n°18 (Figure 6.11) brings together the elements presented in the two previous
figures and puts countries' existing schemes into pre-defined categories.

The indicator is based on a five-category colour-coded scheme where dark green represents full
portability of all available domestic student support (this means that equivalent conditions apply to the
awarding of public grants and/or provision of loans regardless of whether students intend to study in the
home country or abroad). At the other end of the scale, the red category signifies no portability, or
portability that is only permitted if no equivalent programme is available in the home country, i.e.,
domestic support is only portable in exceptional circumstances. There are three transitional categories
between dark green and red. The first of them – light green – refers to systems where domestic support
can be taken abroad for credit and degree mobility. However, some restrictions apply, e.g., portability
only applies to certain defined countries or there are limits on the time spent abroad. The two other
categories – yellow and orange – cover systems that limit the portability of all or most forms of domestic
support to credit mobility, the distinguishing feature between the two categories being the presence or
absence of portability restrictions.

Figure 6.11: Scorecard indicator n°18: Portability of public grants and publicly-subsidised loans, 2022/2023

2022/2023

16

Source: BFUG data collection.

Scorecard categories
Full portability across the EHEA of all available domestic student support measures – grants and/or loans – for credit and degree mobility.
Equivalent requirements for public grants and/or loans if students’ study in the home country or abroad.
Portability of available domestic student support measures – grants and/or loans – for credit and degree mobility,
but with some restrictions related to geography (country limitations), and/or types of programmes, and/or field of study or time.
Portability for credit mobility, without restrictions.
No portability for degree mobility OR not all major support measures are portable for degree mobility.
Portability for credit mobility but with some restrictions related to geography (country limitations), and/or types of programmes, and/or field of
study or time. No portability for degree mobility OR not all major support measures are portable for degree mobility.
No portability: public grants and/or loans are only provided if students study in the home country or in exceptional cases
(no equivalent programme is available in the home country).

Data not available

206
In accordance with the above criteria, the indicator shows that unrestricted portability of all domestic
support for credit as well as degree mobility ('dark green') exists only in 16 EHEA systems. The majority
of these systems offer their student population both grants and loans. However, Andorra, the Flemish
Community of Belgium, Malta, and Slovenia offer grants exclusively while Iceland has no grants but a
system of publicly subsidised loans.

In seven higher education systems (Austria, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Ireland, and the
United Kingdom – Scotland), all major support schemes are portable for credit as well as degree
mobility; yet there are various portability restrictions ('light green'). As discussed previously, these are
mainly related to geography (i.e., mobility only towards certain countries).

A further seven systems (Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, and Türkiye) limit the por-
tability of their domestic grant schemes to credit mobility only, generally with no restrictions ('yellow').

Eight countries (Armenia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Spain, and the United
Kingdom – England, Wales, and Northern Ireland) apply various conditions to support for credit mobility.
('orange'). Among them, Latvia and Kazakhstan offer fully portable loans, but limit grant portability to
credit mobility with restrictions.

Finally, nine higher education systems (Albania, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Greece,
North Macedonia, Moldova, San Marino, and Ukraine) provide domestic support with no portability or
allow portability only under exceptional circumstances, such as when there is no equivalent programme
in the home system. ('red').

Overall, the analysis suggests that this is a neglected EHEA policy commitment.

6.3. European solidarity with Ukrainian higher education

Introduction
On 24 February 2022, Russia began a war of aggression by invading Ukraine. This was the biggest
attack on a European country since the end of World War II and, in addition to over 8 million people
being internally displaced in Ukraine, has led to a similar number fleeing the country and seeking refuge
− mostly in Europe. Host countries have all taken their responsibility by providing various support
measures to facilitate the successful, temporary integration of citizens fleeing from Ukraine.

On 4 March 2022, the European Council unanimously adopted an implementing decision introducing
temporary protection for people fleeing Ukraine as a consequence of Russia's invasion. Temporary
protection status and conditions of applications are defined by Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July
2001, whereas the Council Decision 2022/382 of 4 March 2022 introduces temporary protection for
displaced persons from Ukraine within the meaning of Article 5 of Directive 2001/55/EC. Temporary
protection is an exceptional measure to provide immediate and temporary protection to displaced persons
from non-EU countries and those unable to return to their country of origin. It applies when there is a risk
that the standard asylum system will struggle to cope with demands stemming from a mass inflow, risking
a negative impact on the processing of claims. Access to education was recognised as an immediate
priority for the integration and well-being of Ukrainian children and young people.

The Bologna Follow Up Group (BFUG) responded to the Russian invasion of Ukraine by suspending
Russia and Belarus. It also encouraged the coordination of support to Ukrainian higher education during
this period of conflict and called for monitoring of support from higher education systems as a form of
international solidarity. This section reports on that action.

207
6.3.1. Top-level monitoring of participation of Ukrainian refugees in higher education
Monitoring the integration of Ukrainian nationals in higher education can serve a number of purposes.
Firstly, it is important to know where best to focus support measures, and information on students and
academics from Ukraine is essential for that purpose. Monitoring also provides regular feedback on the
implementation of support measures, thus helping to identify areas where improvements can be made.
It is therefore desirable for national authorities to collect information on Ukrainian students and
academics in order to be able to focus action where it is most needed.

While monitoring should involve purposeful data gathering and analysis to assess the impact of policy
action, for this report national authorities were only asked about very basic information on enrolments.
Figure 6.12 below shows a distinction between countries where top level authorities are directly
collecting enrolment data that enable them to identify Ukrainian students and staff, and those that do
not collect such data.

Figure 6.12: Top-level monitoring of participation of refugee students and/or academics from Ukraine in higher
education, 2022/2023

Top-level monitoring of students and/or

academic staff from Ukraine

No top-level monitoring

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

More than half of the systems (26) collect enrolment data at the top level. With 26 308 Ukrainian students
enrolled, Poland is the country with the largest share. Slovakia has 10 169 and Czechia 8 250 Ukrainian
students enrolled. Finland (2 357) and Lithuania (2 250) have also enrolled large numbers, while France
and Spain also have around 2000 Ukrainian students in their systems. Germany provides a figure of
6 359, but the data are for 2021/2022. The Netherlands and Bulgaria are the other countries with over
1 000 Ukrainian students. For all other systems the numbers are below 1 000, with 3 738 Ukrainian
students distributed among 16 higher education systems.

208
6.3.2. Large-scale measures supporting the integration in higher education of students
and academic staff from Ukraine.
This section focuses on large-scale measures to support learners and academic staff from Ukraine.
Large-scale refers to measures that are implemented throughout the entire system, or at least
throughout a significant geographical area. They are also measures that receive public funding.
Initiatives taken by individual higher education institutions are not considered.

Figure 6.13 shows the EHEA systems where some large-scale measures have been established to help
with the integration of refugees in higher education.

Figure 6.13: Presence of large-scale measures supporting the integration of students and academic staff from
Ukraine, 2022/2023

Large-scale measures for students and/or

academic staff from Ukraine

No large-scale

Data not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Most European systems (36) have developed large-scale support measures. The most widespread form
of support is through the provision of grants to students from Ukraine. Such grants or scholarships are
provided in 26 EHEA systems. Some countries have also extended such financial support to academic
and research staff.

In a further 21 systems, language learning support has been put in place for Ukrainian students, and in
a further ten countries preparatory courses have been set up as a bridge into the national higher
education system for Ukrainian students. Finally, targeted academic or psychological counselling
services have been established in six systems. (see annex, table 6.1)

209
6.4. Conclusions
Stimulating mobility and internationalisation within the European Higher Education Area has always
been a core objective of the Bologna Process. Indeed, many of the structural reforms and commitments
have been designed with this purpose in mind. Mobility flows have always been problematic to measure,
and current measurements still remain partial and incomplete. Nevertheless, despite problems in
measuring the different forms of student mobility, it is clear from the data collected for this report that
during the period from 2016/2017 to 2020/2021, the pace of development of international student
mobility was disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and that significant differences are evident among
EHEA countries.

In 2009, a target was set by ministers that 20% of graduates in the EHEA should experience mobility by
2020. It is clear that this target has not been met, as the overall weighted average for the EHEA stands
at 8.8%. The rate of increase in mobility numbers has slowed down and a clear negative impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic is apparent. However, despite the limitations for mobility opportunities during the
pandemic, numbers of mobile students at ISCED 7 and ISCED 8 education levels have continued to
grow.

Even though it is impossible to prove direct causality, and other societal factors are in play, the focus
throughout the Bologna Process on improving recognition, ECTS, Diploma Supplement and portability
of student support are likely to have facilitated both credit and degree mobility. The introduction of a
common three cycle degree system has made it much easier to study one cycle in one country and
another in a different country. Nowadays the majority of degree-mobile students in the EHEA ꟷ both
from outside and from within the EHEA ꟷ are studying at master level. The Bologna three-cycle system
also underpins the success of joint international master programmes as developed within the Erasmus
Mundus programme and more recently in the European University Alliances.

This chapter has also reported on portability of student support − a long-standing commitment of
European ministers taken initially in 2003. Overall, the analysis suggests that this is a neglected policy
commitment, although one system – Belgium French Community – has taken action to remove
restrictions to portability of student support.

Finally, this chapter reported on the action taken by EHEA countries to support Ukrainian higher
education following the invasion by Russia. There has been considerable supportive action from both
governments, higher education institutions and European citizens, and everyone involved should feel
satisfaction for having provided the response required and merited by the Ukrainian higher education
community. There are also lessons to be learned to ensure that Ukrainian higher education continues
to be fully supported and regenerated on sound foundations in the future.

210
REFERENCES

Beelen, J., Jones, E., 2015. Redefining Internationalization at Home. In: Curaj, A., Matei, L., Pricopie,
R., Salmi, J., Scott, P. (eds) The European Higher Education Area. Springer, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20877-0_5

Beiter, Klaus D., Terence Karran, and Kwadwo Appiagyei Atua, 2016. Academic Freedom and Its
Protection in the Law of European States: Measuring an International Human Right. European Journal
of Comparative Law and Governance 3 (3): 254–345. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-00303001

Craciun, Daniela, Liviu Matei and Elizaveta Potapova. 2023. Technical monitoring framework of
indicators for the fundamental values of higher education in the EHEA. Research Design. NewFAV
project.

Craciun, Daniela, Liviu Matei and Elizaveta Potapova. 2023. Assessment Report: The extent to which
existing indicators during Phase 1 (Mapping Report) can be integrated and used at the EHEA level.
NewFAV project.

EHEA Pathfinder Group on Automatic Recognition, 2015. Report by the EHEA Pathfinder Group on
Automatic Recognition. To present to Ministers of the European Area of Higher Education for the
Bologna Ministerial Conference 14-15 May 2015. Yerevan, Armenia. [pdf] Available at:
https://ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/2015_Yerevan/72/3/EHEA_Pathfinder_Group_on_Automatic_Re
cognition_January_2015_613723.pdf [Accessed 30 October 2023].

European Commission, 2015. ECTS Users Guide 2015. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the
European Union.

European Commission, 2019. Studying abroad - benefits and unequal uptake. Science for Policy Briefs,
Joint Research Centre. [pdf] Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/page/fairness-policy-briefs-series-
182382#studying_abroad [Accessed: 19 July 2019].

European Commission, 2021. A European approach to micro-credentials. [pdf] Available at:

https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-01/micro-
credentials%20brochure%20updated.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2023].

European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2017. Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe:

Academic Staff – 2017. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice, 2018. The European Higher Education Area in 2018:
Bologna process implementation report. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.

European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice. 2020. The European Higher Education Area in 2020:
Bologna process implementation report. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union.

European Commission / EACEA / Eurydice. 2021. Teachers in Europe: Careers, Development and
Well-being. Eurydice report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

211
European Students’ Union. 2020. Bologna with Student Eyes 2020. Brussels: European Students’
Union. Available at: https://esu-online.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/0037-Bologna-Publication-
2021-WEB3.pdf [Accessed 11 November 2023].

European Students’ Union. 2023. Academic Freedom, Institutional Autonomy and Academic Integrity
from a student perspective. Brussels: European Students’ Union. Available at:
ESU_2023_Academic_Freedom_from_a_Students_Perspective_Survey_Report.pdf (esu-online.org)
[Accessed 11 March 2024].

Hauschildt, K., Gwosć, C., Schirmer, H. and Wartenbergh-Cras, F., 2021. Social and Economic
Conditions of Student Life in Europe. Eurostudent VII Synopsis of Indicators 2018-2021. Bielefeld: W.
Bertelsmann Verlag. DOI: 10.3278/6001920dw.

Gaebel, M., Zhang, T., Bunescu, L. and Stoeber, H., 2018. Trends 2018. Learning and teaching in the
European Higher Education Area. [pdf] Available at: https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/trends-2018-
learning-and-teaching-in-the-european-higher-education-area.pdf [Accessed 6 October 2023].

Kimizoglu, Iris and Matteo Vespa (eds.). 2023. Survey on Academic Freedom, Institutional Autonomy
and Academic Integrity from a Student Perspective. Brussels: European Students’ Union. Available at:
https://esu-online.org/wp-
content/uploads/2023/01/ESU_2023_Academic_Freedom_from_a_Students_Perspective_Survey_Re
port-1.pdf [Accessed 11 November 2023].

Klemenčič Manja, Sjur Bergan and Rok Primožič (eds.). 2015. Student engagement in Europe: society,
higher education and student governance. Council of Europe Higher Education Series No. 20.
Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

Kováts, Gergely and Zoltán Rónay. 2023. How academic freedom is monitored. Overview of methods
and procedures. European Parliament. Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union.
Luxembourg: Publications Office. [pdf] Available at: How academic freedom is monitored - Overview of
methods and procedures | Panel for the Future of Science and Technology (STOA) | European
Parliament (europa.eu) [Accessed 27 October 2023].

Maassen, Peter, Dennis Martinsen, Mari Elken, Jens Jungblut and Elisabeth Lackner. 2023. State of
Play of Academic Freedom in the EU Member States: Overview of de Facto Trends and Developments.
European Parliament. Directorate General for Internal Policies of the Union. LU: Publications Office.
[pdf] Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2861/466486. [Accessed 27 October 2023].

Matei,Liviu, Daniela Craciun and Elizaveta Potapova. 2022. Measuring fundamental values: indicators,
tools and initiatives. A Mapping Report. NewFAV project.

Petrikowski, Frank and Becina Friedrich. 2018. Final Report on Progress Concerning Belarus
Roadmap. Available at: https://ehea.info/media.ehea.info/file/20180424-25-
Sofia/43/0/BFUG_BG_SR_60_4d_FinalReportAG2_935430.pdf [Accessed 11 November 2023].

