Policy Paper on Quality of Higher Education

For the European Students’ Union (ESU), the quality of higher education is a multidimensional and evolving concept, developed in line with the vision and fundamental values of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). In ESU’s perspective, quality reflects the capacity of higher education institutions (HEIs) to provide high-quality learning experiences, equitable access to resources and support, and opportunities for personal and academic development to students and learners, based on the missions of higher education.

Defining and assuring quality in higher education requires a comprehensive and coherent framework that links institutional, national, regional and European levels. The Bologna Tools provide the necessary foundation for a shared European approach on quality. Since the launch of the Bologna Process in 1999, the idea of quality has evolved. One of the most significant advancements over the past 25 years – from Bologna to Tirana – has been the shift towards student-centeredness and the acceptance that quality can only be achieved through the active involvement of students at every level, both in policy and in practice. In 2025, EHEA has moved beyond designing higher education systems for students, to designing them with students.

From ESU’s perspective, quality must not be defined by institutional “performance”, but by the lived, everyday experience of those at the heart of higher education – the students themselves.

For ESU, quality is also inseparable from the public responsibility of higher education. It must reinforce the fundamental values of EHEA, while ensuring accountability and continuous enhancement. A high-quality higher education is one that is inclusive, student-centered and participatory, which ensures that all students and learners, regardless of their background can access, progress and succeed. 

True quality lies in a higher education system that delivers meaningful learning outcomes, promotes democratic values and upholds the principle that education is a public good – serving both the individual and society.

1. Student-Centered Learning

The 2012 Bucharest Communiqué declared student-centered learning (SCL) as a core principle of the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Education, by its very nature, revolves around students and should therefore be designed and implemented through a student-centered approach in order to fulfil the fundamental missions of higher education.

Student-centeredness should not only remain a guiding principle in learning and teaching but, in light of current developments and the need for a holistic approach, must evolve into student-centeredness across all dimensions of higher education. European actors, national and regional authorities, institutions and stakeholders should therefore take concrete steps toward building student-centered higher education systems. In doing so, it can be ensured that students are placed at the heart of every process, decision and policy shaping the future of higher education in Europe and further.

Therefore, ESU believes that:

• student-centred learning must be applied in all educational approaches and models, whilst being constantly updated and adapted to the needs of the learners;
• students should act as co-designers of their own learning, supported through flexible learning pathways that empower them to shape their own learning experience;
• teaching methods must evolve in response to ongoing digital transformation, with academic staff adequately trained to use digital tools and technologies effectively in learning and teaching;
• learning outcomes of each study programme should reflect all of higher education’s missions, equipping students with competence for employment, active citizenship and conducting research, empowering them to create knowledge and contribute to societal impact;
• students must be at the core of higher education, not only through learning and teaching, but also in decisions, including, but not limited to, institutional infrastructure, social and support policies at all levels and the allocation of higher education funding.

1. Learning and Teaching

The paradigm shift towards a student-centred learning approach relates to both a mindset and a culture within a given higher education institution (HEI). It is characterised by innovative methods and meaningful interaction between teachers and students, supporting the achievement of learning outcomes where students are active participants in their own learning.

In the more traditional teacher-centered learning & teaching methods higher education system, unfortunately still present in some cases, study programmes, courses or modules, learning and teaching methodologies, as well as student assessment, have been predominantly designed, organised and carried out from a teacher’s perspective around the question of which issues should be taught to students.

Through the use of active learning and linking learning and teaching with research, students develop transferable skills, such as analysing, problem solving, critical and reflective thinking, while being a truly engaged partner in all educational processes. These skills can be further developed through internships, traineeships or apprenticeships, which offer unique opportunities for students to apply them to issues beyond the academic realm. 

ESU believes that student-centred learning must move beyond mere rhetorical commitment and be actively reinforced across all dimensions of higher education policy and practice. It must guide the programme design, modes of delivery and institutional strategies, adapting to the new challenges of accessibility, digital transformation and the diverse realities of today’s learners.

As a supporting mechanism, strategies on student-centred learning should be designed on national and all institutional levels and the implementation of student-centred learning should be continuously evaluated using transparent, evidence-based criteria to ensure meaningful progress.

Moreover, ESU emphasises that a paradigm shift cannot be achieved only by structural measures, but requires adequate funding, continuous staff development and constant promotion and acceptance by the entire academic community. In order to ensure quality learning and teaching, pedagogical training for teaching staff in higher education institutions should be a requirement and pedagogical competencies should be considered at least equally important to research competencies in the recruitment process. Conversely, the teaching staff should be provided with support systems which include mentoring programmes, peer-to-peer learning and sharing best practices. In addition, continuous professional development should be ensured through regular participation in training, seminars and conferences in their respective academic fields, allowing teaching staff to stay up to date with current developments, methodologies and innovative approaches. Special focus should be allocated to developing interpersonal, intercultural and additional-language skills needed for teaching in diverse classrooms. These competences are essential for high-quality and meaningful student engagement, especially when accessing, producing and disseminating academic research. Continuous professional development should furthermore be supported by regular, structured feedback from students, whose direct learning experience provides crucial insights for refining and improving teaching practices.

enhance digital competences, as well as specific pedagogical preparation for working with students with disabilities. This can include developing the ability to identify student distress, respond appropriately to crisis or health-related situations and implement practices that respect the autonomy and privacy of students with disabilities, ensuring an inclusive and supportive learning environment for all.

2. Learning Outcomes 

Attendance or physical presence must never be defined or perceived as a method of assessment. Requirements related to participation or engagement must always provide flexible and inclusive alternatives that respect diverse student needs and circumstances.

Furthermore, all assessment methods must clearly reflect the intended learning outcomes to ensure students are evaluated on the specific competences the programme aims to develop, thereby reinforcing the integrity of genuinely student-centred learning.

To ensure transparency, the learning outcomes of each study programme should be clearly defined, communicated to students at the beginning of their educational path and made publicly available, in an accessible format. 

ESU reinforces that the design of study programmes and their learning outcomes should reflect all core missions of higher education, preparing students for both employment and research and for participation in society and active citizenship, equipping them with democratic values. Additionally, study programmes and learning outcomes should be designed to support flexible learning pathways, enabling students to progress through their education in a way that suits their personal circumstances and aspirations.

