General Report of Second Conference on HE Access

General Report of
Second Conference
on HE Access
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 1
Contents
Profile of participants ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Chronology of the Seminar ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Discussion Points .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Learning Outcomes ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Reflections from the facilitators ............................................................................................................................. 7
Feedback ................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Social Dimension at the heart of the Bologna Process ....................................................................................... 8
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 2
Profile of participants
The participants of the seminar consisted of delegates from all across EHEA, being 93 in total. The composition
was rather gender balanced, and age structure varying between 20-30 years of age. The profile of most of the
participants is international officers, but there were also delegates that solely work on equality within higher
education.
Chronology of the Seminar
A description of events in the seminar and techniques used.
Day 1: Setting the scene and context to the seminar:
●
Presentation of the EQUNet Project; and it’s value for policy-making in the field of improving
equitable access to HE
●
Main achievements and lessons learnt
●
Key messages from “Evolving diversity” report
World Café Exercise: Reality of Social Dimension
Social Dimension is looked at through four different questions that aim at finding out what has been
accomplished so far, what are the main challenges remaining, what needs to be changed to reach equal
success of SD in Europe and how to impact policy. Aims:
●
Engaging a group in an authentic dialogue process on the current status of SD from different
perspectives;
●
Conducting in-depth exploration of key strategic challenges and opportunities for SD in HE
●
Generating input, sharing knowledge and stimulating innovative thinking for policy update;
Panel Discussion: Targets and tools to strengthen focus on social dimension in education.
Exploring the context of how the future of SD looks like, what are the processes on the European level and
what possible solutions can be used and agreeing on future steps.
●
Raising awareness on the Social Dimension Observatory
●
Discussing the Social Dimension Observatory and the next steps in making it a reality
●
Finding solutions to tackle the current barriers of reaching a true SD
Panel session: Ethnic origin and access to HE: what stands in the way and what can we do about it.
ESU has engaged in exploring the access of ethnic minorities to higher education thorugh establishing a Ethnic
Minorities and Immigration Working Group. The group, along with stakeholders working in the field of access
of migrant/ minority groups to higher education discuss the topic through presenting the results of a survey
done amongst the national unions of students and through two interventions from an NGO working in the field
and from the perspective of research.
Keynote Presentation on Comparative research on migration and equity in Europe – Dorit Griga, University of
Bern
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 3
Session aims to bring to a common understanding, who we mean by talking about ethnic minorities and
immigrants, what are the barriers for them to access to HE and how to make a difference by removing them.
The session will be supported by the outcomes of the survey, carried our by ESU EMI WG.
Aims:
●
Exploring the barriers to education on the example of ethnic minorities and immigrants, potentially a
socially disadvantaged group;
●
Raising awareness of the unions on the topic and current situation around Europe
●
Presenting good practices that increase the access of these groups from policy level to grass roots
●
Discuss and hear feedback from relevant stakeholders and the participants
Interactive Session: What YouTube shows us?
Interactive session on stereotypes in social media and everyday life and their impact on forming attitudes.
Questions such as how stereotypes affect our everyday thinking and how these attitudes may harm or support
the promotion of diversity and equity?
Aims:
●
Raise awareness on how stereotypes impact our behaviour and how to change that model
Day 2:
Debate Club: Social Dimension in the perspective of young leaders.
Explore different argumentation lines, finding gaps in ESU policies, reaching common understanding of the
presented hypothesis, finding counter arguments;
●
Building capacity on argumentation and debate skills
●
Map opinions and reach common agreement on the different arguments relating to Social Dimension
Workshops: Synergies and future actions of stakeholders for widening access to higher education
Parallel workshops on how stakeholders and NUSes can promote social dimension towards 2012 and beyond.
National Unions of Students were invited to facilitate a session on a chosen topic of their interest in addition to
choosing from the ones planned by the organizers.
Participants can choose which parallel session they would like to take part in. Target of this session is to
brainstorm and discuss concrete tools and actions to promote Social Dimension. Topics to be covered are:
quality assurance and indicators in social dimension, supportive student support measures for disabled
students, accssibility through early involvement and observatory for social dimension on the European level.