Popović, Milica, Maryna Lakhno and Dmitry Dubrovsky. 2023. Academic Freedom in a Post-Pandemic
World Vienna: OSUN Global Observatory on Academic Freedom. [pdf] Available at: Academic Freedom
in a Post-Pandemic World. [Accessed 27 October 2023].

Popović, Milica (ed.). 2023. Reimagining Academic Freedom – through students’ eyes Vienna: OSUN
Global Observatory on Academic Freedom. [pdf] Available at: Reimagining Academic Freedom –
through students’ eyes. [Accessed 27 October 2023].

212
Popović, Milica, Liviu Matei, and Danièle Joly. 2022. Changing Understandings of Academic Freedom
in the World at the Time of Pandemic. Vienna: OSUN Global Observatory on Academic Freedom. [pdf]
Available at: finalgoafglobalreport20220712.pdf (ceu.edu) [Accessed 27 October 2023].

Pruvot, Enora Bennetot, Thomas Estermann and Nino Popkhadze. 2023. University Autonomy in
Europe IV. The Scorecard 2023. Brussels: European University Association. Available at:
https://eua.eu/downloads/publications/eua%20autonomy%20scorecard.pdf [Accessed 11 November
2023].

Salmi, J. and Hauptman, A.M., 2006. Innovations in Tertiary Education Financing: A Comparative
Evaluation of Allocation Mechanisms. Education Working Paper Series, Number 4. Washington: Human
Development Network, Education Sector World Bank Group. [pdf] Available at:
https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/965151468314986713/pdf/383240EWPSno401Tertiary
Ed1Financing.pdf [Accessed 17 February 2023].

Spannagel, Janika. 2023. Introducing Academic Freedom in Constitutions: a new global dataset, 1789–
2022. Eur Polit Sci. [pdf] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-023-00446-5 [Accessed
17 February 2023]).

UNESCO-UIS, OECD and Eurostat, 2020. UOE data collection on formal education. Manual on
concepts, definitions and classifications. 15 June 2020. [pdf] Available at:
http://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/uoe-data-collection-manual-2020-en.pdf [Accessed
17 February 2023]).

World Bank. 2013. Inclusion Matters: The Foundation for Shared Prosperity. New Frontiers of Social
Policy. Washington, DC.

213
GLOSSARY AND METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

I. Codes, abbreviations and acronyms

I.1. Country codes

AD Andorra EL Greece MT Malta

AL Albania ES Spain NL Netherlands
AM Armenia FI Finland NO Norway
AT Austria FR France PL Poland
AZ Azerbaijan GE Georgia PT Portugal
BA Bosnia and HR Croatia RO Romania
Herzegovina HU Hungary RS Serbia
BE fr Belgium – French Community IE Ireland RU Russia
BE nl Belgium – Flemish Community IS Iceland SI Slovenia
BG Bulgaria IT Italy SK Slovakia
BY Belarus KZ Kazakhstan SE Sweden
CH Switzerland LI Liechtenstein SM San Marino
CY Cyprus LT Lithuania TR Türkiye
CZ Czechia LU Luxembourg UA Ukraine
DE Germany LV Latvia UK-EWNI United Kingdom – England, Wales
DK Denmark and Northern Ireland
MD Moldova
EE Estonia ME Montenegro UK-SCT United Kingdom – Scotland
VA Holy See
MK North Macedonia

215
I.2. Codes and abbreviations
: Data not available

BFUG Bologna Follow-Up Group

CPD continuing professional development
EEA European Economic Area
ECTS European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System
EHEA European Higher Education Area
ENIC European Network of Information Centres
ENQA European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education
EQAR The European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education
EQF European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning
ESG Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area
EU European Union
EUA European University Association
FTE Full-time equivalent
HE higher education
HEI higher education institution
ISCED International Standard Classification of Education
ITE initial teacher education
NARIC National Academic Recognition Information Centres
NQF National Qualification Framework
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PPS Purchasing Power Standard
QA-FIT Quality Assurance fit for the future (project)
QF-EHEA Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area
R&D Research and Development
RPL recognition of prior (non-formal and informal) learning
UNESCO-UIS UNESCO Institute for Statistics
UOE UNESCO-UIS/OECD/Eurostat

II. General terms

A c ade mi c f ra ud

Generic term covering plagiarism, dishonesty and cheating, fabrication or falsification in the academic
context.

A c ade mi c gu id anc e

Information services, special sessions or courses designed to support students' individual academic
learning path.

A c ade mi c mi s cond uct

Any action which gains, attempts to gain or assists others in gaining or attempting to gain unfair
academic advantage. It includes plagiarism, contract cheating, being in possession of unauthorised
materials or devices during examinations; fabrication, falsification or misrepresentation of data;
personation; breach of research ethics, and the failure to meet legal, ethical and professional obligations.

Ad min i st ra tiv e d at a

Refers to data collected primarily for administrative (not research) purposes. This type of data is
collected by top-level authorities and other organisations (e.g. higher education institutions) for the
purposes of registration, transaction and record keeping, usually during the delivery of a service.

216
Ad min i st ra tiv e st aff

Refers to staff working in the management, maintenance and supervision of higher education institutions
and their constituent structures, as well as in the provision of services supporting the institution, its staff
and students.

Au tom ati c re c ogni tio n of d eg re e s

Refers to the automatic right of an applicant holding a qualification of a certain level to be considered
for entry to a programme of further study in the next level in any other EHEA-country (access) (EHEA
Pathfinder Group on Automatic Recognition, 2015). Automatic recognition does not imply automatic
admission to any specific programme, but rather that holders of a qualification giving access to a
programme of study at the next level have the right to be considered for entry.

B l end ed l ea rn ing

A mode of learning that combines online teaching with classroom-based learning.

B l end ed l ea rn ing mob i lity

Refers to the combination of a period of physical mobility and a period of online learning.

C a re e r gu ida n ce

Information services, special courses and/or contacts with potential employers designed for (higher
education) students.

Co mmun it y e ng age men t (of h igh er edu c ati on in st itut ion s)

Involvement and participation in action for the welfare of the local or regional community. Includes vo-
lunteer action, humanitarian activities, and is generally motivated by values and ideals of social justice.

Co nti nui ng p rof e ss ion a l d ev e lopm ent (C PD )

CPD refers to formal in-service training undertaken by teachers or higher education staff throughout
their career that allows them to broaden, develop and update their knowledge, skills and attitudes. It
includes both subject-based training and pedagogical training. Different formats are offered such as
courses, seminars, peer observation and support from networks of practitioners. In certain cases, CPD
activities may lead to supplementary qualifications.

Co nt ra ct c he a ting

The practice of engaging a third party to complete assignments. It may apply to students or staff and
may operate through businesses that allow customers to purchase work on a particular topic.

C r ed it (ECTS)

ECTS credits express the volume of learning based on the defined learning outcomes and their asso-
ciated workload. 60 ECTS credits are allocated to the learning outcomes and associated workload of a
full-time academic year or its equivalent, which normally comprises a number of educational
components to which credits (on the basis of the learning outcomes and workload) are allocated. ECTS
credits are generally expressed in whole numbers (European Commission, 2015, p. 68).

C r ed it a cc umu l ati on/ Acc umu la tio n of cr ed it s

The process of collecting credits awarded for achieving the learning outcomes of educational
components in formal contexts and for other learning activities carried out in informal and non-formal
contexts. A student can accumulate credits to obtain qualifications, as required by the degree-awarding
institution, or to document personal achievements for lifelong learning purposes (European
Commission, 2015, p. 66).

217
C r ed it mob ili ty

Credit mobility is a short-term form of mobility – usually a maximum of one year – aiming at the
acquisition of credits in a foreign institution in the framework of on-going studies at the home institution.

C r ed it tr an sf e r/T r an sf er of cr ed it s

Is the process of having credits awarded in one context (programme, institution) recognised in another
formal context for the purpose of obtaining a qualification. Credits awarded to students in one
programme may be transferred from an institution to be accumulated in another programme offered by
the same or another institution. Credit transfer is the key to successful study mobility. Institutions,
faculties, departments may make agreements which guarantee automatic recognition and transfer of
credits (European Commission, 2015, p. 68).

C y cl e

One of the objectives in the Bologna Declaration in 1999 was the ‘adoption of a system based on two
main cycles, undergraduate and graduate’. In 2003, doctoral studies were included in the Bologna
structure and referred to as the third cycle. The EHEA thus defined three higher education cycles (first
cycle, second cycle and third cycle). In 2018 Paris Communiqué short-cycle qualifications were added
as a stand-alone cycle to the overarching qualifications framework for the European Higher Education
Area (QF-EHEA). All higher education qualifications in the European Higher Education Area are located
within these cycles.

D eg r ee mob il it y

Degree mobility is a long-term form of mobility which aims at the acquisition of a whole degree or
certificate in the country of destination.

D e la y ed tr ans it ion stud ent s

The term delayed transition students refers to students who enter higher education with a delay of more
than 24 months after leaving school for the first time (Hauschildt et al., 2021, p. 82).

D ip lom a Su pp l emen t ( D S)

Is a document accompanying a higher education diploma, providing a standardised description of the

nature, level, context, content and status of the studies completed by its holder. It is produced by the
higher education institutions according to standards agreed by the European Commission, the Council
of Europe and UNESCO. The Diploma Supplement is also part of the Europass framework transparency
tools. It has the following eight sections of information: the holder of the qualification; the qualification;
its level and function; the contents and results gained; certification of the supplement; details of the
national higher education system concerned (provided by the National Academic Recognition
Information Centres – NARICs); any additional relevant information. Graduates in all the countries taking
part in the Bologna Process have the right to receive the Diploma Supplement automatically, free and
in a major European language (European Commission, 2015, p. 69).

D i sab i li ty

Any long-term physical, mental, intellectual, or sensory impairment which, in interaction with various
barriers, may hinder a person’s full or effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.

D i sta nc e l e ar n ing

Education of students who are not present at an institution. This may be through online education or
correspondence courses.

218
Equ it y ( in h igh e r edu c at ion)

A principle of social justice that reflects the notion of fairness. In the context of this report, fairness refers
to equal opportunity for all in terms of accessing higher education and progressing towards the
completion of studies. A broad definition of equity refers not only to nominally equal access and
progression rights (i.e. same rights for all), but also to targeted measures and rights that enhance the
access and progression of individuals who tend to be underrepresented in higher education institutions
(HEIs), even if they appear to contradict the nominal equality principle (i.e. allowing for special rights
reserved to certain categories of people only).

Eu rop ea n As s oc i ati on fo r Qua l it y As s ur an ce in H igh e r Ed uca ti on (ENQA)

The association of quality assurance agencies in the European Higher Education Area was set up in
2000. It aims to disseminate information, experiences, and good practices in the field of quality
assurance in higher education. Membership of the association is open to quality assurance agencies in
the EHEA member states. Membership of ENQA represents recognition that an agency complies with
the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG).

Eu rop ea n Cre d it T r an sf er and A c cumu l atio n Sys te m (ECT S)

ECTS is a learner-centred system for credit accumulation and transfer, based on the principle of
transparency of the learning, teaching and assessment processes. Its objective is to facilitate the
planning, delivery and evaluation of study programmes and student mobility by recognising learning
achievements and qualifications and periods of learning (European Commission, 2015, p. 69).

Eu rop ea n Qu a lif i cat ion s F ram ewo r k fo r L ife lon g L e arn ing ( EQF)

The European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning is a common European reference
framework which aims to increase the transparency, comparability and portability of qualifications
systems and all types and levels of qualifications in Europe. The EQF uses eight common European
reference levels based on learning outcomes that are defined in terms of knowledge, skills and
competences. The EQF is implemented by referencing levels of national qualifications frameworks to
the levels of the EQF. The EQF was adopted by the Council of Ministers in the EU in 2008 and revised
in 2017.

Eu rop ea n Qu a lit y A ssu ra n ce R eg iste r fo r H igh er Ed uc at ion ( EQA R)

The Register ( 1) aims at increasing transparency of quality assurance in higher education across
Europe. It has been founded in 2008 by the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher
Education (ENQA), the European Students' Union (ESU), the European University Association and the
European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE). EQAR publishes and manages
a list of quality assurance agencies that substantially comply with the Standards and Guidelines for
Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG) to provide clear and reliable
information on quality assurance agencies operating in Europe.

Ex te rn a l q ual it y as su ra nc e

External quality assurance refers to the process of evaluation or audit of a higher education programme
or institution undertaken by a specialised body outside the institution. Typically, the body may be a
quality assurance or accreditation agency, or an ad hoc panel of experts and peers constituted by the
responsible ministry. The evaluation will involve the collection of data, information and evidence for
assessment against agreed standards.

(1) http://www.eqar.eu/

219
Fee
All costs charged to students in higher education, including for tuition, registration, admission and
certification, but excluding payments to student unions.
Fo rm a l l ea rni ng

Formal learning means learning that takes place in an organised and structured environment,
specifically dedicated to learning, and typically leads to the award of a qualification, usually in the form
of a certificate or a diploma. It includes systems of general education, initial vocational training and
higher education ( 2).

F r amew or k fo r Qua l if ic ati on s o f t he Eu rop ea n High e r Ed uc ati on A re a /Qua l if i cat ion s

F r amew or k fo r th e Eu rope a n H igh e r Edu ca tio n Ar e a (QF- EH EA)

Refers to the overarching framework for qualifications in the EHEA, which comprises three cycles
(including, within national contexts, the possibility of intermediate qualifications), generic descriptors for
each cycle based on learning outcomes, and credit ranges in the first and second cycles. In order to
prove the compatibility of national qualifications frameworks for higher education with the QF-EHEA,
NQFs need to be self-certified to the QF-EHEA ( 3).

Go v ern ing bod y

Body with responsibility for overseeing the institutions’ activities, including the effective and efficient use
of resources, determining future direction and fostering an environment in which the institutional mission
is achieved. In some systems a governing body may involve external members (e.g. Governing Board)
while in others it may be composed entirely of members of the academic community (e.g. Senate).

G r ant/ Pu bl i c g ran t

Refers to domestic public financial support that does not need to be paid back.

H igh e r edu ca ti on in st itut ion

Any institution providing services in the field of higher and/or tertiary education, as defined by national
law. This report focuses on ‘Public higher education institutions’ (see the related term).

(2) Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning, O.J. 2012/C 398/01.
(3) Appendix III of the Paris Communiqué.

220
H igh e r edu ca ti on qua l if ic a tion

Any degree, diploma or other certificate issued by a competent authority attesting the successful
completion of a higher education programme (4). Inclusion/Social inclusion

The process of improving the ability, opportunity and worthiness of people, disadvantaged on the basis
of their identity, to take part in society (World Bank, 2013).

I n comi ng (inw a rd) mob il it y

Incoming mobility refers to students that moved (i.e., crossed a national border) to a specified country
to study.