The process of designing study programmes and defining intended learning outcomes must involve students as co-creators of their learning. Students should be consulted whenever a study programme is updated and their regularly collected feedback must be considered and reflected in the revision of curricula and syllabi.

3. Life-Long Learning & Flexible Learning Paths 

The European Higher Education Area recognises life-long learning as a cornerstone of an inclusive continuously developing higher education system. In a rapidly evolving world, higher education must provide opportunities for all – students and learners – to access, continue and return to education throughout their lives.

Achieving genuine life-long learning requires the creation of flexible learning paths that enable students and learners to progress through education in ways suited to their personal circumstances and aspirations. Such flexibility can only be ensured when supported by robust Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) frameworks. Diverse learning experiences, whether gained through formal or informal education and experiences, must be adequately recognised and valued.

Flexible learning paths must be developed through the active involvement of students in their design. The perspectives and experiences of current and former students should be systematically consulted to enable HEIs and relevant national authorities to provide a proper higher education system, with the necessary support services.

Recognising the diversity of the student body is essential in advancing flexibility within higher education. HEIs must therefore establish adaptable frameworks that accommodate multiple learning trajectories and empower students to acquire meaningful competences, aligned not only with the needs of the labour market, but their personal aspirations, societal priorities and considerations of public welfare.

In doing so, higher education becomes not only more accessible but also more responsive to the needs of the stakeholders.

In line with the 2024 Tirana Communiqué, ESU reaffirms the importance of ensuring the quality assurance of flexible learning paths. Continuous attention must be given to maintaining high standards, transparency and trust across all forms of learning provision, thereby ensuring that life-long learning truly contributes to equity, employability and active citizenship within the EHEA and beyond.

2. Research, Development and Innovation

Third cycle qualifications, aside from the quality of the study programme, pay attention to the institutional or general research excellence as well. Ph.D. students need to have the right to participate in all the governing bodies of the research institutions they work and/or study at and to contribute to the development of that institution as well. Those institutions that have collaboration agreements in place should nurture an open inter-institutional environment, in terms of data and knowledge sharing, mobility opportunities, automatic recognition, research excellence and Quality Assurance and enhancement.

Research opportunities must not be limited to the third cycle. First and second cycle students should also have systemic and meaningful pathways to participate in research as part of their academic and professional development. To achieve this, higher education systems should establish adequate support mechanisms that promote student engagement in research across all study cycles. These may include dedicated grant schemes, research funding criteria that incentivise student participation and access to high-quality mentorship.

The research mission of the European HEIs needs to nurture the complementarity of the quality of higher education and the quality of research. ESU underlines that research is a critical pillar of the academic mission, yet it should never overshadow learning and teaching, but rather strengthen them by enriching curricula and keeping HEIs informed of the latest scientific and societal developments.

At the same time, ESU strongly disapproves of the commodification of higher education, unethical research practices and competition-based mechanisms, including rankings, which distort cooperation, undermine academic integrity and reduce higher education to market logic. 

ESU supports the EU’s Open Science policy, in terms of both available sources of information and accessibility to it and believes that all academic research should be considered a public good. All research and academic institutions should align the Open Science policy with their public responsibility values. 

Scientific research must in no way be limited by the economic, political or social pressure and interference and its only purpose should be sharing of reproducible, reliable and truthful research. The role of students in research must in no way be used for personal or institutional, financial gain. Students need to have equal access and rights as other researchers. For example, significant steps should be made for students to have an increased accessibility to international scientific databases.

Research should never be regarded as property. Ph.D. students employed at the institutions as the teaching staff, while studying to obtain a degree, must have the time and ability to work on their research within the set work-time, avoiding mental and physical strain, stress and negative impact on their work. This includes clear recognition of their intellectual property rights: students should retain ownership of their IP and be explicitly included in institutional IP guidelines and frameworks.

Innovation in higher education should be valued not merely as an engine for entrepreneurship or commercial start-ups, but as a process of academic and intellectual advancement. It must be supported through educational approaches that foster creativity, ethical research, and the responsible management of knowledge, ensuring that innovation serves the public interest rather than market commodification.

 ESU believes that:

• research and development must remain instrumental when developing higher education learning and teaching;
• students need to have equal opportunities and rights to those of other participants in higher education;
• strategic plans and allocation of resources should be aimed to sustainably boost the Research, Development and Innovation (RDI).

3.  Bologna Tools

The Bologna Process has provided the EHEA with a robust set of common instruments designed to promote transparency, comparability and mobility across higher education systems. However, twenty-five years after the launch of the Bologna Process, the uneven implementation of these tools across countries remains one of the major obstacles to achieving full mobility, fair recognition and true comparability of qualifications. ESU therefore calls for stronger alignment, renewed political commitment and continuous improvement of these mechanisms within higher education, while also encouraging vocational education and training (VET) systems to adopt comparable principles of transparency, quality assurance and recognition.

Implementation of the Bologna tools is not solely dependent on the existence of frameworks and technical instruments, but equally on the processes, cooperation mechanisms, political will and peer-support structures that sustain them. Effective implementation requires an ongoing culture of dialogue, transparency and peer support – making the Bologna Process not just a set of tools, but a living, cooperative community within the EHEA.

Therefore, ESU:

• calls on the governments to move beyond rhetoric and demonstrate genuine commitment through concrete actions and sustained investment;
• continues to advocate for wider and effective adoption of Bologna Tools;
• sees the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) as a universal currency for higher education studies and a foundation for mobility across learning systems. ESU calls for efforts to enhance the comparability and compatibility of vocational education and training (VET) with higher education, ensuring that learners can move smoothly between the two sectors and that all forms of learning are equally valued and transparently recognised;
• continues to advocate for the use of the ECTS as a transparent system allowing learners to measure their workload and transfer and validate the learning outcomes, also in the scope of emerging developments in the area of short learning opportunities and micro-credentials.
• strongly encourages systematic analysis of the challenges countries face in implementing Bologna tools and calls for appropriate, coordinated response measures across the EHEA.

