EHEA Ministerial Conference 2018 – Comunicado de Paris

Na sequência dos posts anteriores sobre o assunto, anote-se adoção, a 25 de maio, na Conferência Ministerial do Espaço Europeu de Ensino Superior, do Comunicado de Paris.

Beyond 2020: a more ambitious EHEA
The EHEA has proved its role as a unique framework for higher education co-operation in Europe. To develop the EHEA further, we will intensify cross-disciplinary and cross-border cooperation as well as develop an inclusive and innovative approach to learning and teaching. We call on the BFUG to submit proposals in time for our 2020 meeting in order to enable higher education to fully play its role in meeting the challenges faced by our societies.


We believe that the Bologna Policy Forum, supported by Ministers and international organisations, can bring about a more systematic and sustainable level of international
cooperation. This cooperation needs to take account of the diversity across our regions, including the different domestic social and political contexts of higher education and
its wider geopolitical dimension. It should define realistic ambitions and goals that can be achieved in a spirit of exchange and mutual learning. It is important for those with responsibility for higher education to listen, learn and engage on common issues. These include quality, academic freedom, student participation, social inclusion, the status, the
autonomy and the wider role of higher education institutions. The Fifth Bologna Policy Forum has initiated a global policy dialogue focussing on two of these common concerns – social inclusion and the wider civic role of higher education.
We, the Ministers, commit to supporting this ongoing, successful interregional dialogue on issues of common concern amongst policy makers, stakeholder organisations, students, staff and higher education institutions. We propose the establishment of a Global Working Group in the next 2018-2020 Bologna work programme to take this agenda forward and we invite countries to express their interest to hold high level workshops on a yearly basis to continue the dialogue on social inclusion and the wider role of higher education. We are also committed to continuing to collaborate, to share experience and to identify future goals through joint workshops, conferences and importantly peer learning for innovative answers to our common challenges. In order to further develop international partnerships, we call on higher education institutions to explore all opportunities provided by bilateral actions and multilateral mobility and cooperation programmes, such as the EU-funded Erasmus+ or the Horizon 2020 research programmes, to collaborate on reaching solutions to our common challenges.
Measures adopted:
• Structured peer support approach for the implementation of the three Bologna key commitments
• Belarus strategy for 2018-2020
• Short cycle qualifications as a stand-alone qualification level within the overarching Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area (QF-EHEA)
• Revised Diploma Supplement, with a recommendation for its adoption in identical form in the respective frameworks of the Lisbon Recognition Convention and Europass

Com a vantagem da leitura do Relatório, estes dois documentos sintetizam o «para onde vamos» até 2020.

[The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report]


“The European Higher Education Area in 2018” – referências a Portugal [4]

The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report

Referências a Portugal [finalizando]

Chapter 6: Relevance of the Outcomes and Employability

“As expected, the smallest differences in unemployment rates can be found between the medium skilled and Bachelor-level educated, but in general, having a Bachelor-level degree protects against unemployment better than upper secondary level education. However, in seven countries (Denmark, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia and Turkey), graduates with Bachelor degrees are more likely (albeit not always by much) to be unemployed than those with upper secondary education, and in Serbia and Denmark even graduates with a Master degree are in a similar situation.” (p. 218)

When looking at the following years (2013 to 2016), the situation has improved considerably. The majority of countries experienced a decrease in unemployment during these years. In fact, Andorra, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Iceland, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania, Poland and Portugal had a negative growth rate of over 10 % during these years. However, looking at different education levels, there are some exceptions to the overall positive situation.” (p. 219)

“The ratio of the median annual gross income of employees with tertiary qualification to lower levels of education is depicted in Figure 6.7. In 2015, tertiary qualified employees in every country analysed had an income advantage. According to Figure 6.7A, the ratio of tertiary qualification to upper secondary education ranges from 1.9 in Portugal and Turkey – which means that the median annual gross income of tertiary qualified employees is almost twice as high as the income of upper secondary qualified employees.” (p.222)

“The biggest differences between female and male overqualification rates are on the one hand in Belarus, Albania, Kazakhstan, Turkey and Andorra (with higher over-qualification rates for men) and on the other hand in Slovakia, Italy, Cyprus, Finland, the Czech Republic and Portugal (with higher over-qualification rates for women).” (p. 228)

