Mathematics and pre-school children

Development of mathematic notions and mathematics thinking starts much before enrolment in school. In the first years of life, children explore space and numbers in its environment. They learn that some things fall, roll, and some not. They learn about big and small. They learn to share on equal parts. They notice that someone get more or less then them etc.
Unlike the verbal development, beginnings of mathematics development very often is unseen by parents and educators because of prejudicing that mathematics is learned only in school – if we do not write numbers we do not learn mathematics. The truth is that before writing numbers, child gain notions about the world and its objects based on multiplex experience. They are the base of mathematic intuition that parents and educators can and should encourage. Mathematics in pre-school education contributes to intellectual development of child, to development of creative potential and to development of child personality as whole. It is the tool for development of thinking. It enables the child for symbolic presentation of reality, which is foundation for logical-mathematical thinking. Although the possibilities of pre-school child are very limited for development of mathematic notions, since without development of notion conservation (around year 6) there is no real mathematical thinking, and none of mathematical notions could be develop fully, that should not influence intensive work on development of logical-mathematical thinking at this age. With development and enrichment of children pre-school experience and thinking, we create good and necessary base for development of abstract thinking on later stage. Process of abstraction and speculative extraction of object attributes from the object itself that is also happening at this age is extremely important for development of mathematical concepts. The task of mathematic in pre-school education is not to gain mathematical knowledge, but to use mathematic content to encourage development of logical-mathematical structures, which are in the phase of intensive development in that age.

How we learn mathematics?

Mathematic education goes parallel with other segments of child development. It goes parallel with familiarizing with objects and appearances they are surrounded with, development of speech, familiarizing with social relations, sport education.
First mathematic notions could be formed only with practical and cognitive activities of the child itself. Child has to pass through the process of practical and manipulative activities with concrete objects, the process through which child experience properties of objects (colour, shape, size, type, purpose, type of material etc.), perceive similarities and differences among them and do the practical activities of grouping, classification, association and sequencing.
Only through the number of activities, first on practical, and later on cognitive level with usage of work sheets, the child will understand that the number does not depend on the shape, size or distribution of objects in space. It is the fact that picture can never replace child practical manipulative activities and relations that child of this age experience through direct relation with the object. Usage of picture has to be based on the rich experience with concrete objects. She is transition from concrete to abstract, from practical to conceptual thinking.
Manipulating with various objects and materials, child gradually perceive that different objects has common properties. Naturally, only manipulative activities would leave the child on lower phase of development if we do not encourage verbalisation. With verbalisation of activities we step up upper types of cognition. Word encourage process of generalisation. Children remember better the names of objects and their characteristic if during the manipulation they use speech. Content and abet for learning, at pre-school age, need to be find in the life context of children themselves, family, kindergarten. Activities need to be develop in the context that has sense for children, for which they are personally interested, and which are not artificially created and imposed to them as mathematical knowledge they have to accept.
Educators have to be models of mathematic thinking and to pay attention on mathematical characteristic and relations that the children themselves would not notice.
Naturally and spontaneously introducing mathematical symbols and terminology they will help children to notice mathematical characteristic, as well as the way of collecting necessary information about objects, relations and events in space and time in their environment. Educators should encourage the child to do the cognitive strain. Possible questions for that are: What do you think? How would you solve that? Do you have an idea? Why? How? What would be if…? What will be when…?
When math is done in a relaxed way, a child develops into a curious and interested mathematician.

Integration of mathematic in daily schedule of kindergartens

Mathematics can and should be integrated in daily schedule in kindergartens. The life in kindergarten gives many samples for concrete mathematic experiences. Time when children arrive in kindergarten, making records for present and absent children, breakfast, playing time, making diary etc. All of it is concrete mathematic experiences, of course, if educator sees them as such and use for development of mathematical notions at children.

Hanging the clothe can give a sample for correspondence one to one, the same as breakfast (one child-one plate-one chair). Making evidence about present and absent children is connected with numbering and calculating. Being in the yard is connected with physical activities of child. Rhythmic movement of the body connected with the number (each step or each kicking of the ball – one number etc.) contributes to the importance of the meaning of each number. Mechanical numbering and identification of numbers do not have any sense without this concrete experience. Keeping weekly diaries about the weather gives possibility for calculation of the number of sunny and cloudy days etc.