1. Qualifications Frameworks

The use of Qualifications Frameworks throughout Europe implies that the coherence is vital. National and regional qualifications frameworks need to be in line with the EHEA Qualification framework (QF-EHEA) and the European Qualification Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF-LLL).

Twenty years after their adoption, national qualifications frameworks (NQFs) remain inconsistently implemented across the EHEA. Many countries still list full implementation of NQFs as an ongoing objective in their national plans. ESU questions why such a crucial reform has taken so long and stresses that the lack of full implementation directly undermines the comparability and transparency of qualifications within the EHEA.

ESU supports a process of continuous review and improvement of national and regional frameworks in fixed time frames, ensuring that they remain responsive to new learning realities, lifelong learning and labour market needs and cross-sectoral qualifications. However, such developments must remain aligned with the overarching EHEA framework to safeguard coherence and facilitate student mobility.

The frameworks must better reflect learning outcomes from non-formal and informal education, as well as recognise competencies gained through work-based learning, civic engagement and volunteering. This approach supports student-centred learning and lifelong learning while also enabling bridges between higher education and VET through clear learning outcome descriptors and credit compatibility. 

2. European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System

ECTS is widely used across European countries, albeit not implemented properly everywhere. However, ESU still continues to advocate for the adoption of the ECTS system in formal, non-formal and informal education provision.

Although ECTS has become a cornerstone of the EHEA, its implementation often remains teacher-centred, focusing on teaching input rather than the actual workload and learning outcomes of students. ESU emphasises that the ECTS must fully reflect the student’s perspective on workload and competence acquisition to realise the student-centred learning approach. Students’ workload should be based on the investment of their time in the entire learning process, including non-contact hours. This means that all activities have to be taken into account; not only the time students spend in lectures or seminars but also the time students need for individual learning and preparation for examination(s) and any other kind of activities which assist them in successfully achieving the intended learning outcomes.

According to the latest Bologna Process Implementation Report, slightly more than half of EHEA member states require external quality assurance agencies to monitor all key aspects of ECTS implementation. While this marks progress compared to 2022 data, further efforts are necessary. ESU calls for systematic monitoring and transparent reporting on how ECTS principles are applied in practice, particularly in relation to workload calculation and credit recognition. ESU emphasizes that proper harmonization of ECTS across the EHEA is essential to ensure comparability, mobility, and fairness for all students. 

To achieve cross-system mobility and fair recognition between higher education and vocational education and training, the ECTS principles should be adapted and integrated into VET programmes. This would allow learners to transfer and accumulate learning experiences across systems and countries  – strengthening comparability and social mobility within European education.

3. Recognition, Diploma Supplement and Digital Credentials 

ESU reaffirms that recognition processes must adhere to the principles of the Lisbon Recognition Convention and the Council Recommendation on Automatic Recognition. Recognition decisions should be based on transparent, academic criteria rather than political considerations, ensuring fair and equitable treatment of all learners. Automatic recognition should become a default standard rather than an exception.

Recognition tools and processes must also embody the core values of the EHEA  – academic freedom, institutional autonomy, integrity and social inclusion. The 2024 Implementation Report and EHEA Tirana communiqué reaffirm that quality and recognition are not only technical exercises but also expressions of these fundamental principles. ESU stresses that recognition systems must be inclusive, equitable and accessible to all learners, including refugees, displaced students, learners with disabilities and those from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds. Institutions must remove financial and administrative barriers and provide clear information and guidance to ensure no student is excluded from recognition due to background or status.

Special attention should be paid to the accessibility of the recognition procedures to the disadvantaged groups, as well general accessibility and transparency of information provision. Recognition must be accessible, transparent and free of discrimination, empowering all learners, regardless of their background, to pursue further education or employment opportunities across Europe. Recognition of prior learning is an important step towards eliminating obstacles for refugees and asylum seekers to access formal education.

Embedding equality and fairness in recognition processes is essential to achieving student-centred learning and realising the social dimension commitments of the Bologna Process.

The EHEA now recognises a much broader range of mobility experiences beyond traditional physical exchange. Virtual or hybrid exchange opportunities and Blended Intensive Programmes have become essential dimensions of internationalisation and inclusion, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and amidst rising economic and geopolitical barriers. Recognition mechanisms must therefore adapt to ensure that learning achieved through digital, short-term exchanges or Blended Intensive Programmes is valued equally with traditional study abroad experiences.

Similarly, micro-credentials and short-cycle qualifications, often gained through flexible or digital pathways, must be embedded within existing recognition frameworks to ensure coherence and portability of learning outcomes.

Automatic recognition is strongly encouraged in cases in which stakeholders have in place bilateral or multilateral agreements and even more so between all stakeholders participating in the formation and implementation of study programs leading to joint degrees. Students must not suffer from the consequences of lengthy recognition procedures in any way that would cause harm toward the goal for which the recognition is requested. Achieving cross-border recognition is evermore important in the continuously increasingly internationalising world.

All students must have the right to clear and complete documentation on their qualifications, including their learning outcomes, competencies and the level of their studies. Many different tools can be used to foster fair recognition. One such tool is the Diploma Supplement that needs to be available to all students free of charge and should be standardised at the institutional level. Diploma Supplements must be issued both in the study language of the curriculum and in a widely used European language. This certification should be mandatory and automatically issued upon graduation, always free of charge and following a standardised model. ESU stresses that remaining gaps, such as fees, limited language versions, or optional issuance in remaining countries must be addressed. ESU calls for the full and consistent use of the Diploma Supplement and for its integration with other digital tools to support transparent and portable documentation. 

ESU strongly supports the digital transformation of recognition tools through initiatives such as the European Digital Credentials for Learning (EDCL) and Europass. These tools enable secure data exchange, reduce administrative burden and increase transparency.

However, to fully realise their potential, interoperability between national digital credential systems, EDCL and Europass must be guaranteed. ESU urges the European Commission and member states to prioritise technical and legal interoperability, ensuring that digital credentials issued in one system can be recognised and used seamlessly across borders.

