The Students’ Opinion
on the Lisbon Strategy of the European Union

1 Preamble
2
3 ESIB – The National Unions of Students in Europe has existed since 1982 to promote the
4 educational, social, economic and cultural interests of students at the European level, and towards
5 all relevant organisations and institutions. ESIB currently has 45 member organisations from 34
6 countries.
7
8
9 Introduction
10
11 At the European Council Meeting in March 2000, the Member States of the European Union set
12 an ambitious goal for the EU: To become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based
13 economy by 2010, capable of sustainable economic growth and greater social cohesion. This so
14 called Lisbon Strategy treats higher education as a central means: Higher education systems
15 should produce marketable research results and employable individuals in order to boost
16 European economy.
17 The Lisbon Strategy thus affects European students to a considerable extent. The students of
18 Europe therefore have a qualified interest in having a say in this Strategy. With this paper, ESIB
19 reaffirms core principles that have to be respected in any reform related to higher education and
20 addresses the actual and potential effects of the implementation of the Lisbon Strategy in higher
21 education.
22
23
24 General remarks on the Lisbon Strategy
25
26 Social objectives within the Lisbon Strategy
27 ESIB notes that the follow-up and implementation of the Lisbon Strategy have focused far more
28 on eliminating barriers to trade and improving economic growth rather than directly addressing
29 some of the most important elements of the process, namely sustainability, more and better jobs,
30 welfare state and social objectives.
31 We conclude that the lack of commitment to those concepts and values is a political decision.
32 ESIB rejects arguments that are solely based on the “natural forces” of economic necessities. We
33 think that political programmes and reforms can – and have to – follow the commonly agreed
34 values in a society. A definition of “European values” without doubt should include democracy,
35 justice, tolerance, solidarity, social mobility and equality.
36 When modernising the political and economic system in Europe, the term “modernisation” must
37 not be abused to implement reforms that work against those above mentioned values. Instead,
38 policies should be designed to build upon what societies and movements in Europe have been and
39 still are fighting for.
40 ESIB therefore stresses that the main objective of the Lisbon Strategy must not be reduced to a
41 purely economic goal, but that the social objectives it already encompasses must be truly put at
42 the heart of the process and form its main priority.
43
44 The Open Method of Coordination
45 Within the Lisbon Strategy, the EU established the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) as a
46 new method of policy making, based on applying economic management techniques to public
47 governance. For several reasons, ESIB is concerned about this new way of policy making.
48 Obviously, the OMC is needed in order to include also parts of policy in the work towards the
49 Lisbon goals that are not within the competency of the EU according to the EC Treaty, such as
50 education. We do see the need to stick to the defined legal framework in its real meaning. We
51 would like to point out, that – although not legally – the EU practically is clearly overstressing its
52 competencies.
53 The blurry structure of policy making makes it difficult to find out where policies are rooted, and
54 where responsibilities are located: The policies are outlined and proposed on a European level,
55 while the concrete creation and implementation of the reforms happens on the national level. This
56 allows EU institutions to point at national governments when problems arise, while national
57 governments can refer to the EU when pushing forward unfavourable reforms. ESIB fears that
58 through this behaviour, which is inherent in the OMC, democratic structures are overruled, and
59 the responsible policy makers sneak out of their responsibility to fully argue what they are doing
60 – both towards the public, and towards stakeholders and NGOs.
61 As the shaping of policies and their evaluation within the OMC is based on indicators and
62 benchmarks, numbers are a central point of reference. ESIB is very concerned that political
63 concepts that can hardly be translated into numbers, such as academic freedom, student
64 participation or personal development and creativity, are left aside by the method as such.
65
66
67 Higher education within the Lisbon Strategy
68
69 ESIB welcomes the intensified discussion on higher education on the European level. We are
70 very aware of the benefits that an international approach brings to our education systems and
71 societies as a whole in solving similar problems and challenges that exist in our education
72 systems, as well as overcoming national barriers – be they physical or mental. In those
73 discussions, however, we think that the broad range of purposes that education serves in societies
74 have to build the basis of any further considerations: The most important ones being the role of
75 education as a means for social development and democratic empowerment, as a means of
76 accumulating and sharing knowledge, of economic competitiveness, as well as a means for
77 personal growth and well-being.
78 The students of Europe don’t often find these multiple roles reflected in policies deriving from
79 the Lisbon Objectives. Furthermore, on the European level, established structures of student
80 involvement don’t yet exist, which brings about the danger of leaving aside the student voice
81 when developing European higher education policies. We therefore see the necessity to define the
82 opportunities and threats more clearly so as to see and experience in the impact that the Lisbon
83 Strategy has on our higher education systems.
84
85
86 Opportunities for our higher education systems
87
88 Coherent European approach
89 ESIB welcomes a coordinated European approach for the development of our societies. We agree
90 with the principles of sustainable development, coherence and comprehensiveness. We
91 furthermore agree that in this approach higher education should take a central role in the design of
92 policies. Higher education should continue to be seen as a central element in shaping future
93 society and therefore experience considerable and continued investment on both the national and
94 the European level.