●
Demonstrate the link between SisCatalyst project goals and widening participation to HE
●
Discuss and bring concrete ideas on how stakeholders and NUSes can work on SD in the future
●
Map out any possible up-coming issues on SD and how students can be a part of the process.
●
Allow for the participants to give input and work together on selected topics
Conclusions in a planery: Presentations of the outcomes of the parallel sessions, conclusions to the seminar
and key messages to the policy-makers.
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 4
Discussion Points
The status quo of the Social Dimension
●
Demographic transition and a rapidly changing economy
●
HEI are recruiting more students than even before
●
Impact of the financial crisis and austerity measures?
●
The social dimension of higher education has different understanding from one country to another
(Eurydice 2010)
●
Very few countries link their policy on the social dimension to the Bologna commitment of raising
participation of under-represented groups. (Eurydice 2010)
●
Very few countries set specific targets to improve participation of under-represented groups in HE
and about half monitor their participation. (Eurydice 2010)
Social Dimension at the heart of the Bologna Process
●
the need to accomodate to the larger needs of society
●
the different understanding of the social dimension concept
●
supporting of widening participation (recognition of prior learning, QA)
●
Definition on the BP: "…set measureable targets to widen participation of underrepresented groups in
higher education, to be reached by the end of the next decade…" (Leuven/Louvain-La-Neuve
communiqué, 2009).
Social Dimension as an evolving concept
●
In 2001 students bring in the Social Dimension of Higher Educaiton – more like a «floating concept»,
which was followed by a periof of searching for definition
●
Berlin – the social dimension appears in the agenda as a way of counterballancing
competitiveness/attractiveness
●
Consolidating the concept of the SD and its meaning
●
Bergen – SD becomes constituent element of the Bologna process with an enhancing conceptual
linkage between SD ad public responsibility
Students as key agents in enhancing the Social Dimension
●
engaging in an authentic dialogues process on the status of Social Dimension with all stakeholders
(students, lectureres, HE institutions, providers of adults education, counselling services at different
levels, career services, trade unions, foundations, companies: non profit and profit-making)
●
for the future: the need to generate input, share knowledge, stimulate innovative thinking, database
of good practices, evaluation tool for SD policy in HE institutions (ie Diversity barommeter), students
as SD ambassadors (key agents in enhancing SD in HE – budy systems)
Equity is the prerequisite of achieving the critical mass for a knowledge economy.
●
inequity in gender balance, net entry rates, entry via alternative routes, participation based on
occcupaitonal educational background, income gap of students, ratios of foreign students
●
a student from low socioeconomic background – is less likely to attend higher educaiton, less likely to
choose different courses of study, more likely to work during studies, far less likely to have a mobility
experience.
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 5
Role of Social Dimension in Higher Education policy making, targets SD promotes, why is SD important
●
The odds ratio of those attaining higher education is still very strongly correlated to those with highly
educated parents in comparison with students with parents who have lower levels of educational
attainment.
-
Need to upgrade the workforce
Promotes a more sustainable and democratic society
personal growth, maximing talent
active citizenship
widening access to a diverse group of individuals, promoting a change in the social make-up of the
society (social mobility)
- Social justice – to create a better, more socially cohesive society
- The cost of not acting on social dimension
- Ensuring regional diversity
Ethnic origin and access to Higher Education:
-
there is no universally agreed legal definition in international law.
EU equality standards and education – give a legislation framework against nationality
discrimination, gender discrimination, discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin,
discrimination based on religion or believe, disability, age or sexual orientation.
Do chances of migrants different when they try to enter higher education
-
no one side fits all pattern
for some migrant groups there are disadvantages in HE, which can be explained through language
barrier,
Best practice:
- the disadvantage youth mentoring programme of HOOK
Young people with a migrant background are at greater risk of exiting the education and training system
without having obtained an upper secondary qualification. Educational level of people of immigrant
background does not even out over generations (a trend in some countries)
Learning Outcomes
●
Conducting in-depth exploration of key strategic challenges
Issues that were raised up: Social selectivity on different levels higher education systems,
reproduction of social inequalities, lack of understanding of the social dimension concept, conflict in
perception, untapped stocks of talent, including the failure to reduce drop out rates of students and
reduce the low access and low success rates, cultural barriers in achieving equality of opportunity.