Mathematic practice in three kindergartens

Although there is numerous samples for integration of mathematic in daily schedule of kindergartens and activity centres, it depends on educators awareness if he/she is going to use it. Partial answer on this question gives a mini research conducted couple years ago in three kindergartens in Zenica town (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Partial answer because the sample is small! Still, the results call for thinking!

Educators were asked to extract all activities they consider contribute development of mathematic notions, and which they conduct during the period of 3 months. Here is what they did!
In younger group it was mainly grouping of objects from their surrounding and naming the shapes, but without comparison. As they did not do comparing of sets with 3 elements, it was not possible to do adoption of notions “equal” and “more-less”.
In the middle group the work was based on sets and comparing of objects according high and size, whereas other properties were neglected. Geometric shapes (ball and square), are only named without spotting and comparison of properties.
Although orientation in time and space was not evidenced from educator’s side, it is to believe that it happen in everyday communication, but not on deliberate level of educators.

Older group of children was not familiar with the notion subset, nor they were given possibilities to work with work sheets which contribute transition from practical to the conceptual thinking. Since they named geometric figures, mainly without analyse and description, they worked as in younger and middle group, only on developing academical skills of memorizing and reproduction. They did not work on abetment of further phase of child development, logical-mathematic thinking.

Activities in block centre rarely happen. In younger group only 2 times during three months, in older group 5 times, and never in the middle group! Block centre enable children, by making its own structures, to experience mathematical and geometrical relations on intuitive level, that make foundation on which abstract algebra concept and pure mathematic would be built. Centre for manipulative games, and also the table for sand and water, that gives most possibilities for gaining mathematical concepts, was also rarely used.

Conclusion

Experiences from these three kindergartens tell us about absence of educators awareness for overall presence of mathematic and about its roll in child development. If opposite, they would integrated mathematic in kindergarten’s daily schedule, and also in activity centres. There are possibilities that some activities were conducted in centres, but educators do not connect them with development of mathematical notions. Absence of that awareness deprive possibilities that educators find contents and abets for teaching in the life context of children themselves and kindergartens. That is very important, as activities need to happen in the context that have sense for children, for which they show interest, not in the ones that are created artificially and imposed as mathematic knowledge they have to adopt.

It could be said that realisation of mathematic context, in these kindergartens, is abandon to accident, and that is why it does not have efficiency as designed and planned support to the children to construct and awake certain mathematic concepts.
Still, it is to believe that positive samples exist. Here we think on educators who have conscience about overall presence of mathematic, who have knowledge about developing possibilities and needs of the pre-school children, who use their creativity to conduct mathematic on relaxed and child acceptable way, and on that way they contribute to the development of logical-mathematical structures which are, at the pre-school children, in the phase of intensive development and who support child to become interested and curious mathematician.

Literature:

Hansen, K., Kaaufmann, R. K., Walsh, K. B. (2000). Creating the classrooms in which child have central roll, 3-6 years. Sarajevo: Centre for educative initiative «Step by Step»
Polonssky, L., Freedman, D., Lessher, S., Morrison, K. (2002) Math for the youngest ones. Beograd
Group of authors. (2000). Step by step 2. Beograd: Creative centre
Marendi?, Z. (1998). Mathematic on pre-school age: magazine Family and child no.3

Some initiatives (managed by national and international NGO-s) to promote the inclusive education, also, in SEE countries, such as:

- The Council of Europe, through its focus on intercultural dialogue; minority languages, in particular the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages; education for democratic citizenship (within which a number of recommendations, studies and toolkits have been developed); education of Roma, including a variety of activities, and recommendations, including the Recommendation of the Council of Ministers to the Member states on the education of Roma/Gypsy children in Europe, as well as How all teachers can support citizenship and human rights education: a framework for the development of competences (2009)^, a publication that focuses on approximately 15 core competences needed by teachers to put democratic citizenship and human rights into practice, within the classroom, the school and the wider community;

- OECD, the analysis and recommendations offered in: Understanding the Social Outcomes of Learning (2007); No More Failures – Ten Steps to Equity in Education (2007) (which recommends 10 steps related to structure, practice and resources in education); Teacher Education for Diversity project 2008-2010 - an ongoing project focusing on common challenges and responses in the OECD countries in terms of teacher training for increasingly culturally diverse societies; and OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey TALIS, especially the latest report ‘Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments;

