Hilsningstale ved ENQAs generalforsamling

Ladies and gentlemen

Before I start, I just want to send you the best wishes from the Minister of Education and Research, Mr. Øystein Djupedal. He has been looking forward to meet you all on this ENQA summit. But the Minister of Finance has asked for a meeting on budget issues for 2008, and he cannot afford not to show up there. So, I would ask you all to accept his sincere apologies for this.

But I am very glad to be here!

Let me first of all take this opportunity to thank you for the possibility to address you here at this General Assembly today. I am proud that NOKUT has been chosen to host the General Assembly for 2007, and I am glad to have the opportunity to address you today.

ENQA is playing a central role in the shaping of the European higher educational landscape. The importance and potential of the organisation was spotted early on in its history by the European Ministers of Education - who in the 2001 Prague meeting invited ENQA to collaborate in establishing a common framework of reference for quality assurance.

Since then the organisation’s position within the Bologna Process has been further strengthened, both through substantial inputs, such as the drafting of "Standards and Guidelines “and formally through being accepted as a consultative member of the BFUG.

Establishing NOKUT was an important step in the work on quality assurance in Norway. Significant greater autonomy in managing and organising its activities had been given to the higher education institustions with the reform of the higher education system called the quality reform. It gave the higher education institutions freedom to establish new study programmes within certain limits.

However, the right to establish new programmes presupposes that the quality assurance system of the institution has been approved by NOKUT. This kind of quality assurance system places the responsibility for quality assurance on the universities and colleges themselves.

This is, in my opinion, very important, because this places the responsibility of quality as well as the quality development in higher education firmly with the institutions themselves. Quality assurance should, and must be, the responsibility of the higher education institutions; not the responsibility of an agency, not the responsibility of the Ministry, but rooted in the institutions themselves, and in the various departments and sections which constitute the institution. 

Increased institutional autonomy in Norway has been followed by a much stronger emphasis on quality in higher education, the two go hand in hand, and the establishment of NOKUT and the formalised procedures of quality assurance in Norwegian higher education are the results.

NOKUT marks the loosening of ties between political decisions and introduction of new study programmes.

This does not in any way take away the fact that the overall responsibility for the quality of the Norwegian higher education system as a whole lies with the Ministry. We are responsible for the system and for making certain that the system works as intended.

This is one of the reasons why we have decided that an evaluation of NOKUT will be carried out in 2007, we need to make sure that the system we have established works according to plan.

The evaluation has two objectives: The first objective is to examine whether NOKUT meets the “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area” adopted by the higher education ministers at the ministerial meeting of the Bologna process in Bergen in May 2005. The second objective is to evaluate the national role of NOKUT in the Norwegian educational system.

This second objective of the evaluation will hopefully give us the answers we are looking for and give us an indication as to whether we are moving in the right direction, whether there are elements in our quality assurance system which need to be adjusted.

The evaluation, which is being carried out by a group of international experts, will be a case of taking our own medicine for NOKUT as well as for the Ministry.

It is of vital importance that we are aware of the fact that we set the agenda for the work on quality assurance at our institutions, we are part of the system, and in order for the system to work, we need to make sure that all the partners of and elements in the system are aware of and comfortable with the various processes and tasks.

That is why it is important to scrutinize the system, in order to make sure that, after nearly 5 years in operation, the system works as intended. Maybe there are simply adjustments that need to be made, but if there are, this might be the way to find them!

Moving to the European arena, the Bologna ministers stated in the London Communiqué that the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the EHEA have been a powerful driver of change in relation to quality assurance, and we encouraged continued international co-operation amongst quality assurance agencies.

Aristotle said about friendship: “Wishing to be friends is quick work, but friendship is a slow ripening fruit.” I believe this to be a fair statement when it comes to cooperation as well, and particularly so when it comes to international cooperation. On my own account I would like to add the need for a certain amount of determination and meticulous work in order to achieve results.

The work ENQA is doing in promoting European co-operation in the field of quality assurance is not a banal thing, but an important stitch in the continuing patchwork of keeping Europe a learned and peaceful place.

I would also like to emphasize ENQA’s contribution in preparing – in collaboration with other stakeholders a European Register of Quality Assurance Agencies. The Register was specifically requested by Bologna Ministers in Bergen in 2005 and in the London Ministerial Meeting this spring the ministers welcomed the establishment of a Register of European Quality Assurance Agencies.

I am confident that the Register will further the development of the European Higher Education Area by providing clear and reliable information and help to raise the visibility of European higher education worldwide. Also I am hopeful that the evaluation of NOKUT will show that the Norwegian quality assurance agency merits a place in the Register. In Norway we must take advantage of every opportunity to assure quality at the highest level.

Notwithstanding the tremendously important work being carried out and which continues to be carried out on quality assurance in a European perspective, I would strongly argue for a continued and increased focus on the global dimension of higher education and quality assurance.

Being the main area for European co-operation in higher education, the focus area on the Bologna Process has naturally been Europe and the tremendous change our work has brought about so far. However, in order to avoid Europe becoming a closed area we need to include the global dimension in our future work to a much greater extent.

Higher education is global, and I believe in broadening the policy dialogue with countries and regions outside the European Higher Education Area in order to exchange ideas and share good practice. Education is a prerequisite for the development of society and a key to economic growth and prosperity. We have to focus on equal opportunities for education and on the mobility of students and staff across borders.

We have come so far in our co-operation in Europe, now we have to let the Bologna Process go global!

There is a need for enhanced higher education co-operation with non- European countries, and this should, in my opinion be one of the core areas after 2010.

In this respect it is important to keep in mind that whilst cross-border higher education is growing, not all higher education is quality higher education. Both students and countries may experience that the study programme offered does not match the study programme advertised. Norway has both within the Bologna Process and through UNESCO and OECD worked towards establishing international guidelines for cross-border higher education.

For Europe, the result is a strengthening of the work on quality assurance in higher education, both nationally and at the European level, and mutually shared standards and guidelines for quality assurance have been developed. Our overall aim is to increase and facilitate mobility of students while at the same time ensuring the quality of institutions and study programmes.

The global educational landscape is changing, in a way that could bell be described as a tectonic shift. Within two decades the global higher education enterprise could have more than doubled in size, be predominantly based in what today we call developing countries, and present a greater diversity of both providers and provision.

How will the world ensure the quality of such a vast enterprise? How are governments to protect their citizens from fraudulent providers and bogus qualifications, especially when they emanate from another country? Cross-border higher education makes students particularly vulnerable.  How can we create an international ethic of integrity and quality assurance?  

Based on what ENQA has already achieved in Europe in this respect, I believe that the organization has a role to play in the global context as well.

Thank you for your attention, I wish you luck with your deliberations.