4. Quality Assurance 
   • Quality Assurance

Quality assurance (QA) remains a cornerstone of the European Higher Education Area, ensuring that higher education systems are accountable to students, society and public institutions. It is a collective commitment to fostering trust, transparency and improvement within higher education. ESU believes that quality assurance must be rooted in the enhancement of the student learning experience and must contribute directly to equity, accessibility and the realisation of higher education as a public good.

The purpose of quality assurance is not to impose control, but to sustain a culture of reflection, participation and dialogue. When properly implemented, it reinforces confidence among institutions and enables students to move freely across borders with the confidence that their learning will be recognised and valued. Quality assurance must be seen as a means to strengthen trust, support innovation and to facilitate seamless recognition within and beyond national systems.

For ESU, quality is inseparable from student participation. Students are full members of the academic community and must be recognised as equal partners in the development, monitoring and evaluation of quality. Their perspectives shape understanding of how learning and teaching function in practice and ensure that higher education remains responsive to the needs of its primary stakeholders- the learners themselves.

In an era marked by digitalisation and cross-border collaboration, quality assurance must evolve beyond its traditional focus on programmes and institutions. The emergence of micro-credentials and short learning opportunities offers valuable flexibility and new learning pathways, but it also calls for transparent and robust quality assurance systems. ESU highlights that micro-credentials must be subject to the same quality standards as degree programmes. Their development should support lifelong learning and inclusion, not fragment education or create inequitable access.

Evaluation of quality must therefore take into account inclusivity, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, recognising that a system that excludes any group cannot be called high quality. Transparency is central to this goal. 

Quality assurance should never be reduced to a bureaucratic exercise. It should reflect a living culture of cooperation among all actors in higher education, guided by the belief that quality grows through participation, continuous reflection and shared responsibility for the future of learning in Europe.

ESU highlights that quality assurance is the glue that holds the other Bologna commitments together. When implemented effectively, QA reinforces recognition, mobility and trust, making the promise of the European Higher Education Area tangible in the daily experiences of students. It is the framework through which transparency, accountability and mutual confidence between systems are maintained. As the EHEA evolves, QA must continue to be strengthened through the forthcoming ESG 2027 and reaffirmed in the Iași-Chisinău Communiqué. These developments should ensure that QA remains the key mechanism for sustaining the credibility of qualifications, enabling genuine student mobility and guaranteeing that the fundamental values of the Bologna Process, quality, inclusion and cooperation, continue to shape higher education across Europe.

1. IQA

Internal Quality Assurance (IQA) is the mechanism through which higher education institutions translate the general principles of quality into concrete academic and organisational practice. It is not a set of procedures separate from teaching and learning, but the framework that enables HEIs to evaluate their own performance, act on evidence and continuously enhance the learning environment.

ESU reaffirms that institutions must take full responsibility for the quality of their provision and the integrity of their internal evaluations. A strong IQA system allows an institution to connect its mission, learning outcomes and governance structures in a coherent process of planning, reflection and improvement. This process must be inclusive and transparent, involving the whole academic community and reflecting the diversity of its members.

Effective internal quality assurance depends on the quality of information and dialogue that support it. Regular monitoring of programmes, transparent reporting and systematic follow-up of recommendations ensure that enhancement becomes a continuous cycle rather than a periodic exercise. ESU underlines that the impact of internal evaluations must be visible: findings should lead to concrete measures for improving teaching, student support and institutional management.

Student participation remains a defining feature of credible IQA. Students’ insights reveal how policies function in practice and where barriers to learning remain. Their participation must therefore extend from course-level feedback to governance bodies, where they contribute to shaping strategies and evaluating results. Institutions should ensure that this participation is supported by training, access to information

and recognition of students’ contributions with appropriate compensation for their work within IQA. The visible inclusion of student voices

and recognition of students’ contributions. Institutions should also adapt IQA participation to students’ academic schedules and practical constraints, including meeting times, locations, and required resources. The visible inclusion of student voices

in reports and follow-up documents, as well as transparent communication of measures taken based on student feedback, reinforces trust and ownership of the process. ESU also supports the development of mechanisms that enable students to express their perspectives independently within institutional quality processes, ensuring that their experiences and assessments are genuinely reflected in the outcomes of internal evaluations.

Internal quality assurance also depends on the professionalism and engagement of academic and administrative staff. Institutions must foster pedagogical innovation, staff development and peer learning as integral parts of their quality culture. ESU stresses that excellence in teaching should be valued on par with research and that staff should have access to resources and incentives that support improvement.

As higher education systems evolve, internal quality assurance must adapt its focus and methods. Digital learning environments, flexible study formats and the introduction of smaller learning units require coherent coordination within institutional strategies. ESU notes that digitalisation and the growing use of artificial intelligence in education call for updated QA methodologies that ensure transparency, accountability and ethical use of technology in learning and assessment. QA frameworks must adapt to these developments while safeguarding academic values and data protection. 

ESU emphasises that internal mechanisms should ensure that these new forms of provision remain connected to the institution’s core standards of quality and that they complement, rather than replace, established degree structures. This requires clear mapping of responsibilities, transparent communication with students and mechanisms for verifying the comparability of learning outcomes. 

Maintaining institutional integrity through quality assurance is essential for preserving public trust and the credibility of higher education.

Internal quality assurance should also integrate the social dimension of higher education. Quality cannot be assessed solely by academic achievement but must also consider whether the institution provides equitable access, adequate support and a safe and inclusive learning environment. Evaluation of counselling, accommodation and accessibility services should therefore form part of institutional quality cycles.

ESU underlines that a mature internal quality system reinforces both autonomy and accountability. It allows institutions to demonstrate to students, society and external reviewers that they are capable of identifying shortcomings and addressing them effectively. Such systems nurture a genuine quality culture – one grounded in transparency, participation and integrity – where continuous reflection and improvement are embedded in everyday academic practice. By maintaining clear documentation, follow-up procedures and open communication, institutions show that quality assurance is not a response to external pressure, but an expression of their commitment to improvement and public responsibility. 

Ultimately, strong internal quality assurance – rooted both in a culture of quality and a quality of integrity – is the foundation of delivering the high-quality education that students deserve. 

