Student representation in Sweden is enshrined in law and carried out by student unions and the Swedish National Union of Students (SFS). Since the abolition of mandatory student union membership in 2010, this work has relied on state subsidies. The proposed funding cut risks undermining the entire system of student influence, weakening both democratic participation and educational quality.

Despite inflation and rising demands, including increased engagement in international collaborations such as the European Universities Initiative, no additional resources have been allocated. On the contrary, the planned cut would lower the grant to its lowest level since the reform in 2010.

In a joint letter to the Swedish government, SFS and the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions (SUHF) have stressed the urgent need to maintain and strengthen support for student influence.

The European Students’ Union (ESU) previously expressed its support for SFS in Resolution BM85 (December 2023) and now reaffirms its position.

ESU therefore urges the Swedish government to stop defunding the student movement and ensure sustainable support for student influence in Sweden.

The post Resolution against the continued threat to funding for student influence in Sweden appeared first on European Students' Union.

1. Definitions

Source: https://www.unhcr.org/glossary

2. Introduction

Worldwide, more than 110 million persons are currently forcibly displaced. Regarding the educational rights of these persons, the UN refugee-like situations, surpassing any previous recorded figures in history. Regarding the educational rights of these persons, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) set the “15 by 30 target” regarding tertiary education, with the aim being to achieve an enrolment rate of 15% of refugee youth in higher education by the year 2030, which would amount to approximately half a million refugee students. Currently, the global enrollment of refugee students is at 7% reported in October 2023. According to the UNHCR’s 2023 Mid-Year trends, refugees aged 18 to 24, represent 13 percent of refugees globally, which is 4 million refugees, of which a little over 262,000 (7%) are enrolled in higher education (UNHCR 15by30). In comparison, this number is significantly lower than the enrollment rates of non-refugee students in European countries (UNHCR Education Report 2023).

2. Refugee students’ educational rights and protection mechanisms

The educational rights of forcibly displaced persons are protected through a multitude of frameworks. These encompass conventions, declarations and treaties on international level (UN, UNESCO), on European level (Council of Europe, European Union), as well as decisions of the International and European Courts of Justice, laying out rights of forcibly displaced persons, as well as legal obligations of countries.

Typically, refugee and forcibly displaced persons’ rights in education (see Table I: ’Selection of relevant international frameworks regarding educational rights of refugees and forcibly displaced persons’) are generally linked to and derived from fundamental/human rights, educational rights as well as rights to employment, with the latter implying educational rights as to the right of forcibly displaced persons to be granted educational opportunities to access employment. Furthermore, the recent trend in Europe to connect a skills-based approach to education to skills of forcibly displaced persons (EU CEDEFOP project) is elevating initiatives regarding forcibly displaced students’ educational rights. 

Nonetheless, higher education is not considered “mandatory,” which unfortunately affects the rights of forcibly displaced persons to higher education as it is less enforceable, especially in regards to accompanying support services. In addition, most of the regulations and mechanisms on global and European levels are either not binding; or binding, but with the choice of form and methods for implementation left up to signatories/member states (state discretion), resulting in inconsistencies in the implementation and thus difference in the extent of protections of educational rights of forcibly displaced persons. Lastly, the right to seek asylum does not equal the right to be granted asylum, affecting the rights of  displaced persons to higher education as it is consequently less enforceable, especially in regards to accompanying support services. In addition, most of the regulations and mechanisms on global and European levels are either not binding; or binding, but with the choice of form and methods for implementation left up to signatories/member states (state discretion), resulting in inconsistencies in the implementation and thus difference in the extent of protections of educational rights of  displaced persons. Lastly, the right to seek asylum does not equal being a refugee, or receiving refugee status. Therefore, displaced persons that are undocumented and/or do not (yet) have an asylum status as the decision ultimately lies in the hands of the competent national authority after reviewing criterias set in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Therefore, educational rights are scarce for those that are not granted refugee status as such. 

It must be ensured that the fundamental rights to education are guaranteed for forcibly displaced persons. Especially in a context where xenophobic, racist and discriminatory ideas, movements and political agendas increasingly influence policy making and culture.

3.1. Students at risk and students in refugee-like situations

As previously noted, various categories of forcibly displaced persons exist, with only refugees being officially acknowledged as having full protection of their educational rights. Furthermore, within the higher education sphere, it is crucial to recognize the significant distinction regarding at-risk students. At-risk students are individuals who are in danger of political persecution and/or denied to complete their education pathway due to their activism. They usually differ from refugees, as they often hold the legal right to travel (passport holders). While refugees seek to resettle and acces education, the main objective for students who qualify as students at risk is to complete their educational pathway. Usually, but not always, the aim is to return to their country of origin, thus not seeking asylum as such. Regardless, they share many of the same struggles as refugees and other forcibly displaced persons when it comes to accessing higher education and necessary support infrastructure. Similarly, other forcibly displaced persons might have the same struggles as at-risk students.

4. Learning Pathways and Recognition of Qualifications and Skills

In the pursuit of fostering inclusive higher education environments, ESU advocates for robust policies concerning Learning Pathways and Recognition of Qualifications. These policies are essential both for ensuring equitable access to HE and recognizing the diverse skills and experiences individuals bring to academic settings. Prioritising accessibility and individualised adaptation is a prerequisite for all students, regardless of background and needs. Ensuring legal certainty in admissions and recognition of qualifications is crucial to guaranteeing equal study conditions.

Forcibly displaced students encounter multifaceted difficulties in accessing higher education, with documentation hurdles being one of the most significant barriers. Many Forcibly displaced persons lack proper documentation due to displacement, which often prevents them from meeting the standard admission requirements. Additionally, the documentation required for the recognition of qualifications acquired in their home countries presents a significant barrier, thus hindering their access to higher education opportunities. This is because forcibly displaced persons often lack the means to obtain or verify such documentation in their host countries.

The Lisbon Recognition Convention (LRC) contains standards for recognition procedures. However, lacking or non-implementation as well as institutional-level anchoring of procedures (rather than system-level based approaches) across countries further complicate these issues, creating uncertainty for forcibly displaced students regarding their eligibility for higher education. Countries further complicate these issues, creating increased uncertainty for forcibly displaced persons regarding the eligibility for higher education.

Partial qualifications that are only units of learning outcomes, as well as informal and non-formal learning, are even harder to prove. This even though recognition of partial qualifications and skills acquired through informal or non-formal learning are important elements to promote inclusivity and diversity within the higher education system. 

Lastly, other barriers exist such as sometimes overly complicated administrative processes, costs for recognition processes or the lack of centralised and easily accessible information on recognition practices in different countries.

5. Integration, support services and difficulties

Migrants, including refugees, are among the groups most at-risk of poverty and social inclusion in Europe, encompassing severe material deprivation and economic strain, housing issues, health conditions and work intensity, falling usually through the gaps of welfare states and social support systems (Eurostat 2022). This is also applicable to other groups of forcibly displaced persons.

5.1. Asylum-seeking, freedom of movement and safety on campus

Forcibly displaced students are faced with different obstacles, including their limited freedom of movement as they are usually not allowed to leave the country and sometimes even are bound locally. This in combination with long durations of asylum procedures prevents students from going on mobility. 

While education and educational spaces should be safe spaces, there are instances where law enforcement units are accessing campus facilities and other higher education related spaces (e.g. workplaces, dormitories, etc.) for deportation purposes. This is not only infringing forcibly displaced students’ rights, but also infringes campus integrity, making campuses unsafe spaces and thus keeping persons without an officially recognised refugee title from obtaining an education.

5.2. Visa barriers

Visa-related issues (especially in case of at-risk students that do not seek asylum) are critical struggles faced by fleeing students. Visa policies and processes are often tedious, unclear, and time-consuming. They impose a lot of effort on students who are already struggling. Furthermore, in many countries, applying for a visa (as well as residency and work permits), imposes costs both regarding required documents as well as proof of financial stability. This includes the need to have the ability to have permanent access to assets, often encompassing thousands of euros. Also often higher education institutions and public authorities lack the needed understanding for why obtaining certain documents is not possible, including travelling abroad or entering consulates/embassies of the country of citizenship to renew documents. At-risk students and other forcibly displaced persons who are unable to renew their documents due to dangers associated with it, are sometimes issued alternative documents by their host country. Though these documents usually are only sufficient for travelling purposes, they tend not to be accepted for enrolment in higher education.

Additionally, visa barriers can impact forcibly displaced students’ ability to partake in mobility programmes such as Erasmus+. Despite the REST directive of the EU, Ireland and Denmark have opted-out of granting refugees and asylum-seekers from other EU countries to enter their higher education systems within the Erasmus+ scheme. For forcibly displaced students residing in non-EU-countries barriers can even be higher.

5.3. Preparatory programmes for HE studies 

Preparatory programmes for HE studies and  accelerated education programmes are scarce within Europe, with mentoring, scholarship programmes or language preparatory courses often not covering the full course of study or lack of funding in terms of external influences to higher education, such as living and accommodation. Moreover, lack of research into peer support programmes, such as workshops, community integration activities, incentives to participate in sport related activities, and extracurricular programmes to build social capital (Mahon, 2022), increase this issue.

5.4. Academic Barriers 

Education disruption due to conflict, displacement, and resettlement leads to gaps in learning pathways, non-completion of and inability to access study programmes, and limited access to educational resources. Lack of accessibility to textbooks, technology, and internet connectivity can hinder the ability to engage with course materials, conduct research, and complete assignments. This is exacerbated by the lack of familiarity with academic expectations and conventions of the host country’s education system, curricula, and standards, making it challenging for forcibly displaced students to transition to and succeed in the new academic environment.

Academic support plays a significant role in the trajectory of forcibly displaced students, particularly in coping with academic demands and developing adequate knowledge and skills. Limited academic literacy and language skills increase the likelihood of not understanding instructors’ expectations or explanations. Additionally, specialised and timely comprehensive counselling services lack the knowledge to provide forcibly displaced students with guidance on legal barriers and professional development opportunities.

5.5. Language Barriers

In the EU, less than half of refugees have adequate knowledge of the host country. Limited opportunities to practise English or the host country’s language(s) in a judgement-free environment can increase feelings of inadequacy and isolation. This leads to encountering judgement that can discourage students from speaking and practising the language. Language is a key indicator for integration, with less than half of refugees having advanced language proficiency (EC & OECD, 2016). This is also applicable to other forcibly displaced persons. Moreover, at this current point, knowledge of the host country’s language(s) is a foundational step from which all other success flows, such as academic achievement, social integration, and positive employment and health outcomes. It is therefore crucial that the opportunity to acquire these skills is provided in a free and freely accessible way. Language barriers can affect forcibly displaced students in various aspects of daily life, including running day-to-day errands, gathering and submitting important documents to government offices, accessing the labour market, accessing crucial social services, and housing. Furthermore, the frequent lack of proficient language skills amongst forcibly displaced persons, both practically and in terms of official certifications, of required languages (usually the host countries’ native language(s) and/or English), leaves them unable to enrol in higher education.

Mandatory standardised tests, such as IELTS, TOEFL, or similar assessments, often require forcibly displaced persons to demonstrate their English language skills or the native language(s) of the host country. Inadequate access to information and associated high cost, as well as a lack of prior language learning background place a burden in accessing higher education on forcibly displaced students. This struggle is further exacerbated for forcibly displaced persons residing in countries where the predominant language differs from their native language or linguistic background. It is furthermore a worry that several countries in Europe have announced their plan to limit or reduce the existing number of English language programmes, including bachelor’s and master’s degrees. This can reduce access to educational opportunities, especially if they are not proficient in the local language.

With regard to multilingualism, certain languages are often promoted more than others, with education institutions not embracing the full range of linguistic diversity and thus posing a disadvantage towards speakers of certain languages against others, hindering the potential to enhance their learning experience.

As refugee students’ language proficiency increases, their likelihood of finding employment increases (EC & OECD, 2016), which is also true for other forcibly displaced persons. Language plays a key role in housing, as reports in Europe have shown that landlords are often hesitant to rent housing to non-native speakers of the country or individuals with international protections, sometimes resulting in even higher rent prices being demanded.

5.6. Lack of financial support 

Approximately 70 percent of refugees face restricted access to the labour market, which can result in difficulties for students with refugee backgrounds to access financial support like study grants in some countries. In many countries, refugees have to fulfil specific criteria before getting any support, like having the official refugee status or living for a certain amount of years in the country (UNHCR 15by30). This struggle is also true for other forcibly displaced students. 

Furthermore, grants rarely cover all direct and indirect costs related to one’s studies, including for cultural and integration purposes. Forcibly displaced students therefore usually rely on student jobs. In addition, forcibly displaced students like any other student should not be required to work in order to complete their studies. Policies that limit the number of hours that forcibly replaced students are allowed to work create barriers regarding their ability to gain work experience and earn additional income if they wish to do so. Additionally, the lack of suitable documentation or not having a permanent address (yet) can make it difficult to open a bank account, impacting the ability to pay, e.g., their rent or tuition related fees. 

Tuition fees are a barrier for forcibly displaced students in many European countries, with an increasing number of them introducing higher fees for third-country nationals. Even though they are sometimes waived through quotas and/or students with an official refugee status, fees are a barrier, especially for forcibly displaced students and especially at-risk students that usually do not undergo asylum-seeking processes as their aim is to return to their home countries upon graduation.

There is an ongoing housing crisis in Europe, with growing housing needs clashing with insufficient building rates in many cities and housing becoming unaffordable. Finding adequate housing is a problem that is exacerbated for forcibly displaced students. They tend to be exploited, accept unfit housing or fall victim to slum landlords due to often not being able to prove sufficient income and/or organise guarantors. Problems also include the ability to pay high rents, to provide all required documents as well as the ability to engage in contractual renting agreements. Forcibly displaced students tend to be exploited, accepting unfit housing or being victims of slum landlords. These living conditions impact forcibly displaced students’ physical and mental health.

Finally, remote asylum facilities can often have limited access to public transport, certain house rules, are ill-equipped, ill-maintained and the poor quality of these centres has resulted in injury, sickness and loss of lives of forcibly displaced persons. These reduce the free mobility of forcibly displaced students and accessibility to campuses and non-curricular activities as well as quality of life.

5.7. Social inclusion and integration 

Also, social and educational exclusion is increased by, among others: education disruption and communication barriers, social isolation, discrimination based on language and perceived differences and in housing, lacking health and psychological support, inadequate education and training of medical staff for forcibly displaced persons’ needs, and an escalation in assaults and hate speech. This leads to lower performance in higher education and a higher risk of health concerns.

