Education Reforms under the Bologna Treaty in Romania

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Click Here To Order Now!

Education Reforms under the Bologna Treaty in Romania

Table of Contents

Introduction
Increasing Mobility
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The Bologna treaty was characterized by a series of reforms undertaken by 45 European countries. The reforms aimed at creating an integrated higher education era in Europe. The 1999 Bologna treaty presented and emphasized on six objectives which were directed towards the establishment of a European Higher Education era (EHEA) by 2010. Under EHEA, student and staff mobility was to be enhanced and made possible through the support of the national quality assurance agencies, the use of a common credit transfer, consistent degree structures and standardizing qualifications (Guruz, 2008).

The six objectives of the Bologna process were;

Legible and equivalent degrees.
Standardized degree structures
Initiating a system of credits
Increasing mobility
Endorsement of European cooperation in quality assurance with the aim of developing similar criteria and methodologies.
Encouraging the European dimension in higher education.

Increasing Mobility

This reform aimed at overcoming obstacles that were hindering effective mobility of students, teachers, researchers and administrative staff (Mattheou, 2010). The first step was the identification of those barriers followed by the process of trying to find out what can be done to overcome those barriers. One of the barriers was the fear of loosing credit points and time by going abroad (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Educational and Skills Committee, 2007).

This reform was implemented after they recognized the need for mobility of students, teachers and other staff members. One of the issues that were emphasized under this reform was that at least 20% of students set to graduate under EHEA should have acquired some training or should have studied abroad by 2020. The reform did not specify the period that the student should study hence the students can acquire training for as long as they wish. This meant that by 2020, all students under this area should have extra training apart from that which is offered locally (Daun, 2002).

The reform also looked at the issue of monolingual students. It was noted that most students could not express themselves well in English especially in Southern Europe. This therefore called for urgent address into this issue (Laderriere & Leclercq, 2000). It was deemed important to encourage students to study English so that they can communicate fluently. In this case, student mobility would be emphasized so that language barriers could be overcome in Europe. This would serve as an important approach in increasing the interaction between students and teachers and also the understanding of the students. Most of the training in foreign lands was done in English hence there was a need to equip the students with communications skills in the English language (Castaner & Kopp & Remseth, 2009).

To promote mobility of students, the higher education systems are expected to be organized and their attractiveness is supposed to be increased. Once they attain this, the process of sending their students abroad would emerge successful. Without this, it would be hard to support their students studying abroad (Brock & Tulasiewicz, 2000). The attractiveness of the education system entails ensuring that the learning environments are appropriate so that students can complete their education without any problems. The above mentioned factors therefore serve as important determinants of effective student mobility.

The issue of increasing mobility among students was to be attained if the obstacles were identified. The barriers acted as a major setback to the success of the process. Language, cultural and attitudinal barriers interfere with mobility. Inadequate information on the purposes and goals as well as the administrative factors can hold back the process of mobility (Roman & Goschin, 2007). EHEA has been working hard to ensure that these factors do not stand in the way of student mobility.

Research conducted showed that the trend of student mobility was on the decrease some years back since 63.2% of foreign students did not come from Europe (Bishop, 2006). The low population rates show that most students had opted to study locally. One of the most challenging issues facing the process of sending students abroad in Romania is inadequate financial resources (Bishop, 2006). This makes it hard for system to support local students studying abroad. Student mobility in Romania has also been affected negatively by the quality of education in developing countries. This is because the quality of higher education that these countries have in place is considered lower, also the ability and capacity of the institutions to support the students is also questioned.

Currently, student mobility in Romania is higher as compared to some years back. This could be associated with the ability of EHEA to fight the barriers that have been facing this process. With effective management, the process of student mobility provides favorable conditions for students. This means that both the social and economic factors are good enough to support the students stay in the foreign land (Europe unit, 2009).

Conclusion

Student mobility enables students in Romania to study abroad. Factors that promote this morbidity have to be put in place for the process to be effective. The number of students studying abroad has been increasing over the years. This increase has been supported by the fact that EHEA has put in place strategies to overcome the barriers that come in the way of student mobility. This ensures that students have a good learning environment in the foreign land.

References

Bishop, J. (2006). The Bologna process and Australia: Next steps. Australian Government. 3-7. Web.

Brock, C. & Tulasiewicz, W. (2000). Education in a single Europe. New York: Routledge.

Castaner, L., Kopp, R. & Remseth, S. (2009). Bologna Process 2010 Final Report. 2-5. Web.

Daun, H. (2002). Educational restructuring in the context of globalization and national policy. New York: Routledge.

Europe unit. (2009). Bologna Process ministerial summit in Leuven and Louvain-LaNeuve, 2009. 6-8. Web.

Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Educational and Skills Committee. (2007). The Bologna process. London: The Stationary Office.

Guruz, K. (2008). Higher education and international student mobility in the global knowledge economy. New Mexico: SUNY Press.

Laderriere, P. & Leclercq, J. M. (2000). Strategies for educational reform: from concept to realization. London: Council of Europe.

Mattheou, D. (2010). Changing Educational Landscapes: Educational Policies, Schooling Systems and Higher Education a Comparative Perspective. New York: Springer.

Roman, M. & Goschin, M. Z. (2007). The Bologna process and the dynamics of academic mobility: a comparative approach. 2-7. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!