I nfo rm al le ar n ing

Informal learning means learning resulting from daily activities related to work, family or leisure and is
not organised or structured in terms of objectives, time or learning support; it may be unintentional from
the learner's perspective; examples of learning outcomes acquired through informal learning are skills
acquired through life and work experiences, project management skills or ICT skills acquired at work,
languages learned and intercultural skills acquired during a stay in another country, ICT skills acquired
outside work, skills acquired through volunteering, cultural activities, sports, youth work and through
activities at home (e.g. taking care of a child) ( 5).

I ni ti a l t e a che r edu ca tio n (I TE)

Period of study and training during which prospective teachers attend academic subject-based courses
and undertake professional training (either concurrently or consecutively) to acquire the knowledge and
skills necessary to be a teacher. This period ends when prospective teachers qualify as teachers.

I nt eg rat ed / long p rog r amm e s

Programmes including both the first and the second cycle and leading to a second-cycle qualification.

I nt er na l qu al it y as su ra nc e

Internal quality assurance refers to the processes involved in assuring and/or improving the quality of
defined areas of activity within higher education institutions. Typically, it involves the systematic
collection and analysis of administrative data, as well as the feedback of students, lecturers, other staff
and external stakeholders.

I nt er na l st e er i ng bod y

Refers to the highest-level internal structure responsible for the organisation and management of a
higher education institution. Often in universities this will be the Senate.

I nt er nat ion al i s at ion at hom e

A set of instruments and activities ‘at home’ that aim to develop international and intercultural
competences of students. A variety of instruments can be used to internationalise teaching and learning,
including guest lectures, international case studies or, increasingly, digital learning and online
collaboration (Beelen and Jones, 2015).

J o int deg r e e

A joint degree is a single document officially recognised by the appropriate (national or, if applicable,
regional) authorities of at least two countries.

(4) Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region, p. 3.
(5) Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning, O.J. 2012/C 398/01.

221
J o int pr og ramm e

A joint programme is a programme organised and delivered by a partnership of two or more higher
education institutions, and leading to a double, multiple or joint degree. Certified learning undertaken by
students at partner institutions should be recognised automatically within the consortium.

L a rge -s c al e m e asu r es

Are the measures that operate throughout the whole country or a significant geographical area rather
than a particular higher education institution or geographical location. Typically, they receive funding
from national or regional bodies.

L e arn ing out com es

Learning outcomes are statements of what the individual knows, understands and is able to do on
completion of a learning process. The achievement of learning outcomes has to be assessed through
procedures based on clear and transparent criteria. Learning outcomes are attributed to individual
educational components and to programmes at a whole. They are also used in European and national
qualifications frameworks to describe the level of the individual qualification (European Commission,
2015, p. 72).

L i sbon R ecogn it ion Conv e ntio n ( LRC)

The Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European
Region ( 6) was developed by the Council of Europe and UNESCO and adopted in 1997 in Lisbon. It
aims to ensure that holders of a qualification from one European country have that qualification
recognised through appropriate and fair procedures in another.

Lo an

Repayable financial aid. Student loan models may differ in many aspects, such as in their repayment
plans, the level of subsidy, the expenses covered, eligibility rules, etc. A student loan is subsidised when
the government bears a part of the costs. This can take the form of a government guarantee, when
student loans are guaranteed or insured by the government against the risk of default and loss (Salmi
and Hauptman, 2006, p. 43).

M e a sur ab l e t a rge ts

Quantitative/numerical objectives. They are commonly expressed as a percentage or a number to be

reached.

M ig r ant s or f rom a m ig ra nt ba c kg round

People who move from one country to another, or whose parents or grandparents have moved from one
country to another. In the European Union, citizens moving to another Member State are not considered
migrants but EU mobile. Consequently, only people born in a non-EU country are considered migrants
in the EU.

N at ion al qu al if i c atio ns f ra m ewor k s ( fo r hi ghe r edu c atio n)

National qualifications frameworks describe qualifications in terms of level, workload, learning outcomes
and profile. They relate qualifications and other learning achievements in higher education coherently
and are internationally understood.

(6) Convention on the Recognition of Qualifications concerning Higher Education in the European Region.

222
No n-fo rm al le a rn ing

Non-formal learning means learning which takes place through planned activities (in terms of learning
objectives, learning time) where some form of learning support is present (e.g. student-teacher
relationships); it may cover programmes to impart work skills, adult literacy and basic education for early
school leavers; very common cases of non-formal learning include in-company training, through which
companies update and improve the skills of their workers such as ICT skills, structured on-line learning
(e.g. by making use of open educational resources), and courses organised by civil society organisations
for their members, their target group or the general public ( 7).

Outg oin g ( outw a rd) mobi l it y

Outward mobility refers to students that left their country of residence (i.e., crossed a national border)
to study elsewhere (in which they are counted as inwardly mobile students).

Pa rt -ti me stud y

In opposition to full-time study, part-time study is based on taking fewer course credits, for example
fewer than 60 ECTS per year.

Pl ag i ar i sm

Presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent. Applies to published
or unpublished work.

Po rt abi l it y

The possibility to take abroad the support available to students in their home country (within EHEA) for
credit mobility (credit portability) or degree mobility (degree portability).

Pr ep a r ato ry c ou rs e s fo r r e fug ee s

Courses designed to address the academic potential of refugees, leading to their integration into regular
higher education programmes.

Pr i v ate h ighe r edu ca tio n in st itut ion s

Licensed higher education institutions that receive less than 50% of their core funding from public
sources.

Ps y cho log ica l coun s el l ing se r vi c es

Psychological support structures which aim to improve interpersonal relations, and hence the academic
performance of students. This may include a variety of professional services aimed to increase students'
capacity to overcome personal and social problems that hinder their attainment of academic success.

Pub li c h igh er edu c at ion i n stit uti ons

Higher education institutions directly or indirectly administered by a public education authority. Public
higher education institutions thus include two categories of institution: 'public institution', i.e. an institution
directly managed by a government agency/authority or by a governing body, most of whose members
are either appointed by a public authority or elected by public franchise, and 'government-dependent
private higher education institution', i.e. an institution controlled/managed by a non-governmental
organisation or where the governing board consists of members not selected by a public agency but
receiving 50 percent or more of its core funding from government agencies or whose teaching personnel
are paid by a government agency – either directly or through government.

(7) Council Recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning, O.J. 2012/C 398/01.

223
Qu a lit y a s sur a nc e ag en cy

A body established by national authorities or private entities with responsibility for external quality
assurance. Agencies are intended to play a strong role in ensuring accountability of higher education
institutions and may have specific objectives aimed at enhancing quality related to teaching, learning or
other higher education missions.

R e cogn it ion of p rio r (non-f or ma l and i nfo rm al) le a rn ing

Validation and formal recognition of learners' non-formal and informal learning experiences in order to:
(a) provide higher education access to candidates without an upper secondary school leaving certificate;
or (b) within a higher education programme, allocate credits towards a qualification and/or provide
exemption from some programme requirements.

R e comm enda ti on

A recommendation is understood as a suggestion or proposal. A top-level recommendation is expected

to be found in top-level (national) steering documents (e.g. guidelines for all HEIs).

R equ i re men t

A requirement is understood as a compulsory element/condition (a rule that has to be followed). A top-

level requirement is expected to be found in in top-level (national) steering document (e.g. national
legislation).

Se lf- c e rti fi ca ti on

A procedure when national authorities, other bodies and stakeholders certify the compatibility of their
national qualifications framework for higher education with the overarching Qualifications Framework for
the European Higher Education Area. A set of procedures for the transparent self-certification of
compatibility by member states was agreed by higher education ministers in the Bologna Process.

Sho rt c y cl e

Programmes of less than 180 ECTS (or lasting less than 3 years), leading to a qualification that is
recognised at a lower level than a qualification at the end of the first cycle. Short-cycle qualifications are
recognised as level 5 in the overarching framework of qualifications for the Framework for Qualifications
of the European Higher Education Area / Qualifications Framework for the European Higher Education
Area (QF-EHEA) and also at level 5 in the ISCED classification.

So ci a l d i al ogu e

An organised process of mutual exchanges and communication between policy-makers and defined
stakeholders on issues of common interest related to public policy. Often a social dialogue aims to help
policy-makers to consult stakeholders, but unlike typical consultation processes, the participants of the
social dialogue are specified in advance and are expected to contribute their insights in a dynamic
process of exchanges of views. In some cases, social dialogue is a form of negotiation. Normally, a
social dialogue involves actual meetings between the participants, although these meetings can be also
virtual or disjointed (i.e. there is a flow of exchanges between the participants at different moments).
Often a mark of success of a social dialogue process is that any decisions or conclusions have been
reached through consensus.

So cio -e conom i c st atu s

A combined economic and sociological measure of an individual's or family's economic and social
position relative to others, based on income, level of education, and occupation. Definitions of socio-
economic status might differ depending on the national context.

224
Sp ec i al educ a tion a l ne ed s

Can cover a range of needs related to physical or mental disabilities, and cognition or educational
impairments.

St aff (i n h igh e r edu c ati on)

Refers to the combination of academic staff and administrative staff. It includes personnel at all stages
of their career within all the varieties of the current contractual modalities within higher education
systems: full time, part time, contractual and on demand academic staff.

St ee r ing doc um ent s

Official documents containing guidelines, obligations and/or recommendations for higher education
policy and/or institutions.

St ra teg y (o r oth e r ma jo r po l ic y pl an)

An official policy document developed by the top-level authorities in an effort to achieve an overall goal.
A strategy can comprise a vision, identify objectives and goals (qualitative and quantitative), describe
processes, authorities and people in charge, identify funding sources, make recommendations, etc.
Depending on the particular education system, a strategy may refer to a specific document bearing the
term ‘strategy’, but it may refer also to a document (or documents) that describe a major policy plan
equivalent to a strategy without, however, bearing the title ‘strategy’.

Top -l e ve l (or top- le v el auth or it y)

The highest level of authority with responsibility for education in a given country, usually located at
national (state) level. However, for Belgium, Germany and Spain, the Communautés, Länder and
Comunidades Autónomas respectively are either wholly responsible or share responsibilities with the
state level for all or most areas relating to education. Therefore, these administrations are considered
as the top-level authority for the areas where they hold the responsibility, while for those areas for which
they share the responsibility with the national (state) level, both are considered to be top-level
authorities.

Top -l e ve l coo rd in ati on st ru ctu r e ( mec h ani sm)

A working group, body or institution which is set up or has a specific mandate to coordinate top-level
policies in a well-defined field. Its members typically represent different top-level authorities and
stakeholders which are responsible for the development and implementation of top-level policies in a
specific field.

Un de r r ep re se nt ed stu dent s (o r st aff)

Societal groups that may be considered as not being proportionally represented in higher education in
different countries. Examples might include people with disabilities, migrants, ethnic groups, lower socio-
economic status groups, women/men, etc.

W o rk lo ad

An estimation of the time learners typically need to complete all learning activities such as lectures,
seminars, projects, practical work, work placements, individual study required to achieve the defined
learning outcomes in formal learning environments. The correspondence of the fulltime workload of an
academic year to 60 credits is often formalised by national legal provisions. In most cases, student
workload ranges from 1 500 to 1 800 hours for an academic year, which means that one credit
corresponds to 25 to 30 hours of work. It should be recognised that this represents the normal workload
and that for individual learners the actual time to achieve the learning outcomes will vary (European
Commission, 2015, p. 77).

225
III. Statistical terms
A c ade mi c sta ff (I SCED 5- 8)

This category includes:

• Personnel employed at the tertiary level of education whose primary assignment is instruction
or research;
• Personnel who hold an academic rank with such titles as professor, associate professor,
assistant professor, instructor, lecturer or the equivalent of any of these academic rank;
• Personnel with other titles, (e.g. dean, director, associate dean, assistant dean, chair or head of
department), if their principal activity is instruction or research.

It excludes student teachers, teachers’ aides and paraprofessionals (UNESCO-UIS, OECD and
Eurostat, 2020 ( 8), p. 43).

Edu ca tio na l a tt ain men t ( 9) (F igu r es 1.4 , 1. 7 , 1 .8 )

Educational attainment refers to the highest level of education successfully completed. Indicators using
the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) often distinguish between low, medium
and high educational attainment.

(8) UOE data collection manual, 2020 (https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/uoe-data-collection-manual-2020-

en.pdf)
(9) EU-LFS, Educational attainment, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Educational_attainment_statistics#Level_of_educational_attainment_by_age

226
These categories are compiled as follows (in EU LFS):

• Low educational attainment corresponds to completed pre-primary, primary and lower

secondary education (ISCED 2011 levels 0, 1 and 2). For figures in Chapter 6, low educational
attainment refers to completed lower secondary education (ISCED 2).
• Medium educational attainment corresponds to upper secondary and post-secondary non-
tertiary education (ISCED 2011 levels 3 and 4). For figures in Chapter 6, medium educational
attainment refers to completed upper secondary education (ISCED 4).
• High educational attainment corresponds to tertiary education (ISCED 2011 levels 5 to 8).

First-cycle new entrants (Figure 1.4) with high educational background are those whose parents' highest
educational level of attainment is at ISCED 5-8; and students without higher education background are
those whose parents' highest degree is at ISCED level 0-4.Expenditure on tertiary education (Figures
1.16, 1.17, 1.18, and 1.19)

Within the UOE data collection, education expenditure includes the following financial data:
• Goods and Services of educational institutions: All direct public, private and international
expenditure whether educational or non-educational (e.g. ancillary services), but with some
exceptions; and;
• Goods and Services purchased outside educational institutions: private expenditure on
educational goods and services; plus
• Public subsidies to students for student living costs regardless of where or how the student
spends these subsidies (UNESCO-UIS, OECD and Eurostat 2020 ( 10), p. 48).
Public expenditure refers to spending of public authorities. Expenditure on education by other
ministries or equivalent institutions, for example Health and Agriculture is included. It includes
subsidies provided to households and other private entities (often in the form of financial aid to
students) which can be attributable to educational institutions (e.g. fees) or not (e.g. private
living costs outside of institutions). Expenditure that is not directly related to education (e.g.,
culture, sports, youth activities, etc.) is excluded unless provided as ancillary services. (Ibid,
p. 56).
Three main types of government expenditure (at central, regional or local levels) on education are
distinguished:
• Direct expenditure on educational institutions,
• Intergovernmental transfers for education, and
• Transfers or other payments from governments to households and other private entities.
Public subsidies to households include:
• Scholarships and other grants (including child allowances contingent to student status, special
public subsidies in cash or in kind that are contingent on student status) and
• Student loans (including those not attributable to household payments for educational
institutions, such as subsidies for student living costs) (Ibid, p. 58).
Fu l l-t ime equ i va l ent stud ent (F igu r es 1 .1 7 , 1 .1 8 , 1 . 19 )
A full-time equivalent (FTE) is a unit to measure students in a way that makes them comparable although
they may study a different number of hours per week. The unit is obtained by comparing a student's
average number of hours studied to the average number of hours of a full-time student. A full-time

(10) UOE data collection on formal education, 2020, p. 48, https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/uoe-data-

collection-manual-2020-en.pdf; Public expenditure in education, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Educational_expenditure_statistics#Public_expenditure

227
student is therefore counted as one FTE, while a part-time student gets a score in proportion to the
hours he or she studies (Eurostat, 2020 11).
I n comi ng (inw a rd) mob il it y r at e (Fi gur e s 6 . 5 , 6 .6 , a nd 6 . 7)
Incoming mobility rate refers to mobile students (enrolments or graduates) from abroad studying in the
country of destination as a percentage of the total number of students enrolled/graduating in the country.
I nt er nat ion al St and a rd Cl a s si fi c ati on of Educ at ion ( ISC ED)

The International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) has been developed to facilitate
comparisons of education statistics and indicators across countries on the basis of uniform and
internationally agreed definitions. The coverage of ISCED extends to all organised and sustained
learning opportunities for children, young people and adults, including those with special educational
needs, irrespective of the institutions or organisations providing them or the form in which they are
delivered.