Education plays a crucial role in providing forcibly displaced students with a sense of purpose, knowledge, and economic self-sufficiency. It involves having the same opportunities and rights as citizens, access to living and healthcare services, participation in the labour market and in education, and the ability to join a community and build ties and friendships. Forcibly displaced students often face struggles regarding social inclusion and integration within the higher education community. These barriers include the absence of integration transition measures and programs in HEIs, insufficient institutional support and recognition of previous qualifications for entering education, limited legal and rights protection knowledge, housing affordability, inadequate higher education institutional support for employment, lack of educators’ knowledge about the situation of forcibly displaced students and how to support them in their educational pathway, financial hardships and job scarcity. 

5.8. Psychosocial and general health 

Restrictive policies, economic hardship, and discrimination lead to poor health and health inequality, which is impacted by their surrounding and shared conditions and lifestyle. The reconfiguration of family life and increased discrimination lead to higher change of mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorders, sleep disturbance, depression. In comparison to their peers, refugee students report a higher prevalence of these conditions (OECD), while encountering limited access to knowledge about mental health treatment. Additionally, there is a lack of training resources for therapists and psychologists’ knowledge tailored for forcibly displaced students’ concerns, such as facing higher degrees of communication barriers, integration within the academic community, cultural barriers, discrimination, and social exclusion. These struggles are also true for other forcibly displaced students.

Moreover, legal, linguistic, administrative, and language barriers significantly impede access to healthcare for refugees in Europe, causing lack of quality healthcare, impacting their education, increasing their susceptibility to illnesses and mental health concerns (UNHCR), resulting in forcibly displaced students accessing hospitals and emergency care more frequently, leading to financial strain and long waiting times. Limited language knowledge, particularly in regards to medical terminology, lead to incorrect diagnoses, confusion, and incorrect treatment (Nowak et al., 2022). 

5.9. Other legal and institutional barriers 

Legal barriers and policies often restrict access to labour markets and lead to lower motivation for participation in higher education (UNESCO, 2022). Furthermore, research indicates that higher education, especially bachelor programs, often feature stricter requirements than other education pathways such as short cycle programmes. However, higher education increases future earnings (income premium) and skill and knowledge development, with refugee students building networks and connections as well as increasing social and economic mobility (UNESCO, 2022). This is also true for other forcibly displaced students.

Unclear higher education policies that make rules and procedures difficult for forcibly displaced students to access higher education, the absence of resources aiding in integrating culturally and academically, and inadequate knowledge of higher education institutional staff that have the specific training or understanding of difficulties and support needed for forcibly displaced students add to the poor coordination of policies for forcibly displaced students in Higher Education.

Higher education institutions often overemphasise employability and career training for forcibly displaced students, neglecting a well-rounded education. At the same time, the inability of higher education institutions to comprehend specific needs of and legal frameworks pertaining to forcibly displaced students, can lead to clashes between national law and requirements for work-place learning and student jobs, for example in regards to the weekly hours required for the job.

These struggles are exacerbated by administrative and legal hurdles, which largely impede access to accommodation for forcibly displaced students. Discrimination in the housing market drives forcibly displaced students to live in segregated areas with low-quality housing, contributing to broader social integration issues. European Union law, specifically the Race Equality Directive, ensures equality of treatment. However, legal and administrative barriers, such as requiring a valid identification document, prior documentation of a permanent address or living agreement, or the presence of a notary or interpreter, are cost intensive and make accessing private accommodation (rather than reception centres) unattainable for refugee students (ECRE 2020). These struggles also apply to other forcibly displaced students.

6. Recommendations

Higher education global enrolment among refugees is the highest in Europe, where it serves an instrumental role in social, economic, technological and cultural advancement. It acts as a pathway for individuals to make meaningful contributions to society, whether as leaders, researchers, or community advocates. The exchange of knowledge among diverse individuals promotes inclusivity. Moreover, enrollment and completion of higher education programs leads to enhanced personal development, stability, skill development, labour force opportunities, social integration, and reduced risk of financial burdens. This ultimately ensures equal access to education. Nevertheless, there is room for improvement, and the implementation of various treaties and mechanisms differs largely between countries, higher education systems and institutions.

6.1. Policy regarding forcibly displaced persons

• All higher education systems and institutions should implement mandatory training for educators and administrators on forcibly displaced students. Inclusivity should be prioritised in higher education administrative processes.
• for forcibly displaced students needs within their institutions
  Implement required training for educators and administrators on forcibly displaced students.

• Accommodate student jobs and programmes to fulfil national and international legal requirements, while ensuring accessibility and inclusivity for forcibly displaced students.
• Higher education institutions’ policies should actively involve local and national student unions in order to address and mitigate barriers faced by forcibly displaced students within their respective countries or higher education institutions.
• HEI policy regarding forcibly displaced students should include the incorporation of forcibly displaced students’ perspectives in integration initiatives and policy development processes, ensuring their voices are heard and their unique difficulties are effectively addressed.
• Decision-makers and stakeholders should work forward to better understand the phenomena and implications of climate-caused migration and ways of tackling it.
• HEIs and public authorities must commit to collect and provide accurate data and documentation about forcibly displaced students with a particular focus on legal barriers to HE access, financial burdens and forcibly displaced students’ academic progression. 

6.2. Recognition of qualifications and skills

• Stakeholders should contribute to the development of an enabling policy environment that supports the access into higher education for all individuals, regardless of their background or circumstances.
• Implementation of the Global Recognition Convention and the Lisbon Recognition Convention for non-EHEA country forcibly displaced persons in line with the 2020 Rome Communiqué of the EHEA, implementation of the 2017 Recommendations of the LRC Bureau on the recognition of qualifications for refugees, the 2012 Council Recommendation on VNFIL and tools such as the European Qualifications Passport for Refugees.
• Up-to-date, centrally stored, transparent and easily accessible  information to the applicants on the recognition process.
• Encouragement of the different administrations, such as HEIs, local authorities and embassies to cooperate together and directly share their information when necessary and if legally possible.
• Development of clear and fair assessment frameworks and validation procedures, especially with view to alternative recognition procedures in case of lacking documentation, in order to effectively evaluate and acknowledge the diverse learning backgrounds and experiences of forcibly displaced students
• Following a system-level approach to recognition procedures of qualifications for forcibly displaced students (instead of placing processes on institutional-level via higher education institutions)
  Provision of adequate support and resources for transition programs and pathways
• Providing pathways for forcibly displaced students to access higher education and technical and vocational education and training (TVET) through replication of and participation in Initiatives such as the DAFI Tertiary Scholarship Programme (UNHCR)
• Partaking in and supporting pragmatic initiatives, such as community sponsorship and complementary pathways, as highlighted in the Commission Recommendation on legal pathways to protection in the EU
• Flexibilisation of access to higher education, encompassing admission procedures and tailored support services to facilitate the enrollment and retention of forcibly displaced students, including alternative assessment methods, such as portfolio reviews, interviews or proficiency tests, without compromising on quality and legal certainty.
• Addressing forcibly displaced students’ financial constraints regarding costs associated with recognition of qualifications and accessing of higher education

6.3. Application process

• Ensuring non-discriminatory and transparent application processes offering consistent, inclusive, and equitable access and support
• Establish integration programs to support accepted students who may lack the required language proficiency, credit recognition, or fulfilment of foreign education prerequisites or  incomplete transcripts. 
• Implement and anticipate conditions impacting forcibly displaced students’ in qualification recognition systems
• Replace missing academic records and identity verification with alternative assessment methods (i.e. providing entrance exams and language proficiency support such as translations or extended time limits).
• Developing recruitment initiatives by higher education institutions, in person or in forcibly displaced persons’ hosting places that incompasses mentoring, information sharing, application processes, and scholarship opportunities.

6.4. Asylum-seeking, freedom of movement and safety on campus

• Implementing ways for all forcibly displaced students to partake in study related mobility.
• Prohibition of deportations from campus and higher education-related facilities (e.g. workplaces, dormitories, etc.) without legal enactment by the hosting country

6.5. Visa 

• Establishment of specific student visa for at-risk students and students in refugee-like situations and offering of adequate counselling
• Establishment of alternative identification documents for at-risk students and students in refugee-like situations that enable them to enrol and continue their studies
• Authorise all asylum seekers, forcibly displaced and at-risk students to go abroad for mobility. 

6.6. Preparatory programmes of higher education studies

• Establishment of preparatory programmes to facilitate enrolment of forcibly displaced persons, encompassing support in obtaining qualifications to access higher education
• Preparatory programmes should be flexible, accessible at different points in time during the year and cover all associated costs such as for accommodation and costs of living
• Preparatory programmes should also facilitate cultural integration

6.7. Academia barriers

• Tailor teaching, learning, and assessment methods to meet the needs of forcibly displaced students
• Online courses (connected higher education) can be used as a temporary solution for forcibly displaced students while trying to obtain all necessary documentation in order to attend academic lessons. They serve as a first contact with the institution and other peers to avoid social exclusion. It is however necessary to make sure that this kind of solution is limited to the shortest period of time possible: lessons in presence must be an absolute priority, as they in fact contribute to avoid phenomenons of social exclusion on many levels. This does not apply to situations that explicitly called for prolonged duration of online classes.
• Awareness raising for the situation of forcibly displaced students and regular training for academic staff as well as education on forcibly displaced students in curricula to sensitise the academic community for the needs of forcibly displaced students.

6.8. Transition, Social inclusion, and Integration programmes

• Implement integration transition measures when students enter Higher Education. 
• Academic counselling in HEIs should be adequately informed on legal barriers and qualifications for forcibly displaced students to employment.
• Establish integration initiatives, ensuring students have access to higher education institutions’ provided services, support, and opportunities for integration, (such as career and internship placements and extracurricular activities.) 
• Develop safe spaces for forcibly displaced students, where HEIs should encourage forcibly displaced students to participate in extracurricular activities and develop workshops to integrate them with other students.
• Higher education institutions should develop bridging and training programs with NGOs supporting forcibly displaced persons and students to facilitate the integration of forcibly displaced students into academic life.
• Higher education institutions should strengthen partnerships with employers and provide transition measures to increase the change of employment for forcibly displaced students. 
• Strategic partnerships should prioritise active participation, educational initiatives aimed at addressing barriers faced by forcibly displaced students, and be available in multiple languages to accommodate diverse linguistic backgrounds among students.
• Inclusivity and accessibility should be prioritised in the design and delivery of these programs, ensuring that all students, including forcibly displaced students, can fully participate and benefit.

6.9. Language barriers

• Free language courses of the primary language of both the host country and the study programme should be offered by municipalities and higher education institutions and other institutions offering education, including but not limited to colleges, adult high school institutes and folk high schools.
• Language requirements in the application process should be voided or the opportunity to complete a language course should be implemented upon the start of a study programme. 
• Higher education institutions should increase investments in language instruction, for instance by developing partnerships with organisations that provide language testing that do not require fees to obtain certificates or qualifications of proficiency.
• Alternatively, higher education institutions should use innovative measures of assessing language requirements through in person interviews or personalised assessments.  
• Language instruction should be holistic, encompassing a local and global context taking into account the differences of comprehension and cultural backgrounds of forcibly displaced students.
• The potential of the diverse range of languages spoken by forcibly displaced students should be promoted and used to enhance their learning experience, e.g. in regards to language requirements and the promotion of multilingualism during studies
• If Higher Education Institutions require language skill certifications, Higher Education Institutions should offer language level courses and tests free of charge for forcibly displaced students.
• It is also fundamental that Higher education institutions invest in offering languages of international circulation for all academic staff and personnel, in order to pursue the elimination of any language barrier with forcibly displaced students: language accessibility must not only depend on the directly involved students, but should also be a responsibility of the institution itself.

6.10. Lack of financial support

• Forcibly displaced students should not have to pay tuition fees themselves. 
• Removal of specific residency status or other criteria to be eligible for financial assistance, such as study grants/loans.
• Removal barriers for students to open a bank account. 
• Ensuring forcibly displaced students have affordable and quality housing and supporting them through the housing process. Particularly with consideration to where there are barriers in an understanding of the housing market, language, financial and digital/technological access.
• Offering financial support through scholarship programs, including students at risk.

6.11. Psychosocial and general health 

• Academic support services, such as psychological and academic counselling should be provided on an ongoing basis that can adequately address and respond to problems/issues of forcibly displaced students.
• Higher education institutions should establish a welcoming atmosphere, providing orientation, and offering support from the beginning of the forcibly displaced persons’ integration process, while also addressing cultural perspectives on mental health. 
• Higher education institutions should be equipped to provide trauma-sensitive responses and support. 
• Academic and psychological counselling should adequately inform forcibly displaced students about opportunities, scholarships, and programs, both within the institution and beyond, while also assisting them with the recognition process for their documentation. 
• HEIs should include information regarding forcibly displaced students’ health, with information regarding common patient-doctor interaction, access to interpreters and resources on free access, and cultural norms and documentation needed for medical circumstances.  

6.12. Other legal and institutional barriers 

• Create clear pathways and procedures for forcibly displaced students to access Higher Education
• Train administrative staff to understand the academic and non-academic struggles of and offer proper support to forcibly displaced students.

Table I

Selection of relevant international frameworks regarding educational rights of refugees and forcibly displaced persons

The post Statement on Forcibly Displaced and Refugee Students (BM86) appeared first on European Students' Union.

15 years have passed since the concept of Student-Centred Learning (abbreviated as “SCL”) has been formally introduced as a commitment within the Bologna Process/European Higher Education Area (“EHEA”) through the London Communique (2007). Since then, the Bologna Process has been the main policy forum to promote the concept of SCL in Europe, even though the concept has been promoted as a paradigm of learning systems derived from the constructivist theory long before the creation of the Bologna Process in 1999.

Since 2007, the concept of SCL has evolved horizontally (in terms of the fields of relevant action under the Higher Education (“HE”) policy considered part of the SCL paradigm shift), vertically (with a more in-depth view of what SCL entails and the institutional processes that need to be adapted to ensure the transformative change to SCL) and in terms of scope. Initially, the European Commission and the governments had a stronger focus on the economic advantage of the SCL approach in terms of employability (which helped bring the decision-makers to the table as agents of change). Currently, the holistic view, promoted especially by stakeholders who see the SCL’s rationale as necessary for attaining HE’s mission to develop the student as an active citizen, has gained the upper hand.

Even though there is no formal definition of SCL, and there are still debates about what SCL entails, a definition coined by ESU in 2015 (also used by the Bologna Process Implementation reports) serves as a de facto definition of SCL: “both a mindset and a culture […] characterised by innovative methods of teaching which aim to promote learning in communication with teachers and other learners and which take students seriously as active participants in their own learning, fostering transferable skills such as problem-solving, critical thinking and reflective thinking.” This statement aims to analyse with a critical eye, from a policy and student perspective, the current state of play regarding the promotion and implementation of SCL in Europe in order to assess the ways forward through which ESU can further promote SCL in becoming a reality in all classrooms and Higher education institutions (“HEIs”).