“In some countries, employers have to be involved in curriculum development in professional higher education institutions (for example in France, Latvia and Portugal). In Belgium (Flemish Community), Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, and Slovakia, for example, employers are typically involved in curriculum development in such institutions.” (p. 232)

Chapter 7: Internationalisation and Mobility

“Overall, in the majority of countries the share of mobile students from inside the EHEA is higher compared to the ones coming from outside the EHEA. However, the reverse is true for the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, Portugal, Ukraine and Finland, as well as Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan and Moldova, where the share of students from outside the EHEA is double or more the share of students coming from another EHEA country.(…) The weighted average share of international students from outside the EHEA increased from 2.27 to 3.59 since 2011/12. The weighted average share of international students from inside the EHEA also increased from 2.1 % to 2.8 %, with increases in most countries, with the exception of Portugal which registers a decrease of around 50 %.” (p.254)

“In comparison with the 2015 Bologna Process Implementation Report, several countries (France, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Italy and Hungary) register a significant decrease of the within EHEA incoming/outgoing ratio. On the other hand, an increase of more than factor 2 is observed in Armenia, Cyprus, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Poland. These countries have a higher imbalance towards incoming students than reported for 2011/12.” (p. 260)

“In addition to the eleven counties already mentioned above (see Figure 7.17), Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Sweden are clear net importing countries. Kazakhstan, Ireland and Latvia have a balanced incoming/outgoing ratio.” (p. 261)

“Looking at the outward diversity, Andorra and Liechtenstein show the least diverse mobility patterns. More than 95 % of outgoing students of these countries study in only three countries of destination. For Andorra these countries are Spain, France and Portugal and for  Liechtenstein, these countries are Switzerland, Austria, and Germany.” (p. 264)

“In around one-third of all EHEA systems, portability of grants is limited to credit mobility, i.e. when students move abroad for a short period of time (e.g. a semester or an academic year) in the framework of their home-country programme. Some of these systems apply portability restrictions (Armenia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom – England, Wales and Northern Ireland), limiting, in particular, the portability of grants to programme exchanges within recognised schemes such as Erasmus (e.g. Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal and Spain).” (p. 268)

“Moreover, as the higher education mobility scoreboard shows (European Commission /EACEA/ Eurydice 2016b, p. 29), some systems register only a negligible proportion of loan beneficiaries among their student population (e.g. less than 1 % in the French Community of Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal and Slovakia), so that loans in these systems cannot be regarded as a major element of national student support (i.e. their portability is not considered in Scorecard indicator n°12 – Figure 7.26).” (p. 269)

“Most systems that offer publicly-subsidised loans allow portability for both credit and degree mobility. While the overall geographical pattern is very similar to the portability of grants, some countries with limited grant portability – for example Hungary, Latvia, Portugal, Slovakia and Switzerland – are more flexible when it comes to portability of publicly-subsidised loans (i.e. loans are portable – with or without restrictions – for credit as well as degree mobility, whereas grants are only portable for credit mobility). Iceland is another noteworthy case, as although there is no standard grant package, publicly-subsidised loans are portable without restrictions.” (p. 269)

Seven countries – Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Spain and most parts of the United Kingdom – apply various restrictions to credit mobility (‘orange’). Among them, Latvia and Portugal offer fully portable loans, yet, the portability of grants is limited to credit mobility with restrictions. Kazakhstan provides loans that are portable for credit mobility without restrictions, while grants are portable for credit mobility with restrictions.” (p. 270)

“The European Higher Education Area in 2018” – referências a Portugal [3]

The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report

Referências a Portugal [continuando]

Chapter 3: Degrees and Qualifications

“There are significant differences between countries in terms of the participation in master or equivalent programmes. The lowest share – less than 10 % – is observed in Andorra, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro and Turkey. At the other end of the scale are countries where more than 30 % of all higher education students can be found in ISCED 7 programmes, namely Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, France, Germany, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden.” (p. 94)