95
96 Autonomy and academic freedom
97 In the process of transformation to a knowledge economy, higher education institutions are faced
98 with a diversification of their mission. External expectations and internal steering organization in
99 higher education institutions are undergoing changes, which are reflected in the models of
100 internal governance of higher education institutions and external legislation, suggested by the
101 Lisbon Strategy.
102 ESIB supports the model of governance of higher education institutions, in which they are
103 accountable to serve external expectations, and autonomous enough to put the goals of their
104 mission into practice. Such a model of governance of higher education institutions must focus on
105 the public responsibility of higher education and its link with the challenges and demands of
106 society, as well as a real inclusion of students in the decision making process.
107
108 Making the best use of resources
109 One of the major goals of the Lisbon Strategy is to raise the quality and effectiveness of European
110 education and training systems. The students of Europe agree that making the best use of existing
111 resources is a crucial element in improving our higher education systems.
112 ESIB therefore supports the efforts to achieve the goal of effectiveness of European education
113 systems. However, we are very concerned about a political culture in which efficiency –
114 measured in terms of input and output – turns to become the goal of policy making, instead of a
115 means for achieving the purposes of higher education. ESIB points out that the latter must be the
116 central aim in reforming our higher education systems, and strongly opposes a political culture
117 that mainly focuses on playing with numbers.
118
119 Measures towards inclusion
120 ESIB fully supports the idea of lifelong learning as a means for involving more people of
121 different age and from different backgrounds into higher education. ESIB welcomes efforts by the
122 European institutions to raise attention to inequalities in higher education and increase the
123 inclusiveness of higher education systems. Still, we are aware that a lot has to be done yet to
124 achieve this goal.
125
126 Emphasis on Innovation
127 The emphasis that the Lisbon Strategy places on innovation opens the opportunity for education
128 that is truly transformative rather than reproductive. Conditions must be established to enable
129 students to develop their full potential, rather than being oppressed by a lack of political and
130 academic imagination and invention.
131 ESIB remains a strong proponent of student-centric learning, while constantly insisting on high
132 quality, up-to-date education. Continual innovation is an excellent way to achieve this. ESIB
133 therefore welcomes the introduction of a culture of innovation. Innovation does not only happen
134 in the field of research, but can bring benefits to all other fields of education systems, particularly
135 when applied to increasing the quality of teaching and learning systems. ESIB welcomes this new
136 approach as a tool to really improving our education systems.
137
138
139 Threats for our higher education systems
140
141 Focus on marketable results
142 Economic strategies are strongly affecting higher education when it comes to demands of skilled
143 labour force and research results. ESIB is strongly concerned about a system in which the
144 marketability of a subject determines the focus that is put on this subject when it comes to
145 financing and organisational priorities. Not only do we see a violation of the purposes of
146 education in this approach. We would furthermore like to point out that leaving aside non
147 marketable and humanistic subjects ignores the overall purpose of economic growth and
148 sustainable development, which we see in greater equality, self-fulfilment and quality of life.
149 Academic freedom includes the guarantee for a financial basis to perform high quality teaching
150 and research, as well as accurate information, also on issues that are not of interest to the
151 economic performance of a state. Governments have to secure this academic freedom instead of
152 endangering it with the hunt for economic goals – be they short-term or long-term.
153
154 Excellence and elite
155 The Lisbon Strategy promotes political reforms that put higher education institutions in
156 competition for financial resources, for the “best” students, teachers and researchers, and that
157 strive for establishing elitist institutions. Instead of providing for well-balanced development all
158 over Europe, this approach creates and expands the gap between different higher education
159 institutions. Those who benefit are high-ranking higher education institutions with international
160 prestige and a sustainable financial basis. Those who lose are underfinanced institutions that will
161 have to cut down on teachers, research projects, and on the long run experience heavy losses in
162 the quality of education.
163 ESIB strives for a broad, tight and well developed network of high quality higher education
164 institutions all over the continent. Therefore, national and European governments have to
165 guarantee sufficient financial and administrative basis for all institutions alike, no matter which
166 places they reach in international rankings, and no matter which region they are rooted in.
167 ESIB furthermore stresses its rejection to political concepts that want to create a „knowledge
168 elite“. Those concepts strengthen socio-economic and cultural elites in our societies. Instead of
169 reproducing those elites, we see the task of modern governments in creating a system that allows
170 for equity of all citizens.
