Search News


Browse Archives

News

On Accountability, Consider Bologna

July 28, 2008

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Impressed by American higher education’s embrace of accountability?

You shouldn’t be, according to a new policy brief on the Bologna Process from the Institute for Higher Education Policy. Written by Clifford Adelman, a senior associate at the institute, the document “contends that none of the major pronouncements on accountability in U.S. higher education that we have heard in the recent past – from Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings’ Commission on the Future of Higher Education to platitude pronouncements and wish lists for student learning from the higher education community -- even begin to understand what accountability means.”

Meanwhile, Adelman contends that across the Atlantic, the nearly decade-old, 46-country higher education reform initiative known as the Bologna Process offers lessons for what real accountability – not “accountability light” – looks like. And out of Europe’s efforts to make colleges, continent-wide, "more compatible and comparable," Adelman identifies a series of "reconstructive recommendations" for American higher education.

As the policy paper, entitled "Learning Accountability from Bologna: A Higher Education Policy Primer," states, "[a]ccountability in higher education begins with the establishment of public definitions of degrees and criterion-referenced statements of academic performance so that when an institution awards a credential it can assert, with confidence: ‘This is what this degree represents, this is what the student did to earn the degree, and a warrantee has been issued on behalf of both institution and student.'"

“I want to be able to look at a degree like I’m looking through the window right now, and see what’s on the other side,” Adelman said in an interview Friday. “We can’t do that with U.S. degrees today.”

The policy paper starts with an explanation of Europe’s use of "qualifications frameworks," defined as sets of learning outcomes and competencies that a student must demonstrate in order to receive a degree "at a specific level." (“It is not a statement of objectives or goals. It is not a wish list. It is a performance criterion.") European nations have taken different approaches to developing qualifications frameworks that define common outcomes by degree level -- and, it's worth noting, only 7 of the 46 have completed the complex process so far. Of those that have, Ireland, for instance, created a 10-level framework, stretching "from kindergarten to doctorate." The Netherlands tied the labor market into its framework, indicating, Adelman explained, which degrees qualify students for what sorts of jobs.

On this note, Adelman recommends that state higher education systems define common core learning outcomes for associate, bachelor's and master's degrees, "ratcheting" up the outcomes at each interval. Asked Friday why states should take the lead on this front, Adelman pointed out they hold most of the control in American higher education. ("Keep the feds out!") Asked about the role of private colleges in this proposed process, he said, “They buy in if they want to.”

Drilling down to a disciplinary level, Adelman next describes efforts to establish a set of common reference points across European colleges through what’s called a “tuning” process. For the United States, he recommends that state authorities organize the various academic departments, in each discipline, to try out a statewide tuning process, which, he writes, is different than standardization and in fact "goes to great lengths to balance academic autonomy with the tools of transparency and comparability."

“We all know that the flagship state university has more resources and faculty depth than regional institutions, and that one school can have faculty members with very distinct specializations who offer various aspects of a discipline that another school can’t do,” Adelman said Friday, by way of example. “But here if I say that all history majors in the state have to have a program that has time depth to it – that you can’t just major in 1850 to 1900, you’ve got to have a bigger range in history – there’s nothing wrong in everybody buying into that. Everybody can buy into that, whether you’re at the flagship state university or a regional institution. Then how you fill that out, how you execute it in your own program, is your own business.”

“The metaphor I use consistently for this,” he said of the Bologna Process and accountability more generally, "is they’re singing in the same key but not necessarily the same song.”

The report also recommends that the American system of awarding credit be changed to reflect the level of academic challenge of each course (with standardized levels defined in each state). “We give three credits for introduction to sports and three credits for neuro-psychology and pretend those things are equivalent. They’re not,” Adelman said.

It also recommends that American colleges design “degree supplements,” which, attached to the student’s diploma, would offer more extensive information on the content of the degree. Adelman recommends that the supplement include, among other items, the statement of purpose for the degree, a statement of how the student came to the institution (via high school or transfer, for instance), explanations of program requirements, and a title and description of a thesis or final project.

“All we know now is that if someone earned a degree, they earned 120 credits with 40 in the major and a 2.5 minimum GPA. It says nothing about anything else, “Adelman said.