SCL has been a key topic for ESU and the National Unions of Students (“NUSes”) in the last 15 years. As representatives of students, we are inherently inclined to be the ones pushing the agenda the most on adopting an SCL mindset both at the institutional level and system level. ESU has embraced this priority through different means: lobbying for SCL to be mentioned and expanded in ministerial conferences’ communiques, developing projects aimed to further the understanding of SCL and provide tools for its implementation at European, national, and local level, and through monitoring the implementation of SCL by including it in the Bologna with Student Eyes publications. Apart from SCL being a key issue for students and their needs and interests (since, by definition, SCL means adapting the learning environment to their needs) and the fact that changing the learning system from the traditional mnemonic/teacher-centred approach to the competence-based/student-centred approach would be a palpable change stemmed from the European level, SCL also means, for ESU, the necessity of a whole-change approach, that includes other important areas for ESU regarding problems that students face (for example, student participation and social dimension are key enablers of SCL). In this context, SCL is seen as a tool that can transform the inner structures and processes of HE as a whole.

However, even though it is seen as a cross-cutting theme, highly mentioned in EHEA documents, the real impact of SCL in student life is often limited, as several countries are far from implementing the SCL approach. In this sense, the risk is high of putting any reform in the basket of “implementing SCL”, even though it is more lip service than a systemic change. Without a proper usage of what SCL entails, anything can be served as part of an SCL approach, resulting in a lack of beneficial changes for students and the quality of their education. Apart from willingness, SCL requires funding, strategy, organisational reforms and responsible structures.

ESU is committed to pushing for a real implementation of SCL through adequate tools and to regaining momentum in terms of SCL not being taken for granted or seen as a ‘buzzword’ in policy documents, without any follow-up, but as commitments at the European level being translated into action plans and policy interventions that bring actual change in student experiences.
That is why, after having a historical overview of the development of SCL in EHEA, we will assess the status quo of SCL both because of the wide gap between commitments and implementation and because of the new, emerging trends at the European level: micro-credentials, transnational cooperation, European alliances, digitalisation. For SCL to strive, ESU demands that developments in international HE, be it at EHEA, European Union or global level, to be always seen through the lens of SCL.

II. Current state of play on what SCL entails

Based on the developments mentioned above, it would be understandable for one to believe that the SCL concept did not evolve in recent years. However, even though the core principles and understandings of SCL remained the same due to a lack of revision, it is difficult to argue that the forces shaping HE recently did not have any impact on the policy and practice of SCL.

Firstly, as European HE becomes even more interconnected and cross-border, relying on the capacity to implement SCL at the institutional level proves to be less realistic (despite the lack of national policy guidelines and support). This doesn’t imply that the crucial role of grassroots institutional level agency for implementing SCL lost its relevance, but that the need to jointly develop at national and European levels the processes conducive to making SCL a reality has increased. Only by this, we can ensure that the benefits for students, staff and institutions of the paradigm shift to SCL are attained, and all actors are supporting SCL.

Secondly, the half-implementation or just on-paper implementation of SCL in recent years has influenced the mentality of all stakeholders involved. We cannot expect the support for SCL to be shown exclusively by the theoretical framework, which highlights the positive effects of SCL in the learning system. The discourse of promoting SCL loses momentum when the reforms that pretend to implement SCL have little added value in practice for students. This also happens when systems that declare themselves student-centred are actually failing to achieve the organic features that would lead to SCL. Therefore, ESU asks for a clear delimitation between what falls within the implementation process of SCL, by developing a clear set of indicators related to the implementation of SCL, and what only minorly touches upon the idea of SCL. In this way, also other barriers, such as the fear that SCL would negatively affect the subject-specific knowledge that needs to be transferred to students, would be prevented.

Thirdly, the SCL as a meta-concept is inherently altered by the surrounding policies on HE. Already in 2010, ESU was signalling the effect of austerity funding policies on the implementation of SCL. For example, governments cannot, on the one hand, declare that they promote SCL and, on the other hand, decrease core funding for HE or promote policies that would lead to a decrease in student/staff ratios. Undeniably, governmental policies are not the only ones affecting how SCL is evolving. The changes in student learning patterns, the influence of digitalisation (treated separately below) and the professional development of teachers are all having an impact on the development of SCL as well.

Irrespective of the developments mentioned above, ESU believes that SCL is not only a broad enough concept able to adjust to the current and future realities, but that resilience through reflexive analysis and how teaching and learning processes and environments react to internal and external factors are a built-in feature of SCL. As a reference, in the list of 9 principles of SCL created by ESU in 2010, still valid and applicable today, the first one is the reflexive nature of SCL.

Even though SCL is a broad concept, as mentioned above, it is not to be confused with an unclear one, as it is sometimes happening in policy discussions or policy initiatives. The broadness of the concept of SCL is by no means incompatible with the internal coherence of the concept, as well as the capacity to develop systemic or specific indicators to assess whether SCL is implemented.

As stated in the ESU policy paper on Quality of Education, ESU believes that “SCL as a concept should regain its visibility and be translated onto new educational approaches, different modes of learning delivery and be constantly adapted to the needs of learners”.

Three key issues are emerging in the process of reflecting the current state of play on SCL policy: scope, areas of interventions and tools of support.

In terms of scope, as highlighted by Klemencic in 2017, we agree with the proposition that there are three dimensions of SCL (SCL as a pedagogic concept to foster individual learning, SCL as a cultural frame for developing communities of learning, SCL as a lever supporting learning systems). ESU believes that among those, even though there are issues in terms of implementation for all three dimensions, the key enabler for widespread mainstreaming of SCL is the mindset shift seen through SCL as a cultural frame. In this regard, we can see that SCL is not only a ‘technocratic’ policy-driven endeavour but also a political objective towards changing the role of students in HE as a whole.

As issues derive from the cultural frame dimension, we see that in some cases, the SCL approach is seen through the lens of the corporate paradigm of HE governance as a shift to consumeristic policies in HE, which cannot be more diametrically opposed to what SCL wants to achieve and in contrast to students. As the biggest status group at HEIs, students must be involved in decision-making processes on all levels. As a result, they must be viewed as equal stakeholders in HE decision-making. Furthermore, it’s always important to underline the key role of HEIs in society and their mission, as well as the essentially democratic and participative nature of the academic community. Apart from the long-established understanding of the role of HEIs in society and their mission, even though consumers are able to influence the service through market expectations and satisfaction, they are in no position to directly shape the ‘service’ provided and are not involved internally in the decision-making processes. This is in contrast to students, who, as the biggest status group at HEIs, form the core of HE and need to be involved in decision-making processes on all levels, thus must not be seen as mere consumers but as equal stakeholders in HE decision-making.

We should continue measuring student satisfaction and pursuing a high degree of satisfaction. However, as highlighted by ESU and conceptualised by Klemencic (2017), SCL is not about student satisfaction but about student agency (seen as freedoms and capabilities) – “the capability of students to participate in, influence and take responsibility for their learning pathways and environments”. Between student satisfaction and student agency, the bridging feature that has been implemented by an overwhelming part of HEIs in Europe is student engagement, where students are involved in the design and decisions of the learning system setting but haven’t been empowered yet to their full potential.

In terms of areas of intervention, our vision evolved over time as well and crystallised into a perspective in which SCL requires intertangled interventions in multi-faceted policy domains. As there are still discussions about the reach of the SCL, we reiterate some core features without the intention to explain them again in detail:

• SCL as a pedagogical paradigm to ensure student agency

As a prerequisite of ensuring SCL, the usage of learning outcomes needs to be generalised, which is unfortunately still not the case in some countries across Europe. There is a stark difference between prescribing the usage of learning outcomes and developing a system which supports writing of coherent sets of learning outcomes based on what is intended to be realistically achieved and which is supported by ECTS allocation. The former doesn’t imply full implementation of learning outcomes. Learning outcomes should not be written in order to impress potential candidates but should be clear and linked with what is happening in the learning process. Students need to be made aware of why learning outcomes are used and what they mean in order to enable students to understand the rationale of the learning process and to enhance their agency. Consequently, having other documents, e.g., course profiles or course catalogues, ensuring transparency stemming from the ECTS requirements, should be finally institutionalised.

Furthermore, a key feature of SCL is adaptability. Not only may some students not be prepared for an SCL approach, but also, some practices within SCL may not be suitable for them. Putting red tape to demand one-size-fits-all SCL in a teacher-centred education would not help much, as SCL requires a targeted, holistic, transformative approach.

• Student assessment as an enabler of SCL

How students are going to be assessed in the learning process is one of the main drivers which shape a student’s attitude, as well as the methods used to determine whether they are encouraged to develop transversal skills, social attitudes, critical thinking, learning how to learn etc. ESU believes that assessments should be fair, consistent, and designed based on learning outcomes that need to correspond to the covered curriculum.

• Teacher initial and continuous development

In order for teachers to have the tools and skills to implement SCL, SCL needs to be at the core of their own development process, together with the ecosystem that fosters SCL, including but not limited to having selection criteria related to the relevant pedagogical skills, training on SCL, periodic assessment procedures. Apart from compulsory initial and continuous professional training, a HE system that does not subordinate teaching to research is needed. Furthermore, in order to fully implement student-centred learning, HEIs need to make sure that students, as well as staff, have full access to adequate and free support services, including psychological counselling and mental health support. Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen little to no change towards valuing teaching equally as research, as promotion and appraisal systems for teachers as well as allocation systems of resources, are highly research-oriented, which leads the incentives for teachers in that direction. Moreover, in recent years, it has become increasingly evident the need and the requirement of continuous training for all teachers, as well as academic staff, to make their teaching more inclusive, anti-discriminatory, and antiharassment and to promote climate change awareness.

• Flexibility of learning paths and promotion of life-long learning

As both concepts are extensively reflected upon in policy documents, only a couple of remarks shall be added. Regarding life-long learning (“LLL”), it is important to highlight that a LLL mindset requires support systems for a diverse range of students, from mature students, students with disabilities and students with children/childcare responsibilities, students with other caring responsibilities to those who need remedial activities in order to level the playing field with their peers. In terms of flexible learning, apart from elective courses and stackability of modules, coherence of the envisaged learning paths, as well as a range of counselling systems for students, need to be in place so that students can make informed choices. Furthermore, this includes the permeability between vocational, professional and academic-oriented study programs, in the sense that irrespective of the choice of the learning paths, all types of study programmes should be accessible for all students, and swift recognition systems should be in place for this objective.

• Meaningful and decisive student participation in all decisions related to learning and learning systems

ESU believes that student participation in developing learning outcomes and evaluating how they were assessed, modes of course delivery, study programme designs, as well as systemic decisions and processes (governance, QA), is a sine-qua-non condition for the correct implementation of SCL. However, it is not sufficient for students to be involved, their involvement needs to have a consequential impact. Tokenism is one of the most significant causes of students not participating in decision-making processes as their ability to influence is limited. Meaningful and decisive participation should be available to all students. In addition, inflexible studies, strict requirements, low or no financial compensation and the burden experienced by students are obstacles to student participation.

• Catering the needs of a diverse student population – social dimension and SCL reinforcing one another

In order to promote access to HE and the capacity of a diverse student body to quality HE, SCL is instrumental. The diversity of students creates a diversity of needs that must be met by SCL, ensuring adequate support for all those who require it, especially taking into account the vulnerable and disadvantaged students. On the other hand, SCL approaches have to be prepared to embrace diversity and provide resources for supporting the learning paths of disadvantaged students. ESU believes that the link between the experiences of underrepresented students in higher education and SCL at the institutional and national levels is not yet sufficiently structured. Consequently, it is necessary to collect data that the teaching staff should use to better adapt to the learning environment to ensure inclusion. In addition, curriculum, teaching, and assessment designs must always take into account the reality that students come from diverse backgrounds and have different level of knowledge, requirements and needs.

• Qualifications Frameworks (“QF”) and Recognition

Both QF and recognition processes are adjacent tools which shape the field in which SCL is implemented. We believe QF had a contribution to changing the L&T approach from traditional (mnemonic) to student-centred, based on the promotion of learning outcomes through the National Qualification Frameworks (“NQF”), even when learning outcomes-based programmes were not formally and effectively developed. Furthermore, both QF and recognition processes can promote or hinder flexible learning paths. QF needs to be promoted in a user-friendly manner as a way to increase student understanding of their own qualifications, thus being able to make more informed decisions. Within the recognition area, one of the most non-implemented Bologna commitments is the recognition of prior non-formal and informal learning, despite its role in promoting flexible learning pathways and SCL being obvious.

• Learning environment and resources

The capacity to implement SCL is crucially impacted by the available resources for students and staff, and at European level the wide gaps between the financial capacity of HEIs and the public funds provided for higher education are not taken enough into account, or even forgotten. SCL in an ultra-modern laboratory is not the same as SCL in a classroom without access to the internet. A reality check is always needed for the public discourse and subsequent actions not to be disconnected from grassroots experiences. From all the barriers to SCL, the lack of up-to-date educational resources and quality educational infrastructure is probably one of the most evident ones. Adapted SCL approaches are oriented, inherently, by the resources in place to develop the learning environment, and investing into developing the resources which underpin the learning environment should be a priority for universities. A student-centred approach also starts with the classrooms in which classes are taught: allowing students to attend classes in facilities that meet their needs is a key factor. Furthermore, the design of the learning environment heavily influences student expectations, flexibility and interactivity. HEIs should not take investment in renovating and adapting existing facilities for granted; it is necessary to create an environment that is safe and can be welcoming to everyone without any discrimination. As students have different needs, it is important to remove any architectural or structural barriers that prevent students from easily accessing the facilities and being able to attend classes there safely. Safe rooms or areas should be created in all HEIs, where everyone can find a moment of quiet and detach themselves.

From all educational resources, it is important to highlight the role libraries play in SCL and that they should provide enough resources on SCL for students and staff as well. In the middle of the digital transformation, it is worth mentioning that there are still many steps to be taken to ensure students have unlimited access to digital resources and that at the European level, resources are pooled together to create a single space for the European HE library platform. Furthermore, when choosing to make these resources available and use them for teaching, it is important to pay attention to the fact that they should also be created with the needs of students with disabilities, Specific Learning Disorders, Special Educational Needs or neurodivergent students in mind.

