Keywords

Social dimension; Bologna Process; entry routes to higher education

Introduction

Whilst the European Union does not have jurisdiction over education, it has tried to harmonize higher education policy across the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) by means of the Bologna Process. The Open Method of Coordination (OMC), characterized as a form of soft governance, has been used to encourage countries to coordinate efforts in extending and widening participation. The European agenda for modernizing higher education has a strong emphasis on jobs and growth, and stresses the role of research and innovation, research training, and mobility of staff and students (European Commission, 2011). The strategic framework for cooperation in education and training (ET, 2020) includes the “promotion of equity, social cohesion and active citizenship as one of its four strategic objectives” (Council of the European Union, 2013), a goal which is well aligned with the social dimension of the Bologna Process.

This chapter draws on data from Eurostat and the Eurostudent survey, as well as some data from an ESRC funded project (Higher Education in Scotland, the Devolution Settlement and the Referendum on Independence, ES/K00705X/1). The term “nontraditional students” is used to refer to those who have been targeted as requiring additional support measures to encourage their participation in higher education. Different European countries target different groups, for example in Flanders the focus is on those whose parents do not have a higher education qualification, whilst in Finland male students are targeted (Eurydice, 2014). In the United Kingdom, the main performance indicators relate to students from lower social class backgrounds, attending schools with low participation rates and living in areas of multiple deprivation. Other groups of students identified as requiring additional support include disabled students, those from minority ethnic backgrounds, and those who are looked after by the local authority (HESA, 2015). The traditional way of accessing university is on successful completion of general/academic upper secondary school in the required subject areas and with the required grades (though completion of upper secondary school is sufficient in some European countries). Students from nontraditional backgrounds often lack such qualifications and alternative routes into higher education have therefore been developed. This includes accreditation of prior learning or work experience and special access programmes. The exact format of these routes vary across European countries and we therefore use the generic term “nontraditional route” to describe access that is not through the traditional academic route. The following questions are addressed:

The chapter starts with an overview of the Bologna Process, including its social dimension, before discussing the Open Method of Coordination, which provides the means of achieving the goals of the Bologna Process. Widening access initiatives in three different countries (Germany, Sweden, and Scotland) are then explored to illustrate the way in which progress in particular countries varies over time, often in response to shifting political priorities.

The Bologna Process and the Emergence of Its Social Dimension

The Bologna Process emerged out of a desire in the late 1980s to reform national European higher education systems in order to promote the EU’s goal of facilitating the free movement of people, which was seen as an essential requirement of a common economic area. It was set up by four national education ministers and an invitation to join the reform process was extended to EU member and non-member states. In 1999 the Bologna declaration was signed by the ministers of 29 countries (Garben, 2012), with the aim of connecting higher education systems across Europe. An EHEA was set up in 2010, with 47 member states. The focus of the EHEA was to develop common degree structures and quality assurance protocols to facilitate student mobility and create a “Europe of Knowledge.” However, the European University Association emphasized that the autonomy of national systems would be preserved:

According to Holford (2014, p. 15), the Bologna Process not only sought to harmonize education systems within Europe, but also to create a global higher education system based on European ideals and economic interests. There was agreement by 2007 that the student body entering, participating in, and completing higher education at all levels should reflect the diversity of our populations (EACEA, 2012, p. 71). However, there has always been a degree of tension between the social and economic goals of the Bologna Process, with commentators such as Mitchell (2006) and Robertson (2009) arguing that social objectives acted as a smokescreen to conceal the underlying economic goals.

Tension between economic and social goals is reflected in confusion over the priority which should be attached to widening access initiatives, and the groups which should be prioritized for support. In addition to defining widening participation, Eurostat and Eurostudent were tasked with gathering data to identify relevant target groups in European countries and to produce data showing how different countries were performing in relation to widening access. A report prepared for the European University Association in 2010 noted that whilst overall graduation rates increased from 18% in 1995 to 36% in 2007 (Sursock & Smidt, 2010, p. 69) this had not necessarily led to greater social diversity amongst the student population. The report points to factors that impact on widening access, such as the selective nature of school and HE admission systems. A highly selective compulsory education system impacts negatively on access for socially disadvantaged students, including those from deprived backgrounds, as it gives them little opportunity to gain the relevant qualifications. Similarly, a centralized HE admissions system that focuses on grades or tests provides institutions with little opportunity to promote access for nontraditional students. However, Sursock and Smidt maintain that European demographic patterns are likely to promote widening access, since many European countries are experiencing a decrease in the young population and if targets to increase participation are to be met, it will be necessary for institutions to diversify their student intake.

A recent report from Eurydice on access, retention and employability (Eurydice, 2014) presents a somewhat pessimistic picture of progress on widening access across Europe. It notes that in most European countries there are few or no targets and limited data gathering in relation to student characteristics beyond gender and age. Data on the following student social characteristics are gathered in some, but by no means all, jurisdictions:

While some countries gather these data, they are not generally used to monitor the composition of the student body, measure progress on widening access, and inform national policy on effective interventions. When asked to comment on whether the student body had become more diverse over the past 10 years, only a small number of countries indicated that change had taken place, whilst some stated that the student body was broadly similar. Most countries stated that they did not have sufficient information to comment on the nature and extent of change in the social profile of the student population. Ireland recorded the greatest change, pointing to an increase in the proportion of disabled students (who make up a very small proportion of the population) and mature students. Sweden, Scotland, and Germany were among those stating that diversity had increased. In Scotland, an increase in students from deprived backgrounds was noted, whilst Sweden reported an increase in students of foreign origin. However, there was no mention of specific changes relating to diversity in the student population in Germany.

Data published by Eurostat confirms that, whilst all countries have made progress on increasing participation, this has varied greatly across jurisdictions and it will be some time before policy and practice are harmonized across European countries (see Figure 4.1).