- ETF, notably work on Social Inclusion of Ethnic Groups Through Education and Training: Elements of Good Practice (2007) and the work of EURAC for ETF on Access to Education, Training and Employment of Ethnic Minorities in the Western Balkans (2006), identifying three different models of approaching the education of minorities and the use of minority languages in education;

- EURYDICE, the key source of data on education in Europe, which also publishes thematic studies, such as: Integrating Immigrant Children into Schools in Europe: Measures to foster communication with immigrant families and heritage language teaching for immigrant children (2009), Early Childhood Education and Care in Europe: Tackling Social and Cultural Inequalities (2009), Levels of autonomy and responsibilities of teachers in Europe (2008) and School Autonomy in Europe. Policies and Measures (2007);

- UNESCO, in particular its Policy Guidelines on Inclusion in Education which provides an overview of developments in the area of inclusive education (including an extensive list of supporting international conventions and declarations), addresses the issues of inclusion and quality in education, development of inclusive curriculum, role of policy makers, and the role of teachers; and the work done within the peer learning cluster focusing on teachers and teacher education of the Knowledge System for Lifelong Learning.

On 12 March 2010 the ministers of higher education of 46 European countries met in Budapest and Vienna to launch the European Higher Education Area. On this day the ministers also decided to welcome Kazakhstan as the newest, 47th, member of the Bologna process.

All information about the conference can be found at the official site at: http://www.ond.vlaanderen.be/hogeron…10_conference/ .

The ministers also passed the Budapest-Vienna Declaration which, building on the Leuven-Louvain-la-Neuve Communique of 2009, outlines the working of the Bologna process until 2020. Some of the highlights of the Communique are:
- recognizing some of the problems of the current model of implementation of the Bologna process
- recognizing that member states need to work more on including the stakeholders in its implementation on the national level
- agreeing to continue with the process in the coming period.

I strongly recommend reading this 2-page document.

Alisa Ibrakovic

Agency for Pre-primary, Primary and Secondary Education

of Bosnia and Herzegovina

10^th Annual conference

”Innovation in Assessment to Meet Changing Needs”

Malta, from 5th to 7th November 2009,

with pre-conference workshops the day before

The conference was organized by the European Association for Educational Assessment AEA-E. As usual conference happened in the first week of November (form 5^th to 7^th November 2009, with pre-conference workshops the day before). The theme of this, 10th Annual Conference was “Innovation in Assessment to Meet Changing Needs”.

I will quote Chris Whetton, AEA-E President.

AEA-E was established in 2000, and since then has successfully developed into a platform for discussion of developments in educational assessment. The role of the Association is to help co-ordinate efforts to improve assessment systems and practice throughout Europe, through contact between organizations involved in examinations and assessment research and individuals working professionally in this area. These contacts promote scientific knowledge and the application of that knowledge to practical problems in school systems. In addition to its basic activities, AEA-Europe promotes the importance of assessment and seeks the active support of educational policy makers, and their supporting funding organizations, in all parts of Europe.

The membership emphasizes the importance of assessment as being at the heart of the educational process. Therefore, it is very important that our institutions are or will be members of the AEA-E. All information can be found on association’s page http://www.aea-europe.net/

AEA-E has held annual conferences, which have grown both in terms of attendance and in terms of quality. They have achieved their goal of fostering joint working of people and institutions from different countries.

Evidence for this is the fact that on the 10th annual conference attended by more than 150 delegates from all over Europe and from other continents as well – from the United States of America, from Asia and even from Australia. They had the opportunity to share knowledge, experience and professional opinion about Innovation in Assessment, challenges, ways of adapting assessment practices and products to meet the diversity of needs in the contexts in which they live.

The theme of this year’s AEA-Europe conference was designed to allow assessment community to discuss about educational responses to the society that is constantly changing, developing. The requirements of life in modern society constantly become more demanding and change continuously at an increasing rate. This change is most visible in the use of technology, but is also in social structures, occupational pressures and leisure pursuits. All this puts a new emphasis on skills such as adaptability, the location and evaluation of information, decision making, understanding risk and team working. It also requires a disposition to adapt to, or even welcome, change. In response to these developments, the structures, expectations, methods and content of education are also evolving. Some of the trends apparent are modernising the curriculum, adjusting teaching methods and styles, and reconceptualising assessment.