The ISCED classification 2011 ( 12) refers to the following levels of education:

ISCED 0: Pre-primary education

Programmes at level 0 (pre-primary), defined as the initial stage of organised instruction, are
designed primarily to introduce very young children to a school-type environment, i.e. to provide
a bridge between the home and a school-based atmosphere. Upon completion of these
programmes, children continue their education at level 1 (primary education).

ISCED level 0 programmes are usually school-based or otherwise institutionalised for a group
of children (e.g. centre-based, community-based, home-based).

Early childhood educational development (ISCED level 010) has educational content designed
for younger children (in the age range of 0 to 2 years). Pre-primary education (ISCED level 020)
is designed for children aged at least 3 years.

ISCED 1: Primary education

Primary education provides learning and educational activities typically designed to provide
students with fundamental skills in reading, writing and mathematics (i.e. literacy and
numeracy). It establishes a sound foundation for learning, a solid understanding of core areas
of knowledge and fosters personal development, thus preparing students for lower secondary
education. It provides basic learning with little specialisation, if any.

This level begins between 5 and 7 years of age, is compulsory in all countries and generally
lasts from four to six years.

ISCED 2: Lower secondary education

Programmes at ISCED level 2, or lower secondary education, typically build upon the
fundamental teaching and learning processes which begin at ISCED level 1. Usually, the
educational aim is to lay the foundation for lifelong learning and personal development that
prepares students for further educational opportunities. Programmes at this level are usually

(11) Eurostat, Full-time equivalent (FTE), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Full-

time_equivalent_(FTE)#:~:text=A%20full-
time%20person%20is%20therefore%20counted%20as%20one,of%2040%20hours%2C%20is%20counted%20as%200.5
%20FTE (accessed 10/03/2024).
(12) International Standard Classification of Education, ISCED 2011, https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/isced-
2011-en.pdf

228
organised around a more subject-oriented curriculum, introducing theoretical concepts across
a broad range of subjects.

This level typically begins around the age of 11 or 12 and usually ends at age 15 or 16, often
coinciding with the end of compulsory education.

ISCED 3: Upper secondary education

Programmes at ISCED level 3, or upper secondary education, are typically designed to

complete secondary education in preparation for tertiary or higher education, or to provide skills
relevant to employment, or both. Programmes at this level offer students more subject-based,
specialist and in-depth programmes than in lower secondary education (ISCED level 2). They
are more differentiated, with an increased range of options and streams available.

This level generally begins at the end of compulsory education. The entry age is typically age 15
or 16. Entry qualifications (e.g. completion of compulsory education) or other minimum
requirements are usually needed. The duration of ISCED level 3 varies from two to five years.

ISCED 4: Post-secondary non-tertiary education

Post-secondary non-tertiary programmes build on secondary education to provide learning and

educational activities to prepare students for entry into the labour market and/or tertiary
education. It typically targets students who have completed upper secondary (ISCED level 3)
but who want to improve their skills and increase the opportunities available to them.
Programmes are often not significantly more advanced than those at upper secondary level as
they typically serve to broaden rather than deepen knowledge, skills and competencies. They
are therefore pitched below the higher level of complexity characteristic of tertiary education.

ISCED 5: Short-cycle tertiary education

Programmes at ISCED level 5 are short-cycle tertiary education, and are often designed to
provide participants with professional knowledge, skills and competencies. Typically, they are
practice-based and occupation-specific, preparing students to enter the labour market.
However, these programmes may also provide a pathway to other tertiary education
programmes.

Academic tertiary education programmes below the level of a Bachelor's programme or

equivalent are also classified as ISCED level 5.

ISCED 6: Bachelor's or equivalent level

Programmes at ISCED level 6 are at Bachelor's or equivalent level, which are often designed
to provide participants with intermediate academic and/or professional knowledge, skills and
competencies, leading to a first degree or equivalent qualification. Programmes at this level are
typically theory-based but may include practical elements; they are informed by state of the art
research and/or best professional practice. ISCED 6 programmes are traditionally offered by
universities and equivalent tertiary educational institutions.

ISCED 7: Master's or equivalent level

Programmes at ISCED level 7 are at Master's or equivalent level, and are often designed to
provide participants with advanced academic and/or professional knowledge, skills and
competencies, leading to a second degree or equivalent qualification. Programmes at this level
may have a substantial research component but do not lead to the award of a doctoral
qualification. Typically, programmes at this level are theory-based but may include practical

229
 components and are informed by state of the art research and/or best professional practice.
They are traditionally offered by universities and other tertiary educational institutions.

ISCED 8: Doctoral or equivalent level

Programmes at ISCED level 8 are at doctoral or equivalent level, and are designed primarily to
lead to an advanced research qualification. Programmes at this ISCED level are devoted to
advanced study and original research and are typically offered only by research-oriented tertiary
educational institutions such as universities. Doctoral programmes exist in both academic and
professional fields.

M atu r e st ude nt s ( Fig ur e 1 . 10 )

For the purposes of this report, mature students are defined as students aged 30 or more years old.

M ed i an

The median is the middle value in a group of numbers ranked in order of size, thus dividing the group
into two halves. In other words, it is the number in a range of scores that falls exactly in the middle so
that 50% of the scores are above and 50 % are below (Eurostat, 2020 ( 13)). In this report, the EHEA
median refers to the median of values among the EHEA countries where data are available.

N ew en tr ants ( Fig ur e s 1 .4 , 1. 5)

New entrants to a level of education are students who, during the course of the reference school or
academic year, enter for the first time any programme in a given level of education, irrespective of
whether the students enter the programme at the beginning or at an advanced stage of the programme
(e.g. by virtue of credits gained for relevant work experience or courses taken at another level of
education) (UNESCO, OECD and Eurostat 2020, p. 38).

Odd s r at io (F igu r e 1 .8)

The odds ratio refers to the ratio of the likelihood that an event may occur in one group in comparison
to its likelihood ratio in another group. An odds ratio of 1 indicates that the condition or event under study
is equally likely to occur in both groups. An odds ratio greater than 1 indicates that the condition or event
is more likely to occur in the first group. And an odds ratio less than 1 indicates that the condition or
event is less likely to occur in the first group. An odds ratio is calculated in the following way (probabilities
of the event in each of the groups are p1 (first group) and p2 (second group): (p1/(1-p1))/(p2/(1-p2).

Outg oin g ( outw a rd) mobi l it y r at e (Figu r es 6. 1 , 6 .2 , 6. 3 , 6 .4 , 6. 6 , a nd 6 .8 )

Outward mobility rate refers to students (enrolment or graduates) from a country of origin studying
abroad (outwardly mobile students) as a percentage of the total number of students with the same
country of origin.

Pu rc ha s ing pow e r pa r it y ( PPP) ( 14)

A currency conversion rate which converts economic indicators expressed in a national currency into
an artificial common currency that equalises the purchasing power of different national currencies. In
other words, PPP eliminates the differences in price levels between countries in the process of
conversion to an artificial common currency, called Purchasing Power Standard (PPS) ( 15).

(13) Eurostat, 2020, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Beginners:Statistical_concept_-

_Mean_and_median (accessed 10/03/2024)
(14) Purchasing Power Parity, Eurostat, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/prc_ppp_esms.htm
(15) Purchasing Power Standard, Eurostat, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Purchasing_power_standard_(PPS)

230
Pu rc ha s ing pow e r st anda r d ( PPS) ( 16) (F igu r es 1. 18 , 1. 1 9)

The artificial common reference currency unit used in the European Union to express the volume of
economic aggregates for the purpose of spatial comparisons in such a way that price level differences
between countries are eliminated. Economic volume aggregates in PPS are obtained by dividing their
original value in national currency units by the respective PPP (Purchasing power parity). PPS thus buys
the same given volume of goods and services in all countries, whereas different amounts of national
currency units are needed to buy this same volume of goods and services in individual countries,
depending on the price level.

Stud ent s enr o ll ed a s p ar t-t im e rs (F igu r e 1 .9 )

Within the UOE data collection, the part-time/full-time classification is regarded as an attribute of student
participation rather than as an attribute of the educational programmes or the provision of education in
general. A part-time student is one who is enrolled in an education programme whose intended study
load is less than 75% of the normal full-time annual study load (UNESCO-UIS, OECD and Eurostat
2020 ( 17), p. 27).

T e rti a r y educ a tion ( a s de fi ned w ith in th e I SC ED c l a ss if i cat ion)

Tertiary education builds on secondary education, providing learning activities in specialised fields of
education. It aims at learning at a high level of complexity and specialisation. Tertiary education includes
what is commonly understood as academic education but also includes advanced vocational or
professional education. It comprises ISCED levels 5, 6, 7 and 8, which are labelled as short-cycle tertiary
education, Bachelor’s or equivalent level, Master’s or equivalent level, and doctoral or equivalent level,
respectively. The content of programmes at the tertiary level is more complex and advanced than in
lower ISCED levels.

(16) Purchasing Power Standard, Eurostat, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Purchasing_power_standard_(PPS)
(17) UOE data collection on formal education 2020, https://uis.unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/uoe-data-collection-
manual-2020-en.pdf

231
IV. Data sources
BFUG data collection
This direct data collection was aimed at collecting information for the present report. The reference year
was the academic year 2022/2023. The questionnaires primarily focused on qualitative information, and
consisted of five sections, namely:

1. Key commitments, portability, higher education institutions;

2. Social dimension;

3. Fundamental values;

4. Learning and teaching;

5. Ukrainian refugees in HE.

When filling in the questionnaires, the Bologna Follow-Up Group representatives were asked to consult
all the relevant actors/stakeholders in their respective systems to ensure the highest degree of accuracy
possible.

EQAR
The European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) is the EHEA’s official register
of quality assurance agencies, listing those that substantially comply with the Standards and Guidelines
for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG).

EQAR maintains a Knowledge Base with country information, describing the national quality assurance
frameworks of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) countries, and other information on quality
assurance in Europe.

EQAR also hosts DEQAR − a database of higher education institutions and programmes that have been
subject to external quality assurance providing easy access to the corresponding reports.

EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS) ( 18)

The EU-LFS is the largest European household sample survey providing quarterly and annual results
on labour participation of people aged 15 and over as well as on persons outside the labour force. It
covers residents in private households. The EU-LFS is an important source of information about the
situation and trends in the EU labour market.

The EU-LFS currently covers thirty-four countries (participating countries) providing Eurostat with data
from national labour force surveys: the 28 Member States of the European Union, three EFTA countries
(Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), and four candidate countries, i.e. (Montenegro, North Macedonia,
Serbia and Türkiye). The EU-LFS provides quarterly and annual data; depending on the labour status
of the people (employed, unemployed, economically inactive) different variables are collected.

The EU-LFS is conducted by the national statistical institutes in accordance with Council Regulation
(EEC) No. 577/98 of 9 March 1998 and the data are centrally processed by Eurostat.

The EU-LFS data collection covers demographic background, labour status, employment characteristics
of the main job, hours worked, employment characteristics of the second job, time-related

(18) EU Labour Force Survey (EU-LFS), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=EU_labour_force_survey

232
underemployment, search for employment, education and training, previous work experience of persons
not in employment, situation one year before the survey, main labour status and income ( 19).

The main statistical objective of the EU-LFS is to divide the resident population of working age (15 years
and above) into three mutually exclusive and exhaustive groups – persons employed, unemployed and
economically inactive persons – and to provide descriptive and explanatory data on each of these
categories.

Regulation (EU) 2019/1700, in force from 1 January 2021 onwards, provides for a framework that
applies to several data collections in the field of social statistics, including the LFS. More details about
the new methodology are provided in Eurostat’s Statistics Explained.

Between the presented reference years (2016, 2021), comparisons at country level should be made
with caution, since series report a break in 2021 due to changes in the EU-LFS methodology.

Data for first cycle new entrants according to the educational attainment of the parents until 2020 are
based on the previous regulation of the LFS. Since the information on the level of education of the
parents was collected only if the person was in the same household with their parents was incomplete,
it has stopped to be collected.

Data for 2021 come from the 2021 EU-LFS adhoc module dedicated on labour market situation of
migrants and their immediate descendants, in which the information about the level of education of
parents was asked to all respondents.

Eurostudent survey
R e f e r e n c e y e a r : Eurostudent 8 survey: 2022 for all participating countries except Austria, France,
Portugal, Romania, Spain (2023), Germany (2021) and Switzerland (2020); Eurostudent VII
survey:2019 for all participating countries except Germany (2016), France, Switzerland (2020), Italy,
Portugal, Romania and Türkiye (2020/2021).

C o v e r a g e : Austria, Czechia, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany,

Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania,
Sweden, Switzerland (both rounds); Albania, Italy, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Türkiye (Eurostudent VII
only); Azerbaijan, Latvia, Slovakia, Spain (Eurostudent 8 only).

Description:

The Eurostudent project collects and analyses comparable data on the social dimension of European
higher education. A wide range of topics related to students’ social and economic conditions are
covered. The project strives to provide reliable and insightful cross-country comparisons. It does this
through coupling a central coordination approach with a strong network of national partners in each
participating country. The Eurostudent consortium provides national contributors with the Eurostudent
core questionnaire, as well as extensive instructions for conducting the field phase at the national level,
data cleaning and weighting, calculation of indicators, and data delivery. The national research teams
are chosen and funded by the participating national ministries. The national research teams are
responsible for implementing a national student survey, delivering the data to the Eurostudent data team
in accordance with Eurostudent conventions, and providing national interpretations of the delivered data.
The delivered data are checked in a series of feedback loops for accuracy and comparability and are
validated for publication by the national research team.