“Only a dozen countries were able to supply national statistics (including estimates) on the proportion of short-cycle graduates continuing their studies in the first cycle. The highest proportion – between 50 % and 74.9 % – is reported by Andorra, France and Portugal. In Cyprus, Denmark, Ukraine and the United Kingdom (Scotland), the proportion is situated between 25 % and 49.9 %; while in Hungary, Italy, Norway, Sweden and Turkey, only up to 25 % of short-cycle graduates continue their studies in the first cycle.” (p. 103)

“In contrast, in 12 higher education systems (Albania, Andorra, Belgium–French Community, Bulgaria, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Montenegro, Poland, Portugal and Ukraine), less than 5 % of second-cycle graduates eventually enter a doctoral-degree programme. In around half of all EHEA countries, the proportion is situated between 5 % and 20 %.” (p. 105)

Finland, Portugal and Switzerland do not define the duration of doctoral studies in their steering documents. However, in Finland, there are ongoing discussions aiming to set the duration of doctoral training at four years. Portugal indicates that while not stipulated in steering documents, the most common duration is aligned with the Salzburg Principles. In Switzerland, each university is responsible to define autonomously the duration of doctoral training, but in general it lasts three to four years.” (p. 107)

“A number of higher education systems use a flexible approach to ECTS in doctoral programmes. For example, in Finland, there are no regulations on the length or workload of third-cycle programmes, but ECTS credits commonly cover taught elements. In Croatia, the Czech Republic, Liechtenstein, Portugal and Romania, regulations do not have a prescriptive character regarding the use of ECTS in doctoral programmes. This means that higher education institutions can decide autonomously whether and to what extent they use ECTS.” (p. 108)

“Croatia, the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Norway and Portugal also report a substantial number of fields in which integrated programmes exist (all, or almost all fields depicted by Figure 3.15) and, at the same time, almost all these countries (except Lithuania) register a relatively higher proportion of students in integrated programmes.” (p. 110)

“Completing the self-certification of the NQF to the QF-EHEA (step 10) makes qualifications more visible, comparable and understandable for other countries. Through this process a country proves that its NQF is compatible with the QF-EHEA and that the common European principles – in particular related to the use of learning outcomes, credits, quality assurance, the involvement of stakeholders – are respected. Bulgaria, Cyprus and Romania have completed their self-certification processes since 2015 but their reports and the final NQFs are not available online. By 2018, self-certification reports and NQFs of 30 higher education systems can be consulted on a public website (step 11). Austria, Iceland, Montenegro, Portugal and Turkey have made public their self-certification reports since 2015.” (p. 121)

“The most widespread use by national authorities in 34 of the 44 systems that have established an NQF is coordinating policy developments across different educational levels and sectors. For example, according to a report by Cedefop, most NQFs for higher education are integrated into comprehensive NQFs for lifelong learning that cover all levels and sectors of education (Cedefop, 2016). These comprehensive NQFs provide a common set of learning outcomes for developing
standards and qualifications for schools, higher education, vocational education and training, adult education and, in some cases, non-formal and informal learning. In Estonia, the NQF is also linked to the development of a lifelong learning strategy. In Croatia, Denmark and Portugal, the NQF coordination group provides a forum for regular cross-education discussions; similarly, in the United Kingdom (Scotland), the framework supports so-called learner journey discussions.” (p. 123)

“Twenty-nine systems report that higher education institutions are formally required to use the NQF and its features in qualification and programme design, and a
further eight countries indicate that (although not required) institutions usually use NQFs for these purposes. Some countries (Denmark, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovenia and the United Kingdom – Scotland) require higher education institutions to specify the NQF level of the qualification in the Diploma Supplement and other documentation related to the diploma (see also 3.2.1).” (p. 123)

Chapter 5: Opening Higher Education to a Diverse Student Population

“In the first group of countries (Group 1), which includes Malta, Portugal and Turkey, the proportion of people with tertiary education in the 45-64 age group is low (around or below 15 %), and the share of the population aged 45-64 with low educational attainment (ISCED 0-2) is high (above 68 %). At the same time, the share of first-cycle new entrants coming from families with low educational background is the highest in these three countries (above 35 % in Portugal and Malta, and more than 55 % in Turkey), though these proportions are still lower than the share of people with low education attainment in their parents’ cohort. On the other hand, new entrants from families with medium educational attainment (ISCED 3-4) are relatively over-represented: while the share of people with medium educational attainment is between 12 % and 21 % in these three countries, the proportion of new entrants with this educational background is between 20 % and 36 %. In other words, the strong and comparatively recent higher education expansion (see also Section 5.2.1) has created opportunities particularly for learners from medium educated families to access higher education in these countries.” (p. 157)