171
172 Introduction of tuition fees
173 Within the Lisbon Strategy, the introduction of tuition fees is frequently suggested to national
174 governments by the European Commission. This is argued with three points: That tuition fees
175 provide an extra financial resource to close the funding gap; that they would create an extra factor
176 of student motivation and raise the quality of higher education; and that they would, combined
177 with student support schemes, create greater social equity among the students.
178 ESIB stresses that the provision of free and accessible higher education lies within the
179 responsibility of the state. Higher education that is accessible according to one’s desire to learn,
180 rather than one’s ability to pay, becomes threatened, when the problem of lack of funds is
181 addressed by such measures.
182 ESIB firmly states that the introduction of tuition fees with the intention of disciplining students
183 by burdening them financially is not worth any serious consideration. Financial troubles do not
184 motivate students to study, but rather keep them from being able to focus on learning, discussing
185 and developing knowledge, or from taking up higher education at all. ESIB furthermore points
186 out that the idea of creating greater equity among students by charging tuition fees obviously fails
187 its target for the above mentioned reasons.
188
189 Changing grant systems into loan systems
190 Tuition free education systems alone are of course not a guarantee for free and equal access yet,
191 but have to be accompanied by adequate student support systems. As those support systems are
192 being reformed, we are observing a trend to change grant systems into loan systems.
193 ESIB strongly criticises these tendencies. Loan systems put students in a situation where they
194 have to face huge piles of debts once they finished their education. This threat is not at all a
195 motivation to start studying, but can keep especially students from lower socio-economic classes
196 from taking up higher education. ESIB reaffirms its stand that education is not a marketable good
197 to be acquired in exchange for money, but a fundamental human right. We strongly oppose any
198 form of charging money for attending higher education, be it up front or ex post.
199
200 Jeopardising autonomy
201 Autonomy of higher education institutions is one of the major buzzwords used in higher
202 education reforms within the Lisbon Strategy. While our definition of autonomy is a guarantee of
203 academic freedom, the meaning of this term within the policies deriving from the Lisbon Strategy
204 mainly encompasses the duty of higher education institutions to acquire their own financial
205 resources. ESIB is very concerned about the effects this will have on the academic freedom of
206 higher education institutions.
207 Private sources expect something in return for giving money to those institutions. This return can
208 take several forms: A mandate in the steering body of the institution, intellectual property rights
209 over research results, or direct influence on the curricula and teaching utilities used in the
210 respective higher education institution. ESIB is in favour of a stronger contribution from industry
211 to higher education, be it through financing, internships or other forms of support. We insist, that
212 this contribution must happen in a way that does not in any way influence the independence,
213 academic freedom and mission of the respective higher education institutions.
214 We are furthermore concerned about developments that deal with the distribution of public funds
215 on the basis of management by objectives. The criteria used are often based on mainly economic
216 considerations, which forces higher education institutions to concentrate on reaching those
217 criteria rather than focusing on their actual mission.
218
219 Lisbon as argumentation for unpopular and short-sighted policies
220 Many countries already implemented reforms in higher education and more reforms are expected
221 to be suggested to governments by the EU. However, narrow policy suggestions, without broad
222 consideration of social implications, will not serve to reach the goals of the Lisbon Strategy.
223 Instead, governments are provided with a basis for legitimising short-sighted measures in order to
224 fill budget holes or deprive democratic structures of their power within higher education systems.
225 ESIB is highly concerned about this manner of policy making and stresses that national
226 governments must not abuse the “call from Brussels” for student-hostile reforms. ESIB perceives
227 it as the responsibility of the EU to closely follow the national implementation processes of
228 Lisbon in higher education in order to avoid an abuse of policy suggestions for such purposes.
229
230
231 Further demands for policy on higher education within Lisbon
232
233 ESIB is firm in its conviction that education is a public responsibility
234 Education must not be used for making profit. This has to be reflected not only in the regulation
235 of the education sector, but also in the public provision of higher education. Higher education
236 institutions should response to societal needs and publicly agreed visions and ideas. In order to
237 fulfil those tasks, higher education systems need to act on a sustainable, long-term and healthy
238 basis.
239 Considering the central role of higher education institutions and their importance for our
240 societies, states have to guarantee that higher education is safeguarded from being abused by the
241 intention of making profit, and that it is not exposed to market effects.
242
243 Stronger efforts towards access and equity
244 In our current societies, education is the main precondition for social mobility. Social cohesion
245 and equity are therefore strongly linked to the social inclusiveness of our education systems. It is
246 a core mission of these systems not to reproduce or create social inequalities, but instead to take
247 their responsibility for a socially just system serious and increase efforts to reach this aim.
