International conference on lifelong learning: “Bologna- Bergen- and beyond”

Kristin Clemet, Minister of Education and Research

EUCEN (European Universities Continuing Education Network), in cooperation with SEVUBergen, Vox og NFF

Opening of the conference
Scandic HotelBergen, Friday 29 April,2005

The conference aims to bring lifelong learning back onto the agenda of theBolognaprocess. It will address the challenges of higher education institutions in providing lifelong learning opportunities for all and in designing targeted professional development programmes. These challenges also include the opening up of higher education institutions through the recognition, validation and accreditation of non-formal and informal learning.

”How to bring lifelong learning back on the agenda in higher education”

Ladies and gentlemen,

Welcome to Norway, and to Bergen, the "City Between the Seven Mountains". It is a pleasure for me to address this conference. We all have a mutual interest in making lifelong learning a reality. I welcome the joint initiative of Eucen (ju:ken), EDEN, The Norwegian Association for Distance Education, Centre for Continuing Education of the University of Bergen and Vox to host this conference.

Last summer, I met with my colleagues, the European ministers of Education in Oslo, to discuss how to make lifelong learning a reality. We all agreed that:

“Human resources are Europe’s main asset. Future economic and social development in Europe relies on its ability to efficiently utilise, increase and improve this vast reservoir of knowledge, skills and competences.”

I notice that this is very much in line with the topics you are going to discuss during the conference. You will address the challenges faced by higher education institutions in providing lifelong learning opportunities for all. Or, maybe- how to turn the backpacker into a bachelor.

As the Norwegian Minister of Education and Research, and especially as the host of the next ministerial conference to be held in Bergen 19. and 20. May, I attach the utmost importance to the Bologna Process. Therefore, I give high value to the aim of this conference of going even beyond the Bologna process in addressing lifelong learning. Going beyond the Bologna process is an ambitious goal, as the process has already contributed significantly to the development of a competence-based Europe. The Bologna Process affects, and will affect also in the future, everybody planning to enter into higher education, as well as everybody working in higher education.

In this speech, I will focus on lifelong learning and the question of bringing it back on the agenda. I will also describe Norwegian experiences both in general, and more specifically in regard to higher education.

But first, let me go a little more into detail when it comes to one topic in particular: how lifelong learning in higher education might contribute to making the Bologna 2010 goals a reality.

Why is theBolognaprocess so important to us?

Higher education and research is in itself international. Through the comparison with others, we can develop further, and achieve excellence.

The Bologna Declaration of 1999 represents a significant step towards the aim of strengthening the cultural and intellectual ties of Europe within the area of higher education. Since then, through the Ministerial meetings in Prague in 2001 and Berlin in 2003, the process has demonstrated its importance in the development of higher education and the promotion of co-operation in Europe.

In all the member countries of the Bologna Process, reforms are well under way to align the systems of higher education in order to facilitate mobility between institutions for both students and staff. Our mutual goal is the creation of the European Higher Education Area by 2010, an area of high quality higher education, transparent systems, as well as an area facilitating mobility of students and staff. The various elements of the process and the implementation of these will be commented and discussed at the Ministerial meeting in Bergen in May.

A new set of intermediate priorities for 2007 will also be discussed by the ministers. My ambition is of course to assure that the process is given new momentum here in Bergen! One question is how and to which extent lifelong learning will be addressed.

TheBolognaprocess and Lifelong learning

Lifelong learning is no new action line in the Bologna process, but it is one which has received relatively little attention so far. Lifelong learning was officially brought into the Bologna Process through the Prague Communiqué in 2001. It was the topic of a Bologna seminar in Prague in 2003, but has not been highly profiled as an issue in the process since then.

Some of the conclusions in the Prague seminar were that higher education institutions and others should:

• adopt internal policies to promote the recognition of prior formal, non-formal and informal learning for access and study exemption; and
• integrate lifelong learning into their overall strategy, global development plan and mission;

During the ministers' meeting in Bergen in May, four discussion groups will be arranged, one of them addressing lifelong learning. The main question that this group will be invited to discuss is:

how issues and topics related to lifelong learning should be brought forward for policy implementation, on the national level and on the institutional level.

I am aware that the topics for discussion in parallel sessions today and tomorrow are highly relevant for exploring this topic.

I hereby invite all conference participants to consider the same overall question during your discussions, as will be discussed during the ministers meeting.