“In six countries (Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Norway, Austria and Russia), the higher the level, the lower the share of female entrants. In Portugal and Norway, nevertheless, the share of female entrants is above 50 % at all levels. In the other four countries, women are in a minority in the third cycle.” (p. 162)

“According to the latest Eurostudent survey, international students are a more sizeable group than firstgeneration immigrants in almost all countries, with the exception of Croatia, Portugal and Slovakia (see Figure 5.6). First-generation immigrant students have the largest share among all students in Ireland (11 %), Sweden (8 %), Denmark and Switzerland (7 %). The share of international students is above 10 % in Austria, Finland, France, Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland (in Austria and Finland, their proportion is 20 % or higher). ” (p. 164)

“In comparison to 2011/12, more countries registered increases than decreases in the share of mature students. However, the decreases have been more substantial than the increases. Consequently, the EHEA median decreased slightly from 16.1 % to 15.7 %. The largest decrease was registered in Andorra (10.9 percentage points), followed by Cyprus (8.8 percentage points), Turkey (6.3 percentage points) and Bulgaria (5.3 percentage points). In contrast, the education system registering the largest increase in this period is Slovenia (3.8 percentage points), followed by Austria (3.7 percentage points), the United Kingdom (3.5 percentage points), Portugal (3.3 percentage points) and Slovakia (3.2 percentage points).” (p. 166)

“Frameworks for the recognition of prior learning exist primarily in western European countries. In most cases, a recognition procedure is enough for applicants to gain access to (selected) higher education programmes. Nevertheless, such a recognition procedure is not always compulsory for all higher education institutions, but is an option institutions can choose to apply in their admission procedure. Furthermore, as Figure 5.15 shows, in three countries – Austria, Germany and Portugal – the recognition procedure in itself is not enough for applicants to gain access to higher education: they also have to pass an additional entrance examination. (…) these examinations should be open to a wider group of learners (e.g. all applicants or applicants over a certain age). Such special entrance examinations exist in Andorra, Austria (Studienberechtigungsprüfung), the French Community of Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands (colloquium doctum), Portugal and Spain (see Figure 5.15).” (p. 177)

“When looking at students entering higher education with standard qualifications obtained later in life (i.e. through second-chance routes), their proportion is relatively substantial in some countries, especially in the Netherlands (23 %), Iceland (23 %), Portugal (19 %) and Malta (18 %). In most other countries, however, even their participation in higher education is very low.” (p. 179)

More than three-quarters of participating students claimed to pay fees in the Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland, Albania, Portugal, Norway, Ireland and Slovenia.” (p. 181)

In 14 countries, fee amounts are not influenced by students’ socio-economic background. Data shows that in these countries either all students pay the same amount (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Portugal) or other criteria determine which students pay fees and how much they pay. The most common criteria are the study field, whether a student has a different status from the full-time status (part-time students, distance learning; see Figure 2.18) or academic performance.” (p. 182)

“In some countries, a higher share of first-cycle students receives grants than second-cycle students. In Portugal, Slovakia and the United Kingdom (Scotland), more than 10 % of students are targeted by need-based grants in the first cycle, and less than 10 % in the second cycle. While the current data set does not allow looking at the actual percentage point differences, the different proportions may indicate that governments make a policy choice to provide student support to a broader pool of students in the first cycle. By this measure they may aim to widen access to the first cycle of higher education for under-represented groups.” (p. 188)

In countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland, Iceland and Portugal, where all students pay fees, there is no difference in the share of fee-payers among recipients and non-recipients of support. In France, Ireland and Italy, the higher share of fee-payers among non-recipient of support reflects a policy where disadvantaged students receive a fee-waiver and a need-based grant at the same time. A different policy is followed in Hungary, Latvia, Romania and Serbia, where students who study in non-state funded places are not eligible for any or at least some support (in particular grants).” (p. 191)