248 Ensuring equity is strongly connected to the issue of financing higher education, especially to the
249 system of financing students. ESIB is alerted about the rhetorics of presenting tuition fees as a
250 means to reach equality, as argued by recent EU publications. Serious efforts to increase the
251 social inclusiveness of higher education must instead include stronger financial support for
252 students with a special focus on students from lower socio-economic classes and
253 underrepresented groups. Factors like gender, ethnic background, skin colour, disability, regional
254 disparities and others have to be included in designing the profile of financial support and
255 affirmative action. When it comes to systems of lifelong learning, ESIB stresses that they must be
256 free and equally accessibly by all.
257 ESIB urges the European Commission, national governments and higher education institutions to
258 implement effective measures for widening access and increasing equity. Financial support
259 measures have to be strengthened together with affirmative action such as financial incentives,
260 outreach programs, improvements in admission practices, quotas or positive discrimination in
261 favour of underrepresented groups.
262
263 Stronger involvement of students
264 As opposed to most national systems, there exist no formalised and established structures for
265 student involvement on the Eurpoean level. While education is being more and more dealt with
266 on the European level, so far the inclusion of students in discussions and decision making did
267 either not happen at all, or it depended on the good-will of the respective policy makers.
268 ESIB reaffirms that high quality development of education policies can only happen when the
269 ones concerned – the students – are intensively involved in all steps of the process. We see the
270 urgent need to establish and formalise a system of strong and real student involvement, including
271 participation in decision making.
272 So far, policy making within the Lisbon Strategy showed low commitment to the principle of
273 participatory democracy, including all stakeholders of the respective field. When designing
274 policies for the education sector, the first ones to include must be students, education institutions,
275 education workers and school students. ESIB believes that legitimacy and quality of reforms can
276 only be achieved with involvement of all internal and consultation of all external stakeholders.
277
278 Free knowledge in a real knowledge society
279 Higher education institutions play a key role in the creation, transmission and dissemination of
280 knowledge. They are of central importance when trying to realise a knowledge-based society.
281 However, the use of patents and other regulations of intellectual property limit the free
282 accessibility of knowledge.
283 ESIB stands firm in its position that knowledge must be open, free and easily accessible to all.
284 Instead of limiting those opportunities, ESIB regards it as a central responsibility of governments
285 to support the establishment of open knowledge structures, amongst other by making use of the
286 new possibilities of information and communication technologies and the internet. Such efforts
287 would bring us closer to a real knowledge society.
288
289 Deal carefully with external effects
290 The Lisbon Strategy can have a negative impact on “developing” and “least developed” countries
291 and regions, amongst other through initiatives from the EU to drain skilled labour force from
292 other parts of the world. ESIB believes that the principle of solidarity should form the basis of the
293 organization of our societies. The main beneficiaries of this principle must be the poorest people,
294 countries and regions in the world.
295 Furthermore, high priority must be given to supporting our neighbours. The Lisbon Strategy
296 should benefit the whole European continent, rather than just the Member States of the European
297 Union, in order to avoid unbalanced development in social and economic terms.
298
299 Develop a long-term vision for the development of higher education
300 Strong higher education systems are the key to creating a knowledge society. In order to achieve
301 this aim, the role of higher education institutions has to be defined broader than just providing
302 competent labour force, tools for innovation and enabling the European Union to become a leader
303 in the global economy.
304 ESIB calls upon the EU to look beyond the 2010-deadline and to develop such a long-term vision
305 for higher education, based on the multiple roles and purposes that education fulfils in a society.
306 This vision has to be developed together with students, higher education institutions
307 representatives and education workers.
308
309
310 Conclusion
311
312 ESIB appreciates the fact that a broad and concerted strategy is the main driver of reforms in the
313 current Europe. However, we are aware that the core and the goal of this strategy are of economic
314 nature, and that most of the reforms being proposed have a managerial and marketised character.
315 We are convinced that this approach is not appropriate when it comes to higher education.
316 Furthermore, we notice that the social objectives of the Lisbon Strategy are not prioritised, partly
317 even forgotten or neglected. Students, as well as other stakeholders, can not rest on any basis of
318 formalised inclusion mechanisms, but instead depend on the good-will of policy makers.
319 We are convinced that the function of government structures is not only to ensure sustainable
320 economic growth and hunt for economic benchmarks, but to organise society based on values
321 such as solidarity, equity and cooperation. ESIB therefore calls upon the EU and the national
322 governments to develop the Lisbon Strategy further and adjust it to these principles. Concerning
323 higher education, the strategy should focus on the responsibility of higher education to society,
324 and not limit its role to that of a tool for competitiveness in a globalised economy.

Adopted at ESIB’s 51st Board Meeting
Paris, France, December 2006