(19) For more details on the EU-LFS, see: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-labour-force-survey

[Accessed 10 March 2018].

233
The Eurostudent target group includes all students who are enrolled in any national study programme
regarded to be higher education in a country. Usually that corresponds to ISCED levels 5, 6 and 7. This
means all students should be included regardless of their nationality, full-time/part-time status, or
character of their higher education institution or study programme. The target group changed from
Eurostudent VII to Eurostudent 8 to include distance students (except those not living in the country of
survey). Excluded from the Eurostudent target group are: students on (temporary) leave, students on
credit mobility (i.e. short-term mobile students), students in ISCED 8 study programmes, students at
very specialised higher education institutions, and students in programmes classified as ISCED levels
5 or 6 which are not regarded to be higher education in the national context.

Trends 2024 (European University Association)

R e f e r e n c e y e a r : 2024 (survey conducted in 2023)

C o v e r a g e : 490 responses from 46 countries across the EHEA

Description:

The Trends series has been published by the European University Association (EUA) and its
predecessor organisation since the signing of the Bologna Declaration in 1999, with Trends 2024
presenting the ninth edition. Trends provides an institutional perspective on higher education policy and
institutional developments in Europe. Over the years, the focus of Trends has been evolving. Trends
2024 examines the broader context in which higher education institutions continue to evolve, and hone
in on learning and teaching, social inclusion, engagement with society, internationalisation and the
situation of staff and students. It also addresses ongoing transformations due to digitalisation, the
emergence of new formats, such as micro-credentials, and the consequences from and responses to
the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine.

UOE data collection on education and training systems (UOE)

The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS-UNESCO), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) and the Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat) jointly provide
internationally comparable data on key aspects of education and training systems through the annual
UOE data collection.

For tertiary education the collection covers entrants (input), enrolments (stock) and graduates (output).
Data on education expenditure and personnel is also provided. The data are broken down by
educational level (using the ISCED classification), as well as by sex, age, sector and field of education.
Separate tables provide information on mobile and foreign students and graduates by country of origin
(as well as by level, sex and field of education).

Within the UOE data collection, Eurostat collects and disseminates data from the EU Member States,
candidate countries and EFTA countries. The OECD collects data from other OECD countries (such as
Australia, Canada, Japan and the United States), while the UIS-UNESCO collects data from other
participating countries. The validated data are used by the three organisations ( 20).

EHEA countries use multiple definitions to identify and report mobile students. Starting from 2013
reference year the UOE definition is based on the country of origin understood as the country where the
upper secondary diploma was awarded (or the best national estimate (upper secondary diploma, vs.
residence, vs. citizenship).

(20) For more details on the UOE data collection, see: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
explained/index.php?title=UNESCO_OECD_Eurostat_(UOE)_joint_data_collection_%E2%80%93_methodology#Introduct
ion [Accessed 10 March 2024].

234
For the incoming (inward) mobility to the EHEA from countries outside the EHEA information from all
declaring countries in the world was considered. For the outgoing (outward) mobility from the EHEA
towards countries outside the EHEA only Australia, Canada, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the United States,
Japan and New Zealand were considered.

V. Country-specific notes
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1: Number of students enrolled in tertiary education by ISCED level, 2020/2021
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Georgia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania,
Serbia, San Marino: ISCED 5 not applicable.
Belgium: data on independent private institutions refer to the Flemish Community only.
Kazakhstan, Holy See: data not available.
Liechtenstein: zero or negligible number of students under ISCED 5 (2021).
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 8 (2021); enrolments data only include publicly financed institutions, referred to as ‘public
institutions’ in the Dutch national statistical and educational environment.
United Kingdom: short-cycle tertiary level includes a small number of students enrolled in vocational programmes at bachelor's
and master's level.

Figure 1.2: Enrolment rates in tertiary education for the 18-34 olds, 2015/2016-2020/2021
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Georgia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania,
Serbia, San Marino: ISCED 5 not applicable.
Belgium: break in time-series in 2020 for ISCED 5 from this year onwards; associate degree programmes of higher vocational
education (at ISCED 5) are organised by university colleges; data on the German-speaking Community are not integrated in the
enrolments (2016, 2021); data on independent private institutions refer to the Flemish Community only (2016, 2021).
Czechia: break in time series in 2018, the 2016 Higher Education Law introduced new study programmes, new data collection
was introduced for bachelor’s, master’s and equivalent.
Germany: break in time series in 2020 for ISCED 8, change in the data collection method to provide accurate figures, which have
been incomplete until 2019; for 2020, data 10% lower than estimated data compared to previous sample survey, while in 2021,
data increased by further 5%, thus almost reaching the previous amount.
Kazakhstan, Holy See: data not available
Liechtenstein: ISCED 5 not applicable (2016), Zero or negligible number of students under ISCED 5 (2021).
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 8 (2021); enrolments data only include publicly financed institutions, referred to as ‘public
institutions’ in the Dutch national statistical and educational environment (2016, 2021).
Poland: between 2020-2021, methodological changes were introduced; a new administrative data source on tertiary education is
used.
United Kingdom: short-cycle tertiary level includes a small number of students enrolled in vocational programmes at bachelor’s
and master’s level (2016).

Figure 1.3: Enrolment rates in tertiary education for the 18-34 olds, 2015/2016-2020/2021
Albania: data for 2016 is not available.
Armenia, Kazakhstan, Holy See: data not available.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Finland, Georgia, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania,
Serbia, San Marino: ISCED 5 not applicable
Belgium: break in time-series in 2020 for ISCED 5; from 2020, associate degree programmes of higher vocational education (at
ISCED 5) are organised by university colleges; previously, these courses could be followed at the centres for adult education;
data on the German-speaking Community are not integrated in the enrolments (2016, 2021); data on independent private
institutions refer to the Flemish Community only (2016, 2021).
Germany: break in time series in 2020 for ISCED 8, change in the data collection method to provide accurate figures, which have
been incomplete until 2019; for 2020, data 10% lower than estimated data compared to previous sample survey, while in 2021,
data increased by further 5%, thus almost reaching the previous amount.
Liechtenstein: ISCED 5 not applicable (2016); zero or negligible number of students under ISCED 5 (2021).
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 8 (2021); enrolments data only include publicly financed institutions, referred to as ‘public
institutions’ in the Dutch national statistical and educational environment (2016, 2021).
Poland: between 2020-2021 academic year, methodological changes were introduced; a new administrative data source on
tertiary education is used.
Slovenia: definition differs for ISCED 7 (2016).
United Kingdom: definition differs for ISCED 5 (2016); no data available for 2021.

Figure 1.4: Relationship between the educational background of first-cycle new entrants (ISCED 6) and the
educational attainment of their parents’ cohort (population aged 45-64), 2020/2021
Data come from the EU Labour Force Survey (LFS). Regulation (EU) 2019/1700, which is in force from 1 January 2021 onwards,

235
provides for a framework that applies to several data collections in the field of social statistics, including the LFS. More details
about the new methodology are provided in Eurostat’s Statistics Explained articles:
Data for first cycle new entrants according to the educational attainment of the parents until 2020 are based on the previous
regulation of the LFS. Since the information on the level of education of the parents was collected only if the person was in the
same household with their parents was incomplete, it has stopped to be collected.
Data for 2021 come from the 2021 EU-LFS adhoc module dedicated on labour market situation of migrants and their immediate
descendants, in which the information about the level of education of parents was asked to all respondents.
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Moldova, San Marino, Ukraine,
Holy See: data not available.
Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, San Marino, Ukraine: data for share of first-cycle new entrants not provided.
Andorra: data on share of population aged 45-64 with high educational attainment refer to 2022.
Croatia, Slovenia: unreliable data for first cycle new entrants with highly educated parents for 2021.
Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Türkiye, United Kingdom: no data available for 2021.

Figure 1.5: Share of women among new entrants in tertiary education (ISCED 5-8), 2015/2016 and 2020/2021
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Finland Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia:
total excludes ISCED 5.
Belgium: under-coverage at ISCED 5, new entrants exclude the Flemish Community of Belgium (2016, 2021); total excludes
ISCED 8 (2016); break in time series, introduction of the associate degree programmes which were previously followed at the
centres for adult education and for which no data was available (2021).
Bulgaria: estimated data for ISCED 6-7 (2021).
Germany: definition differs for ISCED 8 (2016); break in time series; new source of data based on administrative data instead of
sample survey (2021).
Hungary: distribution by sex is estimated because of grade repeaters (2016).
Kazakhstan Moldova, Montenegro, Holy See: no data available.
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 8 (2021).
Poland: break in time series, since in 2019/2020 academic year, doctoral studies are gradually phased out and for newly enrolled
students; doctoral training is provided only in doctoral schools (2021); in 2020-2021, methodological changes were introduced; a
new administrative data source on tertiary education is used. Definition differs for ISCED 6-8 (2016).
United Kingdom: definition differs for ISCED 5-7 (2016).

Figure 1.6: Median percentage of women among enrolled students in Bologna structures by field of education and
level of Bologna structure (ISCED 6 and 7), 2021
Kazakhstan, Holy See: no data available.
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 8 (2021)
Poland: between 2020-2021 academic year, methodological changes were introduced; a new administrative data source on
tertiary education is used.
Slovenia, Sweden: definition differs (2021).
United Kingdom: no data available for 2021, instead data for 2019 are reported; short-cycle tertiary level includes a small number
of students enrolled in vocational programmes at bachelor's and master's level (2019).
ISCED 6 excludes (fields are listed in the order followed in the report and not in alphabetical order:
Education: Liechtenstein, Luxembourg (2021)
Arts and humanities: Liechtenstein
Social sciences, journalism and information: Liechtenstein
Business, administration and law: not applicable
Natural sciences, mathematics and statistics: Liechtenstein
Information and communication technologies: Liechtenstein
Engineering, manufacturing and construction: not applicable
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary: Liechtenstein, Luxembourg
Health and welfare: Liechtenstein
Services: Luxembourg (2021)

236
ISCED 7 excludes:
Education: Liechtenstein
Arts and humanities: Liechtenstein
Social sciences, journalism and information: Liechtenstein
Business, administration and law: not applicable
Natural sciences, mathematics and statistics: Liechtenstein
Information and communication technologies: Liechtenstein
Engineering, manufacturing and construction: not applicable
Agriculture, forestry, fisheries and veterinary: Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Cyprus (2021), Malta
Health and welfare: Liechtenstein
Services: Luxembourg (2016)

Figure 1.7: Participation rates in tertiary education among people aged 18 to 29, foreign-born, native-born and total
population, 2016 and 2021
Break in series in 2021 due to revised EU-LFS methodology. Regulation (EU) 2019/1700, which is in force from 1 January 2021
onwards, provides for a framework that applies to several data collections in the field of social statistics, including the LFS. More
details about the new methodology are provided in Eurostat’s Statistics Explained articles ( 21).
Andorra: data refer to 2017 instead of 2016. Data refer to 2022 instead of 2021.
Armenia, Iceland: data not available for 2016.
Armenia: data refer to 2022 instead of 2021.
Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania and Slovakia: due to low reliability of data, data for foreign-born students in 2016 and 2021 are
indicated as not available.
Croatia, Latvia, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland: data for migrants are of low reliability (2016).
Croatia, Latvia, Poland: data for migrants are of low reliability (2021).
Germany, Estonia, Iceland: due to low reliability of data, data for foreign-born students in 2016 are indicated as not available.
Germany: changes in the survey methodology have led to a break in German data in 2020. Estimates for 2020 and 2021 can
therefore not be compared directly with those of previous years. In addition, data collection in 2020 and 2021 was impacted by
technical issues and COVID-19 measures.
Moldova, San Marino, Ukraine: data not available.
Montenegro, North Macedonia, Türkiye, United Kingdom: data not available for 2021.

Figure 1.8: Tertiary education attainment of 25 to 34-year-olds by country of birth: odds ratio of native-born over
foreign-born population to complete tertiary education, 2016 and 2021
.Break in series in 2021 due to revised EU-LFS methodology. Regulation (EU) 2019/1700, which is in force from 1 January 2021
onwards, provides for a framework that applies to several data collections in the field of social statistics, including the LFS.
Albania, Andorra, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine: data not available.
Armenia, Iceland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, Switzerland: data for 2016 not available.
Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Portugal, San Marino: data refer to 2022 instead of 2021.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Germany, San Marino, Slovenia: data refer to 2017 instead of 2016.
Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Latvia, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia: due to low reliability of data, 2016 and
2021 data is not published.
Croatia, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Slovenia, Türkiye, United Kingdom: data for 2021 not available.

Figure 1.9: Students enrolled as part-timers in tertiary education, by country and age (%), 2016 and 2021
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Romania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Finland:
ISCED 5 not applicable.
Albania: data considered as not available due to unreliable data for 2021
Armenia, Kazakhstan: data not available (2016, 2021).
Belgium: definition differs (2016); data on 'Independent private institutions' not included, except at ISCED 6 and 7.
Austria, France, Georgia, Iceland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland, Türkiye, United
Kingdom: data for age group 30-34 not available for both reference years.
Czechia: data not available for 2016; data may be underestimated, since breakdown by age for ISCED 5 and 8 is not available
(2021).
Czechia: unreliable data for age group 20-24 for 2021 since detailed breakdown per ISCED level is not available.
Denmark: data may be underestimated, since breakdown by age for ISCED 8 is not available (2016, 2021).
Greece: unreliable data for 20-24 age group; data refer to ISCED 7 only (2016, 2021).
Georgia, Serbia: part-time programs are not applicable.

(21) Eurostat, Statistics explained, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-

explained/index.php?title=EU_labour_force_survey_-
_documentation&stable=0&redirect=no#Explanatory_notes_and_user_guide_for_the_core_variables

237
Luxembourg: zero or negligible data for ISCED 5 (2016); missing data for ISCED 5 (2021).
Netherlands: data may be underestimated, since breakdown by age for ISCED 8 is not available (2016, 2021).
Poland: insufficient data on the number of students by some age breakdowns (2016); missing data for ISCED 5 (2016, 2021).
San Marino: part-time programs not applicable (2016).
Romania: breakdown of students by age 30-34 not available. Data are presented instead for under 30.
Ukraine: Data not available for 2021

Figure 1.10: Adults (30-64) who attained their tertiary education degree during adulthood (aged 30-64) as a percentage
of all adults (30-64), 2016 and 2021.
Break in series in 2021 due to revised EU-LFS methodology. Regulation (EU) 2019/1700, which is in force from 1 January 2021
onwards, provides for a framework that applies to several data collections in the field of social statistics, including the LFS. More
details about the new methodology are provided in Eurostat’s Statistics Explained articles. References for the concepts and
definitions used in the LFS can be found here.
Andorra, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova: data for 2017 and 2022 reported instead of 2016 and 2021 as unavailable.
Iceland: data refer to 2022 instead of 2021.
Montenegro, North Macedonia, Türkiye, United Kingdom, Ukraine: data for 2021 is not available.
Ukraine: data for 2017 instead of 2016 is presented.