• Student support measures

Access to adequate, quickly accessible and free support services, including psychological counselling, academic counselling and tutoring, career guidance, and mental and physical health support, which not only focus on treatment but also on prevention, are key enablers for ensuring the SCL paradigm’s success. HEI and national policies should not only recognise their relevance and promote their accessibility and quality but should directly ensure the cooperation of teachers and counselling professionals in order to promote student learning pathways and, at the structural level, to improve teaching and learning based on student experiences.

• Mobility as a twofold driver of SCL

Student and staff mobility supports SCL not only by providing diverse experiences that enrich the learning process but also by serving as a way to promote SCL policies. In this regard, HEIs should actively seek the feedback of mobile students with the scope of improving their own teaching and learning practices.

In terms of tools of support, all the above-mentioned fields should be covered both by fit for purpose (as understood by the ESGs), internal and external QA procedures and national regulations, guidelines and funding. However, in order not to be merely procedural, whole institutional and whole-SCL approaches need to be encouraged. By whole-SCL, we mean using the principles of SCL together since one enforces another, even though some stakeholders would be inclined to support only some components of SCL, as ESU explained in the past.

Nonetheless, promoting good practices is instrumental, such as the European University Association’s Learning & Teaching development programme.

III. SCL and the hot debates in HE policy

As a meta-concept, SCL adjusts to the changing tides of higher education policy because it is a paradigm shift that affects the entire learning system. On the other hand, these trends also have to take into consideration how they feed into the development of SCL. Within this section, we are looking into how SCL lies within the developments of micro-credentials, transnational cooperation in education and digitalisation. Firstly, we need to emphasise that the attention given to SCL in these policy initiatives has been disappointingly low. ESU stands for having an SCL analysis as a transversal filter through which policies are assessed.

On micro-credentials, the work has been taken up by the European Commission, which recently promoted a perspective that translated into the Council’s Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability. As a reaction to the developments, ESU has approved our own statement on Micro-credentials.

Presented as short units of learning with specific learning outcomes, the Council Recommendation highlights the feature of micro-credentials to be learner-centred. It is mentioned that micro-credentials “can also be used to help better orient students and facilitate access to and success in learning and training” and that they lead to more flexibility. Furthermore, SCL is one of the principles of the European approach to micro-credentials, specifically proving for students’ involvement in the internal and external QA processes of the micro-credential.

All these developments which present SCL as an underlying principle are surely welcomed. In ESU’s opinion, SCL in micro-credentials should be seen from two layers: firstly, the general SCL approach that should define any learning process and secondly, the specific focus and design of the micro-credential, which by its short duration should necessarily focus on a limited and coherent set of expected learning outcomes. In this way, micro-credentials need to have built-in pedagogical tools adapted to their specific profile. Furthermore, students’ needs should not be put in the same category as employers’ needs. Even though micro-credentials can contribute to employability, this is not the only and may not be the main objective micro-credential can pursue. Since education is valuable in and of itself and helps students develop personally and professionally, it is important to take into account students’ requirements, boundaries and well-being regardless of the specific aim of micro-credentials as envisioned by states.

Lastly, we believe that the main obstacles can happen in practice, where ESU presents several pitfalls – the risk of commodification, incoherence in terms of when micro-credentials can be useful instead of a traditional full degree, how a micro-credential is recognized alone and within a study programme, possible additional burden for students and excessive fragmentation of their learning path, divergent practice in accepting stackability or students’ lack of guidance for creating their own learning path. All these pitfalls need to be addressed by a policy to ensure that micro-credentials don’t have any harmful effects on students.

Regarding transnational cooperation, the first dimension is the revamping of joint programmes, especially as a part of the European strategy for universities. In this case, the European Approach for Joint programmes, approved by the ministers of HE in Yerevan in 2015, explicitly mentions ESG Principle 1.3, which promotes SCL. However, it is important to point out that ensuring SCL in a joint programme is definitely not an easy task, and the topic hasn’t been discussed in policy forums in accordance with its importance. For joint degrees to be student-centred, an organisational approach needs to be taken. That means that institutional policies need to be adapted to become compatible with the delivery of the joint programme. In this regard, the involvement of students in drafting the inter-institutional cooperation agreements, which serve as a basis for the development of the joint programme, is crucial to aim for student-centred policies for the drafting, implementation, monitoring, assessment and review of the manner in which the joint programme is delivered. Creating coherent and efficient inter-institutional overarching frameworks and structures is necessary for having the capacity to create the SCL environment, and different institutional practices and cultural differences need to be addressed without any negative effects on institutional standards for SCL. In many cases, what is forgotten is exactly the context in which the joint programme is delivered – the learning environment or the student support systems. Having different teachers from different HEIs delivering the content is just a part of preparing a joint programme and definitely not enough to create the holistic learning environment needed for an SCL approach.

An even higher degree of convergence is present in the inter-institutional transnational agreements, creating networks of HEIs such as European University Alliances (“European Alliances”). Since European University Alliances are highly promoted by the European Commission and have become the norm in the sense of the typology of inter-institutional cooperations, we would focus on them, bearing in mind that the references are generally applicable.

From the call launched by the European Commission, it would seem that de jure SCL is an essential part of building up a European Alliance. The call requests the applicant HEIs to “integrate SCL approaches and innovative pedagogies” and create a system where “Students at all levels are empowered to customise their own flexible curricula, choosing where and what to study, within the confines of pedagogically sound and logically structured study programmes”. However, even though one would expect these requirements to follow in practice as well, that is unfortunately not the case in many European Alliances.

So far, European Alliances don’t take up the promise in regard to the transformational shift in students’ experience. If the reduced number of mobilities can be explained by the outspread of the Covid-19 pandemic, other measures could have already been taken for the European Alliances to be a shared academic community, not only a community of the selected few in the HEI management.

As ESU mentioned several times, for the European Alliances to have the enabling framework to be student-centred, meaningful democratic student participation needs to be ensured within the newly created structures, which need to be connected to the local representative student bodies. Even though a little normative progress happened, through ESU’s lobby, with student involvement being mentioned in the Council Recommendation, we are still far from making sure that student participation is not tokenized and students have a similar say in the Alliances matters in a corresponding way to the HEI governing bodies. Secondly, what is the additional layer specific to a network and distinguishing it from a simple cooperation agreement, the creation of the shared community, is starkly missing. For many students enrolled in HEIs who have been members of the alliances for three years already, nothing has changed, and they see no impact of the alliance. Even though their focus should be on learning and teaching, other priorities are pursued. The promised flexibility is low and doesn’t bring much to the already existing frameworks, and a bold internal alliance-level QA system is not developed. For the Alliances to have the expected and relevant impact, much more emphasis needs to be put on shaping the learning environment and ensuring students have access to resources and support systems from other members HEIs.

A trend shaping more generally the development of SCL is digitalisation. Initially seen as a panacea (i.e. cure) for all the problems regarding SCL, it is now, especially after the covid pandemic, clear that digitalisation is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The use of digital tools can for sure enhance the SCL, but only if digitalisation is not seen as a goal in itself but as a tool intentionally devised to be implemented with the scope of promoting SCL. We recall and support ESU’s recent contribution to the consultation of the Commission regarding the development of digital education, which adds to ESU’s statement on digitalisation. We underline the following key messages regarding the use of digitalisation in HE with an eye to SCL:

• digital tools are needed to counterbalance fake news dispersed through digital means and to promote critical thinking.
• digitalisation is much more than using an online platform for learning
• institutions should evaluate the effects of digital learning as it has been implemented and build upon the students’ perspective. 
• SCL needs to be assessed directly through open and anonymous feedback, focus groups and involving student representatives and student unions, more than using learning analytics. 
• students falling behind because of the lack of digital skills or because they couldn’t  adapt their learning style to the use of digital tools should be supported through  remedial activities 
• digitalisation requires support systems in place (including adapting the ones offered on-site, when applicable) and a special focus on mental health 
• several student categories, such as students with disabilities or neurodivergent  students, require additional support to fully access the digital environment or  alternatives if an adaptation is not possible 
• increasing assessment due to data collected from learning analytics bears a risk in  influencing the learning behaviour of students and increases the risk of pressure to  perform 
• whenever data is used in educational processes, such as through learning analytics,  including the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI), ethical standards must be followed,  ensuring all students are fully informed and avoiding third-party profit from data 
• the digitalisation of exams should be seen as a tool to further the range and possibilities  of exam designs in the sense of SCL and not lead to surveilling students through simply  designed mass exams (e.g., through proctoring)  
  

IV. Policy arenas and ways ahead

As a paradigm shift, ESU considers that SCL still serves its purpose, and its broad vision can encompass the new tendencies and challenges from within European HE. ESU believes a cornerstone of SCL is its ability in order to fulfil its goal of helping students achieve their goals, taking into consideration their needs and improving the quality and outcomes of the learning process.

Even though there is no formal definition in place, ESU believes the concept of SCL is outlined enough to promote a coherent and holistic implementation of SCL. However, together with bringing back SCL at the forefront of the European policy agenda, we need to continue to create both guidelines and indicators that serve for implementation and for assessing national reforms.

At the Bologna Process level, we call on the Bologna Follow-Up Working Group on Learning and Teaching to look more into the understanding of SCL and to develop comprehensive and extensive indicators on the topic. Furthermore, we believe SCL should be considered a key commitment in EHEA and follow the approach of the Thematic Peer Groups, with countries submitting action plans on SCL. In this way, not only can we contribute to the mainstreaming of SCL, but we can also grasp the national understanding and approaches that would serve as a peer-learning process to improve SCL at the European level. Should more concrete indicators of what SCL entails would also prove useful for more systematic monitoring of SCL implementation across EHEA.

The European Union definitely has a role to play as well. Since 2011, when the Agenda for the Modernisation of Europe’s HE Systems was approved, the European institutions saw centring programmes on students’ learning needs as a core transversal topic. This was also mentioned in the recent European strategy for universities. ESU believes that the European Union should embrace more clearly and explicitly the SCL paradigm as it was understood and developed within the Bologna Process, of which it is a member. Furthermore, ESU calls on the Commission to have a student-centred transversal approach when building the new European Degree label since SCL has become an essential part of the European understanding of the learning system. Building upon the ESG 1.3 would be, in this regard, the starting point.

The clarifications we made for the European Alliances are applicable to the initiative to create a legal statute as well. Irrespective of the format, a legal statute would need provisions that protect against the backdrop of student participation since student involvement is a core compulsory element which fosters SCL. The ecosystem can be complemented, and its development supported if data on SCL would be collected and promoted through the proposed HE Observatory and developed criteria for SCL for structural grants involving innovative learning and teaching would give stimulus to the cause.
The story of SCL being implemented across Europe is still being written. Even though we would consider that it is not necessary anymore to argue why SCL should be implemented, students and student unions need to keep the attention of decision-makers on SCL to move from formal recognition in European policy documents to full implementation in classrooms.

Bibliography

• ESU Policy Paper on Quality of Education 
• ESU Statement on Digitalisation 
• ESU Statement on Microcredentials 
• ESU Statement on European University Alliances 
• ESU Contribution to European Commission’s calls for evidence on digital skills and  digital education 
• ESU & Education International, SCL Toolkit for students, staff and HEIs, 2010
• ESU & Education International, Survey analysis time for SCL, 2010 
• ESU, Overview on SCL in HE in Europe – Research Study, 2015 
• ESU, Bologna with student eyes, 2018 
• ESU, Bologna with student eyes, 2020
• Manja Klemencic, From Student Engagement to Student Agency: Conceptual  Considerations of European Policies on SCL in HE, 2017 
• London Communique, 2007 
• Leuven Communique, 2009 
• Budapest-Vienna Declaration, 2010 
• Bucharest Communique, 2012 
• Yerevan Communique, 2015 
• Rome Communique, 2020 
• Annex to Rome Communique, “Recommendations to National Authorities for the  Enhancement of HE Learning and Teaching in the EHEA”, 2020 
• Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European HE Area, 2015 20. The European HE Area in 2015: Bologna Process Implementation Report, 2015 21. Bologna Follow-Up Group, On implementation – Fostering implementation of agreed  key commitments, Final report, 2018 
• Council Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong  learning and employability, 2022 
• European Commission, Call for proposals – Partnerships for Excellence – European  Universities, 2022

The post BM83: Statement on the future of Student-Centered Learning appeared first on European Students' Union.

1. Academic Integrity – An Introduction

Academic integrity is a set of principles aimed at developing and promoting an academic culture free of academic misconduct and corruption. Academic integrity is commonly described as a commitment including but not limited to six fundamental values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage. These values imply a responsibility of everyone in the academic world to maintain a high standard of academic integrity.

It is important to note that the understanding of academic integrity has differed from higher education institution to higher education institution throughout history. In the beginning of the emergence of academic integrity as a concept, academic integrity revolved around individuals following academic honour codes, which were first developed in the United States to combat academic dishonesty. The first honour codes focused on duty, power, pride, and self-reliance. In the 19th century, a shift in the concept of the honour code occurred, in which institutions began to be considered the honour code’s central value, as opposed to people. This, however, was accompanied by a shift in responsibility from faculty to students, as rising research emphasis and written homework assessments confirmed the idea that it would be challenging to ensure academic honesty without the participation of students. The preventive power of the honour codes was started being put into question by some scholars due to rising fear of misconduct, thereby having administrators involved by introducing stricter control measures at the examinations. With education becoming more available for the masses, misconduct became more visible, and the measures to combat it more diverse, causing a moral panic around the idea of students cheating.

Currently, efforts on academic integrity often appear to be lacking an emphasis on the issue of misconduct which occurs in teaching and administrative matters, therefore allowing teachers and administrators to act abusively and unfairly towards the students in the name of the cause. . This is particularly dangerous since it leads to a culture of mistrust, which in turn impacts the way members of different status groups in academia interact with each other and thus also leads to an alienation of students from higher education institutions, not identifying with the very academic community they are a part of.

From the student’s perspective, we believe that the concept of integrity also needs to foster academic freedom. Integrity and freedom in the academic paradigms are mutually dependent since both concepts incorporate fundamental values that are interconnected on their own. Consequently, in order to ensure freedom of academia and a high standard of academic integrity, all members of academia, including staff and students, are responsible for maintaining high standards in their current activities – conduct, teaching, learning, and research.

For students and scholars of the arts, artistic integrity is as pivotal as academic integrity. The freedom of the arts and artists in higher education and beyond is under growing threat, so as a medium of critique and exploration, artistic freedom must be protected from repression and retaliation.

2. Academic integrity from a student’s perspective

a. Fundamental values of academic integrity

As introduced, academic integrity is commonly conceptualised along six core values: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility and courage. While those values and the common understanding of those values apply to all members of academia alike, the specific students’ perspective in relation to the aforementioned six values shall be considered here. Although the previous concepts cover the umbrella of academic integrity, it needs to be noted that, of course, there are various value concepts and the examples given are neither exhaustive nor exclusive to the concepts described here.