Drop-out rates are also systematically calculated in the majority of the countries at the end of each year. Nevertheless, nine countries (Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the
Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom) measure drop-out rates only after the first year.(…) In addition, in Estonia, Portugal and Slovenia, information portals providing data on completion and drop-out have been or are in the process of being set up.” (p. 201)

“Yet, there are large variations among education systems regarding such limitations. Some countries specify the maximum number of credits – for example 10 (in Liechtenstein) or 12 ECTS (in Italy) – that can be awarded on the basis of prior learning within a higher education programme. Others define the maximum amount of credits to be gained as a proportion of all credits necessary to complete a higher education programme. For example, in Portugal, one third of all credits can be gained through recognition procedures within a cycle.” (p.208)

“Twelve education systems are in the light green category. In these cases, two possibilities exist. First, there could be nationally established procedures, guidelines or policy for the recognition of prior learning as a basis for both accessing higher education programmes and the allocation of credits towards a qualification, but these procedures are not monitored regularly. This is the case in Germany, Norway and Portugal (where the procedures for the recognition of prior learning for progression are not monitored), and the French Community of Belgium, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom (with no central level monitoring).” (p. 209)

“The European Higher Education Area in 2018” – referências a Portugal [2]

The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report

Referências a Portugal [continuando…]

Chapter 2: Learning and Teaching

“Significant progress has been made in this area compared to the situation in 2013/14. Eleven additional countries (Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Malta, Montenegro, Portugal, Romania and Ukraine) now describe all programmes and their components in terms of learning outcomes, while the Czech Republic does so for more than half. However, in 14 countries, ECTS credits are still not linked to learning outcomes in between 1-49 % of programmes, and in more than half of the programmes in Cyprus. Albania and Belarus have not started implementing the learning outcomes approach in their higher education programmes.” (p. 53)

“Previous Bologna implementation reports showed that the coherent implementation of the learning outcomes approach and related credit allocation has not been attained across higher education institutions even within individual countries, often not even across faculties within individual institutions. Responses from higher education institutions to the recent EUA Trends 2018 survey also suggest that while many institutions are becoming more confident about designing curricula based on learning outcomes and revising student assessment to align to the learning outcomes approach, to one fifth of the institutions (58 of 263 responding to a specific question) expressing the intended learning outcomes in curricula still causes problems. In Portugal, more than half of the responding institutions reported that this is still a challenge. About a third of higher education institutions (84 of 263 responding to the question) find it difficult to revise student assessment to focus on learning outcomes, i.e. whether students have achieved the intended knowledge, skills and competences, (more than half of the participating institutions reported this in Austria and Portugal). Finally, 39 % of institutions report that resources are not sufficient to support staff in implementing learning outcomes (more than 50 % in Austria, France, Italy, Portugal and Romania).” (p. 55)

“The use of learning outcomes is often regulated as part of the legislation on the implementation of the national qualifications framework – making the use of learning outcomes an explicit condition for the inclusion of qualifications in the framework (Croatia, France, Hungary, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Malta and Montenegro). Higher education programme accreditation rules (Malta), or quality assurance standards or guidelines (Portugal, the United Kingdom – Scotland) may also require
the use of learning outcomes in programme descriptions. In Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine, national higher education standards provide orientation for defining learning outcomes for programmes and their components.” (p. 56) “now Hungary and Portugal have adopted regulations and guidelines, respectively, for this purpose.” (p. 57)

“In three higher education systems – Azerbaijan, the Flemish Community of Belgium and Portugal – all institutions are required to provide part-time studies or other alternative forms of study. In Portugal, for instance, legislation stipulates that higher education institutions must provide part-time studies if the student opts for this regime.” (p. 66)

“A first group can be characterised as offering ‘equal treatment’, since students with an alternative status do not have to pay higher fees, and are eligible for the same level of support as students following traditional study arrangements. This group consists of Azerbaijan, Greece, Italy, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom (England, Wales and Northern Ireland). ” (p. 69)

“For example, in Malta, Sweden and Portugal, among students reporting low study intensity, more than half are part-timers, whereas the proportion of part-time students in these countries does not exceed 30 %.” (p.73)