2. EQA

External Quality Assurance (EQA) complements the internal efforts of institutions by providing an independent perspective on their performance and by reinforcing public trust in HEIs. It is a vital mechanism for ensuring transparency, accountability and comparability across the European Higher Education Area, while at the same time supporting institutions in their continuous development.

EQA must strike a careful balance between accountability and enhancement. Accountability forms the foundation upon which enhancement can take place. Only when quality standards are assured can improvement be pursued with credibility and purpose. Reviews should verify that institutions meet the standards expected by society, but they must also provide constructive feedback that enables further improvement. ESU underlines that quality assurance should never be reduced to compliance or control – it must operate as a process of dialogue, peer reviewing and mutual learning that strengthens the quality of education within institutions. To maintain this balance over time, external quality assurance must be cyclical and periodic. Regular reviews ensure that institutions remain accountable for their performance and continuously reflect on their development. ESU underlines that cyclical evaluation is essential to uphold public trust and to guarantee that quality assurance remains a living, evolving process rather than a static assessment.

ESU reaffirms that student participation remains a defining element of external quality assurance. Students bring a perspective that connects evaluation directly to the lived experience of learning and their participation gives legitimacy and credibility to review outcomes. Only through the meaningful participation of students can external quality assurance processes be fully legitimate and credible. They must be full and equal members of review panels, agency governance structures and decision-making bodies. ESU stresses that their contribution must be supported through transparent selection, appropriate training and fair recognition and compensation of their work.

The independence of quality assurance agencies is a precondition for their credibility. ESU believes that agencies must remain free from political or commercial influence, operating according to clear public mandates and sustainable funding. However, recent developments in some contexts suggest a gradual erosion of this independence, with agencies facing growing political or administrative pressures. ESU views this as a deeply concerning trend that threatens the trust, transparency and stability on which the European Higher Education Area is built. 

The legitimacy of QA agencies is also strictly dependent on their compliance with the ESGs, which provide a shared foundation for trust and cross-border cooperation. As covered in Standard 3.x, safeguarding agency independence must therefore remain a central priority.

ESU welcomes the increasing use of European-level instruments such as DEQAR and cross-border evaluations, which contribute to a common space of trust. New forms of learning, including transnational programmes, flexible study paths and smaller learning units, require that EQA methodologies evolve continuously. External reviews must demonstrate the capacity to evaluate these diverse models while retaining coherent standards for transparency, recognition and the protection of students.

The linkage between internal and external quality assurance has to be cooperative and mutually reinforcing. External evaluation should not merely repeat internal work; instead, it must assess how well those internal processes are actually functioning. ESU stresses that external reviews must respect institutional autonomy and internal reflection, serving to encourage enhancement rather than enforce uniformity. The true test of an external evaluation lies in whether it successfully strengthens an institution’s capacity for self-improvement and solidifies its dedication to public responsibility.

External quality assurance also contributes to the international dimension of higher education. By establishing common standards of trust and recognition, it enables mobility of students, staff and qualifications across the EHEA. ESU stresses that as new initiatives such as joint degrees, European University Alliances and transnational education expand, EQA must evolve towards greater coordination among agencies and more consistent application of European approaches. These developments increasingly test the limits of traditional EQA structures, making it imperative to modernise approaches and strengthen cross-border cooperation. This evolution should promote cooperation and innovation without compromising transparency or the protection of learners.

Ultimately, external quality assurance ensures that higher education remains a matter of public trust. Through independence, transparency and the active involvement of students, it demonstrates that institutions use their autonomy responsibly and in the service of society. ESU believes that a truly effective EQA system is one that reinforces both the diversity of European higher education and its shared commitment to high-quality, inclusive and student-centred learning.

2. Quality Assurance of Joint Degrees

Joint degrees represent one of the most tangible outcomes of the European Higher Education Area. They embody the spirit of cooperation, mobility and mutual trust on which the Bologna Process was built. Yet despite years of political commitment, the quality assurance of joint degrees remains one of the most persistent challenges in European higher education. ESU reaffirms that joint degrees must be governed by transparent, coherent and student-centred quality assurance mechanisms that guarantee equal rights and recognition for all participants, regardless of the institution or country in which they study.

At their best, joint programmes provide students with rich transnational learning experiences, multiple academic perspectives and access to diverse institutional cultures. However, the current fragmentation of national regulations, accreditation procedures and quality standards often undermines these ambitions. ESU stresses that quality assurance must not become a barrier to cooperation, but a tool for trust-building and consistency. Joint degrees should be subject to a single, coordinated quality assurance process recognised by all participating countries, following the European Approach for Quality Assurance of Joint Programmes and the principles of the ESG.

ESU believes that students must experience joint programmes as coherent, equitable and transparent learning journeys. Quality assurance should verify that curricula are well integrated, that learning outcomes are comparable and jointly defined and that students receive clear information about assessment, mobility and degree recognition.  Students must also enjoy the same rights, protections and access to services throughout the duration of their studies, regardless of the institution or country in which they are enrolled. All participants must have access to the same academic and administrative support, library and digital resources and wellbeing services, regardless of their host or home institution. A joint programme cannot be considered high quality if the level of support or rights depends on geography or institutional affiliation.

Meaningful student participation is indispensable in the quality assurance of joint degrees. Students should be represented in governance and management structures of the consortium, included in internal evaluations and invited to take part in external review processes. ESU underlines that student feedback must be collected regularly across all partner institutions and analysed jointly, providing a comprehensive view of the programme’s strengths and challenges. This data should inform decisions about curricular coherence, mobility arrangements and support mechanisms, with transparent follow-up actions communicated to all students.

Internal quality assurance within joint programmes must be fully embedded in institutional practice and taken seriously as a joint responsibility, ensuring coherence and mutual trust among partners.  Partner institutions should agree on shared evaluation procedures, data collection methods and reporting formats to ensure that findings are comparable and that improvements are implemented consistently. ESU encourages consortia to establish joint quality committees that include student representatives and to publish joint reports outlining progress and follow-up measures.