When it comes to honesty, it is of the utmost importance that the student’s contribution to research, as well as teaching and learning, is honestly declared,  credited and validated, regardless of a possible employment relationship or the seniority and the experience in said research/ activity. In addition, higher education institutions must create an atmosphere and culture of honesty that exceeds research issues. Honesty about external funding and contract research, as well as the collaboration of higher education institutions with external actors such as companies, NGOs or governmental institutions, is a core aspect of the public responsibility and accountability of higher education. This also enables students to contextualise and place teaching and research against the backdrop of those connections. In order to create an environment of complete honesty, it is crucial that students are involved in all decision-making processes concerning their higher education institution, ensuring that democratically elected student representatives participate in all governing bodies, that their opinion is heard and that all information and documents necessary to make the decisions are shared with them.

As mentioned earlier, the narrative of the ‘cheating’ student prevails within the discourse about academic integrity. This lack of trust has led to extreme forms of control and surveillance, including but not limited to incorrect usage of artificial intelligence, especially in times of digitalisation (i.e., proctored exams that breach student data rights). The current widespread climate of mistrust in some higher education institutions damages the possibility of free development and learning in a protected space when students are permanently put under pressure and resulting in an alienation of students from their higher education institutions. Additionally, there are also legal concerns about privacy and data protection rights associated with the question of distrust, especially when it comes to the usage of automated proctoring software. On the contrary, ESU believes that an environment that fosters trust is built on a shared understanding of a consistent set of rules and their non-discriminatory application.

Respect from a student’s perspective is to receive equal academic promotion and treatment by their teachers, peers and staff of higher education institutions. Students are to be equally evaluated in their performance regardless of their gender, age, physical or psychological (dis-)abilities, sexual orientation/preference, social background, class, ethnicity, activism, religion and other factors of discrimination. Personal favouritism must not be a factor in the hiring or assessment of students. Furthermore, academic staff must adhere to pedagogical and instructional fairness within seminars/lectures and be open to other perspectives, including following up on student feedback and improving accordingly. Students’ evaluations of their courses and/or teachers should be mandatory and collected at the end of each term, always after all final evaluations have been conducted, and followed by corresponding consequences from the higher education institution. The complexity level of teaching as well as curricula and exam design, must be in accordance with envisioned learning outcomes. Interactions within academia shall be appreciative and empathy towards students is a core principle of respect, especially in times of the ongoing global crisis and personal hardships, notwithstanding cases of gross negligence from students towards other members of academia.

Higher education institutions have an unprecedented responsibility to the students and the general society. The most important task of higher education institutions is to promote knowledge and give students the opportunity to access quality education. To this end, academia must be reliable and trustworthy. There is a special responsibility towards students from marginalised backgrounds, and therefore positive discrimination is a means to an end in helping these students access, progress in and complete higher education. We must also consider that it is the duty of higher education institutions to acknowledge the different backgrounds of each student and to promote a condition of equity between all students. All members of the academic community must conduct themselves following principles of integrity and hold themselves accountable for their actions in order to model good behaviour. Academia is also accountable to the broader society, which encompasses all areas of academic life, from teaching to research to maintaining democratic higher education structures. In addition, as one of the main research and innovation environments, higher education institutions are accountable to society to follow the scientific method and ensure the quality of their outputs and findings.

Courage in the higher education context means that academia protects and defends itself against external and internal threats alike and adheres to fundamental values of academic integrity despite the fear of consequences. Anti-scientific tendencies, inside and outside of academia, must be clearly and publicly countered. Students and teachers must be protected from attacks outside the critical academic dispute through their own academic community acting in solidarity with each other. Attacks on academic freedom by politicians and governmental authorities must be resisted in the spirit of academic integrity, regardless of whether they target students, academic staff, external academic collaborators, student representative bodies or higher education institutions as such. Courage also means taking risks and allowing mistakes to happen, as well as admitting them, as students and researchers can only learn and research freely if a healthy error culture enables innovative research and learning. Notwithstanding any form of assault or legal breaches, higher education institutions, scientists, lecturers, and academic staff need to have the courage to accept their own mistakes, foster a healthy error culture and actively reverse their mistakes by taking the right measures.

b. Academic and scientific misconduct from a student perspective

Academic or scientific misconduct can be defined as a breach of the commonly accepted standards and guidelines that operate within research and study ethics. These can be found in multiple forms and areas, being distinctly arduous to be addressed in a complete manner in the rules for scientific research and teaching. These fraudulent activities may culminate in an unfair gain of a certain academic or scientific advantage, notwithstanding there was no intention in committing misconduct. 

Academic misconduct understood in terms of academic fraud might include, but is not limited to, plagiarism, self-plagiarism, contract cheating, the impropriety of authorship, data falsification, misappropriation of different ideas or a particular failure to support attestation of research.

In order for students to be able to detect unintended misconduct, they need to be offered permanent free access to anti-plagiarism software as well as the guiding principles of academic integrity. Moreover, students should benefit from equal intellectual and copyrights as full members of the academic community, without being forced or obliged to renounce their rights to another party. 

Another important aspect of academic misconduct relates to unfairness, be it in the sense of abuse, corruption and general unfairness. 

Students must be protected from exploitative relations with teaching staff whenever the students assume a role overseen by those teaching or other academic staff members. For this, a strong student staff representation is necessary, as well as secure working conditions (whether the students are employed or not, equally) in order to assure the freedom of speech and lessen the fear of repercussions if abuse takes place. Students must be protected from harassment and discrimination.  Mandatory regular training must become an integral part of the academic and administrative staff’s employment. In addition, students must also be familiarised with the subject area of abuse, corruption and general unfairness through a discrimination-sensitive curriculum design and, at the same time, be protected. If such events occur, then resources need to be available to ensure protection and support.

Unfairness towards students also needs to be addressed regarding examination fraud. Cheating is one form in which examination fraud takes place. At the same time, examination fraud also occurs in regard to actions taken by lecturers or even administrative staff, e.g., through leaking exam questions or bettering grades by manipulating the entry of grades into campus management systems. We believe that an increase in surveillance and controlling mechanisms is not the way forward, though, and so far, there is no robust evidence that examination fraud can be eradicated through these measures. Instead, academic integrity should be enshrined in the curriculum designs. Exams need to be designed in ways where cheating is less possible, which means that standardised single- or multiple-choice exams need to be given away to qualitative exams where the production of own thought based on acquired learning outcomes is key (those of course, do result in higher workload in correcting the exams, but reducing the overall number of exams in favour of a few but more competencies and skills-oriented and/or even so-called open-book exams would be more beneficial to the learning process of students anyways). Campus management systems have to be designed in such a way that manipulations of grades are nearly impossible and easily detectable. There need to be independent contact points at every higher education institution where students can be anonymous and report examination fraud.

In recent years, activities regarding another form of fraud, namely diploma/degree and paper/essay mills, have drastically increased and digitalisation has made it even easier to connect such ‘service providers with potential customers. 

Paper mills are a booming business, and contract cheating (‘ghostwriting’) happens at all levels of higher education, from term papers to dissertations to scientific work. It may seem obvious that submitting and/or publishing such work that has not been independently prepared constitutes academic fraud and needs to be combated. In addition, engaging as a ghostwriter is in opposition to academic integrity. The usage of artificial intelligence in contract cheating and other forms of misconduct needs to be further researched, defined and regulated. Paper mills providing contract cheating services are widely disseminated in the countries with access to the internet, but also they can be found in off-line form in countries where access to the internet is limited.

It is also important to acknowledge that diploma mills do not only exist in the form of private companies which sell diplomas as the main activity, non-authorised and unrecognised by national governments but also among higher education institutions. Higher education institutions may exploit the education system by acting as a diploma mill both for monetary and non-financial gains.

Both in regards to paper and diploma mills, national governments, as well as intergovernmental organisations, should impose legal limitations, at least in relation to the advertisement of these kinds of services, however, bearing in mind that those might stay as a half-measure without a proper integrity culture in place. Therefore, a complex approach, including involving law enforcement agencies, enhancing external quality assurance and harnessing civil society in combating organised misconduct, is needed. The existence of diploma mills can correlate with the level of corruption in education, and thus corruption needs to be tackled accordingly. Independent contact points to report cases of diploma and paper mills need to be established. At the same time, those measures need to also be accompanied by employing policies on all levels of higher education that aim at the development and advancement of a culture of academic integrity, ensuring the upholding of the values of academic integrity by every member of academia through internalising the fundamental values of academic integrity.

Scientific work must always follow scientific quality criteria, such as reliability, validity and objectivity of the work. Scientific integrity thus relates to the adherence to ethical and professional principles, standards, practices and values that should guide education and science. Regarding artificial intelligence, bioethics, clinical trials, experiments with animals and civil research, high scientific and ethical standards need to be set by the scientific community and followed. Reviews and peer reviews are necessary to ensure that scholarly work is evaluated against all current research and technological advancements before being published.

The European Students’ Union strongly affirms that diminishing academic integrity endangers academia as a whole and places quality education in peril.  Therefore, in order to assure ethical and quality scientific work at the institutional, national and international levels, the academic community shares the responsibility to prevent, confront and sanction all possible ethical abuses. 

Students’ participation in all relevant governing processes related to academic integrity represents a strong requirement and each higher education institution should promote an appropriate climate that encourages integrity and values such as academic honesty. This can only be properly fostered through effective prevention measures and easily accessible information in this regard.

c. The role of responsible autonomous academia

Independence of academic and scientific research and knowledge generation, as well as pedagogical autonomy, are to be treated as a core value of higher education (though independence and institutional autonomy must be balanced with the public responsibility of governments towards education and of higher education institutions towards society). This is especially important because education and science should always serve the public good. Additionally, anyone within and outside of the academic community should be able to form their own opinions and perspectives on presented research, scientific findings and educational teachings based on transparency about the origins of ideas and funding. At the same time, independence is also necessary to not corrupt academia and uphold academia as such since academia is based on the principle of freedom, notwithstanding adherence to principles of academic integrity.

‘Scientific research must in no way be limited by the economic, political or social pressure and interference, and its only purpose should be sharing of reproducible, reliable and truthful research.’ If research is potentially guided by external interests, which may not only be the case for contract research but also in the case of targeted research funding by external actors such as companies and governmental authorities or through non-material involvement of external actors and networks, that money flows, or connections to external actors must be transparently disclosed. This is the only way to ensure integrity in the research sector, especially against the background of the enormous increase in the commodification of higher education in recent years. 

In regards to higher education teaching, transparency about the origins of taught ideas and potential connections between academic chairs, academic projects that are brought up during lectures, and general academic staff connections to private or public external actors must be made transparent. This is especially important from a student’s perspective since critical thinking should be fostered among students, which means that they should already be enabled and encouraged to question the teachings of their teachers from a scientific and academic point of view.

Lastly, encompassing the aforementioned need for independence regarding commodification, academia, in general, needs to uphold the principle of incorruptibility. Following the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, corruption can take place in various areas of higher education:

• In regards to bribery in accreditation, which can result in insufficient staff or facilities or licensing processes;
• in relation to student selection and admission processes where certain students gain an unfair advantage, especially in regards to studying programs with an annual person cap based on differing admission requirements, e.g., exams or school grades;
• in regards  to staff recruitment processes where less qualified candidates are selected for positions due to personal connections, bribery, political influence or other factors; 
• in regards to financial mismanagement and procurement fraud, which can reach from travel and workshop fraud to payroll and stipend fraud to duplications of grants to the usage of funding for personal business and activities as well as to patronage within the procurement system of a higher education institution, especially regarding supplies and construction works; 
• in regards to sextortion, where sexual favours rather than money are used as a bribe, thus also touching upon questions of sexual harassment.
• Corruption, be it in relation to bribery, cronyism, clientelism, nepotism, patronage or even organised crime, be it monetary or non-monetary, is a sign of a lack of academic integrity and threatens the quality of teaching, learning and research and is in direct opposition to meritocratic and democratic principles. 

In recent years there has also been a noteworthy increase of policymakers involving themselves in the research and teaching activity of higher education institutions in ways that are not criminally relevant but nonetheless pose a threat to academic integrity. While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with policymakers setting incentives, for example, through programs designed to counteract current as well as future crises or to develop scientific output for the public good, including the necessary socio-ecological transition society faces, academia must, nevertheless, remain autonomous regarding their governance, decision-making and way of conducting research and teaching. Scientific integrity and, thus, freedom of research and teaching are at stake when the independence of science and teaching is politically restricted. The higher education community must uphold its integrity and responsibility towards the common good and thus always strive for autonomy from governmental institutions, parties and politicians. This includes the financial as well as ideological autonomy of governmental stakeholders, notwithstanding legitimate standards, regulations and directives set.

3. Protection of students’ data: expanding the current discourse 

Academic integrity needs to also be connected to questions of data misuse and mishandling regarding students’ data which can, but not necessarily has to be, connected to the ever-developing digitalisation of higher education. However, students’ personal data must be given special protection. This applies both with regard to stored personal data, grades and other data in the context of higher education administration and with regard to online exams that have emerged in the context of digitization, especially in the context of proctoring software. 

With regard to online exams, high-security standards must be applied to prevent misuse and incorrect handling of student data. Particularly in regard to proctored exams, data protection and privacy rights must be observed, and alternative examination formats must always be offered. With regard to campus management systems, learning management systems, and the interoperability of systems that function across higher education institutions and countries, it is necessary to ensure that those systems are secure against cyber attacks and, thus, data breaches. 

Additionally, student data may never be sold or handed to external parties, such as companies, to prevent misuse for commercial or advertising purposes, which, e.g., often aim at profiling and thus manipulating students for private interests.

Data misuse in terms of academic integrity is not only relevant in terms of general system security questions and commodification. Data misuse and mishandling are also highly relevant against the background of targeted attacks against students and surveillance practices. Student data can easily be used by academic staff as well as government authorities and other third parties, for example, to pressure or even blackmail ‘undesired’ students and student activists or to even identify members of certain groups within the student body in order to enable persecution by repressive state regimes or other third parties. It is likewise conceivable that not only data stored in regard to a person’s identity (e.g., individual attributes, illnesses, family members) but also data collected through the usage of higher education institutions’ platforms, visitor management and access control systems, such as search histories and stored locations, could potentially be used against students.  Against this background, high standards must exist that make it nearly impossible to misuse student data and an academic culture is to be created in which such attacks on fundamental human rights and the academic freedom of students are unheard of.