Work was organized through professional development workshops, keynotes and open paper sessions, discussion groups, poster presentation.

The main areas of work during pre-conference workshops were

1. Item Response Theory and Predictive Systems

Frans Kleintjes, Cito, The Netherlands and Eduardo Cascallar, Assessment Group International, Belgium

2. Assessment for Learning

Gordon Stobart, Institute of Education, University of London, UK

3. Learning Progressions: Assembly and Assessment

W. James Popham, University of California, LA; H. Margaret Heritage, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing, University of California, LA

4. Grading and scaling

Anton Beguin & Theo Eggen, Cito/University of Twente, The Netherlands

The main areas of work during conference were

• Curriculum change and new forms of assessment needed to match these
• Assessment of the skills emphasized in modern society, including team work, adaptability, managing information etc
• New approaches to analysis of data reflecting new types of assessment
• Technological change in delivering, taking or marking assessments
• Management of change in assessment systems, both political and organizational

Here are some topics that are presented through the main areas of work:

Assessment for learning

Learning progressions-relationship between learning progressions and formative assessment

Knowing What to do Next -The Hard Part of Formative Assessment

New modes of assessment and new teaching methods

Introducing a new subject and its assessment in schools

Assessment of the skills emphasized in modern society

The assessment of learning approaches and the underlying cognitive capacities: implications for teaching

Relationships among pupil self assessments, teacher judgments and test results

Toolkit for assessment of subject competences of primary school students
Item response theory and predictive systems

Grading and scaling

Quality of pass-fail decisions in examinations

The importance of being valid

Dealing with conflicting goals in test design and construction

The Revised Dutch Rating System for Test Quality 2009

E-assessment in school -from innovation to integration.

Using new technology to support professional learning about assessment for a new curriculum

Some forecasts of e-assessment adoption using a quantitative model

Using computer-based assessment to test listening and visual comprehension in large-scale assessments of foreign languages

Using data from on-screen marking to consider the difficulty and functioning of mathematics examination questions for weaker readers
Marking essays on-screen and on paper- investigating the impact of mode

Aspects of developing Matura or national exams for secondary schools

Schools auto-evaluation as an innovative process of change

How can we help teachers respond to national assessment strategies

Establishing European Assessment Standards: An u update of the current work by Standards Committee of AEA-E and Future Plans

Pan-European qualifications recognition: issues in the development of national qualifications frameworks

Assessment of Educational Quality in China

The 11th AEA-Europe Conference is to be held in Oslo, 3-6 November 2010, with pre-conference workshops the day before the conference.Details about the conference and the call for presentations will be published in February 2010.

The philosophy of learning throughout life is anything but modern. Ancient societies all over the world have emphasized the need to learn from the cradle to the grave. What is clear is that the context of lifelong learning has changed and the utopian and generous vision hitherto characterizing lifelong learning has now become a necessary guiding and organizing principle of education reforms. It is recognized today as an indispensable tool to enable education to face its multiple current and emerging challenges.

 

While lifelong learning has increasingly been cited as one of the key principles in the educational and development fields, there is no shared understanding of its usage at the global level. The diversity of discourses on this concept has been shaped by historical and geographical factors, and at certain historical moments, one interpretation gains hegemony.

 

Cyclical lifelong learning as it exists today is part of a larger legacy of learning for work and life. Lifelong Learning as a Chameleonic Concept and Complex Culture will be described through these historical developmental stages:

6 Post-World War 1: The 1919 Report of the Adult Education Committee of the British Ministry of Reconstruction

6 Post-World War II: Lifelong learning was framed within a model that emphasized:

• strengthening individualism,
• coping with technological and cultural change forces, and
• fortifying democracy.

6 1960s and 1970s: Lifelong education, a more critical and sociopolitical term, emerged in discussions within UNESCO.

6 During the 1970s, vocationalism eclipsed lifelong education. In his 1972 report Learning to Be, Edgar Fauré linked lifelong education to building a learning society.