External quality assurance must reflect the collaborative nature of joint degrees. ESU calls for agencies and national authorities to implement the European Approach fully and to refrain from conducting multiple, overlapping reviews. A single coordinated evaluation, accepted by all partners and countries involved, would reduce administrative burden and enhance mutual trust. Yet streamlining must never compromise compliance with the ESGs, which remain the foundation for credibility, transparency and independence in quality assurance. ESU further supports the use of European-wide platforms to make the results of such evaluations publicly accessible and easily verifiable across borders.

The purpose of quality assurance in joint degrees is not only to confirm compliance but to foster genuine integration and parity among institutions. ESU stresses that quality reviews should examine whether students experience the programme as a single academic community and whether mechanisms exist to resolve problems collectively. Joint programmes should also be evaluated for how effectively they promote inclusiveness, accessibility and intercultural learning.

ESU underlines that quality assurance of joint degrees contributes directly to the development of the broader European Higher Education Area. By demonstrating that cooperation across borders can be based on trust and shared standards, joint programmes lay the groundwork for initiatives such as the European Degree and the quality frameworks of European University Alliances. Their success depends on the same principles that underpin all quality assurance: transparency, mutual respect and meaningful student participation.

3. European Standards & Guidelines

As EHEA is transitioning from ESG 2015 to ESG 2027, ESU stresses the importance of the following:

• ESG 2027 must not regress the achievements reached over the past decade, particularly with regard to stakeholder involvement in quality assurance. Stakeholders should be considered not merely as partners of QA agencies or of relevant national authorities, but as genuine co-creators of quality in higher education. Students must be afforded equal standing in all forms of quality assurance and formally recognised as key stakeholders within the ESGs, with meaningful involvement in all processes, including decision-making. Thus, students must sit on the governance boards – or equivalent decision-making bodies – of quality assurance agencies, with full voting rights;
• All EHEA members must commit to full compliance with the ESGs, as it is highly concerning that, even twenty years after the adoption of the first edition of the ESG, legislative compliance is still presented as merely an “objective” in national plans. Therefore:
  • ESU calls on all national governments to establish the necessary frameworks to support the full implementation of the ESGs;
  • ESU calls on all national QA and/or accreditation agencies to adapt their regulations and practices to ensure full compliance with the ESGs;
  • ESU calls on both EQAR and ENQA to continue rigorously monitoring and assessing compliance with the ESGs;
• The digital transition in higher education is an ongoing reality and must be properly addressed, particularly to ensure that the ESGs are “future-proof”. It is evident that higher education processes, especially teaching and learning, will become increasingly digitalized, with a strong influence coming from the use of artificial intelligence;
• There are significant concerns regarding a potential shift towards an exclusively institutional approach to external quality assurance, as referenced in the Council Recommendation of 12 May 2025 on a European quality assurance and recognition system in higher education. Even in the context of robust and well-functioning internal quality assurance systems – as referenced in the Council Recommendation, yet still far from a reality in many institutions – ESU strongly opposes the adoption of such an approach in ESG 2027 or any future EHEA quality assurance policies. Comprehensive and in-depth assessment of quality in higher education, at both programme and institutional levels, remains essential, as current internal quality assurance mechanisms are often inconsistent, subjective and insufficiently responsive to students’ perspectives or even displaying a tokenistic approach to student participation;
• ESG 2027 could begin to explore aspects beyond teaching and learning, gradually addressing other dimensions of higher education, especially the social dimension or student participation in governance as a quality standard;
• Independence – Standard 3.3 – must be reinforced and receive more attention, as only a fully independent agency, free from third-party influence, can secure the public trust necessary to carry out its mission of quality assessment. In light of the political contexts in several European countries, it is essential to ensure that political will does not compromise the integrity and objectivity of quality assurance processes.

4. European Qualifications Assurance Register & DEQAR

DEQAR is the Database of External Quality Assurance Results on activities performed by EQAR-registered Quality Assurance agencies. 

ESU believes that EQAR and DEQAR have a key role to play in ensuring that a culture of quality is implemented and maintained, for the qualitative higher education systems that students across Europe deserve. 

ESU urges EQAR to continue its work in promoting transparency and public accountability of quality assurance agencies in Europe, while also placing greater emphasis on strengthening compliance with Standard 2.4 of the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG), which requires agencies to operate independently from all external actors. Independence is essential to ensure that agencies conducting external quality assurance of higher education institutions are fully trusted and remain free from influence by the institutions they review, political actors, private providers or any other external stakeholders.

5. QA of European University Alliances

The creation of the European University Alliances represents a new stage of integration within the European Higher Education Area, challenging traditional national approaches to quality assurance. ESU stresses that the credibility and sustainability of these Alliances depend on quality mechanisms that are transparent, coordinated and student-centred.

Quality assurance within the Alliances must reinforce trust and accountability among partners while respecting their diversity and autonomy. It should support the mutual recognition of learning outcomes and qualifications, ensuring that students experience consistent academic standards and equal access to rights and support across all participating institutions.

Accountability must form the basis for enhancement, as public trust and responsible use of European funding require clear evidence of quality and impact. Student participation remains essential: learners must be recognised as full partners in designing, monitoring and evaluating the quality processes of the Alliances.

Ultimately, partnership, transparency and trust should guide the development of QA in European University Alliances, enabling them to contribute meaningfully to a coherent and student-centred European Higher Education Area.

6. Stakeholders’ Involvement in Quality Assurance

Close cooperation among stakeholders has always been a cornerstone of the European approach to QA in higher education. Quality in higher education depends on the shared engagement of all those who contribute to its creation and development. It is sustained through cooperation, dialogue and trust among students, staff, institutions, quality assurance agencies, public authorities and broader society. Each of these actors carries distinct responsibilities, but their effectiveness relies on their capacity to work together towards the common goal of high-quality, inclusive and socially responsible education.

Students are key stakeholders in higher education and in quality assurance. They are not only the primary beneficiaries of educational systems but active partners whose participation gives legitimacy and depth to every stage of the quality assurance processes. ESU reaffirms that meaningful student participation is both a right and a prerequisite for effective quality assurance. Students must be engaged as equal actors in the governance of institutions, in internal quality assurance and external review panels and in the formulation of national and European policies on quality assurance. Their perspective reflects the lived experience of learning and provides an essential link between abstract policy goals and the realities of higher education.

