[AU-Harmon-AAU-QA] FW: Summary of Harmonisation Discussion

[Oleka, Sam]

Dear Neil:

 

You have provided us with an excellent redaction of what has been said about harmonization issues relevant to African Higher Education. Those of us, especially me, who did not get involved at the beginning when harmonization discussion started, have now become aware of what African Higher Education Harmonization Project is all about. I thank you for capturing and carefully summarizing the essence of the discussion. I appreciate the effort you have put into the definition of the term (though not yet adequate) but we now have something that points us to a meaningful way forward. I applaud your hard work. Thanks.

 

Samuel Onyejindu Oleka, Ph.D.

Professor and Dean

College of Arts, Social Sciences

and Interdisciplinary Studies (CASSIS)

Kentucky State University

403 Academic Annex

400 East Main Street

Frankfort, KY 40601

Phone: (502) 597-6411

Fax:     (502) 597-6041

________________________________

From: au-harmon-aau-qa-bounces at elists.aau.org [mailto:au-harmon-aau-qa-bounces at elists.aau.org] On Behalf Of Luc Rukingama
Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2007 4:59 AM
To: au-harmon-aau-qa at elists.aau.org
Cc: 'Guidon, Jacques'
Subject: RE: [AU-Harmon-AAU-QA] FW: Summary of Harmonisation Discussion

 

Thank you Neil for this summary which reflects the main elements of the discussion. I appreciate particularly the comments in points 4 and 5.

Prof Luc Rukingama, Dakar

 

________________________________

De : au-harmon-aau-qa-bounces at elists.aau.org [mailto:au-harmon-aau-qa-bounces at elists.aau.org] De la part de Neil Butcher
Envoyé : mardi 28 août 2007 18:02
À : au-harmon-aau-qa at elists.aau.org
Objet : [AU-Harmon-AAU-QA] FW: Summary of Harmonisation Discussion

 

Dear Colleagues

Thank you for the stimulating discussion around the AU HEP Harmonisation strategy. Your input has been very valuable and we are incorporating relevant feedback into the strategy. Before moving on to the next discussion area, we thought it useful to provide a summary of the discussions thus far. 

The discussion list started in early July 2007, with a number of respondents showing support and interest in participating in the discussion list. The moderators of the discussion list were introduced, and the discussion kicked off with the posting of the draft version of the AUC's Harmonisation Strategy. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the strategy around how to engage countries in the process of adopting the strategy. A summary of the strategy was also posted highlighting the purpose and goals of harmonisation and inviting comment on the implications this would have for higher education institutions and other key role players in Africa. Generally, there has been a positive response to the harmonization initiative, with respondents highlighting that they believe it can add value to higher education systems on the continent. Participants have shared their knowledge about current initiatives, both within and beyond Africa, and there has been much discussion about the different and most effective ways to approach the harmonization process.

Several key points were highlighted:

1)      Experience from other parts of the world confirms that the processes of harmonisation are complex, require significant time, adequate resources strong political will and academic cooperation and perseverance to work successfully. 

2)      There is a need to take cognisance of the existing harmonisation processes. The discussion drew attention to other harmonisation efforts and parties interested in harmonisation, highlighting some movement towards harmonisation of higher education in Africa, and the poor circulation of information of harmonisation activities in Africa. Given that the efforts in Africa are fragmented, the need to organise in a coordinated fashion was emphasised. The starting point to bring all these key players together to reach agreement on how to streamline the existing processes. 

3)      There is a need to consider how qualifications are structured and 'packaged' in different countries. This involves examining the frameworks that are used to develop and describe qualifications (levels/credit), equivalence between them, and establishing agreed definitions of terms. It was also pointed out that quality assurance should not be confused with developing a credit system.