In line with data protection efforts, students must always have the right and possibility to request disclosure of the data stored about them as well as a way to have stored data deleted upon request. In some countries, there is also an ongoing debate on what data can be even collected and in what ways to prevent misuse of data. Against the backdrop of digitization and the development of statistically increasingly sophisticated methods for evaluating data, these debates must also be conducted more intensively regarding higher education policy. 

4. ESU demands

1. A higher education culture of honesty fosters transparency regarding all levels of higher education governance, teaching and research. This includes, but is not limited to, honesty about:

• Contributions of students towards scientific work regarding declaration, accreditation and validation in accordance with students’ intellectual property and copyrights; 
• External funding of and contract research, including the disclosure of money flows and other connections; 
• Non-material involvement of external actors and networks in any part of academic life; 
• collaborations and other connections of higher education institutions and their individual members to external actors such as companies, NGOs or governmental institutions; 
• About the origins of taught ideas and, when relevant, potential connections between academic chairs, academic projects that are brought up during lectures and general academic staff connections to private or public external actors; 
• The origins of thought in any academic work and no engagement in the contribution to or usage of paper and diploma mills.

2. A higher education culture of trust instead of a culture of distrust and surveillance. This includes but is not limited to: 

• Stopping the narrative of the ‘cheating students’ which assumes guilt; 
• Reducing the psychological pressure put on students by reducing the extreme forms of control and sanctions in order to enhance student well-being; 
• Reducing the use of extreme forms of control and disciplinary actions that have emerged in recent decades, especially those in connection with digitalisation (e.g., proctored exams); 
• No compromises are to be made regarding the privacy and data protection rights of students in regard to surveillance mechanisms; 
• Free access to plagiarism software for students so they can detect potential accidental plagiarism in their own works; 
• Exams that are resistant to fraud by designing in a qualitative manner that is based on the production of own thoughts based on acquired learning outcomes, 

3. A higher education culture of respect and fairness and stronger recognition of students as equal stakeholders in academia. This includes, but is not limited to: 

• Not to force or persuade students to give up their intellectual and copyrights; 
• For all students to receive equal academic promotion and treatment by their teachers; 
• Implementation of fair and transparent student hiring mechanisms instead of personal favouritism; 
• Adherence to pedagogical and instructional fairness within seminars and lectures and openness to students’ different perspectives; 
• Curricula and assessment designs that are in accordance with objective and transparently defined learning outcomes; 
• Empathy and appreciative behaviour towards students; 

4. A higher education culture of responsibility, in which students are not only made responsible for their actions but also responsibility towards students is upheld, as well as towards the common good of the broader society. This includes, but is not limited to:

• Student participation in all governing processes in higher education;
• Taking the task of promoting knowledge based on the scientific method seriously and giving students the opportunity to access quality education; 
• Taking on the special responsibility towards students from marginalised backgrounds and using positive discrimination to help them in accessing, progressing and completing their higher education pathway; 
• Academic staff to conduct themselves following principles of integrity and holding themselves accountable; 
• Academia to be generally reliable and trustworthy through its transparency and open access policy; 
• Accountability of higher education institutions towards broader society, especially regarding their tasks of teaching, research, knowledge transfer and maintaining democratic structure; 
• Independence of research and teaching as well as of members of academia and higher education institutions as such from economic, political or social pressures and interference; 
• Financial independence of academia to be ensured by public authorities and the general reversal of the trend towards commodification of higher education; 
• The hiring of academic and administrative staff is based on free and independent procedures as well as based on actual qualifications and adherence to academic values.

5. A higher education culture of courage, in which all members of academia fight against misconduct and attacks against academia as well as members of academia together. This includes, but is not limited to: 

• The defence of higher education institutions against external and internal anti-scientific tendencies and threats alike; 
• Maintaining fundamental values such as principles of democracy, solidarity and independence despite fear of consequences; 
• Protection of academic staff, students and student representatives  from attacks and standing in solidarity with each other; 
• Protection of academic staff and students who report misconduct in order to encourage them to not remain silent; 
• Standing up against politicians and governmental authorities whose actions undermine academic integrity; 
• Taking risks, allowing mistakes and fostering a healthy error culture while also accepting own mistakes and taking the right measures to reverse academia’s own mistakes.

6. Policy and accountability structures at all levels of higher education, which include but are not limited to: 

• Policy and accountability structures regarding all previously mentioned points; 
• Protection of students from exploitative work relationships, installation of a strong student staff representational body and secure working conditions; 
• Mandatory regular training regarding anti-discrimination as part of academic and administrative staff’s employment;
• Include anti-discrimination as part of student’s curricula; 
• Familiarisation of students with the subject area of abuse, corruption and general unfairness; 
• Protection mechanisms in case of harassment and discrimination, accompanied by the zero-tolerance policy; 
• Special support for students from marginalised backgrounds to enhance their success in completing higher education;
• High conduct requirements for academic staff and corresponding accountability procedures which existence need to be promoted within higher education institutions; 
• Independent contact points to report different forms of misconduct to, with the option to do so anonymously; 
• Further research on the usage of artificial intelligence in contract cheating and other forms of misconduct, as well as the implementation of regulations, legal limitations and other measures to combat the misuse of artificial intelligence; 
• Implementation of legal limitations regarding diploma and paper mill services as well as a general more complex approach involving law enforcement agencies, external quality assurance and civil society to combat those services;
• Policies as well as procedures against corruption through bribery, cronyism, clientelism, nepotism, patronage, sextortion or even organised crime, be it monetary or non-monetary, regarding all areas and levels of higher education institutions; 
• High ethical standards in sensitive fields such as artificial intelligence, bioethics, experiments with humans and animals and generally civil research; 
• Peer review processes to ensure the quality of scholarly work which always has to meet the requirements of scientific quality criteria; 
• Maintaining high security standards in relation to student data, including access to data, storage and transfer within campus and learning management systems, access-control systems, visitor management systems and alike as well as the interoperability between different systems; 
• Non-forwarding of student data towards external parties such as commercial or governmental stakeholders; 
• Upholding basic GDPR rights, including the right of disclosure about stored data and the right to be forgotten as well as collecting data only if the there is a clear necessity; 
• Clear and transparent communication and information about legal frameworks, existing accountability and conduct policies/structures as well as individual rights, no matter if they regard the European or national law, as well as any other regulations within the higher education sector or of higher education institutions.

5. Concluding remarks

Acknowledging the importance of a set of values to ensure free and independent thought, truth-seeking debate, exchange of knowledge and ideas – academic freedom, ESU believes that academic integrity, when it is defined and understood commonly and unambiguously, can serve as a strong foundation for quality education and as a reference point when working on prevention of academic misconduct. At the same time, we believe that the discourse regarding academic integrity needs to be opened up and furthered, especially with regard to questions of academic freedom. Moreover, in combination with national and international legislation, it can help to deal with more serious cases of misconduct when they have already occurred. It is important to underline the fact that any form of Code of Conduct at higher education institutions can be successfully implemented only if all status groups and stakeholders are not only well informed about the terms and conditions but if a strong culture of academic integrity is developed and all the stakeholders commit to the fundamental values of academic integrity participating in the process as equal partners. This necessarily precludes the ‘academic staff-student dichotomy when students are no longer excluded from the process of integrity development and assurance but are instead seen as developers and contributors to governance and policy mechanisms to prevent any form of academic misconduct and uphold academic integrity in higher education institutions. We need to ensure the culture within the higher education environment is based on trust, fairness and respect to ensure a healthy psychological learning and research environment. 

Student participation is the key to upkeep the quality of higher education landscapes, and academic integrity assurance processes are no exception. Integrity can only exist by ensuring the right to student participation in academic integrity, independent and free research, teaching and learning with high standards.

The post BM83: Statement on Academic Integrity appeared first on European Students' Union.

In light of these challenges and the objective of building the European Education Area by 2025, the organised European student movement calls on the European political parties to make students and higher education central topics of the 2024 European elections. In fact, even though the EU has only supportive competence in education, there are several concrete measures that European decision-makers can commit themselves to and be held accountable for.

Therefore, the European Students’ Union and its members put forward 24 proposals for the 2024 European elections. We call on the European political parties to support our objectives and demands horizontally at all levels, including through the members of the European Commission and the Council, which are members of the party. Crucially, we call on the parties to support these demands during the negotiations for the next European Commission and to be included in the Commission’s 2024-2029 Strategy. The student demands to revolve around: a European social dialogue on higher education; a student-social Europe; a European Education Area for all the students; a future-proof higher education.

A European social dialogue on higher education

• Support the creation of a systemic social dialogue in higher education within the European Union, using the well-established good practices of the Bologna process.
  
• Support student engagement in the decision-making processes of the European Parliament in all areas that affect students, especially the work of the CULT, ITRE, and EMPL committees, by inviting European democratically elected student representatives to the meetings and taking into account their positions.

Meaningful stakeholder participation has been confirmed as a core value of higher education policy-making since the emergence of the Bologna Process, where ESU has been involved since the beginning. However, in many European countries, and at the European level, we increasingly see politicians and public authorities replacing legitimate student representatives with tokenistically selected students or student groups. This exclusion from social dialogue and exercising representation rights as legitimate student representatives violates basic democratic principles. As the European Commission is a member of the EHEA and thus adopted the Bologna Process values on behalf of the EU, we call for the European Union to establish a systemic form of social dialogue involving ESU as the legitimate student representational organisation at the European level. This should include all the stages of policy formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation, as well as in relation to other formal and informal policy and dialogue processes related to higher education.

A student-social Europe

• Support the adoption of ESU’s Student Rights Charter at the European Union level.

• Promote a Council recommendation on the upward convergence of student rights within the EU: promote setting targets based on the EHEA Principles and Guidelines for the Social Dimension, including in the European Semester country-specific recommendations to achieve them and mobilise national funding within the framework of the Learning Lab.

• Promote a Council recommendation on student support services for the well-being in Higher Education, establishing minimum standards for the investments in student grants, healthcare, mental health support, housing, transport and other services, in line with the values of the European Pillar of Social Rights, and guiding the Member States to adopt measures to enhance students’ well-being within higher education through strategies and concrete actions.

• Promote the approach of seeing the mental health and mental well-being of students, academic staff and support staff, as a priority when discussing higher education matters. More specifically, including youth mental health as a priority in the EU Health strategy while boosting funding for this objective through the annual action plans.

• Ensure equal rights for all genders by promoting sexual and reproductive health rights, including education, free menstrual products, contraception, and abortion.

• Support a Directive based on the Quality Framework of Traineeships to ban all unpaid internships, including traineeships that are part of study programmes, while respecting national collective bargaining models. 

• Ensure that European non-governmental organisations benefit from sufficient, sustainable funding that can assure autonomous and democratic running of the administrative and advocacy operations that are less reliant on project funding.

While the European Pillar of Social Rights has allowed some first elements of a social Europe to be initiated, they have not touched the higher education dimension yet. However, the recent crises have shown how the lack of a coordinated response at the European level is detrimental to advancing our higher education systems.

A student-social Europe means adequate protection and convergence of student rights at the European level. While the basic rights of pupils are (at least partially) protected by the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and similar national and international provisions, there are no universal or European legal provisions that guarantee a minimum set of rights for higher education students. In light of recent and ongoing violations of students’ rights across Europe, adopting a European Student Rights Charter is the most efficient legal measure that can fully ensure the protection, monitoring, and observance of students’ rights. This should be accompanied by a range of council recommendations to guarantee that the European dimension of student rights is ambitious and does not result in a downside compromise. It also recognises the gender dimension and promotes specific actions to ensure gender equality at all levels, including sexual and reproductive health and rights.

A student-social Europe recognises the importance of mental health in all its policies: following the proposal of the Conference on the Future of Europe on developing an EU Action Plan on mental health, the European Parliament’s letter of intent for a comprehensive approach to mental health and the 2022 State of the European Union speech by the president of the Commission in which the need for appropriate, accessible and affordable support was mentioned, it is high time for concrete actions at the European level to support student and young people mental health. A coordinated approach and specific funds need to be channelled to this end. 

A student-social Europe cannot accept internships, and traineeships remain unpaid. Such a form of exploitation of what is an integral part of higher education curriculum design which offers opportunities to get insights into different fields of work, furthers the socio-economic disparities within students, to the detriment of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

A student-social Europe promotes and supports the work of independent European organisations with public funding. The logic of project-related third-party funding has increased in recent years. Due to project-based funding, these funds can only be used for particular projects. For NGOs to maintain their structures and, thus, their existence, operational grants are essential to their existence. NGOs and youth organisations are important pillars of a democratic European civil society and must therefore have access to funds that secure their existence.

A European Education Area for all the students

• Ensure student participation in European university alliances with democratically elected student representatives at all levels of the governance of alliances.

• Ensure the involvement of representative stakeholder organisations in the governance of the European Education Area (High-Level Group).

• Ensure that automatic recognition of qualification and study periods, as well as recognition of prior non-formal and informal learning, are a reality for all EU students by 2025. This should also include revising the Council Recommendation on validating non-formal and informal learning (2012) and adding specific adapted provisions for HE. 

• Ensure the accountability of the measures taken by the European Commission and the EU Member States within the EEA framework (including fundamental values, micro-credentials, inclusivity framework based on the principles and guidelines for the social dimension etc.) within the monitoring of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA).

• Ensure financially sustainable, long-term funding for the European Universities while reinforcing Erasmus+.

• Ensure dedicated scholarships for the EU-funded joint degree programmes to promote access to their advantages for all students.

• To promote the reliability and comparability of the data on Higher Education, the European Union should commit to gathering information on its Higher Education systems, for instance, through Eurydice or a public, trustworthy, non-prescriptive Higher Education Observatory. 

• Ensure financially and environmentally sustainable, sufficient and linear funding for Erasmus+ credit mobility students that is reviewed and adjusted accordingly to the increase of living costs in the destination city and promotes green methods of transport while widening access for students from marginalised groups, including through setting European targets and creating concrete EU-level policies.

The commitment to establishing the European Education Area by 2025 is bold and requires bold measures to put it in place. In order to be a real game-changer in higher education, the European Education Area must serve all European students.

A European Education Area that serves all students cannot compromise on student participation. With the European Universities initiative, new structures are being established at the institutional level. Like every new institution, all the rules need to be defined. However, in the rolling out and development of the European Universities, we have seen that the tendency is to establish, at the alliance level, a system of student rights and student participation equivalent to the lowest common denominator of the member higher education institutions. On the contrary, student representatives in the alliances must have real powers and be elected by their peers or appointed by the student body from their university of origin. On a more general level, the governance of the European Education Area cannot be the copy of the Education Council configuration: strong involvement of all relevant stakeholders and, in the case of higher education, of the representatives of the members of the higher education community (academic and administrative staff and students) is paramount. 