Figure 1.11: Percentage change in the total number of academic staff in 2016 and 2021
All data cover all types of higher education institutions (i.e. public, private government dependent and private government
independent).
Belgium: data on independent private institutions are not included (2016).
Czechia: number of full-time and part-time educational staff (all ISCED levels) − only FTE data are available.
France: ISCED level 5 coverage is partial. ISCED level 6-8 includes ISCED level 4 and a part of ISCED level 5 (2016); under-
coverage, at ISCED 5-8 excludes private institutions (2016, 2021).
Iceland, Kazakhstan, Holy See: no data available.
Ireland: data refer to 2015 instead of 2016; partial coverage of enrolments in private non-aided educational institutions − the
coverage varies by ISCED level.
Liechtenstein, United Kingdom: data refer to 2019 instead of 2021.
Luxembourg: definition differs (2016); ISCED 5 is included in ISCED 3, thus not reported in total.
Poland: estimated data for ISCED 5 (2021); definition differs (2021), new administrative data source used.
Portugal: definition differs (2016).

Figure 1.12: Percentage of academic staff aged 50 or over, 2016 and 2021
All data covers all types of higher education institutions (i.e. public, private government dependent and private government
independent).
Andorra Belgium, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Moldova, North Macedonia, Austria, San Marino: total excludes academic staff
of unknown age.
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iceland, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Serbia, Ukraine, Holy See: data not available.
Belgium: data on independent private institutions are not included (2016).
Czechia: number of full-time and part-time educational staff (all ISCED levels) - only FTE data are available.
France: ISCED level 5 coverage is partial. ISCED level 6-8 includes ISCED level 4 and a part of ISCED level 5 (2016); under-
coverage, at ISCED 5-8 excludes private institutions (2016, 2021).
Liechtenstein: data refer to 2019 instead of 2021.
Luxembourg: definition differs (2016); ISCED 5 is included in ISCED 3.
Poland: estimated data for ISCED 5 (2021); definition differs (2021), new administrative data source used.
Portugal: definition differs (2016); no data available broken down by age for 2021, instead data for 2020 are reported.

Figure 1.13: Percentage of female academic staff, 2016 and 2021

All data covers all types of higher education institutions (i.e. public, private government dependent and private government
independent).
Belgium: data on independent private institutions are not included (2016).
Czechia: number of full-time and part-time educational staff (all ISCED levels) − only FTE data are available.
France: ISCED level 5 coverage is partial. ISCED level 6-8 includes ISCED level 4 and a part of ISCED level 5 (2016); under-
coverage, at ISCED 5-8 excludes private institutions (2016, 2021).
Iceland, Kazakhstan, Holy See: no data available.
Ireland: data refer to 2015 instead of 2016. Partial coverage of enrolments in private non-aided educational institutions − the
coverage varies by ISCED level.
Liechtenstein: data refer to 2019 instead of 2021.
Luxembourg: definition differs (2016); ISCED 5 is included in ISCED 3.
Poland: Estimated data for ISCED 5 (2021). Definition differs (2021), new administrative data source used.
Portugal: definition differs (2016).
Ukraine: data not available for 2016.

238
Figure 1.14: Number of higher education institutions (HEIs) in the EHEA, 2022
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Holy See: data not available.
Belgium (French Community), Denmark, Greece, Finland: data not available for number of private higher education institutions.
IT: data includes public HEIs and legally recognised non-public HEIs

Figure 1.15: Number of higher education institutions (HEIs), public and total per million population (MP) in the EHEA,
2022/2023
Andorra, Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Liechtenstein, Moldova, Montenegro, North
Macedonia, Kazakhstan, San Marino, Ukraine, Holy See: data not available.
Denmark: data refer to 2016 instead of 2015.
Greece: definition differs (2015).
Ireland: definition differs (2020).
Croatia: data refer to 2016 instead of 2015. Definition differs (2016).
Portugal: definition differs (2015).
Türkiye: definition differs (2015).
United Kingdom: data refer to 2019 instead of 2020.

Figure 1.16: Annual public expenditure on tertiary education as a % of GDP (including R&D), 2015 and 2020
Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Holy See, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Montenegro,
Moldova, North Macedonia, San Marino, Ukraine: data not available.
Greece, United Kingdom: data refer to 2019 instead of 2020.
Croatia, Denmark: data refer to 2016 instead of 2015.

Figure 1.17: Annual public expenditure on tertiary education per full-time equivalent student in euro, 2015 and 2020
Croatia: data refer to 2016 instead of 2015; definition differs (2016).
Denmark: data refer to 2016 instead of 2015.
Greece: definition differs (2015); Data refer to 2019 instead of 2020.
Ireland: definition differs (2020).
Portugal: definition differs (2015).
Serbia: data for 2020 not available
Türkiye: definition differs (2015).
United Kingdom: data refer to 2019 instead of 2020.

Figure 1.18: Percentage change in the annual public and private expenditure on public and private tertiary education
institutions in PPS per full-time equivalent student between 2015 and 2020
Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Holy See, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein,
Montenegro, Moldova, North Macedonia, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukraine: data not available.
Cyprus, Czechia, Greece, Croatia, United Kingdom: data refer to 2019 instead of 2020.
Denmark: data refer to 2016 instead of 2015.
Iceland: definition differs (2020).
Portugal: definition differs (2015).
Türkiye: definition differs (2015).

Figure 1.19: Annual public and private expenditure on public and private education institutions on tertiary education
per FTE relative to the GDP per capita in PPS
Croatia, Cyprus, Czechia, Greece, United Kingdom: data refer to 2019 instead of 2020.
Denmark: data refer to 2016 instead of 2015.

239
Chapter 6
Starting from 2013 reference year the UOE definition is based on the country of origin understood as the country where the upper
secondary diploma was awarded (or the best national estimate (upper secondary diploma, vs. residence, vs. citizenship).
For the incoming (inward) mobility to the EHEA from countries outside the EHEA information from all declaring countries in the
world was considered. For the outward mobility from the EHEA towards countries outside the EHEA only Australia, Canada,
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the United States, Japan and New Zealand were considered.

Figure 6.1: Outgoing/outward (degree and credit) mobility rate of graduates (ISCED level 5-8) by country of origin,
2021, (%)
For 2021 the criteria used to define country of origin are as follows:
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, Türkiye: country of citizenship.
Belgium, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Greece, France, Croatia, Iceland Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands,
Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland, Norway, Spain (ISCED 5), Switzerland: country of upper secondary diploma.
Denmark: country of upper secondary diploma is a proxy.
Estonia, Ireland, Spain (for ISCED 6-8), Italy, Liechtenstein, North Macedonia, Slovenia, United Kingdom: country of usual
residence.
France: a mobile student is a foreign student who has obtained his upper secondary diploma abroad. If this country is unknown,
so the citizenship is used.
Bulgaria: estimations.
Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Liechtenstein, Holy See: no data available.
Latvia: country of prior education is considered.
Netherlands: for all levels, except ISCED 8, the country of upper secondary diploma has been used; for ISCED 8 an estimation
has been made for the number of mobile students, calculated from the number of foreign students.
Poland: ISCED 6 and 7 - country of upper secondary diploma; lack of information on some programmes at ISCED 6 and ISCED 8;
as a best national estimate Poland use data on: ISCED 6 (postgraduate studies) and ISCED 8 level − country of prior education
(country of Master diploma).
Sweden: international students are defined as students who have a student residence permit or are either non-residents or have
moved to Sweden not more than six months before starting their studies; for students at ISCED 8, the time limit is 24 months;
students with student residence permit are reported by country of citizenship while other students are reported by country of birth.
Specific notes regarding degree mobility:
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia Finland:
ISCED 5 not applicable
Azerbaijan: breakdown for degree mobility for ISCED 8 by country of origin not available.
Belgium: under-coverage, at ISCED 5, mobile students exclude the French Community.
Bulgaria: definition differs for ISCED 6-8 (2016).
Germany: total excludes ISCED 5 (2016, 2021).
Germany, Croatia, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland: degree mobile graduates at ISCED 5 are negligible and reported with
value zero.
Greece: definition differs for ISCED 6-8 (2016).
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 8 (2021).
Poland: mobile graduates at ISCED 5 are negligible and reported with value zero (2016, 2021); break in series in for ISCED 6
and 8 in 2020.
Slovenia: no inward degree mobility data available by country of origin; this implies a potential underestimation of degree mobility
for the other countries.
United Kingdom: definition differs for ISCED 5 (2016).
Ukraine: ISCED 6 includes also graduates at ISCED 5 and 7.
Switzerland: mobile graduates at ISCED 5 are negligible and reported with value zero (2021).
No information on EHEA-origin degree mobile graduates who graduated in the US, which implies potential underestimation for
some EU Member States.
Specific notes regarding credit mobility:
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, North Macedonia,
Moldova, Montenegro, San Marino, Ukraine, Holy See: no information on outward credit mobility available.
Belgium, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Netherlands: total for credit mobility excludes ISCED 8.
Belgium: under-coverage, data on credit mobility refer only to the Flemish Community (2021).
Bulgaria: breakdown unavailable for ISCED 6-8 by type of mobility not available (2021).
Czechia: under-coverage at ISCED 5; only programmes conservatories are reported (2021).
Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Norway, Austria, Romania, Slovakia, Finland,
Switzerland: total excludes ISCED 5.
Cyprus, Czechia, Croatia, Poland: zero or negligible value for ISCED 5.
Germany: breakdown unavailable, at ISCED 6 and 7 by countries of destination except for ZA, CA, US, CN, FI, FR, IE, IT, PL,
ES, SE, GB, AU. All other countries are included in the category Country of destination not specified. Detail of data, due to sample
size all data are rounded to full hundreds (2021). ‘Total graduates with credit mobility of at least 3 months or 15 ECTS points’ are
equal to ‘Of which those who were not degree mobile’. Data does not cover graduates that are simultaneously credit and degree
mobile (2016). Data for credit mobility for ISCED 6 and 7 could only be provided for the 10 most popular countries of destination.
All other countries are included in the category ‘Country of destination not specified’. Due to sample size all data are rounded to

240
full hundreds (2016). Data for credit mobility for ISCED 8 are of insufficient availability, thus numbers for this level cannot be
provided (2016). Credit mobility for ISCED 5 only exists in academic programmes, but not in professional programmes (2016).
Greece, Croatia, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia: data on graduates with credit mobility who were not degree mobile is considered missing
due to non-availability of data on graduates with dual mobility; for this reason, the presented EHEA averages could be
underestimated.
Denmark: data for credit mobility for ISCED 6 and 7 are included in total (2016).
Estonia: under-coverage; the count of credit mobile graduates might be undervalued (2021).
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 5-7 in 2016.
Austria: break in series for ISCED 6-8 in 2021.
Sweden: ‘Total graduates with credit mobility of at least 3 months or 15 ECTS points’ are equal to ‘Of which those who were not
degree mobile’. Data do not cover graduates that are simultaneously credit and degree mobile (2016).
Switzerland: data refer to 2020 instead of 2021.
United Kingdom: data refer to 2020 instead of 2021.
Türkiye: under-coverage, graduates with credit mobility exclude credit mobility under EU programmes (i.e. ERASMUS or other
EU programmes) and credit mobility in other programmes (2021).

Figure 6.2: Outward degree and credit mobility of graduates, by country of origin and level of educational attainment,
2021, (%)
As for figure 6.1.
Belgium, Estonia, Netherlands, Germany, Greece: total for credit mobility excludes ISCED 8.
Belgium, Estonia, Netherlands, Germany, Greece: data for ISCED 8 refer only to degree mobile graduates.
Greece, Croatia, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia: data on graduates with credit mobility who were not degree mobile is considered missing
due to non-availability of data on graduates with dual mobility; for this reason, the presented EHEA averages could be
underestimated.

Figure 6.3: Outward credit mobility rate, by country of destination and level of educational attainment, 2021 (%)
Andorra: no data available broken down by ISCED level.
Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Iceland, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Moldova,
Montenegro, North Macedonia, San Marino, Ukraine, Holy See: no data on outward credit mobility available.
Belgium, Germany, Greece Estonia, Netherlands: total for credit mobility excludes ISCED 8.
Bulgaria, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Hungary, Austria, Romania, Slovakia, Finland, Norway,
Switzerland: total excludes ISCED 5.
Czechia, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland: zero or negligible value for ISCED 5.
Greece, Croatia, Italy, Hungary, Slovenia: data on graduates with credit mobility who were not degree mobile is considered missing
due to non-availability of data on graduates with dual mobility; data is not included in the EHEA averages in order to avoid bias
which leads to potential underestimation of the presented figures.
Luxembourg: zero or negligible value for ISCED 7.
Switzerland: data refer to 2020 instead of 2021.
United Kingdom: data refer to 2020 instead of 2021.
Türkiye: under-coverage, graduates with credit mobility exclude credit mobility under EU programmes (i.e. ERASMUS or other
EU programmes) and credit mobility in other programmes (2021).

Figure 6.4: Outward degree mobility of graduates within the EHEA, by country of origin and level of educational
attainment, 2020/2021, (°%)
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania, Finland, Serbia:
ISCED 5 not applicable
Azerbaijan: breakdown for degree mobility for ISCED 8 by country of origin not available.
Belgium: under-coverage, at ISCED 5, mobile students exclude the French Community.
Bulgaria: definition differs for ISCED 6-8 (2016).
Greece: definition differs for ISCED 6-8 (2016).
Germany: total excludes ISCED 5 (2016, 2021).
Germany, Croatia, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland: degree mobile graduates at ISCED 5 are negligible and reported with
value zero.
Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Kazakhstan, Holy See: no data available.
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 8 (2021).
Poland: mobile graduates at ISCED 5 are negligible and reported with value zero (2016, 2021). Break in series in for ISCED 6
and 8 in 2020.
Slovenia: no inward degree mobility data available for SI by country of origin. This implies a potential underestimation of degree
mobility for the other countries.
United Kingdom: definition differs for ISCED 5 (2016).
Ukraine: ISCED 6 includes also graduates at ISCED 5 and 7.
Switzerland: mobile graduates at ISCED 5 are negligible and reported with value zero (2021).
No information on EU-origin degree mobile graduates who graduated in the US, which implies potential underestimation for some
EU Member States.