ESU stresses that student participation must be systemic, structured and supported. Institutions and quality assurance agencies must provide proper training, transparent selection processes and fair recognition for student experts. Participation must not be tokenistic but must lead to visible influence on decision-making. The outcomes of evaluations and reviews should reflect students’ contributions and follow-up actions must be communicated openly to demonstrate that their engagement produces tangible change.

To make such participation truly effective, all actors involved must possess a shared understanding of quality assurance principles and practices. ESU therefore emphasises the need to strengthen quality assurance literacy across the higher education community. Institutions and QA agencies must invest in continuous training and capacity-building for students, staff and other stakeholders, ensuring that everyone involved in QA processes is equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills. Strengthening such capacity is not only a matter of competence but of equity – as it allows all voices, especially those of students, to contribute on equal footing. Building informed participation is essential to prevent tokenism and to nurture a common culture of quality based on understanding, dialogue and mutual respect.

Academic and administrative staff also play a vital role in ensuring quality. Their professionalism, pedagogical innovation and commitment to student-centred learning define the day-to-day reality of education. Staff must be trusted and empowered as partners in shaping institutional quality cultures that value reflection and continuous improvement.

Quality assurance agencies act as guardians of transparency and public trust. ESU underlines the importance of their compliance with the ESGs, their independence and their capacity to mediate between institutions, students and society. Agencies must continue to involve student experts as full members of review panels and governance structures and to develop methodologies that are inclusive, participatory and enhancement-oriented. Cooperation among agencies across borders is equally essential, especially as transnational education, joint degrees and European University Alliances become more common.

Governments and public authorities have the responsibility to provide the conditions that make quality assurance possible. They must ensure stable funding, support independent QA agencies and respect the autonomy of institutions and students, as well as provide the necessary legislative framework and be open to adapting law to help institutions improve their work and be properly adapted to European frameworks. ESU believes that public authorities should act as enablers of dialogue among stakeholders, not as controllers of academic activity. Their interventions should always uphold the principles of public responsibility, academic freedom and equitable access to education.

Employers, civil society organisations and local communities can contribute valuable perspectives on how higher education connects with societal needs. However, ESU warns that their involvement must never redefine education as a commodity or shift its purpose towards labour market efficiency alone. Stakeholder cooperation should enhance, not compromise, the social and democratic mission of higher education.

ESU underlines that quality assurance must reflect the social dimension of higher education. The participation of stakeholders should strengthen inclusiveness, equality and diversity, ensuring that no learner is excluded from high-quality education. Student organisations and other representative bodies must therefore be supported as essential partners in promoting equity and advocating for systemic improvement. Quality is not achieved by institutions or agencies alone but through sustained cooperation among all who contribute to education. ESU believes that only when students  – as key stakeholders  – work alongside staff, institutions, agencies and policymakers in mutual trust can the European Higher Education Area truly embody its commitment to high-quality, accessible and democratic learning for all.

Therefore, ESU:

• calls for equal student participation in all quality assurance processes, including governance, reviews and policy-making;
• urges capacity-building for all stakeholders involved in quality assurance to ensure informed and meaningful participation;
• expects governments and public authorities to provide the necessary conditions, resources and legislative frameworks to support a robust quality assurance system in line with the ESGs;
• emphasises that quality assurance agencies must remain independent, transparent and open to stakeholder involvement;
• demands a commitment to inclusiveness, equality and diversity across all quality assurance processes.
• calls for HEIs and QA-Agencies to foster real Quality Assurance literacy for all students in order to achieve meaningful student engagement in all QA-Processes

5.  Transparency, Accountability and Public Trust 

In order to achieve truly qualitative higher education and maintain public trust, transparency and accountability are essential. ESU strongly supports an accountability-focused approach to quality assurance. While enhancement remains an important complement, aimed at continuous improvement, it must not compromise or override accountability.

The very purpose of the ESG is to establish a set of minimum standards that must be respected to ensure cross-system trust across the EHEA. Accordingly, the ESG’s central role is to safeguard public trust and accountability. Any use of the ESG for enhancement purposes must be grounded in accountability.

Higher education is a public good, and as such, relies on public trust. One of the key roles of quality assurance is to foster and sustain trust in higher education systems. In this sense, only trusted education is quality education. 

Quality assurance processes are fundamental to preserving higher education as a public good and ensuring trust in institutions and the broader system, at institutional, national and European levels. Transparency is purely non-negotiable: evaluation reports – both internal, self-evaluation, and external – and resulting decisions must be publicly available, written in clear language and include concrete requirements for follow-up actions. Students and society must see not only the outcomes but also how institutions respond to recommendations.

Quality assurance agencies, in accordance with ESG, standards 2.5 and 3.5, bear full responsibility for the outcomes of external quality assurance processes. Agencies must act with independence, transparency and integrity, ensuring that their evaluations, decisions, and follow-up mechanisms are credible, evidence-based, and publicly demonstrable. Agencies are accountable not only for conducting legitimate assessments but also for ensuring that the results contribute to improvement of higher education quality and to the increase of public trust in higher education. Between assessments, formal and accessible channels should be established for students to report quality inconsistencies, with clear procedures and mechanisms enabling reports that raise serious concerns to prompt intermediary EQA assessment. 

Higher education institutions also bear responsibility for ensuring transparency in all areas affecting the student experience, including admissions, internal regulations, study programmes, student support services, and institutional infrastructure (not limited to learning facilities but also housing, food services, and other campus amenities). All this information must be publicly available, easily accessible and presented in clear, user-friendly language. 

Therefore, ESU:

• calls for accountability-focused quality assurance to be prioritised;
• emphasises the importance of transparency in all quality assurance processes, ensuring that evaluation reports and decisions are publicly accessible, clearly communicated;
• stresses that quality assurance is a continuous process, requiring concrete follow-up actions to address recommendations, monitor implementation, and publicly report on progress;
• expects higher education institutions to proactively ensure transparency across all aspects of the student experience;
• calls for quality assurance agencies to act transparently and fully assume responsibility for ensuring public trust through credible and legitimate external quality assurance processes;
• calls for all information relevant to students and stakeholders to be easily accessible, clearly presented and user-friendly.