6 1980s: The process of globalization and the emergence of the knowledge economy influenced the emergence of lifelong learning. The crisis in Western education was recast as a crisis of the economic and the instrumental developments.

6 1990s: There was revitalized international interest in lifelong learning in educational policy and practice. On the other hand, the more dominant interpretation of lifelong learning in the nineties was linked to retraining and learning new skills that would enable individuals to cope with the demands of the rapidly changing workplace (Matheson and Matheson, 1996; Bagnall, 2000). It also seems that lifelong learning as it is presently promoted has become more individual-oriented whereas lifelong education often referred back to the community. In 1996, the UNESCO-sponsored Delors Report (The Treasure Within) identified four pillars enabling individual development: learning to do, learning to be, learning to understand, and learning to live together.

6 In the beginning of the 21st century, we find ourselves in the midst of the loud voices of the European Union (EU) and its member states, the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and even the World Bank as they advocate the need to learn throughout life. Given their ideological, political and economic dominance visa-vis the rest of the world, it is not surprising that they are gaining adherents in other regions of the world. Many Asian countries, for example, have followed this line of thinking and have developed modern policy discourses on lifelong learning, transforming in the process their own traditional philosophies (e.g., Confucianism, Buddhism) which have for centuries promoted continuous learning. The predominantly economic interpretation of lifelong learning in the last ten years, however, has become problematic for many educators and practitioners who have come forward with such terms as “Lifelong (L)Earning” and “Learning to Earn” as their succinct criticism of the way the term is being promoted.

 

As information and communication technologies (ICTs) permeate our societies and communities, the role of the individual learner is highlighted. Globalization has produced outcomes and processes which make the learning of new skills and competencies of paramount importance. Today it is no longer enough to have the same living and working skills one had five years ago. Learning to learn, problem solving, critical understanding and anticipatory learning – these are only a few of the core skills and competencies needed for all. In many communities, the growing number of migrants means that residents have to discover new ways of relating to people from other cultures. The clamour for active citizenship likewise implies that individuals should realize their capacity for active participation in the shaping of democratic societies. And in all of the above, the environment in which learning takes place is decisive for all learners, women and men, young and old.

 

Most countries are already developing national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) which will be linked to the EQF. The fact that the number of NQFs is growing demonstrates that countries recognise their advantages – in particular in lifelong learning, including facilitating the recognition of non-formal learning, for example skills acquired at work but not formally certified.

 

As the debate on lifelong learning resonates throughout the world, it is clear that there needs to be more discussion on how this concept will be put into practice. The rhetoric on lifelong learning has to be matched with evidence of how it works and how it will contribute to creating more humane societies.

 

On a final note, it is good to remember what the early writers dreamed of as they examined the importance of lifelong learning: If learning involves all of one‘s life, in the sense of both timespan and diversity, and all of society, including its social and economic

as well as its educational resources, then we must go even further than the necessary overhaul of ‘educational systems’ until we reach the stage of a learning society” (Preamble, xxxiii, Faure).

145677-TEMPUS-2008-RS-SMGR

The Tempus SIQAS project is the first nation-scale project in Serbia dealing with the introduction and maintenance of Internal Quality Assurance at Serbian Universities in line with the EU standards. The work on this project is concerned with the areas where the internal quality assurance measures should be applied: the study program design, content and organization, the teaching and learning assessment, the student support and advising and employer and students involvement in quality assurance and enhancement. The model for the Internal Quality Assurance System also applies on the HE institution as a whole. It will be concerned with enhancement of quality in all the aspects of the institution functioning, organization and management.

The project should result in a model of an Internal Quality Assurance System from each individual person in HE institution to the University level in Serbia, which they would than have to adapt to specific characteristics and organization of each Serbian University.

The wider objective of the proposed project is the development and implementation of an

institutional system of Internal Quality Assurance at Serbian Universities. Specific project objectives, for the planned three years of realization, are:

- Development of strategies and institutional definition of Internal Quality Assurance at Serbian

Universities (defined by legal and statutory acts),

- Implementation of Internal Quality Assurance, Quality Control and Quality Monitoring systems at Serbian Universities (forming of QA Centres at all Universities in Serbia),

- Quality Culture, establishing and promotion at Serbian Universities.