4)      The focus should be on servicing the needs of Africa, and the priorities should be dictated by the needs of the continent. It is important to acknowledge that we have different university traditions based on our colonial past. There is no reason to create a 'typical African university' but rather focus on developing Africa's resources and potential to tackle Africa's needs

5)      We should be conscious of initiatives/developments in other parts of the world, such as the Bologna process and initiatives in Latin America. It was suggested that we consider a continental approach to adapt (not just adopt) the Bologna Process to the African Higher education context. Participants cautioned against ready-made solutions, highlighting that whilst the experiences from Bologna and Latin America can be adapted to the African context, it is important to recognise the different histories, contexts, and level of development.  

6)      There was much discussion around whether the approach should be 'bottom-up' focussing on developing country-level quality assurance mechanisms and credit transfer (ensuring relevance to institutional and national contexts, and creating commitment and buy-in), or top-down where a reference framework should be created with a set of principles or guidelines to assist countries in developing a system, ensuring that eventually there will be capacity for academic credits to be recognised and transferred at national and regional levels

7)      It was pointed out that the 'supranational' approach is not different from a bottom-up process. The regional and continental processes will serve to provide support and guidelines to help countries begin and sustain their processes, as well as helping to build capacity within countries. The importance of countries buying in to the process in order for it to be successful in the long term was highlighted. It was also pointed out that every country does not necessarily have to be 'on board' before supranational processes can start having benefit, but progress will only be possible if countries are prepared to make compromises at some level. Therefore some policy reform will be required in countries for harmonization processes to move forward over time.

8)      The importance of considering students and academics in the discussion was highlighted. However, there were no suggestions as to which bodies would represent students and academics in these discussions. 

Documents dealing with the Arusha convention were also posted. Participants highlighted that there is a need to minimise the duplication of efforts, and that the convention needs to be updated, ratified, and implemented. 

Based on discussions at the COMEDAF III meeting, a report of discussion on Harmonisation and Quality Rating at the Experts' Meeting was circulated. 

The issue of terminology was also raised. A participant raised the issue of what is harmonisation and what does it mean. Following the COMEDAF III meetings, the following definition was proposed: 

"Harmonisation refers to the agreement, synchronisation and coordinated management of essential mechanisms for developing the quality of higher education in Africa. Harmonisation is not synonymous with standardization, creating uniformity, or achieving identical higher education systems.  Whilst developing standards is one important element of this process, the focus is to develop quality and facilitate processes that lead higher education systems to be able to inter-operate more effectively to the benefit of development on the continent."

There were numerous responses to the definition, with participants pointing out the need to consider issues such as equivalency, mutual recognition, recognition of qualifications, synchronisation, and setting of minimum standards or common criteria. In addition, participants suggested definitions of harmonisation and provided analogies as to how to understand harmonisation to work. 

Based on the feedback received, a revised definition of harmonisation is proposed:

"Harmonisation refers to the agreement, synchronisation and coordination of higher education provision in Africa. Harmonisation is not synonymous with standardization, creating uniformity, or achieving identical higher education systems. Whilst developing and agreeing to minimum standards and ensuring equivalency and comparability of qualifications between and within countries are important elements of this process, a primary focus is to enhance quality across the sector and facilitate processes that lead higher education systems to be able to inter-operate more effectively to the benefit of development on the continent."

>From next week, we will be focusing on quality rating, beginning the discussion with the posting of the African Higher Education Quality Rating Mechanism. We hope that your feedback and response to this discussion will be as stimulating as the discussions thus far.   

Regards 

Neil 

Neil Butcher and Associates 
Reg. No. CK2000/143539/23 

 

Tel No:       +27 11 486-3651
Fax No:      +27 11 646-9800
Cell No:      +27 83 603-7773 
Email:           neilshel at icon.co.za 

Regards 

Sarah Hoosen

Neil Butcher and Associates
Reg. No. CK2000/143539/23
Fax No:      +27 11 646 9800
Cell No:      +27 82 665 3376
Email: sarahhoosen at tiscali.co.za         

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.aau.org/pipermail/au-harmon-aau-qa/attachments/20070829/3be6eeca/attachment.html