"You learn what accountability means when you look at this loop that 46 countries in Europe have agreed to," he continued. "And the loop starts with the qualifications frameworks in the degrees, then it goes to tuning in the disciplines, then the third step is the credit system, which is very different than ours, but it's linked to student learning outcomes."

"When you get to that diploma supplement at the end, it's a warranty of everything that's happened before it. And it's really student-centered."

“Learning Accountability from Bologna” is the second in the Institute for Higher Education Policy’s five-part series on Measuring Global Performance. The institute released a longer essay on the Bologna Process in May.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on On Accountability, Consider Bologna

  • Is this really assessment and accountability?
  • Posted by Sean McKitrick , Assistant Provost for Curriculum, Instruction, & Assessment at Binghamton University (SUNY) on July 28, 2008 at 8:00am EDT
  • I read this interesting document, and am quite impressed by the Bologna efforts, especially when it comes to aligning student learning outcomes and ensuring that a process is in place that helps focus institutions on student achievement.

    After reading the document, I have two general comments. First, it appears as though the Bologna process has focused on alignment of outcomes statements, but has not addressed issues having to do with academic freedom. Although outside the scope of the document (and the article), I would be interested in learning more about how they addressed faculty's concerns that their right(s) to define course and programmatic outcomes (especially when their ideas of these outcomes differ from the status quo) have been violated. The U.S. higher education community very much prides itself on self determination, so I also wonder to what extent to which the Bologna process might be accepted in the U.S.

    Second, I am not sure that this what is described in the document is "accountability," per se. I see a lot of discussion about alignment of learning outcomes, Tuning, etc., but little information about departments and programs evaluating student work to observe the extent to which students are mastering the newly aligned outcomes. From some of the language in the document, I get the feeling that assessment of student learning is "assumed" because student learning objectives are aligned and coordinated as a result of the Bologna process. If this is the case, alignment is one thing, but student learning is quite another. To what extent might departments and programs ascertain that student learning occurs beyond simply assuming that "if it is aligned, student learning will come...?" Did I miss something in the document?

  • Corruption is Bologna's achilles heel
  • Posted by Glen S. McGhee , Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project on July 28, 2008 at 8:40am EDT
  • According to a recent study of corruption in European Union, “Universities or university systems with reputations for corruption, whether experienced or perceived, will likely end the Bologna Process.”

    Corruption is the illegal changing of student grades and exam scores, hiring unqualified faculty, and even corrupt ministry officials selling “accreditation” certifications for institutions!
    “Were [the Bologna] process to actually take effect, it would constitute the educational equivalent in the European Union of unilateral disarmament,” writes Stephen Heyneman in the Feb 2008 issue of Comparative Education Review. “It is difficult to imagine why a country or a university with a high reputation would allow its degrees to be made equivalent to those of a university or a university system with a reputation for corruption.”
    If what Heyneman says is true – and the July 5th 2008 issue of The Economist use of the same www.transparency.org database on pages 63-64 lends credibility to Heyneman -- Adelman should be more cautious before he leaps on the Bologna bandwagon.

    The study does not limit corruption to only monetary bribes, or the changing of grades, but includes the giving of favors “in support of family, friends, or important personalities” – something even the US could implement some safeguards against.

    (“The Cost of Corruption in Higher Education,” Comparative Education Review, Feb 2008 52/1, 1-25.)

  • academic freedom?
  • Posted by PS on July 28, 2008 at 9:25am EDT
  • What does academic freedom have to do with accountability? First off, professors already have tenure, many are unionized, and the courts have generally protected them in this area. They can say what they want.

    Second, saying and teaching what one wants and ensuring that students learn are two different concepts, so why do so some instructors cry "academic freedom" whenever learning is discussed in the context of accountability? Nearly all accredited public and private institutions receive public dollars and are thus responsible for ensuring that students learn. If you can't do your job well, then someone needs to tell you how to do it. Academic freedom should not be used as an excuse for students not learning, but as a protection for discussing controversial topics.