Formation QA centers and their full activity shall substantially assist Serbian HE institutions in getting closer and potentially entering the European HE Area. In this, the role of EU partners in this project, reflected in their experience and suggestions, shall be of substantial significance. The main task of the Centre for Internal Quality Assurance is to support and coordinate operations on the education quality assurance and enhancement system at the University. The other tasks are: monitoring of the experiences of Serbian and foreign higher education institutions in the field of teaching quality, organisation of trainings and scientific seminars concerning the issues of teaching quality and consultation and advisory actions within techniques, methods and procedures of QA.

The main areas in which the Centre for IQA undertakes actions for assurance and enhancement of education quality at the University includes: policies specifying the aims and strategies of the assurance and enhancement of the teaching quality; procedures of IQA; principles of assessing students works; principles of the assurance of academic staff didactic quality; principles of reviewing and improving the quality of didactic resources and measures of support for students and principles of collecting, analysing and publication of the information regarding the quality of teaching process at the University.

The Centre will prepare the forms for reports on self evaluation to be executed at the university units. The Centre gives also the fixed terms to do the self- assessments and the benchmarks of evaluation of quality at the University. The university units have to prepare the reports on self-evaluation, which are submitted to the Centre for quality.

Student assessment procedures are expected to be designed to measure the achievement of the intended learning outcomes and other programme objectives; be appropriate for their purpose, whether diagnostic, formative or summative; have clear and published criteria for marking; take account of all the possible consequences of examination regulations. In addition, students should be including in the system for the QA at all levels, from the year of their study to the University.

The responsibility of the Centre is to prepare general documents in the field of IQA, analyze the reports submitted by the faculties on exam pass rate and teaching staff performance evaluation after the each semester, and with that respect the Committee has reached its recommendations accordingly.

Project tasks shall be realized through workshops, training visits, seminars and other activities.

There will be 3 workshops, one dedicated to self-evaluation of the partners and the other aimed at specific training of teacher and administrative staff, and of students at universities and faculties in IQA standards and procedures. It is not possible to make a unique model for all the Serbian universities, since they are very different, in size, spatial structure and ownership.

The realization shall be supported by three training workshop visits of Serbian participants to

EU partner-universities: Middlesex University, UK, University of Sofia, BG, and University of Zilina, SK. The reports related to those visits shall also be presented at the Workshops and Seminars. Particular attention shall be paid to the mechanisms and procedures of IQA within the EU higher education institutions. Some of many inputs of this project are EU partner’s teachers’ visits to Serbian universities for training and dissemination seminars. Positive experiences shall be applied in the organization and implementation of IQA at Serbian universities. These different meetings-forms of activities are most of specific goals in linking of higher education institutions in Serbia and in EU partner countries. It should be emphasized here again, that the EU partners have excellent experience in IQA application and that this is why they were chosen to be the part of the project Consortium. It is expected that Serbian trainees will be in a position to acquire good experience and wide knowledge on the project topics from EU partner universities.

At the ministerial conference held in Leuven and Louvain la Neuve in April 2009, the Bologna process celebrated its 10th anniversary. The Process probably presents the most remarkable coordination of policy change ever witnessed in higher education, but ten years along the road, what has it achieved? This post will present current initiatives to take stock of the implementation of Bologna Process.

Probably the most prominent exercise in monitoring the higher education reforms is the Bologna stocktaking report. This exercise, conducted biannually for ministerial conferences, asks member states to report on their implementation of the Bologna Process priorities over the past 2-year period. Based on the national reports, countries are assigned scores, which sometimes receive quite some attention in the individual countries’ media. The link above offers access to both the newest overall report, and to the reports of individual countries.

Other regular reports are produced by various partners and stakeholders taking part in the process. The most comprehensive reports are produced by the students (European Students’ Union) , universities (European University Association) and the European Union’s Eurydice network.

ESU’s report Bologna with Student Eyes draws from input sent in by the national students’ unions and usually differs somewhat from the reports sent in by the national governments. The students’ report provides not only a different perspective of the progress done, but also identifies the elements in which European students would most like to see progress in the Bologna Process future. In their 2009 report, linked above, the students warned of an a-la-carte approach to implementation of the Bologna process and particularly identified mobility, implementation of three-cycle system and social dimension as areas where work remains to be done.