241
Figure 6.5: Incoming degree mobility rate per level of educational attainment within the EHEA, 2021
For 2021 the criteria used to define country of origin are as follows:
Bosnia and Herzegovina Hungary, Slovakia, Serbia, Türkiye: country of citizenship.
Belgium, Bulgaria, Czechia, Denmark (country of upper secondary diploma is a proxy), Cyprus, Germany, Greece, France,
Croatia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Finland, Iceland,
Norway, Spain (ISCED 5), Switzerland: country of upper secondary diploma.
Latvia: country of prior education.
Estonia, Ireland, Spain (for ISCED 6 – 8), Italy, Liechtenstein, Slovenia United Kingdom: country of usual residence.
Denmark: country of upper secondary diploma is a proxy.
France: a mobile student is a foreign student who has obtained his upper secondary diploma abroad. If this country is unknown,
so the citizenship is used.
Poland: ISCED 6 and 7 - country of upper secondary diploma; Lack of information on some programmes at ISCED 6 and ISCED
8. As a best national estimate Poland use data on: ISCED 6 (postgraduate studies) and ISCED 8 level - country of prior education
(country of Master diploma).
Netherlands: the country of upper secondary diploma does only distinguish between Netherlands and ‘abroad’ The country for
‘abroad’ is approximately the country of nationality.
Sweden: international students are defined as students who have a student residence permit or are either non-residents or have
moved to Sweden not more than six months before starting their studies. For students at ISCED 8, the time limit is 24 months.
Students with student residence permit are reported by country of citizenship while other students are reported by country of birth.
Specific notes:
Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Lithuania, Romania, Finland, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia:
ISCED 5 not applicable.
Belgium: Break in series in 2020. Under-coverage, at ISCED 5, mobile students exclude the French Community.
Germany, Italy, Croatia, Liechtenstein, Switzerland: zero or negligible value for ISCED 5.
Germany: estimated data (2021); break in series in 2020.
Greece: The data refer to 81.3% of the total of academic departments and 63.1% of professional departments that have responded
to mobility question (2016).
Ireland: ISCED 5 is included in all programmes (2016).
Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Holy See: data not available.
Malta: break in series 2021.
Netherlands: estimated data for ISCED 8 (2021); total excludes ISCED 5 (2016, 2021).
Poland: definition differs for ISCED 6 and 7 (2016); country of upper secondary diploma; Lack of data on some programmes at
ISCED 6 and 8 level. As a best national estimate Poland used data on: ISCED 6 (postgraduate studies) and ISCED 8 level -
country of prior education (country of Master diploma); ISCED 6 −postgraduate studies −- country of prior education. Estimated
data (2021).
Slovenia: no detailed data available by country of origin (2016, 2021).
Switzerland: mobile new entrants to ISCED 5 are negligible and reported with value zero (2021). Under-coverage, at ISCED 6
and 7, students in universities or universities of applied sciences are included (2021).
Ukraine: data for ISCED 7 not available

Figure 6.6: Extent of balance in degree mobility flows within and outside the EHEA, ISCED 5 - 8, 2020/2021
Same to figure 6.5.
Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Holy See: data not available.

Figure 6.7: Student mobility flows: Top three countries of ORIGIN (INWARD) in %, 2021
Same to figure 6.5.
Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Holy See: data not available.

Figure 6.8: Student mobility flows: Top three countries of DESTINATION (OUTWARD) in %, 2020/2021
Same to figure 6.5.
Kazakhstan, Montenegro, Holy See: data not available.

242
ANNEX

Table 2.1: Share of first cycle-programmes with a workload of 180, 210, 240 or another number of ECTS credits,
2022/2023 (Figure 2.1)
% AD AL AM AT AZ BA BE fr BE nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES
180 ECTS 97.0 99.9 0.0 69.0 0.0 35.0 85.0 96.4 9.0 100.0 2.0 96.0 63.0 44.0 73.0 0.0 1.0
210 ECTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 23.0 49.0 8.0 0.0 0.0
240 ECTS 0.0 0.0 98.0 22.0 94.0 65.0 0.5 3.2 91.0 0.0 98.0 3.0 10.0 6.0 18.0 90.0 94.0
Other workload 3.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 14.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 1.0 10.0 5.0
% FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT
180 ECTS 36.0 100.0 0.1 77.0 70.0 26.0 99.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 36.0 95.0 25.0 54.0 98.0 13.0 85.0
210 ECTS 41.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
240 ECTS 22.0 0.0 79.7 7.0 15.0 41.0 1.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 47.0 5.0 60.0 46.0 0.0 83.0 6.0
Other workload 1.0 0.0 20.2 16.0 0.0 32.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 14.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 9.0
UK- UK-
% NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

180 ECTS 43,6 96,0 66,3 88,0 59,4 : 84.0 92.0 98.0 100.0 0.0 0.5 : 5.0 75.0
210 ECTS 0,0 0,0 26,1 1,0 0,0 : 14.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 : 0.0 0.0
240 ECTS 35,0 4,0 3,1 11,4 40,6 : 0.0 8.0 1.5 0.0 100.0 99.4 : 88.0 5.0
Other workload 21,4 0,0 4,5 0,0 0,0 : 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 : 7.0 20.0

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 2.2: Share of second-cycle programmes with a workload of 60-75, 90, 120 or another number of ECTS credits,
2022/2023 (Figure 2.2)
% AD AL AM AT AZ BA BE fr BE nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES
120 ECTS 100.0 72.0 81.0 98.1 97.0 35.0 54.0 51.6 0.0 49.0 12.0 97.0 76.0 93.0 96.0 34.0 7.6
90 ECTS 0.0 0.0 12.5 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 48.0 82.0 2.0 15.0 0.0 1.0 52.0 13.6
60-75 ECTS 0.0 28.0 6.5 0.0 0.0 65.0 21.0 46.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 3.0 11.0 78.8
Other workload 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.5 0.0 3.0 6.0 1.0 5.0 7.0 0.0 3.0 0.0
% FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT
120 ECTS 76.0 100.0 100.0 74.0 66.0 4.0 90.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 0.0 77.0 59.0 65.0 99.0 25.0 18.8
90 ECTS 18.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 4.0 58.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64.0 0.0 21.0 35.0 0.0 0.0 54.7
60-75 ECTS 6.0 0.0 0.0 24.0 30.0 22.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.0 23.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 73.0 12.6
Other workload 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 16.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 13.9
UK- UK-
% NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

120 ECTS 22.4 86.0 69.4 85.0 94.0 : 70.0 91.0 99.0 100.0 74.0 10.0 : 11.0 90.0
90 ECTS 6.0 8.0 25.9 12.1 2.0 : 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 90.0 : 76.0 0.0
60-75 ECTS 68.3 6.0 0.0 1.7 4.0 : 21.0 9.0 0.0 0.0 26.0 0.0 : 8.0 5.0
Other workload 3.4 0.0 4.7 1.1 0.0 : 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 : 0.0 5.0

Source: BFUG data collection.

243
Table 3.1: Legal requirements to include employer representatives in HEI governing bodies, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
Employer
 :     : :  / :    : :    / :  :  
representatives
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Employer
 /     : / : /  :   :      :  
representatives

 Legally required  Legally not required but usually included : Not available / Not legally required and usually not included

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 3.2: Decision on responsibilities of HEIs governing bodies, 2022/2023

BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
Deciding on
                        
responsibilities
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Deciding on
        :      :       :  
responsibilities

 Legislation  HEIs  Other : Not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 3.3: Appointment and dismissal of HEI leaders (Rectors or equivalent), 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT

HEI’s highest level               

governing body             

Government/public      
authority        

Internal HEI           
steering body          

HEI’s staff  


HEI’s students 

   
Other
  
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

HEI’s highest level          : 

governing body       

Government/public     :   
authority      

Internal HEI   :    
steering body      

HEI’s staff  :  
 

HEI’s students  :  
 

Other    :  
  

 Appointment  Dismissal : Not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

244
Table 3.4: Appointment and dismissal of institutional faculty leaders (Deans or equivalent), 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
HEI’s highest level           
governing body        
Government/ 
public authority  
Internal HEI          
steering body        
HEI’s staff   
 
HEI’s students 

Other       
      
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
HEI’s highest level       :    :     :
governing body            
Government/ : :  :
public authority
Internal HEI  :  :   :  
steering body      
: :  : 
HEI’s staff 
: :  : 
HEI’s students 
 :   :  : 
Other   

 Appointment  Dismissal : Not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.1: Top-level strategies on the social dimension of higher education with the aim of strengthening diversity,
equity and inclusion of students and/or staff, 2022/2023

Name of the strategy, including weblink

Adoption year (timeframe)

AL National Strategy on Education 2021-2026

Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2026)

AM Law of the Republic of Armenia on the 'Education Development State Programme of Armenia until 2030'
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)

AT National strategy on the social dimension of higher education: Towards more inclusive access and wider participation
Adoption year: 2017 (timeframe: 2017-2025)

BE fr Decree on Inclusive Higher Education for Students with Disabilities

Adoption year: 2014 (timeframe: 2014+)

BG Higher Education Development Strategy

Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2030)
Diversity, Inclusion and Equity in Higher Education Development (in French, in German)
Adoption year: 2020 (timeframe: 2021-2024)
CH Dispatch on the promotion of Education, Research and Innovation in the years 2021-2024 (in French, in German)
Adoption year: 2020 (timeframe: 2021-2024)
Strategy on ‘Equality 2030’ (in French, in German)
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2030)

CZ Strategic plan of the ministry for higher education for the period from 2021
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2025)

EE Education Strategy
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2035)

EL National Action Plan of the Hellenic Ministry of Education and Religious Affairs
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022)
Towards more accessible higher education and higher education institutions
FI
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2030)

245
 Name of the strategy, including weblink
Adoption year (timeframe)

The Student Plan

FR
Adoption year: 2017 (timeframe: 2018+)
Unified National Strategy for Education and Science of Georgia for 2022-2030
GE
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)
Plan of measures for improving the social dimension of higher education for the period 2023-2025
HR
Adoption year: 2023 (timeframe: 2023-2025)
Shifting of Gears in Higher Education: Mid-term Policy Strategy 2016
HU
Adoption year: 2016 (timeframe: 2016-2030)
National Access Plan: A Strategic Action Plan for Equity of Access, Participation and Success in Higher Education
IE
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2028)
National Recovery and Resilience Plan
IT
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2026)
Concept for the development of higher education and science in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2023-2029
KZ
Adoption year: 2023 (timeframe: 2023-2029)
Integration Strategy
LI
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021+)
National progress plan
LT
Adoption year: 2020 (timeframe: 2021-2030), social dimension priorities adopted in 2022, for the period 2023-2026.
Education Development Guidelines 2021-2027: Future skills for a future society
LV
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2027)
Strategy on Inclusive Education
ME
Adoption year: 2019 (timeframe: 2019-2025)
Malta’s National Strategic Action Plan for Further and Higher Education 2022-2030
MT
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)
National action plan for diversity and inclusion in academic education and research
NL
Adoption year: 2020 (timeframe: 2020-2025)
Policy for gender balance and gender perspectives in research and innovation
NO
Adoption year: 2019 (timeframe: 2019+)
National Strategy for the Inclusion of People with Disabilities
PT
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2025)
Educated Romania
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2030)
RO
National Recovery and Resilience Plan
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2026)
Power, goals and authority – feminist politics for an equal future
SE
Adoption year: 2016 (timeframe: 2016-2030)
Resolution on the National Programme of Higher Education to 2030
SI
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)
11th Development Plan of the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye
TR
Adoption year: 2019 (timeframe: 2019-2023)
National Strategy for the creation of a barrier-free space in Ukraine for the period until 2030
UA
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2030)
Access and participation reboot
UK-EWN
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021+)
Scottish Framework for Fair Access
UK-SCT
Adoption year: 2017 (timeframe: 2017-2030)

Source: BFUG data collection.

246
Table 4.2: Measurable targets in top-level strategies aiming to strengthen diversity, equity and inclusion in higher
education, 2022/2023

Targets concerning students

AM Proportion of higher education institutions offering environments with reasonable physical adaptations for students with
special educational needs (ramp, toilet, elevator, literature for students with impaired eyesight, etc.) should be minimum 20%
by 2023, 25% by 2024, 30% by 2026, and 50% by 2030.
Source document: Law of the Republic of Armenia on the 'Education Development State Programme of Armenia until 2030',
Annex 1.
AT Reducing the recruitment quota/probability factor for admission to higher education of students whose parent have no higher
education entrance qualification from 2.38 (2015) to 2.25 (by 2020) and 2.10 (by 2025).
Halving the number of degree programmes at each higher education institution where men or women comprise less than
30% by 2025.
Increasing the percentage of (educational resident) students admitted to higher education who are second-generation
children of immigrants from 22% to 30% by 2025.
Source document: Austrian National strategy on the social dimension of higher education: Towards more inclusive access
and wider participation, p. 10.
GE The percentage of students of different categories from the total number of students enrolled in higher education institutions
(students representing ethnic minorities; people with disabilities; low socio-economic status, and other groups) should
increase to 17% by 2025, and 37% by 2030.
The percentage of graduates of different categories from the total number of graduates (students representing ethnic
minorities; people with disabilities; low socio-economic status, and other groups) should increase by 10% by 2025, and by
20% by 2030.
Source document: 2022-2030 Unified National Strategy of Education and Science of Georgia, Annex II
IE Proportion of students with disabilities among new entrants should be 16% of by 2028.
New mature entrants from socioeconomically disadvantaged areas should increase to 54% from existing 42%.
The number of entrants from the Traveller community should increase from 33 to 150 by end of 2028.
Source document: Irish National Access Plan: A Strategic Action Plan for Equity of Access, Participation and Success in
Higher Education 2022-2028
RO At least 40% of new and upgraded infrastructure is intended for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, by 2025.
Source document: National Recovery and Resilience Plan
UA The share of students with special educational needs should correspond to their share in society.
Source document: Ukrainian National Strategy for the creation of barrier-free space in Ukraine for the period up to 2030
UK-SCT By 2026, 18% (and by 2030, 20%) of full-time first-degree Scottish domiciled entrants to higher education institutions in
Scotland should come from the 20% most deprived communities as measured by the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation
(SIMD).
Source document: Scottish Framework for Fair Access
CH Within the domain of the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology (ETH), there shall be a proportion of at least 35% of women
of newly appointed professorships by 2024.
Within the domain of ETH, there shall be a proportion of at least 25% of women in leading positions by 2024.
Source document: 2030 Equality Strategy, point 1.1.2.4.
SE Half of all newly appointed professors shall be women by 2030.
There should be gender parity in the distribution of research grants.
Source document: Power, goals and authority – feminist politics for an equal future, Regeringens skrivelse 2016/17:10.

Source: BFUG data collection.