Underrepresented groups still have less chances to attend HE, less chances to study abroad and are
more likely to work during studies. In addition, the measures and national targets on social dimension
are still not greatly developed, as Eurodice 2011 points out.
●
Finding solutions and measures to tackle the current barriers of reaching a true SD
Throughout the sessions, the question what can be done to tackle the barriers to SD and how the
promotion of SD can further be advanced was explored. The solutions often were aggragated and
mixed, and were either categorized as structural or political. Important to note that no one size fits all
solution exists!
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 6
Findings include;
-
●
Increase stakeholders’ participation
-
Sharing and exchanging of good practices
-
More effective pedagogy in institutions
-
Policy measures targeting underrepresented groups
-
Monitoring activities to observe the composition of the student body
-
Measures that can take place at upper secondary level
-
Better support services
-
A European level obsevatory that could monitor the progress of countries’ work on SD
-
More comparable data to increase the evidence-based policy making and target the needs of
students more efficiently
Exploring the barriers to education on the example of ethnic minorities and immigrants, potentially
a socially disadvantaged group;
-
For one; there is not a lot of knowledge on the topic of access barriers for ethnic minorities and
immigrants. The general issues are known, such as language skills, impact of cultural and socioeconomic background, difficulty in recognition of prior learning or qualifications, but only on a
general level.
-
The degree to which prejudices, discrimination or difficulty in integration affects this group from
entering is not explored.
Reflections from the facilitators
Please write a short overview of the workshops and interactive sessions:
●
The workshops aimed at facilitating knowledge exchange to a diverse groups of participants, who
have different levels of knowledge on the topic of social dimension. Therefore having topics that
linked to other topic areas (such as quality assurance), was beneficial in catering for the interests of all
of the participants.
●
The smaller groups enabled people to dig deeper into the topics and exchange experiences from their
national contexts.
●
In some cases the group sized remained a bit too small, and then reaching a geographical coverage
wasn’t possible in order to engage in a proper discussion.
●
Debates: having two groups, which were yet divided into two depending on the topic under debate,
worked well. Participants had to choose sides depending on whether they agreed or not on the issue
raised. Then in smaller groups, they were to discuss and come up with arguments for or against the
topic. Afterwhich, one participant per bigger group stepped up to present their view. Participants
were also encouraged to defend a side which they normally would not, enabling creative and outside
of the box thinking.
●
In the debate the ones not so familiar with the topic of Social Dimension or policy on it, were able to
learn from hearing the arguments from the others.
●
Time run too short to properly do a mapping of what policy is ESU missing on the different topics.
Although an overview was possible to be reached, as the extent to which participants were able to
argue for certain topics indicated how familiar they were with some of them.
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 7
Feedback
●
Participants reported being content with the mix of different types of sessions, ranging from panels to
workshops to interactive sessions where everyone was engaged at once.
●
Topics covered catered for most participants
●
The focus on finding solutions to the barriers received positive feedback and the fact that the
outcomes were worked into a statement adopted later by the participants gave a concrete outcome
to the Conference.
●
The wide participation of EQUNet partners gave the conference a framework that enabled the
comprehensive outlook on Social Dimension to be built up and gave the project a face (also as the
different partners were explained in the Reader for the participants to familiarize themselves with the
project beforehand)
●
The poster exhibition that was planned didn’t work out in the extent the organizers had imagined and
planned for it to work out. There was a lack of materials brought.
●
The attempt to collect best practices on social dimension prior to and during the conference wasn’t as
succesful in the end either. The idea was to make a collection of good practictes to facilitate peerlearning and spreading of good practices, also towards stakeholders and the project itself.
Conclusions
As conclusions, the conference produced a statement, summing up the findings of the conference:
STATEMENT ON THE SOCIAL DIMENSION
Social Dimension at the heart of the Bologna Process
Since the beginning of the Bologna Process, social dimension has been a major concern of the students. Many
targets of the Bologna Process refer to the social dimension, but comprehensive implementation is still lacking.
