Publicado em Ensino superior

Relatório sobre o acesso ao Ensino Superior, junho 2019

RELATÓRIO SOBRE O ACESSO AO ENSINO SUPERIOR

1.OBJETIVOS

Através do Despacho nº 11092/2018, de 8 de novembro de 2018(publicado a 27 de novembro de 2018), o Ministro da Ciência Tecnologia e Ensino Superior nomeou um Grupo de Trabalho1encarregue de analisar os aspetos relacionados com o acesso ao ensino superior, designadamente: Oimpacto das medidas de afetação de vagas decididas para o ano letivo 2018/19 e propor eventuais alterações; Novas vias de acesso ao ensino superior (cursos secundários profissionais, TeSP, estudantes internacionais, novos públicos).

Alguns aspetos (estatísticos) merecem atenção.

“A razão desta dificuldade está bem identificada e resulta da manutenção de um sistema concebido há mais de 20 anos, vocacionado para satisfazer as necessidades de progressão da modalidade atualmente denominada científica-humanística do ensino secundário,que era então a grande responsável pelos diplomados desse nível de ensino. A situação alterou-se substancialmente nos últimos dez anos com o aparecimento dos cursos de dupla certificação e, em particular, com os cursos profissionais. O sistema de acesso ao ensino superior não foi, porém,ajustado às novas condições, designadamente não tendo sido estabelecidos critérios que pudessem garantir a referida transição, embora as novas modalidades tivessem sido criadas sempre com a indicação explicita de que os seus diplomados estariam preparados para o prosseguimento de estudos(daí a dupla certificação).” (p. 10)

“6. REFLEXÕES E SUGESTÕES FINAIS

A análise e avaliação do acesso ao ensino superior convoca obrigatoriamente um conjunto de reflexões que se afastam dos objetivos para os quais o Grupo de Trabalho foi criado. E embora o presente Relatório incida sobre as diversas componentes do acesso ao ensino superior, não deixou de,num ou noutro ponto,abrir a reflexão a aspetos colaterais.Era inevitável.A rigidez do sistema é talvez a questão chave que impede um ajustamento das instituições ao ritmo da evolução da sociedade e dificulta uma incorporação,com maior expressão,dos desafios de todo o tipo que se colocam às nossas comunidades.E mesmo que a estratégia seja clara, a sua concretização ficará pervertida pelas diversos aspetos que caracterizam a rigidez do sistema de ensino superior.No capítulo do acesso ao ensino superior, essa rigidez tem também expressão e condiciona muitas das opções que naturalmente as instituições, no âmbito das suas autonomias, poderiam adotar.Dever-se-á reconhecer que os reequilibrios territoriais não são resolúveis apenas e só por intervenção do sistema de ensino superior. Embora se reconheça que, perante a extensão da rede pública e a cobertura territorial que lhe está associada, um papel relevante deverá ser-lhe atribuído. Mas o sucesso de tal desígnio depende da intervenção conjugada de politicas públicas e da capacidade de atração de atividades produtivas. E sem este enquadramento, o esforço do sistema de ensino superior, designadamente na redistribuição da oferta formativa, particularmente das vagas, poderá ser inglório.

A capacidade de atração de candidatos, influenciando as preferências declaradas pelos diplomados do ensino secundário, depende entre outros aspetos da qualidade da oferta e do grau deprojeção públicadas instituições. Este aspeto deveria conduzir a que as pequenas e médias instituições (na realidade a grande maioria das instituições) se especializassem, isto é, concentrassem os seus esforços de I&D e de pós-graduação num quadro estável de áreas temáticas, transformando-as nos seus eixos de afirmação institucional, de excelência de investigação científica, de cooperação externa e de dinamização do seu contexto regional. A prevalência destas condições reforçaria a capacidade natural para atrair candidatos e poderia evitar algumas intervenções de carácter administrativo que, então,se mostrariam desajustadas. A rigidez reflete-se também nas formas e nosmodos de governação adotados e na falta de flexibilidade que as instituições têm para reajustar a oferta formativa, a afetação do corpo docente ou a criação de novas opções formativas. A boa resolução desta questão, ainda que adotada de forma progressiva, poderia igualmente abrir o acesso a novos públicos e a outros grupos sociais, explorando estratos etários que têm estado afastados do ensino superior.