6. Quality beyond learning & teaching

To truly have a comprehensive understanding of quality in education, its scope must extend beyond learning and teaching to recognise the broader purpose of education as a driver of personal growth, social cohesion and democratic development. Education is not a solitary process, but is rather deeply embedded in the fabric of society and has the potential to shape the values, attitudes and capacities of individuals and communities at large. Therefore, quality cannot be understood solely through academic outcomes, employability rates, or institutional performance indicators. Instead, it must be seen as a reflection of how education contributes to the public good through the promotion of inclusion, equality, civic participation and sustainable progress.

To ensure genuine quality, education systems and institutions must adopt a holistic approach that integrates community engagement, social responsibility and ethical governance. The quality of an institution lies not only in what is taught, but in how it positions itself as a social actor within a broader community. HEIs should actively strive to cultivate partnerships with local, national and international communities, promoting dialogue, collaboration and mutual learning. In this way, institutions demonstrate accountability not only to students and staff but also to society as a whole.

Quality also depends on the integrity of institutional governance and culture. Transparent decision-making, shared responsibility and participatory structures are essential elements of a quality framework. Students, as key stakeholders in higher education, must be fully included in all levels of decision-making, from academic programme design to quality assurance processes and institutional strategy. Genuine student participation is not symbolic, but a structural requirement which represents a shift towards co-creation and shared ownership and accountability towards a more sustainable learning environment.

Moreover, the student experience must be understood as a multidimensional concept that extends well beyond academia. Learning does not occur in isolation but is influenced by wellbeing, mental health, sense of belonging and opportunities for engagement. A high-quality education system must therefore provide supportive environments that foster inclusion, wellbeing and democratic engagement. Students must be empowered to develop not only academically but also as active citizens capable of critical thought and social responsibility. These dimensions are inseparable from quality and should be integral to any institutional goals or evaluation framework.

In line with ESU’s long-standing principles, student-centred learning, academic freedom and meaningful student participation remain foundational to quality.  

1. Societal Impact

Education has an undeniable public value that goes beyond individual achievement or labour-market competitiveness. It is a cornerstone of democratic societies, equipping individuals with the knowledge, critical thinking and civic competence necessary to engage in social life and to collectively shape the future. The societal impact of education manifests through multiple dimensions such as advancing sustainability and social justice, to strengthening democratic institutions and fostering cultural understanding.

Quality assurance and enhancement mechanisms must recognise and reward this societal contribution. Institutions should be assessed not only by how efficiently they deliver academic programmes but by how effectively they engage with the world beyond academia. The development of civic competences, community engagement and sustainable innovation should be regarded as key indicators of institutional quality. When education is oriented towards social responsibility, it nurtures citizens with qualities like ethical reasoning, empathy and collective action that are essential in addressing real societal challenges.

Therefore, ESU calls for a redefinition of quality indicators to include social impact as a measurable and valued outcome. Institutions should adopt frameworks that evaluate their contribution to society through outreach initiatives, inclusive governance, community partnerships and research that serves the public interest. Measuring success solely through employability statistics or economic competitiveness narrows the scope of education’s purpose. True quality lies in how effectively education empowers individuals to participate in and improve their societies.

2. Opportunities for All 

Equity and inclusion are fundamental preconditions for quality in education. Quality cannot exist where access is restricted, participation is unequal, or discrimination persists. A genuinely high-quality education system ensures that every learner, regardless of their background, identity, or circumstance, can participate fully and succeed. Broadening opportunities for access and progression in education enhances the value of learning environments, strengthens democratic societies and ultimately improves the overall quality of education.

To achieve this, institutions and policymakers must confront and dismantle systemic barriers that limit inclusion through an intersectional lens. These barriers may arise from socio-economic inequality, migration status, disability, gender, or the digital divide. Addressing these issues requires targeted strategies including financial support, inclusive teaching practices, accessible learning environments and mechanisms to recognise prior and non-formal learning. Quality assurance frameworks should actively monitor and promote such measures, embedding inclusivity as a defining characteristic of institutional value and success.

To achieve this, institutions and policymakers must confront and dismantle systemic barriers that limit inclusion. These barriers may arise from systemic discrimination for example based on socio-economic background, migration status, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, sexual orientation or the digital divide. Addressing these issues requires targeted strategies including financial support, inclusive teaching practices, accessible learning environments and mechanisms to recognise prior and non-formal learning. Quality assurance frameworks should actively monitor and promote such measures, embedding inclusivity as a defining characteristic of institutional value and success.

institutional value and success. To ensure that inclusivity remains a visible and sustained priority within the institution, it can be valuable to engage a dedicated group of experts to advise on and provide ongoing support for inclusion measures targeting diverse student populations. Such actions should only be taken after the consultation with students and student unions.

Naturally, inclusivity must be present at every stage of the educational journey, from admission and teaching methods, to assessment, mobility and post-graduation opportunities. Institutions must cultivate an environment where diversity is not only accepted but valued as an essential source of innovation and social progress. By ensuring equitable opportunities for all learners, educational institutions reaffirm their commitment to human rights and social justice and in doing so, reinforce the true meaning of quality in education and beyond.

Achieving quality education requires a holistic understanding of education’s role in personal and societal transformation. The interconnectedness of the student experience, institutional culture, social responsibility and inclusion, must underpin every definition of quality. It is only when these dimensions are viewed as interdependent that we can truly realise education’s broader transformative potential.

Therefore, ESU:

• calls for a broader understanding of quality that goes beyond academic outcomes to include personal growth, social responsibility, civic engagement and the societal impact of higher education;
• urges institutions to adopt a holistic approach integrating community engagement, ethical governance and participatory structures, with students as equal partners in co-creation and decision-making;
• emphasises that societal impact and public value should be recognised as core indicators of institutional quality, alongside academic performance and employability;
• demands that equity, inclusion and diversity be embedded at all stages of the educational journey, ensuring equitable access, participation and success for all students and learners.