The definition given in the London Communiqué of how the student body entering, participating in and
completing higher education at all levels should reflect the diversity of our populations provides a framework
of what should be reached, but does not give concrete actions for what should be done. Social dimension must
be seen in a multidimensional, political, cultural and socioeconomic matrix, as it cuts through everything.
Therefore this is an evolving and diverse concept that needs to be developed, to ensure an open and
democratic society.
ESU would like to break the misconception of social dimension solely using up finances without having a
substantial positive impact on the society. Social dimension not only ensures economical benefits for the
society, but also produces social benefits. Both of these benefits can be proved by evidence based data.
Another important outcome of social dimension is ensuring the values of social mobility and justice, as
education is a human right. Therefore access to higher education should be widened to ensure that knowledge
generated within higher education institutions is available to as many people as possible. Full implementation
would allow for maximizing the potential of the society and individuals. This leads to the fact that widening
access is a crucial part of social dimension. Additionally this is a chance to ensure regional diversity and to help
the single countries to develop a sustainable higher education system.
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 8
Several challenges still remain in the way of implementing Social Dimension
ESU wants to bring attention to the lack of financial resources and talent, which hinder tackling the diversity of
the student population. Even though having enough financing is an essential part of making sure the different
aspects of social dimension are taken care of, it is necessary to go deeper into the topic. The people and
service providers that are involved in this sector need to acknowledge and know the specific needs of the
student population. Examples of which include the correlation between the education level of parents and
chances to enter higher education or the missing of role models.
ESU recognizes that the Bologna countries started to emphasize the importance of the portability of grants
and loans. This portability is needed to ensure that despite their background or financial means, all students
have a chance to be mobile. In addition the variation of expenses depending on the study destination should
be reflected in the size of the grants.
ESU underlines the importance of a need based student support system. In many member states social
support is still given based on merit or the income of the parents. Reflection on the needs should be done
regularly in order to guarantee the existence of a diverse student body and equal chances to participate in
higher education. What is more, the student support system should be developed based on the regular
assessment.
ESU claims that the main responsibility of implementing the social dimension must be shared between higher
education institutions and governments. Different parts of the social dimension can and should be
implemented by different actors, ensuring that a monitoring system is in place to ensure action is taken.
Quality assurance and assessment of the system should be done regularly.
A step closer to a real Social Dimension
ESU emphasizes that the political will and the increase of resources and capacities needs to be ensured. This is
not fulfilled with just agreeing to intensions, but it is also needed to create concrete measurable targets,
actions and outcomes in the political work, which include an improvement that can be seen in the students’
daily life and not just covering the status quo.
ESU would like to call emphasize the role of early intervention at lower education levels as a measure to widen
participation to higher education and increase social inclusion. Such action is a possible first step for an
individual to realize their potential and grasp the idea of university. The impact on increasing the number of
first generation students and the effect parental educational status has is evident.
ESU calls on the policy makers to enlarge the concept of social dimension from the framework of higher
education to lifelong learning. The diversity of the society should not only be represented on certain levels of
education, but instead this representation should be ensured on all the levels of education.
ESU requests the implementation or development of needs based social support. In order to have a proper
impact, such support should be equal and non-discriminatory, accessible, affordable and qualitative. Student
support is part of the overall social support, guaranteeing students’ equality in studies and supporting students
to graduate regardless of any disadvantage that a student might have had at any point during or prior to their
higher education studies.
As there is still a lack of data, ESU emphasizes the importance of social surveys on the situation and the needs
of students as well as potential students. This data is the basis of evidence-based decision making and
therefore obligatory. All European countries should support the implementation of this survey in their
respective countries. Moreover the countries should use this data to identify underrepresented groups and
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 9
groups with disadvantages to create policy measures for these groups as recommended in the LeuvenLouvain-La Neuve Communiqué.
ESU is in favour of creating of a European Observatory on Social Dimension of Higher Education an important
step to improve the implementation of the Social Dimension. Tasks of the observatory should be in the
beginning the monitoring of relevant aspects, the examination how data is collected and analysed, collection
of good practices at different levels and to provide the facility for the evaluation of national practices by
international peers on request. The structure of the observatory should be implemented in a sustainable way
and the financing should be secured. Additionally the tasks of observatory should be developed in the future.
D 6.4b General Report of Second conference on access HE | Page 10