Lifelong learning- Norwegian experiences

It is my opinion that some of the most fruitful ways to give input to any discussion, is to draw heavily on practical examples and research-based evidence. I am aware that the topic of developing strategies for lifelong learning is placed high on the revised EU Lisbon Agenda. Thus, I will now present to you some recent experiences with lifelong learning policies in Norway, starting with the general framework- then turning into questions concerning higher education in particular. I will finish by addressing some main challenges, and try to relate these back to the question on how to get lifelong learning on the agenda in higher education.

The Competence Reform

In many ways Norway is in a privileged position. We have a high level of educated people and we invest heavily in our education system. We have also undertaken many efforts to ensure lifelong learning. The Competence Reform has been the main strategy for lifelong learning in Norway from 1999 an onwards, it’s principal objective has been to help meet the need for competence both in society, at the workplace and by the individual.

One of the most important measures of the reform was the introduction of legal rights focusing on individual needs:

Adults who need primary, lower and upper secondary education have an individual right to this. Courses shall be adapted to the needs of the individual adult and be based on his or her non-formal and informal learning, realkompetanse. Even adults who are not applying for enrolment have a legal right to have their realkompetanse validated free of charge, and to receive an official “competence certificate” that might be useful for job seeking.

From the autumn 2001 universities and university colleges admit students without formal entrance qualifications on the basis of age (25 years or more) and realkompetanse. The relevant institution decides if the student is qualified.

At the core of the Competence reform was setting up a system for the identification and validation of adults non-formal and informal learning, realkompetanse. However, as for the validation for purposes other than entry into formal education and/or award of academic credit, progress has been a challenge. In order to make validation more widespread in working life, employers will probably have to see clearer benefits than they do today. The situation varies, however, between sectors. Validation of realkompetanse in the health sector is an example of demand-driven use of new arrangements for validation.

An other important goal of the Competence reform, was to develop a more flexible supply-side in order to meet diverse needs. A whole range of new learning methods tailored to the needs of companies and employees, in particular concerning learning in the workplace, have been developed.

A separate act concerning short-term Post-Secondary Vocational Education that was adopted by parliament in 2003, is also of high relevance. It gives the institutions offering such courses a formal status in the educational system as an independent and trustworthy alternative to higher, and more academic, education.

The Competence reform was a result of collective bargaining and was based on close co-operation between many actors: Public authorities, social partners, providers of education, private and public institutions, organisations and enterprises. Realising that policy on skills is a cross-sector issue, I appointed a new “Forum for skills and working life” to follow up the reform. The forum includes eight other ministers and various players in the skills market.

Norway was the first country to be assessed by the OECD in respect of lifelong learning in 2001. Back then, the OECD was impressed by our ambitions to become a society in which lifelong learning can be a reality both for individuals and for society as a whole.

When I last autumn reported to the OECD Education Committee on progress and developments in lifelong learning in Norway since 2001, I concluded that there is still work to do. But I had to admit that it is difficult to generate enthusiasm because ‘there is no crisis’. This implies that one particular concern is lack of motivation for lifelong learning in Norway in the population.

Director of the OECD Education Directorate Barry McGaw met in the Governments forum shortly after my visit to Paris. He concluded that past performance has been good. He then raised the critical question whether Norway is really making full use of the generous human capital stocks it has accumulated. He argued that Norway- probably as the first OECD country– is at the point where the second-order question of how to get more out of lifelong learning needs to be addressed seriously. McGaw then made the following rather provocative proposal:

Norway should outlaw education and training by enterprises – formal and non-formal alike – unless the enterprise involved can demonstrate how the education and training will ultimately create value for a company!

To meet this challenge, I have NOT proposed to outlaw any kind of education… but I have established a project to form a basis for a new competence policy and to put it on the political agenda.

One of the core elements of this project is the coordination of the competence policy and political issues - as labour market, trade and industry, innovation and the welfare system. It is also essential to look further into the working life, and address how this arena better can benefit as an arena for lifelong learning.

Just to make sure, this does not mean that we have succeeded in making lifelong learning a reality for everyone and that this agenda can be set completely aside. We are still facing an “unfinished agenda”, on how to reach disadvantaged groups. But the message is quite clear that it will be appropriate to move to the question on how well we are applying the considerable human capital stocks we already have in order to create value in the knowledge economy.

The Quality Reform in higher education

I will now give a short description of the situation regarding reforms of higher education in Norway, as this make up the context for investigating lifelong learning in this sector.