Recorde-se que Portugal concentra os estudantes que frequentam o ensino superior na faixa etária dos 19-21 anos (Figura 1), ao contrário de outros países que alargaram a frequência deste nível de ensino para outros grupos de idades. O acesso ao ensino superior tem estado maioritariamente vocacionado para os diplomados da modalidade científico-humanistica do ensino secundário. O alargamento da capacidade de atração às outras modalidades do ensino secundário é fundamental. A reflexão do Grupo de Trabalho retomou antigas propostas e integrou nesta apreciação as conclusões da avaliação que a OCDE realizou ao sistema português de ensino superior e investigação. Contudo, estas novas vias não poderão perturbar a credibilidade do sistema propondo-se,nesta fase, um período experimental que permita detetar fragilidades e valorizar os pontos fortes. A possibilidade de abrir o acesso a estes segmentos de jovens permite igualmente quebrar a rigidez do sistema e ultrapassar padrões sociais que devem ser considerados como obsoletos.

A abertura do acesso ao ensino superior não se deverá limitar à atração dos jovens provenientes de outras modalidades do ensino secundário. Um enorme campo se coloca às instituições no que respeita aos diversos níveis de intervenção na aprendizagem e qualificação ao longo da vida. Os TeSP constituem uma opção que tem mobilizado também cidadãos adultos, com profissões socialmente precárias e que procuram adquirir outras competências e novos conhecimentos no sentido de reorientarem ou reconverterem as suas profissões, e desse modo garantirem uma inserção mais sólida na designada economia do conhecimento. A rigidez das instituições de ensino superior, afetada também pela complexidade do financiamento, não permitiu, ainda, uma multiplicação de opções formativas, para além dos graus superiores, que permita contribuir para a qualificação do conjunto da sociedade.

Num patamar fundamental está igualmente a avaliação institucional das instituições e da sua oferta formativa. A abertura à captação de mais estudantes, jovens ou adultos, para graus ou para outro tipo de formações, sendo um traço fundamental do desenvolvimento do sistema de ensino superior, tem de ser acompanhado por mecanismos de avaliação. Não basta pretender alargar o fluxo de entrada no ensino superior, para prencher as diversas opções; simultaneamente terá de adotar-se um mecanismo de acompanhamento que permita avaliar e reorientar as diversas iniciativas, designadamente através da melhor adequação do corpo docente a estas novas oportunidades.

Reconhece-se que o corpo docente é, neste domínio, uma componente essencial; muitos dos ajustamentos referidos dependem do compromisso que deveria ser adotado por este corpo académico, contribuindo dessa forma para moderar a rigidez do sistema.Finalmente, muitos dos desafios atrás enunciados, orientados para aumentar e melhorar o desempenho das instituições de ensino superior, poderiam ser adotados por via de um sistema simples de incentivos que aconselhasse e orientasse as opções das instituições, fornecendo meios capazes de favorecer a quebra da rigidez que se verifica. Descartando a criação de incentivos de forma avulsa, estes teriam de se integrar numa estratégia global que condicionasse o percurso das instituições de ensino superior, designadamente das que se inserem no setor público, e garantissem o seu papel de qualificação global da sociedade.”

ler o relatório

Publicado em Enfermagem, Ensino superior, Saúde

“A false economy” – Council of Deans of Health, UK

É muito interessante que o «Council of Deans of Health» (“the voice of UK university  faculties for nursing, midwifery and the allied health professions“) tenha tomado uma posição sobre os cortes de financiamento na formação de enfermeiros, parteiras e outros profissionais de saúde. É de 2016 e ainda vale a pena ler. Porque em matéria de formação de profissionais de saúde cortar financiamento e embaretecer custam caro (ou como diz o adágio, «o barato sai caro»).

A false economy.  Cuts to Continuing Professional Development funding for nursing, midwifery and the Allied Professions in England

This report focuses on the impact of funding cuts across England to ongoing education and training for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals (AHPs) and the risks this poses to the NHS.

The scale of the cuts
For 2016/17 this funding in England has been the subject of deep cuts, often without much warning and with little evidence of strategic planning at national level. These cuts will have a material impact both on universities and on the NHS and its workforce. There is little in the public domain that sets out the extent of the cuts and almost no policy discussion of the potential consequences, either for the NHS or the higher education sector. However, these cuts could undermine the NHS in achieving its own strategic objectives, as set out in the Five Year Forward View (NHS, October 2014) and the General Practice Forward View (NHS, April 2016) because CPD is vital to equip staff with the knowledge, skills and values required by the huge transformation programmes currently taking place in the NHS.
The cuts are also already damaging mentorship preparation for NHS staff in some areas, courses which are crucial to delivering the pre-registration programmes for nursing, midwifery and AHPs that the Government wants to expand in England. Every student spends a substantial part of their course in practice placements, so mentors and practice educators are essential to support students during their practice placements.
These reductions in mentorship training for qualified staff put at risk the Government’s ambition to increase nursing, midwifery and allied health pre-registration places during the current Parliament due to the possibility that there will be too few mentors available to support practice placements in pre-registration education.” (p. 7)