“A second group of countries integrate the use of new technologies in specific education strategies. For example, Bulgaria refers to new technologies in its higher education development strategy; Croatia and Portugal in their strategies for education, science and technology; Estonia, Moldova, Russia and Serbia integrate strategic planning on new technologies in their strategies for education or for lifelong learning.” (p. 76)

From the 38 systems that have strategies or policies on the use of new technologies, all, except Portugal and Switzerland, identified specific objectives related to the use of these new technologies in teaching and learning in higher education. The most commonly set objectives are in the area of providing access to ICT infrastructure.” (p. 76)

“Although not depicted on a specific figure, the EUA Trends 2018 survey points to substantial differences between countries in requirements for distinct academic positions. For example, all responding institutions in Greece, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Switzerland and Ukraine report the doctorate or a post-doctoral degree as a formal or most common requirement for professorial positions, whereas their share is significantly lower in the Netherlands, Austria and the Czech
Republic (43 %, 63 % and 67 %, respectively).” (p. 84)

“In contrast, compulsory courses to enhance teaching skills seem to be quite uncommon in Portugal (no responding institution reported this type of provision),
Turkey (9 %), Italy (11 %), France (13 %), Spain (15 %) and Greece (17 %).” (p. 88)

“Another assessment approach – self-evaluation – is common in Kazakhstan (in place throughout the institution in 93 % of responding institutions) as well as in the Netherlands, Romania, Russia, Ukraine and the United Kingdom (around 60-70 % of institutions), but less common in Austria, Ireland and Sweden (around 25-30 % of institutions). Peer assessment is relatively common in Kazakhstan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Ukraine and the United Kingdom (50 % or more responding institutions use it throughout the institution), but rather uncommon in Germany and Italy (around 10 % of institutions).” (p. 89)

“The European Higher Education Area in 2018” – referências a Portugal [1]

The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report

Na sequência do post anterior, decorrente da leitura, identificamos as referências a Portugal (assinalado a azul):

 Chapter 1: The European Higher Education Area Landscape

“Compared to the change in tertiary enrolment in the earlier period (2009/10 to 2011/12), nine countries (Turkey, Germany, Switzerland, Malta, Norway, Belgium, Greece, Serbia and Austria) have experienced a slower increase in enrolment in the later period (2012/13 to 2014/15), and 11 countries (Spain, Iceland, Croatia, Finland, the United Kingdom, the Czech Republic, Albania, Portugal, Liechtenstein, Belarus and Kazakhstan) have shifted from an increase to a decrease in tertiary
enrolment in the second reference period.” (p. 24)

“This is a slight increase compared to 2015. Only 12 countries do not address demographic projections in their steering documents, four fewer than in 2013/14. Since the 2015 Bologna Process Implementation Report, three systems have introduced demographic projections in their steering documents (Bulgaria, Portugal and Romania).” (p. 28)

“Annual public expenditure on tertiary education is the lowest and below 1 % of GDP in Slovakia, Spain, Portugal, Russia, the Czech Republic, Italy, Hungary, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, Luxembourg, Kazakhstan, Georgia and Armenia. Almost all of the countries in this latter group (except Georgia and Luxembourg) have experienced a decline in tertiary student enrolment from 2012/13 to 2014/15″ (p. 32)

“It is important to also consider R&D spending as a share of total public expenditure on tertiary education as this is where there is the most variation between countries. Portugal dedicates more than half (53 %) of its tertiary education spending to R&D. Switzerland, Italy, the Czech Republic, Sweden, Estonia and Slovakia all spend above 35 % (but under 50 %) of total tertiary education expenditure on R&D. ” (p. 33)

“The countries allocating the highest share of public expenditure to tertiary education were Norway (4.8 %), Denmark (4.2 %) and Switzerland (4 %). Eight countries spent less than 2 % of total public expenditure on tertiary education in 2014 – the Czech Republic, Portugal, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary, Armenia, Luxembourg and Georgia. (…) In another eight countries there is a continued trend of decrease: Ireland, Belgium, Spain, France, Romania, Portugal, Bulgaria and Italy. The latter six spend below the EHEA median, and three of them (Portugal, Bulgaria and Italy) also spend under 2 % of total public expenditure.”(p. 33)