With the creation of the European Education Area, we run the risk of the EU implementing its own higher education policies apart from the Bologna Process. With 27 EU members, it is obvious that non-EU members of the EHEA will be forced to adopt policies and tools that have already been implemented by many other EU countries. This contradicts the basic idea of Bologna, which aims to harmonise higher education across the whole European continent based on the principle of all EHEA members being on equal footing in the decision-making process. Moreover, the Commission has committed to Bologna and must therefore fulfil its commitments made in various declarations, communiqués, and other agreements not to undermine the EHEA: on the contrary, the actions under the EEA framework must be held accountable within the monitoring system of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) that will be established with the Tirana Ministerial Communique of 2024.

In order for the European Education Area to have a valuable impact on students, the learning and teaching dimension is paramount, especially in achieving automatic recognition of degrees and the recognition of prior informal and non-formal learning. To achieve all its objectives, we demand clear, sustainable, consequent funding for the European Education Area from the European Commission while reinforcing the Erasmus+ programme to ensure student mobility remains its core activity. In particular, linear funding for student mobility that covers living costs in the host city is paramount while providing scholarships for European joint degrees and setting targets to widen access to mobility for disadvantaged students. 

Future-proof higher education

• Support the creation of an EU investment framework for higher education: exclusion of education financing from EU debt rules, monitoring of education investments and reforms through the European Semester, creation of specific EU instruments or funding streams as macroeconomic policy tools to invest in educational infrastructure, systematic involvement of stakeholders at national and European levels as binding requirements for the application of these measures.  

• Support the establishment of a European programme of scholarships for Students at Risk of persecution due to their student, human rights and democratic activism with a single access point for the applicants, coordinating and co-funding with national schemes. 

• As part of the green transition, support the creation of funding instruments for Higher Education Institutions in line with the Green deal, as well as guidelines on how to reach climate neutrality of HE by 2030, both in terms of policies and carbon footprint. 

• Support academic freedom to be enshrined in the EU Treaties as the main legal instrument promoting EU values, monitoring academic freedom through the EU report on the Rule of Law, and stand as guarantor for the protection of the rights of any student, academic or staff member of an HEI who are in a situation of persecution, detention or arbitrary trial. 

• Support the development of a student-centred approach to digitalisation in education, including EU-level policies to support HE systems have bargaining power in relation to Ed Tech, as well as legally binding rules on using Artificial Intelligence and data privacy in education.

• Support minimising the effects of brain drain within member countries, including through supporting balanced mobility
  
  
• Support education mobility between the UK, Switzerland, The Faroe Islands and Europe by decoupling Erasmus+ agreements to any other agreements or political negotiations and promote internationalisation of higher education through mobility at a global level.

The recent crises have shown how the current European higher education systems are not ready to tackle the challenges that the world is facing. European students deserve a future-proof higher education capable of answering the societal challenges of the next decades.

A future-proof education needs a coordinated investment and reform framework at the European level: its axes must be national investment capacity, European additional funding, a monitoring of the common commitments, and the thorough involvement of the educational stakeholders (including students) at all levels. 

In recent years the civic space has been shrinking all around the world. Student activists are also affected by it, often facing persecution and human rights violations due to their engagement in student representation. Furthermore, attacks on academic freedom, as the fundamental preservation of academic rights of all status groups and the academic community, as well as democratic principles in higher education, have also been happening inside the EU. Therefore, EU member countries violating academic freedom cannot effectively be monitored and, if necessary, corrected through respective measures. To tackle these tendencies, we need external and internal instruments of action. On the external dimension, we need to establish a European scheme to enable at-risk students to finish their studies and thus secure their future, as some European countries have done at the national level. Such a scheme would serve as an across-countries coordinated mechanism with a single access point for applicants, coordinating and co-financing national schemes on the EU level and giving the EU a powerful tool to enhance student human rights worldwide. On the internal dimension, academic freedom must be enshrined in the  EU treaties and have appropriate monitoring processes. 

In order to combat the catastrophic effects of the climate crisis, all parts of society need to come together to reach the targets agreed on within the EU Green Deal. Higher Education Institutions, therefore, need appropriate funding and a simplified regulative framework to become climate neutral. At the same time, investments into higher education are important as well to enable research and developments in line with the green transition and to foster the next generation of students to be educated on the topic to be able to combat-related challenges in the future. 

A future-proof education needs to take into consideration also the mobility perspective, both in an internal and external dimension. Brain drain needs to be effectively countered as an internal dimension: mobility should be a choice, not a necessity. On the external dimension, it is crucial to promote mobility between Europe and the rest of the world without forgetting the immediate neighbourhood: that is why establishing a framework of mobility cooperation with the UK, Switzerland, and the Faroe Islands (the only countries in the world not having a cooperation agreement with the EU on the field of Erasmus+) is paramount, and that needs to be decoupled from non-related political negotiations: students cannot be used as bargaining chips.

Student rights is a battle that never ends. The organised European student movement calls upon the European political parties and decision-makers to be up to the challenges faced by our continent and provide students with concrete answers and measures: the time to act is now!

Resolution on Student Manifesto – 24 proposals for the 2024 European Elections

The post BM83: Resolution on Student Manifesto – 24 proposals for the 2024 European Elections appeared first on European Students' Union.

People in Iran have been revolting since last month. In Iran, Kurdish student Jina Mahsa Amini died in police custody on September 16. She was detained because, according to the morality police, she had violated the Iranian regime’s strict dress code and had not worn her headscarf as instructed. Amini’s death sparked a wave of protests, with women in Iran and Kurdish areas protesting for their rights, freedom, and equity and against the oppressive regime.  Especially Women, Inter-, Non-binary and Trans-persons are at the forefront of the protests. The ongoing protests have continued to expand, with many students and academics protesting as well. 

The protest emanates mainly from the northwestern part of the country, Eastern Kurdish Rojhelat, but has already reached almost all of Iran’s major cities. The regime is cracking down on the protests: Police violence and brutal procedures against demonstrators are the order of the day; the fight for one’s freedom can only be waged during constant danger. Hundreds of people have already died in the course of the protests. Women, Inter-, Non-binary and Trans-persons are at the centre of the repression. The first death sentence for a protesting student was issued on November 13, many more are to be expected. Students have been demonstrating at several universities since the protests began; as a result, entire university buildings have been sealed off and lectures cancelled. At Sharif University, classes were held online only for a while, which is hardly feasible in reality due to the Internet blockade. Even if this conflict seems to be far away, there is a need for international solidarity for the struggle for equal rights! 

These are only few examples of the horrible actions this so-called “republic” has taken in recent times. Political opposition has already been oppressed, if necessary, by using force, for years and years. Since the 1979 Islamist revolution, people in the country have been brutally oppressed. Especially women, who are forced to wear headscarfs, suffer under the dictatorship. Since the beginning of the dictatorship, the regime has also suppressed the Kurdish freedom movement and, in its anti-Semitic madness, recognizes neither the Shoah as a historical fact nor Israel’s right to exist. 

But since last month, protests have been flaring up again, in new strength and at more and more places in Iran. 

While the regime is cracking down harder and harder on the protesters and has already killed hundreds of demonstrators, European countries continue their commercial connections with Iran, have not stepped back from investing in Iran and have as of yet failed to put mentionable sanctions in place.  

It is necessary to stand on the side of the protesters, clearly on the side of the progressive forces fighting for an end to the dictatorship, in Iran and in exile. 

The European Students’ Union

• expresses its unyielding solidarity and support for all those who fight for a world of justice, freedom and equity. ESU opposes the theocratic Islamist, unjust and violent government in Iran and supports all those who rise up against it. 
  
• expresses its solidarity with the protesters in Iran, especially with the students of the Sharif University and calls for possible demonstrations and rallies for solidarity 
  
• demands the termination of all regime-beneficial European trade relations with Iran and demands sanctions to be put in place. 
  
• condemns the monitoring of demonstrators by Iran in foreign countries and shows solidarity with all protesters. 
  
• advocates for direct help for Iranian students in and on their way to Europe, in particular by advocating for the inclusion of Iranian students in existing “Students at Risk” programmes and by advocating for more countries to implement such programmes.

The post BM83: Resolution on international solidarity against the Iranian regime appeared first on European Students' Union.

• Within the European Education Area (EEA), a Council recommendation on automatic recognition has been adopted, pushing forward the political objective of seamless mobility within the EEA; 
• A Global Convention on recognition of qualifications has been adopted by UNESCO as the first legally binding higher education-specific treaty at UNESCO-level, and it is close to becoming applicable by reaching the threshold of 20 countries ratifying the convention; 
• A new (sub)regional treaty has emerged between the Benelux (Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg) and Baltic (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) states, deepening the mutual trust in each other’s qualifications but also inherently creating a new regime within the area covered by the Lisbon Recognition Convention.

Furthermore, the barriers faced by students fleeing the war in Ukraine when trying to have their own qualifications and study periods recognised in the European Higher Education Area, even though all states concerned are party to the Lisbon Recognition  Convention, have proven that more needs to be done to ensure, through comparability and compatibility, the trustworthy and sound procedures that would guarantee students’ right to recognition and timely and adequate recognition procedures.  

Recognition is considered one of the key commitments within the Bologna Process. It has a Thematic Peer Group B: Lisbon Recognition Convention (TPG-LRC) established at the Bologna Follow-Up Group level to support member states develop sound recognition procedures. However, the majority of EHEA member states have not submitted action plans which would outline their next steps in the area. This is contrary to the statement inserted in the 2020 Rome Communique, which shows that EHEA countries still need to work on implementing the LRC and especially on automatic recognition that should support the mobility of students, staff and graduates for studying, working and doing research. 

Since access to education is a human right, recognition is the procedural gateway to ensure it. Lacking fair recognition processes for all, not only the normative right of access to education is violated (also ignoring the measures that states need to take to grant access to this right), but several subjective (individual) rights (such as non-discrimination) are equally violated for a person that has de facto all the requirements (qualifications) to access further (higher) education, but de jure the qualifications cannot be used to be enrolled since they are not recognised because of bureaucratic obstacles. 

In the current context, ESU puts forward the following demands: 

1. Together with our National Unions of Students, we call on the member states within the European Higher Education Area to ratify the Global Convention on Recognition (GCR)

ESU advocates and our peers from across the world grouped in the Global Student Forum for ratifying the GCR as a tool to internationalise higher education and contribute to developing the European identity. The GCR brings innovations in recognition, such as explicit inclusion in the recognition processes of online learning, partial studies, recognition of prior learning, secondary school qualifications for access to higher education, and access for refugees without documents. Furthermore, it doesn’t affect the implementation of LRC or other recognition conventions; instead, it creates a global mechanism that will enhance the quality of recognition procedures.

2. Ensuring better links between Quality Assurance and Recognition procedures

Even though in some countries there is good cooperation established between the Quality Assurance agencies and the ENIC-NARICs, this is far from common across Europe. In some cases, this decouples the QA processes from the developments in the recognition field. Both external and internal QA should look into the institutional recognition procedures in order to emphasise the need to make the recognition procedures less bureaucratic, lengthy, unclear and more transparent. It’s crucial to create a mutual understanding and consistency in terms of the procedures, and QA has an important role in improving the transparency of recognition policies. ESU supports the current initiatives that aim to revise the European Recognition Manual and to provide additional support for ENIC-NARICs, and higher education institutions as a new step in developing a European understanding and approach to recognition. 

Based on the publication Bologna With Students Eyes 2020, it is important to note that the perceived transparency and fairness of the procedures have improved compared to the results of the preceding publication from 2018. Unfortunately, regarding the complexity of the procedures, there is no positive development. 

3. Adapting the recognition procedures to current developments in the higher education sector

The recognition procedures need to adapt to the underlying trends and characteristics of higher education, the object of recognition. In order to ensure the success of recognition procedures for micro credentials, other tools need to be consistently applied as well, including the QA of micro credentials, their place within the Qualifications Framework (both European and National) and the usage of ECTS. However, there are still no adopted policies for mainstreaming the recognition of micro credentials.  Recognition procedures are at the end of the ‘life cycle’ of a micro credential, since it happens after the micro credential has been obtained. Still, if their recognition is not facilitated by operational and well-constructed procedures, it can only create misunderstanding in students and systemic inconsistencies. Furthermore, the development of the recognition procedures for micro credentials should happen in a coordinated manner with the policies for recognition of prior learning, one of the areas in most need for improvement under the Bologna process, as seen from the students’ perspective.  

Secondly, despite recent developments, we highlight the need to increase the digitalisation of recognition procedures, both as a tool to enhance the user friendliness and decrease bureaucracy. 

4. The impact of the different layers of recognition agreements should be assessed based on the student rights-approach and putting the student in the centre

Currently, the European Commission is assessing the implementation of the 2018 Council Recommendation on automatic recognition. ESU believes automatic recognition should be a reality within the European Higher Education Area and not be confined to the EU level. We can see that some countries have not pushed forward the agenda of automatic recognition from the European policy to national legislative framework and practice in the present, although the underlying conditions for automatic recognition are in place. The tools exist (including ESG-compliant QA, the use of a three-cycle higher education system etc.) at the European level.

This is why ESU believes that the issues with the progress toward achieving automatic recognition are not conceptual. Still, the barriers lie in support of national and institutional bodies to achieve the agreed goals. Member States should understand that a European Education Area cannot be consistent without seamless mobility based on automatic recognition and invest resources into adapting legislation and supporting recognition bodies for the full implementation of automatic recognition and building mutual inter-institutional trust.  

The legislative framework is also one of the crucial issues for implementing LRC and automatic recognition, which is also highlighted in the 2020 Rome Communique as EHEA countries still need to work on the national legislative bases for better implementation of automatic recognition and LRC. The LRC Monitoring Report also highlights that the match of learning outcomes during the recognition process is not always considered and mentions the importance of time limits for recognition. Recommendations drawn out at the end of the monitoring report prove that LRC still waits to be fully implemented in member countries. However, the focus is slightly shifted to other agreements, such as Council’s Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition. 

Secondly, we strongly call for a systematic analysis of how different layers of recognition agreements impact the recognition procedures. If, for some countries, the only regulation their legislation/procedures are based on is the Lisbon Recognition Convention (which is still not fully implemented), considering other documents and regulations to update and improve the current implementation state would be highly beneficial. Such documents include the GCR, the Council Recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition or even sub-regional agreements (the Baltics-Benelux treaty). Now we are finding ourselves in a complex environment where the EHEA states have agreed, individually or in an alliance, upon different agreements and recognition standards, further revealing the limits of some of the current settings – for example, if it had been clear that the automatic recognition would swiftly develop based on the Council recommendation on promoting automatic mutual recognition, the need for the subregional agreement would not be apparent. However, we can still learn a lot from these formed alliances. They become an example of good practice and increased transparency between EHEA countries, hopefully contributing to better recognition practices leading to borderless education wherever these regulations are applied. 