“Impact on NHS staff and service delivery
Although these cuts impact on universities, the most significant impact is on the NHS workforce and the NHS’s ability to meet its own objectives.
Nurses, midwives and AHPs make up around 75% of the NHS clinical workforce. Although policy attention is often focused on the future workforce, most of the health professionals that will be in the workforce in 20 years are already there. Given this, and the profound changes that are expected to nursing, midwifery and AHP roles as demand for services grows and patient needs and service configurations change, CPD is vital. CPD is equally important for sustaining services that are core to the NHS, such as accident and emergency and intensive care, where specialist training is required for staff to be able to deliver the care that patients require.” (p12)

General impact on the HE sector
In the regions where LETBs have cut their CPD budgets for 2016-2017, the likely short term and medium term impact of the cuts on the higher education sector vary. In some cases the immediate impact on universities will be relatively minor because they either have comparatively small CPD contracts or have gained new commissions from trusts which balance out the impact of the cuts to their LBR budgets.
However, a number of the institutions with large CPD offers report that the cuts are going to have a substantial impact on their staffing and the scale and scope of their CPD provision.
Downsizing also remains a possibility in institutions operating in regions where trusts have yet to complete their commissioning of CPD. All of the institutions that participated in this study indicated that they had been told there were further plans for additional significant cuts to follow in 2017-2018 and beyond that would have a significant impact on their ability to deliver CPD.
The situation is made worse in some cases by the reluctance of some trusts to release staff for CPD. Some institutions are considering the possibility of pulling out of CPD altogether (apart from mentorship courses) and concentrating on pre-registration education and, in one case, focusing more on private and business and enterprise led CPD.” (p. 15)

6. What to do next
6.1. Recognise the current gap between national strategic priorities and funding decisions
The first step is for Government to acknowledge that national strategic priorities and funding decisions on CPD are at odds with each other. A clear message from universities is that if Government does not recognise and deal with the stark disparity between what is expected of the workforce in the Five Year Forward View (NHS, October 2014) and the General Practice Forward View (NHS April 2016) and decisions about CPD funding, it is highly unlikely that these strategies will be delivered. There is also likely to be a negative impact on the Government’s plans to expand pre-registration education for the future workforce.

6.2. Convene a national strategic discussion to address the disconnect
Universities recognise the pressures on NHS funding and the need to find new and creative ways to meet education and training needs. Short-term budget cuts with little or no strategic direction are probably the worst way of addressing difficult questions about funding for education and training. It is essential that changes are planned strategically and from a genuinely multiprofessional perspective. If new models involve more students self-funding, this will take time to embed and the NHS could be left with significant skills shortages. As one interviewee dean observed, it is likely that any plans to reduce funding for nurses, midwives and AHPs will be a particular bone of contention given the widening gap between the education and training opportunities for doctors and other health professionals.
To navigate these issues, there is an urgent need for discussion at national level to align strategies and funding. This must involve NHS England and NHS Improvement, as the bodies leading STPs, HEE and should be led by DH, as the system steward. There is no evidence that current national fora, such as the Workforce Advisory Board are effective in convening these discussions and DH should consider reconfiguring advisory structures to ensure that strategy and funding align.” (p. 21)

 

Publicado em Ensino superior

“Pensar a Universidade dos próximos 20 anos através de uma metodologia de cenários”

Resumo

Neste artigo, os autores propõem-se relatar o processo e analisar os resultados de uma abordagem metodológica baseada na construção de cenários para perspetivar a Universidade do futuro nas dimensões da formação, inovação e pesquisa e em função da intensidade valorativa de um conjunto de marcadores: mentes, afetos, autonomia, tecnologias, métodos, organização, edifícios, financiamentos, contextos, equipamentos, comportamentos, empregabilidade, democraticidade e internacionalização, em estudo no âmbito do Projeto “Marcadores de formação, inovação e pesquisa para a Universidade de hoje e do próximo decénio”. O presente texto não incidirá sobre a substância da matéria em estudo, ou seja, como é vista a evolução da Universidade no futuro, mas sobre a metodologia de construção de cenários prospetivos em sessões que combinaram uma dinâmica de workshop com a de grupo focal, envolvendo professores, investigadores e estudantes. Analisar-se-ão as dificuldades e potencialidades desta abordagem, as limitações encontradas e os contributos para o estudo global.

Artigo aqui

Publicado em Ensino superior, Europa

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.

E o STATEMENT OF THE FIFTH BOLOGNA POLICY FORUM

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]

Publicado em Ensino superior, Estudos e recursos, Europa, Portugal

“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)

Publicado em Ensino superior, Estudos e recursos, Europa, Portugal

“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)

Publicado em Ensino superior, Estudos e recursos, Europa, Portugal

“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)