“In the second group of countries (nearly half of the EHEA countries for which data is available), the percentage of total public expenditure devoted to tertiary education was lower in 2014 than in 2008. In these countries – Norway, Ireland, Belgium, Spain, France, Cyprus, Slovenia, Romania, the Czech Republic, Portugal, Bulgaria, Italy and Hungary – public expenditure on tertiary education increased at a slower pace than public expenditure (or decreased more rapidly than public expenditure). Six of them (Ireland, Belgium, Spain, Romania, Portugal and Bulgaria) reported three consecutive decreases in 2008, 2011 and 2014.” (p. 33)

“The European Higher Education Area in 2018”

The European Higher Education Area in 2018: Bologna Process Implementation Report

A primeira impressão é que o relatório é enorme e há-de, por certo, demorar a apreender.  O pdf abre com 330 páginas. Felizmente, segue a boa prática de um sumário executivo de 4 páginas.

A estrutura – capítulos e tópicos – é facilitadora, especialmente porque cada capítulo apresenta as respetivas conclusões.
Temos, assim, sete tópicos: The European Higher Education Area Landscape, Learning and Teaching, Degrees and Qualifications, Quality Assurance and Recognition, Opening Higher Education to a Diverse Student Population, Relevance of the Outcomes and Employability e Internationalisation and Mobility. Da pág. 279 em diante é glossário, fontes, termos.
The Bologna Process Implementation Report provides a wide-ranging and detailed picture of how the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) has been moving forward since the Yerevan Conference in 2015. This has not been a period of radical change. Instead, for most countries, the recent years have focused on consolidating the implementation of reform.” (início do sumário executvo, p. 13)
O texto é sintético, tem muitos quadros/tabelas/gráficos com dados.
Chapter 1: The European Higher Education Area Landscape
1.1. Student population
1.2. Higher education institutions and staff
1.3. Expenditure on higher education
1.4. Values and governance
1.5. Conclusions
Chapter 2: Learning and Teaching
2.1. National and institutional strategies
2.2. Credits and learning outcomes
2.3. Modes and forms of study
2.4. Learning in digital environments
2.5. Teaching in new learning environments
2.6. Conclusions
Chapter 3: Degrees and Qualifications
3.1. Implementation of a common degree structure
3.2. Transparency of qualifications: Diploma Supplement and national qualifications frameworks
3.3. Conclusions
Chapter 4: Quality Assurance and Recognition
4.1. Quality Assurance
4.2. Recognition
4.3. Conclusions
Chapter 5: Opening Higher Education to a Diverse Student Population
5.1. Access and participation
5.2. Attainment and completion
5.3. Conclusions
Chapter 6: Relevance of the Outcomes and Employability
6.1. Graduates on the labour market: transition from education to work
6.2. Policies for enhancing graduates’ employability
6.3. Conclusions
Chapter 7: Internationalisation and Mobility
7.1. Policies for internationalisation
7.2. Student Mobility
7.3 Staff mobility
7.4. Conclusions
The Bologna Process has brought us a long way towards achieving the goals for European higher education set two decades ago. This third edition of the Bologna Process Implementation Report provides clear evidence of change in the higher education landscape. It shows where progress has been made, but also points to the gaps that need to be filled if we are to strengthen European higher education cooperation on the basis of quality and mutual trust.
Tibor Navracsic, p. 3

Education and Training Monitor 2017

Building on the most up-to-date quantitative and qualitative evidence available and assessing recent and ongoing policy measures, the 28 country reports of the Education and Training Monitor discuss the drivers of inequalities in education and measures to promote inclusion, building on recent evidence from PISA, early school leaving and participation in early education and care.

The country reports also explore investment in education and training and national policies to modernise school education, higher education, vocational education and adult learning.


Os dados devem ser vistos com atenção. Relevo três gráficos da Infografia


Temos 34,6% de diplomados no Ensino Superior no grupo do 30 aos 34 anos — média Europeia 39,1%


Temos uma taxa de 14% de abandono escolar precoce, entre os 18 e os 24 anos – a média europeia é de 10,7%.


Temos uma taxa de 73,8% de emprego dos recém-licenciados (entre 20 e 34 anos) – média europeia de 78,2%.