The European University Association publishes a regular Trends report, which draws from comprehensive questionnaires filled in by European universities. The last published report was Trends V, written in 2007 for the London ministerial conference. The next report is due to be completed in time for the 2010 Bologna Process anniversary conference in Vienna and Budapest. All the Trends reports provide the perspective of those who are implementing the Bologna Process: the higher education institutions themselves, and along with the students’ report present how the process is implemented on the ground.

The final major report on the Bologna process is produced by the Eurydice network. While Bologna Stocktaking reports focus on progress in implementing reforms since the previous ministerial conference, the Eurydice reports focus on describing what institutional and other structures have formally been put in place. As such, the latest Eurydice report, published in 2009 for the Louven/Louvain la Neuve ministerial conference, is the most up-to-date description of the European higher education systems.

Due to the limit in the size of this post, not all organizations, and indeed not all members of the Bologna Process, could be mentioned. The official list of participating countries and organizations in the Bologna Process, however, provides links to sites of individual institutions where additional reports, positions and perspectives can be found.

Welcome to ERI SEE Blog,

We are happy to announce the integration of  ERI SEE Blog in our web network. Please feel free to post comments on our articles and studies. Conversation on articles is also possible on ERI SEE thematic forums ( www.erisee.org/forum).

Also feel free to browse ERI SEE website at www.erisee.org

Thank you!

The Education Reform Initiative of South Eastern Europe (ERI SEE) is a regional platform for cooperation in the field of education and training. It supports national reforms in education and training through regional capacity building, transfer of know-how and linking these efforts to European frameworks for education development (the EU Work Programme ‘Education and Training 2010’, the Bologna and the Copenhagen Processes). Promoting cooperation between the education and research sectors in South Eastern Europe (SEE) is a priority as well. ERI SEE also addresses more global developments in education and training (the World Declaration on Education for All and the Dakar Framework for Action, as well as the education objectives of the Millennium Development Goals).

ERI SEE is based on a Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Ministers of Education, Science and Research of the South Eastern Europe. Its institutional structure consists of a Governing Board, a Consultative Body and a Secretariat (Agency). Currently, members of the ERI SEE Governing Board are the signatory Ministries of Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, UNMIK/Kosovo, Republic of Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Romania, as well as of Austria as Co-Chair of the Task Force Fostering and Building Human Capital (TFBHC) of the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC).

Institutional partners like the Council of Europe (CoE), European Training Foundation (ETF), European University Association (EUA), Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), as well as donor countries: Austria, The Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland are represented in the ERI SEE Consultative Body.

Initiated by the Task Force Education and Youth (TFEY) of the Stability Pact, ERI SEE was established in 2004. In line with the evolution of the Stability Pact into the RCC as a regionally owned, streamlined and effective regional co-operation framework of SEE, the establishment of the Task Force ‘Fostering and Building Human Capital’ (TFBHC) of the RCC was endorsed in 2007. The TFBHC is successor of the TFEY.

ERI SEE objectives are:

• to continue the support of national education reform efforts in South Eastern Europe in the perspective of the process of EU integration and the more global developments in education and training;
• to actively promote regional cooperation at system, expert and civil society level through capacity building and know-how transfer;
• to facilitate information exchange and cooperation between the education and the research sector in South Eastern Europe;
• to support national activities of its members re­lated to the priorities of the ‘Detailed Work Prog­ram­me on the Follow-up of the Objectives of Edu­cation and Training Systems in Europe’ (Edu­ca­tion & Training 2010) and follow-ups, the Co­pen­hagen Declaration and follow-up com­muniqués (Co­­penhagen process) and the Bologna Dec­la­ra­tion and the follow-up communiqués (Bologna pro­cess).

Thematic Areas:The work of ERI SEE currently focuses on thematic areas of relevance for the increased role of education and training in the development of the SEE countries, the objectives of the Work Programme ‘Education and Training 2010’ and the education objectives of the Millenium Development Goals, such as:

• Lifelong learning;
• European Qualification Framework and national qualification frameworks in SEE;
  
• Quality education and Equity in Education;
  
• The ‘knowledge triangle’ – education, research and innovation.