247
Table 4.3: Flexible study modes in higher education, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
Part-time
                      
studies
Blended
                      
learning
Distance
                       
learning
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Part-time
            :         na
studies
Blended
           :        
learning
Distance
            :         
learning

 Legally possible in all HEIs  Legally possible in some HEIs : Not available na Not applicable

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.4: Existing requirements for quality assurance agencies to address the recognition of prior non-formal and/or
informal learning in higher education in their external evaluation procedures, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT

Required          
Not required       
Not applicable (no RPL)        
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Required        :    
Not required    :    
Not applicable (no RPL)     : 

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.5: Top-level measures supporting adult learners (delayed transition students), 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
                  
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
       :  :    

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.6: Initial and continuous teacher education: requirements, recommendations and support, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
Requirements for ITE                  
Recommendations for ITE    
Support for CPD                       
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Requirements for ITE     :    na
Recommendations for ITE     :  na
Support for CPD            :      na
Source: BFUG data collection.

248
Table 4.7: Eurostudent participatory countries, rounds VII and/or 8, 2019–2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT

                
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

            

Source: Eurostudent.

Table 4.8: Requirements for quality assurance agencies to consider whether higher education students have access
to academic, career and/or psychological counselling services, 2022/2023
QA
BE BE
requirements AD AL AM AT AZ BA BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
fr nl
regarding…
academic
guidance                 
services
careers
guidance                 
services
psychological
counselling        
services
QA
UK- UK-
requirements KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA VA
EWN SCT
regarding…
academic
guidance       :   :   
services
careers
guidance        :   :  
services
psychological
counselling     :   : 
services
Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.9: Existence of public institutions with formal role in mediating conflicts particularly related to diversity,
equity and inclusion in higher education, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT

       
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

    :     

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.10: Top-level authorities that provide funding to HEIs on the basis of achieving, or making progress
towards, targets on widening access, increasing participation or completion rates 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT

     
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

  : :

Source: BFUG data collection.

249
Table 4.11: Top-level authorities that provide funding for indirect study costs, including accommodation, transport
and meals 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
                  
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

             :   :     

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.12: Top-level authorities that provide support for students studying part-time 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
Indirect funding
for part-time  na       
study costs
Grants for part-
    
time students
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Indirect funding
for part-time     :   :  
study costs
Grants for part-
     :   : 
time students
Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.13: Guidelines issued by public authorities to quality assurance agencies to address equity, diversity and
inclusion in evaluation processes, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT

               
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

    :  :    

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.14: Top-level authorities that provide support to HEIs to adapt their buildings and infrastructure to the needs
of underrepresented, disadvantaged and vulnerable students and staff, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
       
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

    :  : 

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.15: Measurable targets concerning the mobility participation of vulnerable, disadvantaged or
underrepresented groups of students, 2022/2023

Targets
AT Increasing participation in overseas study programmes by students whose parents have no university entrance qualifications
to at least 18% by 2025.
Source document: Austrian National strategy on the social dimension of higher education: Towards more inclusive access and
wider participation, p. 10.
BE fr Minimum 10% of the available Funds for the Assistance to Mobility should be devoted to awarding mobility grants for students
with fewer opportunities.
Source document: 12/01/2023 - Decree amending the Decree of 19 May 2004 establishing a student mobility fund within the
European Higher Education Area and other provisions on student mobility, Article 4.

250
 Targets
BE nl 33% of mobile students should come from underrepresented groups.
Source document: Brains on the move – mobility action plan 2013.
EL In 2022/2023, 20% of Erasmus+ students should be students with fewer opportunities.
MT In 2022/2023, the participation of disadvantaged learners in higher education mobility programmes should be at least 5%.
PT In 2022/2023, 2% of students in higher education mobility programmes should be students with fewer opportunities.
Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.16: Monitoring the participation of beneficiaries in all types of international mobility programmes, including
their background characteristics (gender, age and at least one other student characteristic), 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
         
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
    :    na

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.17: Top-level support provided to higher education institutions to foster blended learning mobility and/or
internationalisation at home, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
Blended
         
learning
Internat.
        
at home
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Blended
:    na
learning
Internat.
 :    na
at home
Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.18: International policy dialogue established on implementation of the Principles and Guidelines, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT

       
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA

   :   : 

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 4.19: Outcomes of policy dialogue on implementation of the Principles and Guidelines, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
Regulatory
 
changes
Guidelines to
    
HEIs
Input to strategy    
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Regulatory
  : : 
changes
Guidelines to
 : :  
HEIs
Input to strategy  : :  

Source: BFUG data collection.

251
Table 5.1: Top-level strategies with major references to the enhancement of learning and teaching in higher
education, 2022/2023

Name of the strategy, including weblink

Adoption year (timeframe)
National Strategy on Education 2021-2026
AL
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2026)
Law of the Republic of Armenia on the 'Education Development State Programme of Armenia until 2030'
AM
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)
Higher Education Plan
AT
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)
State strategy for the development of education in the Republic of Azerbaijan
AZ
Adoption year: 2015 (timeframe: 2015-2025)
Higher Education Development Strategy
BG
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2030)
Policy for the promotion of education, research and innovation 2021-2024 (in French, in German)
CH
Adoption year: 2020 (timeframe: 2021-2024)
Strategic plan of the ministry for higher education for the period from 2021
CZ
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2025)
Future Contract for Strengthening Studying and Teaching in Higher Education
DE
Adoption year: 2019 (timeframe: 2021+)
Education Development Plan 2021-2035
EE
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2035)
Teacher Education Development Programme 2022-2026
FI
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2026)
The Student Plan
FR
Adoption year: 2017 (timeframe: 2018+)
Unified National Strategy for Education and Science of Georgia for 2022-2030
GE
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)
National Plan for the Development of Education until 2027
HR
Adoption year: 2023 (timeframe: 2023-2027)
Shifting of Gears in Higher Education: Mid-term Policy Strategy 2016
HU
Adoption year: 2016 (timeframe: 2016-2030)
National Strategy for Higher Education to 2030
IE
Adoption year: 2011 (timeframe: 2011-2030)
National Recovery and Resilience Plan
IT
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2026)
Concept for the development of higher education and science in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2023-2029
KZ
Adoption year: 2023 (timeframe: 2023-2029)
Education Strategy 2025+
LI
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2025+)
National progress plan
LT
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)

252
 Name of the strategy, including weblink
Adoption year (timeframe)
Strategy 'Education 2023'
MD
Adoption year: 2023 (timeframe: 2023-2030)
Malta’s National Strategic Action Plan for Further and Higher Education 2022-2030
MT
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)
Long-term plan for research and higher education 2023–2032
NO
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2023-2032)
State Science Policy
PL
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: not defined, but performance evaluation every five years)
National Recovery and Resilience Plan
RO
Adoption year: 2021 (timeframe: 2021-2026)
Resolution on the National Programme of Higher Education to 2030
SI
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2030)
Council of Higher Education 2019-2023 Strategic Plan
TR
Adoption year: 2019 (timeframe: 2019-2023)
Decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine ‘On approval of the Strategy for Higher Education Development in Ukraine for
UA 2022-2032’
Adoption year: 2022 (timeframe: 2022-2032)

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 5.2: Top-level regulations requiring academic staff with a teaching role to receive training in teaching,
2022/2023

Content of the regulation

Source document, including weblink
Those teaching in Hautes Ecoles and higher education establishments for social advancement (établissements
d’enseignement supérieur de promotion sociale) are expected to obtain, within six years, a teaching aptitude certificate
(Certificat d’Aptitude Pédagogique Approprié à l’Enseignement Supérieur). This requirement does not apply to those
BE fr teaching at universities.
Source document: Decree defining the Certificate of Pedagogical Aptitude Appropriate for Higher Education (CAPAES) in
Hautes Ecoles and the conditions for its obtaining.
All those having teaching responsibilities in higher education are expected to complete postgraduate teacher training
(universitetspædagogikum). Its scope, format and content must be described in each university's plan for pedagogical
DK development. The completion of the teacher training is a pre-requisite for higher academic positions, including a position of
professor.
Source document: The Ministerial Order on Job Structure of Academic Staff in Universities, Annex 1.
Professors and assistant professors must undertake, in the first year of the contract, an initial teacher training course defined
ES by universities’ units responsible for training and innovation.
Source document: Organic Law 2/2023 of 22nd March on the University System, Article 78.
Lecturers are appointed as trainees for a period of one year by order of the minister in charge of higher education. During
this period, they are requested to follow training aimed at deepening their teaching skills.

FR Source documents: Decree n°84-431 of 6 June 1984 fixing the common statutory provisions applicable to teacher-
researchers and establishing the special status of the corps of university professors and the corps of lecturers, Article 32;
Order of 8 February 2018 setting the national framework for training aimed at deepening the teaching skills of trainee
lecturers.
Online courses can be delivered only by those who have completed professional development courses related to the
methodology of online learning of no less than 72 hours.
KZ
Source document: Requirements for the provision of distance learning and the rules for organising distance and online
learning in higher or postgraduate education.

253
 Content of the regulation
Source document, including weblink
Any higher education staff recruited is required to take the teacher training module that can be followed either during studies
MD or taken additionally as a microcredential, prior to being engaged in the process of teaching.
Source document: The Education Code.
Generally, a 200-hour course is required. The requirements increase according to the level of the position. Professors need
NO to document further educational qualifications than the minimum.
Source document: Regulations concerning appointment and promotion to teaching and research posts, Chapter 2.

Source: BFUG data collection.

Table 6.1: Large-scale support measures to Ukrainian students and academic staff, 2022/2023
BE BE
AD AL AM AT AZ BA fr nl BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE EL ES FI FR GE HR HU IE IS IT
Grants for
students from               
UA
Language
              
training
Preparatory
         
courses
Counselling
(academic or        
psychological)
UK- UK-
KZ LI LT LU LV MD ME MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR UA EWN SCT VA
Grants for
students from     :    :    
UA
Language
    :      :    
training
Preparatory
:     :    
courses
Counselling
(Academic or :   :  
psychological)

 Publicly funded  Funded by HEIs : Not available

Source: BFUG data collection.

254
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

BFUG Reporting Working Group Co-Chairs

Tone Flood Strøm
David Crosier

Authors
David Crosier, Olga Davydovskaia, Anna Horvath,
Daniela Kocanova, Snejina Nikolova, Milica Popovic, Melinda Szabo

Statistical information and analysis from

Anais Santourian, AGILIS

Layout and graphics

Patrice Brel

Editing

Gisèle De Lel

255
BFUG CONTACTS European Association for Ireland
Quality Assurance in Adam Bluett
Higher Education
Albania Italy
(ENQA)
Ermelina Durmishi
Anna Gover Vincenzo Zara
Linda Pustina

Andorra European Quality Kazakhstan

Assurance Register Aitzhan Kulumzhanova
Jordi Llombart (EQAR)
Mar Martinez Colin Tück / Magalie Soenen Latvia
Armenia European Daiga Ivsina
Dace.Jansone
Thatevik Gharibyan Students Union (ESU)
Horia Onita Liechtenstein
Austria
Stephan De Pasqualin European University Eva Meirer
Helga Posset Association (EUA) Belgin Amann
Michael Gaebel
Azerbaijan Maria Kelo Lithuania
Shahin Bayramov
Andrius Salitis
European Association of
Belgium/Flemish Community Institutions in Luxembourg
Liesbeth Hens
Higher Education
(EURASHE) Patricia Marx
Belgium/French Community John Edwards Malta
Jakob Grodecki
Caroline Hollela Rose Anne Cuschieri
EUROSTUDENT
Bosnia and Herzegovina Moldova
Kristina Hauschildt
Aida Duric Nadejda Velisco
Goran Jancic Finland
Montenegro
Maija Innola
Bulgaria Jonna Korhonen Milica Kavedzic
Ivana Radonova
France The Netherlands
Business Europe Matthieu Musquin Sophie Duijser
Irene Seling Georgia North Macedonia
Croatia Maia Shukhoshvili Borcho Aleksov

Loredana Maravic Germany Norway

Cyprus Peter Greisler Tone Flood Strøm

Kyriacos Charalambous Maria Hoechstaedter Poland

Czechia Marius.Michalski
Maria Boltruszko

Portugal
Karolína Gondková Greece
Ana Mateus
Yiannis Katsanevakis
Tereza Vengřinová Alexandra Karvouni Inês Viegas
Denmark Holy See Romania
Jonas Johannesen Melanie Rosenbaum Cristina Ghițulică

Estonia Hungary Slovakia

Janne Pukk Laura Sinóros-Szabó Jozef Jurkovič

Education International Iceland Slovenia

Andreas Keller Una Vidarsdottir Jernej Širok

European Commission
Svein Hullstein

256
Spain MEMBERS OF BFUG Norway
Margarita de Lezcano-Mújica WORKING GROUP on Tone Flood Strøm
(Co Chair)
Sweden MONITORING
Romania
Robin Moberg
Albania Camelia Mircea-Sturza

Switzerland Entela Haloci

United Kingdom
Aurélia Robert-Tissot Valentina Chervenkova
Azerbaijan
Turkey Education International
Samir Hamidov
Andreas Keller
Aydin Aslan
Austria EQAR
Aslı Günay Melinda Szabo
Helga Posset
Ukraine ESU
Cyprus Tanguy Guibert
Maryna Mruga Panikos Giorgoudes
EUA
United Kingdom – Czechia Henriette Stoeber
England, Wales and Radana Kahánková
Northern Ireland EUROSTUDENT
Kristina Hauschildt
Pamela Wilkinson
France
Christoph Gwosć
United Kingdom – Matthieu Musquin
Scotland EACEA/Eurydice
Germany
Susan Pryde David Crosier (Co Chair)
Maria Hoechstaedter

Italy BOLOGNA SECRETARIAT

Vincenzo Zara
Edlira Adi Kahani Subashi (Head)
Kazakhstan Blerina Caslli
Kristina Metallari
Rauza Mendaliyeva

Moldova
Nadejda Velisco

Netherlands
Robert Wagenaar

257
Getting in touch with the EU
IN PERSON
All over Europe there are hundreds of local EU information centres.You can find the address of the centre
nearest to you at: europa.eu/contact

ON THE PHONE OR BY EMAIL

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service:
• by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
• at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or
• by electronic mail via: europa.eu/contact

Finding information about the EU

ONLINE
Information in all the official languages of the European Union is available on the Europa website: europa.eu

EU PUBLICATIONS
You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: http://bookshop.europa.eu.

Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information
centre (see http://europa.eu/contact).

EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1951 in all the official language
versions, go to EUR-Lex at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu

OPEN DATA FROM THE EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data) provides access to datasets from the EU.

Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.
Print PDF
ISBN 978-92-9488-603-3 ISBN 978-92-9488-602-6
doi:10.2797/351309 doi:10.2797/483185
EC-02-24-018-EN-C EC-02-24-018-EN-N