All higher education in Norway is subject to the Act relating to Universities and Colleges. As already mentioned, necessary amendments in the Act to include the Competence Reform in higher education, were implemented from 2001.

The Quality Reform in higher education was officially introduced 1 July 2002. It covers both public (state) and private, but publicly financed, institutions of higher education, and consists of the following main elements:

• Changes in governance at the institutional level
• Increased institutional autonomy
• A new funding formula for the higher education institutions
• The establishment of NOKUT, the Norwegian Agency for Quality Assurance in Education
• A new degree structure, adopted from the Bologna process
• New forms of student guidance, evaluation and assessment
• A thoroughly revised system of financial support to students
• Internationalisation

According to the new act on Universities and University colleges that was passed in the Parliament 1st. of April this year, the institutions are obliged to collaborate with other higher education institutions and equivalent institutions in other countries, with local and regional society, business and industry, public authorities and international organizations. Furthermore they are obliged to offer continuing and further education within their academic areas.

Lifelong learning in higher education

The Competence Reform and in particular the notion of realkompetanse have had a significant impact with regard to the acceptance of students with non-traditional academic backgrounds. Students without formal entrance qualifications might be accepted on the basis of age (25 years or more) and realkompetanse. Further, realkompetanse may also provide a basis for exemption.

Some recent studies and statistics highlight experiences with these amendments, and with lifelong learning in higher education more in general. This information is quite new, I will share the evidence with you, but I do not intend to give all answers!

Official statistics and the NIFU STEP report

A recent mapping provides an updated overview of the number of realkompetanse applicants for higher education in 2001 and 2002. According to the report, the total number was 7 700 in 2001 and approximately 7 000 in 2002. New statistical information, that will actually first be officially released 13 PM today, shows that 4,7 percent of applicants for higher education in 2005 apply on basis of their realkompetanse. This implies a slight decrease since 2005, when the proportion was 5,7 percent. Due to official statistics, approximately half of the realkompetanse applicants are accepted. This proportion is much lower than for students accepted on general basis for admission, where 86 percent are considered qualified!

From the report we can see that more than 70 percent of the applicants in 2001 were women. In 2004, 66 percent were women and nearly half of them applied for studies in health or social studies.

The same report also provides an overview of how higher education institutions have adapted with regard to the development of local regulations and methods for assessing the candidates, and an upcoming new report will cover topics like progress and drop-out rate.

A report just about to be published unveils that students only very rarely are exempted from courses or examinations on the basis of their realkompetanse. Meanwhile, few students actually apply for exemption in higher education, and the few who do apply, are quite likely to be accepted! These findings give valuable insight into how the reform works "in the real world”, and will be important to investigate further.

EUCEN Refine project

One point stressed by the OECD is the need to document the procedures by which realkompetanse is identified and validated, and to determine the characteristics of those who benefit from this.

The aim of the EUCEN (ju:ken) Refine project, is to test the tools for an European methodological framework for the recognition of non-formal and informal learning. The Norwegian part of the project has given some preliminary answers to this question. Six higher educational institutions and 10 candidates participated in the Refine project in Norway.

The project found that the institutions lack procedures for assessing how candidates who applied for exemptions should be handled, and that candidates were dealt with in an ad hoc manner. In addition, the right to exemption is not well-known among the public.

The Refine project concludes that the right to exemption in higher education based on validation of realkompetanse will be dormant until better documentation tools have been developed. New tools should be more specifically related to the field of study a candidate seeks exemption from.

I am aware that you will have the opportunity to hear more about the Refine project tomorrow, as well as other European initiatives for enhancing knowledge in this field, like the EQUIPE (ÉKIIP) – (European Quality in Individualised Pathways in Education).

“Life and learning- Living conditions for adult students”

Even though we agree about the importance of lifelong learning, the scientific knowledge about adult students’ learning- and living conditions is rather scarce.

A research project is going on in Norway: Life and learning- Living conditions for adult students. In 2005 this project will include institutions in Sweden, Denmark and Canada for comparative surveys.

A pilot study is based on in-depth interviews with 18 students. This has been followed up by a survey including 1500 adult students, the results now about to be analyzed. The pilot study shows that:

The main motivation for studying is work related, either as further training for better job performance or professional study for professional authorisation

Working life is not accommodating towards studying employees; the employers are in general positive that their employees upgrade their competences, but they do not provide active support. The students have to do their studies in addition to full time employment

There is a great difference between further training (typically man 38, educated engineer) and professional study (woman 45, unskilled public health worker) both in relation to financing and to the practical study situation. Those who are in the “further training” group often get financial support and have their own office with computer and so on, while those in the “professional” study group have to pay themselves and need to search to find space for studying

You will hear more about practical experiences with adult students and flexibility in Norwegian higher education later this morning.

