During the annual Forum of the European Higher Education Association (ENQA), held between 17 and 19 April 2024 in the city of Hanover, Germany, in connection with the implementation of the Start project tasks, in which NEA is a partner, the Junior Social Expert in Social Insurance European standards and guidelines for quality assessment in higher education (ESG). “
At the beginning of each of the sessions, the Start project and an introduction to the problem of social inclusion of vulnerable groups in higher education were briefly presented. The presentation was also attended by Christina Gitulitsa, Vice President of ENQA and CEO of ARACIS, the Romanian Quality Assessment Agency at higher education and a STARTp roject partner.
After presenting the goals and tasks of the project, as well as the partners in it, they were raised on three discussion issues concerning the views of the representatives of the European quality assessment agencies regarding target groups, good practices in each party, and whether the ESG update is required with regard to social inclusion. In the three discussion groups, in addition to the representatives of Bulgaria and Romania, representatives of agencies from Turkey, the Netherlands, Hungary, Poland, Georgia, Germany, Ukraine, Spain, the United Kingdom took part.
Participants shared the specific understandings of the term “vulnerable group” in the national context of their countries, as well as existing good practices and weaknesses in the inclusion in higher education of the mentioned groups. Practically all participants distinguished students with disabilities, refugees and migrants students, as well as students with low socio-economic status as vulnerable groups.
In Turkey, they apply a widely scope methodology to the social inclusion of vulnerable groups, and when applying inclusion policies, no specific definition of these groups is used. This leads to an almost individualized approach to the representatives of different groups, which approach takes into account the specific difficulties that students face. One of the good practices is the adaptation of the exams conducted to the needs of individual students. Specific vulnerable groups in Turkey are considered some age groups as well as married family students.
The representative of the Dutch agency expanded the circle of vulnerable groups by adding to them students with special educational needs (eg students with autism spectrum), as well as foreign students (refugees, migrants, etc.) who do not speak the local language/language language.
Poland obliges universities to provide access to universities of students with disabilities. However, the representative of the Polish agency has raised another problem – the existing opportunity to abuse the social assistance and inclusion systems by persons who are objectively not socially vulnerable.
Representatives of Hungary and Georgia have drawn attention to the report of the Working Group on the Social Dimension to the Bolonian Group to continue the work, which was published in 2024. (https://ehea.info/Immagini/BFUG_WG_Social_Dimension_2021-2024_FINAL_REPORT.pdf ). In Georgia, the draft of social inclusion indicators in higher education is currently being discussed on the basis of the report.
Georgia also views minorities (it has not been clear which minorities) as a vulnerable group. The representative of the Georgian Agency raised specific issues for refugees and migrants, namely the lack of refugee status or the difficulty of receiving it, and therefore difficult access to social inclusion policies. There is a similar problem for students with disabilities – an example of an institutional accreditation procedure was given in which the university does not report any student with disabilities, which in itself raises the question of whether such students may be in education at all. A good practice was noted the training of experts in expert groups on the subject of social inclusion.
In Germany, policies are underway for social inclusion of a wide range of groups. The mentioned general vulnerable groups in Germany also examine representatives of the first generation of students (originating from families without higher education). The representative of one of the German quality agencies in higher education said that there are good practices for social inclusion at the university level in Germany, but not at the national/state level.
Vulnerable groups in Ukraine are also added military veterans and their children, students subjected to violent or inevitable relocation due to hostilities, as well as students in de facto occupied territories.
Spain also examines specific vulnerable groups, namely victims of terrorism, as well as students suffering from affective sexual disorders. The representative of the Spanish agency has raised the problem of the bureaucratic dimension of social inclusion, which, on the one hand, helps to specifically identify individual problems and needs, but also to impede access to social assistance and inclusion. Asked about the inclusion of social inclusion criteria in European standards and guidelines for quality evaluation in higher education, the Spanish representative expressed the opinion that the expansion of ESG in this direction would lead to more countries introducing the social dimension of higher education, and this opinion was shared by most participants in the discussion.
The vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom include the so -called. “Nomadic” students, or students who, for various reasons, should often change their residence. In Turkey, Spain, the United Kingdom and other university countries, there are special offices where students can share their specific needs and teach information and guidance on available opportunities for support and inclusion.