The Open Method of Coordination in the European Union

The apparent slow and uneven progress on extending and widening participation may be attributed to the method of harmonizing social policy across Europe, which is known as the Open Method of Coordination (OMC). The OMC is a form of “soft law” developed by the European Union in order to harmonize education policies across Europe. It is described by Lange and Alexiadou as a “governance tool” (2007, p. 322) which aims to encourage countries to learn from each other through the use of good practice case studies. Policies developed under the terms of the OMC are not located within a legally binding framework, in contrast to the classic Community Method which rests on hard law and enforceable rules (Trubek & Trubek, 2005). The OMC uses indicators and benchmarks to encourage member states to adopt particular directions of travel. In relation to increasing participation and widening access, data produced by Eurostat and OECD are used to assess whether a particular goal has been achieved. The modus operandi of the OMC is illustrated in a policy document published by the Council of the European Union which invited EU member states to:

At an earlier stage, the Council of Europe included a definition in its Recommendation on Access to Higher Education stating that countries should adopt ”[a] policy that aims both at the widening of participation in higher education to all sections of society, and at ensuring that this participation is effective (that is, in conditions which ensure that personal effort will lead to successful completion)” (Council of Europe, 1998). However, few explicit EU policy goals have been produced in relation to widening and extending access. Higher education featured as a headline indicator in the EU’s Education and Training Strategy 2020, which set a target that, by the end of the current decade, at least 40% of 30–34 year olds should have completed third level education (http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu-targets/) but with no specific focus on underrepresented groups. In the following section, we provide more detailed analysis of the approach to widening access in three countries.

Widening Participation in Germany, Sweden, and Scotland

These three countries have been selected because they represent different social welfare models, different school systems, as well as differences in access to higher education through nontraditional routes. Drawing on Esping-Andersen’s (1990) typology of welfare regimes, in common with other continental countries, Germany is generally characterized as having a conservative-corporatist welfare tradition, with strong businesses and trades unions, but less generous support for those outside the labor market. Sweden represents a Nordic model based on social democratic principles, with high taxation and investment in universal services. Scotland, like the rest of the UK and Ireland, is regarded as having a liberal welfare regime, with a deregulated labor market and relatively weak trades unions. Nonetheless, aspects of a social rights regime survive, with education and health services free at the point of delivery. School systems differ across the three countries, with Sweden and Scotland having comprehensive education systems whilst German schools are academically selective. Sweden, and to a lesser extent Scotland, have offered greater opportunities to students from nontraditional backgrounds compared with Germany, according to two Eurostudent surveys (Figure 4.2). However, in Sweden the proportion of students entering higher education through nontraditional routes, described in greater detail in the following section, has diminished over time. By way of contrast, in England and Wales the proportion of nontraditional entrants has increased. As noted above, the majority of nontraditional entrants in England and Wales are from lower social class backgrounds, measured by a range of indicators including residence in an area of low HE participation. Scotland did not participate in the second survey, so is not included in Figure 4.2. In Germany, the proportion of nontraditional students was low in the period 2005–08, and appears to have decreased even further although this could be due to a slight change in the question used in the second survey.

In the following section, we provide an overview of the development of initiatives to increase participation rates of students from nontraditional backgrounds.

Conclusion

It is clear that over the past decade the EU has sought to promote the social dimension of the Bologna process using the Open Method of Coordination, which has encouraged countries to harmonize policies via the publication of benchmarks and indicators. This method of soft governance has been successful in some regards, for example, Eurostudent data indicate a broad trend towards widening participation. At the same time, the limitations of the OMC are also apparent. There has been no shared definition of which students should be regarded as nontraditional, and countries have identified very different groups (or failed to identify any at all). EU reports have sometimes expressed mystification over the absence and inconsistency of information on widening access, concluding that this must be attributable to historical and cultural aberrations:

Data from countries where there has been a commitment to widening access and relatively consistent monitoring of progress, such as Germany, Sweden, and Scotland, has not been universally encouraging. These countries have all developed alternative routes into higher education and, in Germany and Scotland, access for students from nontraditional backgrounds is currently high on the policy agenda. However, progress in all three countries has been halting. In Scotland, students from poorer backgrounds are more likely to gain places in colleges and lower status universities, whilst students from fee-paying schools are overrepresented in the most selective universities (Gallacher, 2014). In Germany, Wolter (2014) maintains that widening access routes are increasingly contested, with concerns about their impact on academic excellence and the value of the traditional university degree. In Sweden, where progress on widening access to higher education was made from the 1970s, recent policy has tended to reduce opportunities for students from less advantaged backgrounds. The 25:4 route into higher education, aimed at nontraditional students, has been removed and the Swedish Scholastic Aptitude Test is now used by many with traditional qualifications to improve their chances of entry to more prestigious courses. Reform of upper secondary vocational education in Sweden in 2011 has led to a refocusing of the curriculum with greater emphasis on “more specific, specialized labor market contexts” and less time spent on more general education (Nylund, 2012, p. 599). These changes, along with reduced entry opportunities for students from nontraditional backgrounds, will limit access to higher education from vocational upper secondary programmes. Linked to these changes are cut-backs in adult education which provided another important route into higher education for those from less advantaged backgrounds.

In the wake of the economic crash of 2007, slow progress on widening access may be linked to reductions in educational spending which have a disproportionately adverse effect on students from poorer backgrounds. In addition, middle class anxiety over uncertain future economic prospects in countries such as Sweden may have contributed to the de-prioritization of the widening access agenda. Given the modest success of the OMC, there may be grounds for the EU to take stronger action to encourage the adoption of widening access programmes. However, agitation from countries like the UK to limit the salience of the European social agenda may make this difficult to achieve.