All this documentation is ultimately compatible and, in one way or another, pushes forward towards a more complex and in-depth view of recognition, which can improve the quality of the recognition process. However, we also highlight the risk of different procedures focusing on subregional cooperation instead of working towards a common EHEA approach. If, for the recognition procedures, the ‘deeper integration’ doesn’t affect the underlying principles at the European level (codified in LRC), copying these trends in other policy areas could undermine the coherence and a sense of shared priorities within the Bologna process. 

Countries need to develop free-of-charge recognition procedures, supporting everyone entering the labour market or education, and the duration of the process should not be more than 6 months. As monitoring of LRC shows, in most cases, recognition procedures are available only in the national language. ESU believes that recognition procedures should be transparent, public and available in at least two languages (national and English). These procedures could help EHEA countries achieve brain circulation instead of having brain gain and brain drain present in particular countries. Furthermore, all the rights of students and demands on recognition of full qualifications should apply as well as partial qualification recognition.  

5. Recognition procedures should be transparent, public and free for everyone

ESU believes the outcome and the success of all these agreements should be based on the increased accessibility and quality for students as beneficiaries of recognition procedures.  

Students should be at the centre of the recognition procedures in higher education, and policies must adapt to their specific needs. This year, even though the legislation was in place and the Council of Europe successfully pushed forward the European Qualification Passport for refugees as a tool to ensure the integration of Ukraine students in the HE of the countries Ukraine refugees fled to, several barriers limited the right of the students from Ukraine to recognition. ESU strongly believes that the barriers and shortcomings faced by these students should be a lesson that more focus should be put on ensuring the applicability of current stipulations in times of crisis. 

ESU believes that high-quality, transparent and fair recognition procedures play a crucial role in the smooth mobility of students and their progress in education or onto the labour market in their native or another country. EHEA countries need to extend the work to implement the procedures for automatic recognition better and especially using digital tools in this process. It is noteworthy that transparent and easy procedures are a matter of Quality culture that still needs to be fully implemented in line with ESG in all EHEA member states.

The post BM83: Resolution on the Development of Automatic Recognition Processes in Europe appeared first on European Students' Union.

Effective and efficient operation of the alliances requires several factors. A fundamental one is a financial support and stability. To discover the needs of students in the European Universities, ESU has organised two consultation sessions and a survey for National Unions of Students and local representatives in the alliances. The outcome indicates that funds for students are in good condition, and student boards may work on their statutory tasks. Secondly, it was reported that student bodies need the support offered by Universities (e.g. human resources, communication etc.) and opportunities to meet with the other representatives. The student movement is dynamic, so networking, talking about good practices and sharing ideas are crucial for students’ participation in creating alliances. In order to do that, dedicated funds must be in place to allow participation regardless of personal or institutional financial condition. 

However, when discussing possible methods of long-term, sustainable funding for European Universities, it is important to analyse the profile of the Higher Education Institutions that take part in the current alliances and the degree to which they embody the ‘inclusiveness in excellence’ that is the stated goal of the European Commission. According to Bonaccorsi (2022), who studied the profile of the HEIs selected by the first two calls, institutions participating in the alliances are larger, more internationalised and with a stronger focus on research. Members of alliances have, on average, half more students than those institutions not participating and a threefold larger academic body. HEIs members of alliances have a percentage of undergraduate foreign students of 11.5% and of PhD foreign students of 28.0%, compared to 5.3% and 21.6% of institutions not-participating in alliances. Regarding research, the alliances have an average PhD intensity of 5.8%, against 2.5% of all the other HEIs. It is even more evident if the data are analysed from an absolute perspective. While the HEIs members of an alliance analysed in the study are 292, and all the others are 1024, the former have a higher number of PhD students and international students (both undergraduate and PhD) than all the latter combined. Bonaccorsi suggests that the alliances of Higher Education Institutions that were able to win the first two calls probably stemmed from previous existing collaboration networks. These were more likely based on research activities, as European support for such type of cooperation largely pre-existed the alliances and involved larger HEIs as they could have been favoured in the organisational effort of establishing an alliance. 

The previous analysis is important when discussing the financing of European Universities. In order for the alliances to be up to the tasks requested and to prevent commodification, the financial charge of supporting the project must be up to the public authorities and neither to private actors nor to the students. Therefore, we ask for sustainable and sufficient public funding for European Universities. These funds are required to avoid students being at the front line of expenses. This aligns with ESU’s long-standing position: students do not have to pay for education. As a transitory measure to free education, to avoid the students involved in the projects of the alliances paying more than their peers not participating in initiatives of the alliances, in each institution, the cap for tuition fees must be the same as those which Higher Education Institutions would apply for the rest of their students. 

Consequently, the project funding for what is requested to be a long-term, structural endeavour is not sufficient – a clear, sustainable, consequent budget from the European Commission is needed. ESU envisages two possibilities for the financing of the alliances: either a new dedicated fund or a combination of European resources covering the different policy aspects of the alliance (e.g. Erasmus+ for mobility, Horizon for research, European Social Fund+ for social dimension etc.), in order not to overburden a single, specific fund (as it could happen with the Erasmus+ programme, whose main focus should remain student mobility also financially speaking). Whether it comes from a new dedicated fund or different European programmes, students and their representative organisations need to be part of the bodies deciding or reflecting upon these funds, both at the European, national and transnational (alliances’) levels. For the student representation, co-creation and participation in the governance of the alliances to be sustainable – which is crucial for them to be student-centered – there needs to be funding in place within the alliances to financially reimburse students for their efforts in helping steer the alliances’ course of action. Only through this can they be inclusive when it comes to student representation.

Regarding the nature of such funds, the signals from the Commission seem to point towards a performance-based system, either at the national or European levels. ESU will keep paying close attention to whether and how this possibility will materialise. ESU believes that, if such structures are implemented, they need to align policy objectives between the different levels and support the improvement in structure, governance, student-centred learning, students’ rights, and avoid budget deprivation. In any case, students need to be present in the governance of the assessment of the Alliance. The involvement of democratically elected student representatives within the alliance governance should be a key evaluation criterion, stemming from clear guidelines co-created with the democratic student representation at the European level.

We also believe it is time for the Alliances to use their funds to create real content for the students. Currently, insufficient courses, mobility programs or research opportunities were put in place. We are calling for creating new opportunities for students and their careers in a logic of student-centred opportunities. Not all students within their alliances benefited from the activities promoted. Not all students within their alliances benefited from the activities promoted.

However, it is imperative to assess the effect the funding for the alliances will have on the balance and equity of the national Higher Education systems. ESU believes that a 2-speed system must be avoided, where on the one hand, HEIs members of an alliance would have sufficient funds, and on the other hand, HEIs not members of an alliance would have insufficient funds. To avoid that, an impact assessment of the general level of funding for HE systems and the impact of funding for the alliances at the national level is needed, as well as a strong commitment from the governments to invest in their HE systems as a whole, including those Higher Education Institutions that are not part of an alliance. Moreover, regarding this specific topic, we request that future calls, both for the new alliances and the expansion of the already existing ones, focus on the diversity of HEIs selected. Indeed, the more diverse they will be – in terms of geographical balance, size, speciality etc. – the less risk there is of a 2-speed system occurring. It is also important to ensure that status differences don’t emerge once some universities are part of the alliances and others are not. In times when funding for education presents constraints at the national level, national funding for the alliances could create even more budgetary constraints in financing the other Higher Education Institutions, as well as create budgetary inconsistencies between members from different countries of the same alliance. ESU believes that an honest conversation about the funding to Higher Education should take place: the funding for European Universities must come primarily from the European level, while Higher Education Institutions should be able to channel national funds for internationalisation allocated to them towards their participation in the alliances, should they wish to do so.

The post BM83: Resolution on the financing of the European Universities alliances appeared first on European Students' Union.

In 2012, the then Minister for Education, Culture and Sports, José Ignacio Wert Ortega, proposed a Royal Decree-Law (RDL) that fundamentally changed how the pricing of these fees worked. The RDL was introduced as a means of recuperating from the 2008 recession and guaranteeing sufficient funding for universities after the government cut funding. 

The RDL allowed the Governments of the Autonomous Communities to increase the price of ECTS credits by 25% above their real cost. It also introduced a system of price brackets for their prices, introducing a new fourth-time enrolment fee which had never been seen before. In simple terms, every time a student repeated a subject, they would have to pay double, triple or even quadruple the original price of the ECTS credit. It also modified the ability to lower or raise prices based on how experimental the degree is, meaning science or engineering degrees cost more than humanities or social science degrees, from some autonomous communities to a nationwide level. For example, in the autonomous community of Madrid, the prices for the least (Social Sciences-Humanities-Law) and most (Health Sciences) experimental degree ECTS credits in 2011 were:

In 2013 after the RDL came into effect, prices were changed to: 

In practice, these measures increased the price by 20% for enrolment between 2012-2019 nationally, with some regions having a 70% increase. With these measures, the government put the financial burden on students and families to support the Spanish public university system. The increase in prices were seen as a punishment for students who did not pass their subjects on the first try and a means to rid the public university system of poorer or less well-off families. It also created a large disparity between the Autonomous Communities, where prices vary drastically from one to another. 

Thankfully in 2020, mainly due to the COVID-19 Pandemic, the Government of Spain introduced a new RDL to help deal with the economic impact of the pandemic. This new RDL abolished the pricing brackets that were established in 2012. However, even though these brackets have been removed, most Autonomous Communities have opted to keep the current system instead of reverting to the older, much fairer system. 

Therefore, the European Students’ Union along with CREUP and other student representatives of Spain urge and demand for the Government of Spain and its Autonomous Communities to: 

● Return to the pre-2012 financing system for public universities. 

● Abolish second, third and fourth enrolment fees. 

● Establish first enrollment fees free of charge.

The post BM83: Resolution on Public Prices and Consecutive Enrolment Fees in Spanish Universities appeared first on European Students' Union.

Regarding the situation in France, we were surprised a few years ago to discover that universities had to launch a call for a project for renovating the buildings. The ones with the best project could see their classes rehabilitated, and the others were let down, which created a concurrency between different components in the same university.  

The universities need buildings to fulfil their first missions: teaching and researching. This need is less and less the primary factor in deciding whether some work needs to be done or not. This highlights the alarming way lack of finances forces universities to change their decision-making.  

Aside from this fanciful way of dealing with a problem, our building were less and less fulfilling their initial function: our academic library were closing because of plumbery issues, our classes became unusable, and some universities had to launch austerity plans in order to save the university finance and avoid having to file the balance sheet.

Today, those plans didn’t save our universities as they are getting less and less capable of investing in new buildings (which is necessary to welcome an increasing number of students each year). Some classes are still closed because the asbestos removal work couldn’t be completed.  

We sadly had to celebrate the 15th anniversary of precast buildings that were supposed to stay on campus for at most 5 years. Moreover, some universities decided to reduce the weekly hourly schedule by 12 hours for each degree because of a lack of buildings.  

In France, the NRRP plan (amount: 40 billion €) was included in the France Reliance plan (amount: 100 billion €). The part of the funds allowed for public building renovation was 2.6 billion €, with 1.2 billion € dedicated to higher education. If this amount sounds reasonable, it is still behind expectations and way behind needs.  

Indeed, the higher education finance paradigm has changed: from constant funds a few decades ago, universities now have to deal with calls for projects and calls of excellence under the name of PIA. Indeed, the amount of money per student given to universities has considerably decreased in the last decades. Only the universities best suited to the call’s criteria have access to funds.  

The law for university freedom of action and responsibilities (LRU 2007), along with the reduction of constant funds, led universities to stop investing in their real estate patrimony and to prioritise other missions. Today the situation is alarming, and France is still ranked in the middle tier of academic freedom by the European Commission despite the LRU law.  

This situation had led many French universities to use asymmetric fungibility in order to tackle the most urgent situations, but without being able to reinvest properly in their buildings’ rehabilitations. The buildings of the universities that do not access those funds are still falling apart as we talk.  

In the context of the energy crisis, this situation led us to some senseless situations: The over-cost universities have to pay today to open would have been reduced significantly if rehabilitation had been made before. Some university building heating systems haven’t been touched since the 80s. The lack of long-term investment leads us to monthly sur-cost and leaves us with increasing bills by lack of decision. 

Regarding the situation in Italy, the main allocations adopted by the government for residential and university buildings are two: 1.127 billion euros (of which 960 million euros from the NRRP) for the renovation, regeneration and construction of university residences and 1.4 billion euros for the same interventions but reserved for other university structures. 

This amount represents the largest investment in university residences and buildings in the last 25 years. Still, it is not enough to respond to the huge underfunding that has hit this sector. 

The deterioration of the buildings is so high that universities are forced to decide whether to repair old buildings or build new ones, with consequences that often seriously endanger students’ lives. There are many examples of collapses or dangerous situations: before the covid 19 pandemic, during a strong storm, the roof of a classroom of the Milan Polytechnic collapsed during a lesson; again, due to the rain, water infiltrations occurred at the University of Trento and the last October 18th the “Aula Magna” of the University of Cagliari collapsed: fortunately, no students were present at that time. Furthermore, many university residences are inaccessible because they are unsafe (e.g., University of Naples “Federico II”). 

As Unione degli Universitari (UDU) we immediately worked to find a solution to this problem. Working together with the FILLEA CGIL (the construction and woodworkers union) and trying to speak with the municipal administrations of some sample university cities, we are identifying disused city buildings that can be converted into university buildings and residences. We aim to develop a project to exploit these buildings, filling the need for university spaces. Although the studies are at an advanced stage in some cases, the ministry has never considered it necessary to receive us to discuss the university’s structural and housing emergency. 

Therefore, the European Students’ Union, along with FAGE and UDU, urge and demand the Governments of France and Italy:  

• To launch a national call for university building rehabilitation to the standards, regardless of their ranking and regardless of their academic field.  
  
• To study the extension needs of the university to welcome an increasing number of students and to finance the necessary extensions 
  
• To operate the rehabilitation of heating types of machinery according to the country’s green energy strategy
  
• Greater involvement of student representatives in these procedures 
  
• To set up databases on the situation of all university buildings and residences and make the data public
  
• To carry out national security checks on the state of all the university structures.

The post BM83: Resolution on University Building Rehabilitation appeared first on European Students' Union.