Norwegian Business Confederation project

The “life and learning-study” clearly recognise a need for better cooperation between the working life and the higher educational system. This is in line with another main suggestion given by the OECD; to adapt a sectoral approach, rather than an economy-wide approach, on the validation of work-related competencies.

On initiative from the Confederation of Norwegian Business and Industry (NHO) the Government supports a project designed to test an “apprentice scheme” in higher education. The aim of the project is to develop a scheme in which the students are placed in enterprises throughout their course, and where the theoretical education will be provided partly in the enterprise, and partly by the educational institution. This require a close cooperation with enterprises and institutions in higher education.

An important assumption of the project is that closer cooperation with enterprises and institutions in higher education and a consistent utilisation of competence gained through realkompetanse will result in more cost-efficient studies without diminishing the professional quality of studies.

The way ahead

Bringing lifelong learning back on the agenda?

Summing up, I think lifelong learning has proven its right for a place high up on the agenda in higher education as well as in other parts of the education system.

A main challenge is to establish clearer relations between investments made in lifelong learning, and the reaching of diverse ends. Experiences from developing lifelong learning strategies, as well as new research and projects should contribute significantly, I have given some examples. This and other evidence must be used to make more obvious what’s actually “in it” for individuals, working life, as well as for society as a whole? Then we might succeed better in turning attitudes from “positive but passive” towards more active involvement from all stakeholders.

Finally, some reflections on:

Lifelong learning and the Bologna process:

Though transparency, quality and mobility are highly relevant and important priorities in the Bologna process, it might now be the right time to look closer into the needs of individuals and working life. I think it is important that we keep in mind the needs of our lifelong learners for flexible systems. Do we really take into consideration the individual needs of all students? We need a more knowledge-based work force, but does the higher educational system take on a responsible role in making the work force qualified? Does the higher educational system recognise and validate work and life experience?

I expect the introduction of frameworks for qualifications, to help ensuring coherence and compatibility between policies within the formal education and training system, and all forms of learning, regardless of origin. A traditional understanding of the value of learning puts a greater value on certain learning experiences over others, a point of view that needs to come to its end!

Qualifications are not just about higher education, which is not the same that higher education institutions become less important as arenas for learning. Qualifications certainly exists on different levels, but I find no contradiction between promoting a framework referring to the outcomes of learning and at the same time striving for excellence. Rather, this should give an opportunity to clarify transfer and progression routes, and thereby simplify the accumulation of knowledge to higher levels.

I expect that the European framework will make it easier for citizens, employers and education institutions to navigate between different countries’ qualifications and educational systems. This will also increase mobility (within Europe), an important aspect of the Bologna process.

Recognition of learning outcomes, following diverse learning experiences, was at the very core of the Norwegian Competence reform. This will still be an important aspect when exploring the idea of a national framework in Norway, covering all levels of education and training. We are about to start a dialogue on this question. The Norwegian Rectors' conference held a meeting with broad representation from the higher education sector regarding this topic in March. The Directorate for Education, responsible for Vocational education and training is planning a meeting with the social partners in June. The aim is to include all relevant stakeholders at all levels in this dialogue.

I hope the framework both at European and national levels will prove to be a “missing link” between the providers of education, individual needs and working life- in a lifelong learning perspective.

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have challenges ahead of us as we go forward with the development and implementation of lifelong learning strategies. In my view, the most important aspect of bringing lifelong learning back, must be to ensure that individual needs have the highest priority, and to involve enterprises and society more closely in the further development of higher education.

I am convinced that your input will be highly valuable in our endeavours to bring lifelong learning higher up on the agenda in higher education. I once again urge you to keep the Bologna agenda in mind during your discussions!

Following me, after the break, will be Michel Feutrie (fø:tri) from the University of Lille. He will speak about the Common European Principles for Validation of non-and informal learning. The ministers that met in Oslo last summer agreed that these principles should be used as reference point and baseline when exploring and developing suitable practical national solutions. I think I have unveiled that Norway still has some unfinished business in this field, and will appreciate some good advice from Mr Feutries intervention!