    Professors need to end their internal, narrow version of learning (an area most of them know startling little about) and realize colleges exist to meet student needs, not their own. Yes, everyone has rights at work, but they also have responsibilities. Academic freedom and tenure are valuable, but seem to be used more as a shield from accountability and an excuse for students not learning. Shift the conversation to student needs and responsibility and away from professors' personal needs and rights.

  • accountability (EU)
  • Posted by LM on July 28, 2008 at 11:35am EDT
  • Two comments: First, the professors are complaining about the whole system and are not in fact teaching the same things across each country. Second, since there are nationalized exams in each field and in the country(at least in France and the UK) graded by an outside team, this assures an evenness we do not and could never have across the country/a single state. The students can appeal, of course, and that seems to be happening more frequently according to my informants. In short, we need to hear from the instructors themselves, not the bureaucrats who are creating the theory.
    LM

  • Posted by George MacDonald Ross , Mr. at Leeds on July 28, 2008 at 3:15pm EDT
  • This report fails to mention the success of the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in bringing Europe into line with UK procedures. Most European countries wanted to measure student achievement in terms of hours spent in class, and it was the QAA which persuaded them to go for learning outcomes instead.

    Learning outcomes have been in place in the UK for nearly 10 years now, without any detrimental effect. There are descriptors for each qualification level, such as bachelors, masters and so on. My only criticism as that they exaggerate the extent to which all graduates actually achieve the levels of independent learning and critical thinking specified. Nevertheless, to have these expected achievements publicly paraded as what UK HE is about is an incentive for all institutions to ensure that they are realised.

    Again, there is a suite of 'benchmark statements', specifying the minimum level of skills and knowledge to be acquired by all graduates of each discipline. In general they have been drawn up in such a way as to accommmodate actual practice (I don't think there are any examples of departments that have changed their syllabuses in order to conform to the benchmarks). However, they have proved useful in articulating the knowledge, skills, and attributes employers can expect from a wide range of disciplines.

    Across the pond, we are used to the idea that innovations in the US take about 10 years to be adopted in Europe. In this case, it seems to be the other way round.

    I have a soft spot for Clifford Adelman, because many years ago he produced a report showing that philosophy majors outperformed majors in almost every other discipline on entry tests to graduate programmes. Would you believe that philosophy majors do better on BMAT than business majors?

    I have an interest in these matters because I am Director of the Subject Centre for Philosophical and Religious Studies of the Higher Education Academy in the UK. Our brief is to improve the quality of the student learning experience in these disciplines in the UK, but we welcome input from other countries.

    http://prs.heacademy.ac.uk

  • Suggested reading
  • Posted by Cliff Adelman on July 28, 2008 at 4:40pm EDT
  • Rather than respond to individual points made by today's commentariat, may I recommend 3 pieces of reading that may answer the highlights:

    1) The longer essay that backs up "Learning Accountability. . ." and that includes autonomy within frameworks issues, the QAA,
    part-time students, short-cycle degrees, access issues, etc. It's called "The Bologna Club: What U.S. Higher Education Can Learn from a Decade of European Reconstruction" and can be found at
    www.ihep.org/Research/GlobalPerformance.cfm
    You will need your hiking boots, but you will learn a good deal.

    2)The Eurobarometer survey of 5800 faculty in 31 countries of Feb. 2007 focusing on their perceptions of the education reforms of Bologna. This one is available at
    ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl198_en.pdf

    3) As for the "corruption" issue: as long as it was referenced in one of the comments, log on to www.transparency.org and see if you can figure out what this is about. I will say no more, except that the people who wish to level corruption charges at the 46 countries participating in Bologna should do so publicly in signed letters to the education ministers of those countries,the editors of the principal newspapers in the 46 countries, and the executive offices of the European Commission, the European University Association, and other similar bodies, with documentation.

    Thanks for joining the conversation.

  • Outcomes not the answer
  • Posted by Gavin Moodie , Principal Policy Adviser at Griffith University, Australia on July 28, 2008 at 9:15pm EDT
  • In principle, the best way to monitor educational standards is to state and monitor the outcomes expected of each qualification. However, education is too complex to be captured just as outcomes. The most common result is that statements of outcomes are too general and vague to be informative, as are the outcomes in the European qualifications framework.

    Attempts to state educational outcomes with greater specificity and precision make them so detailed that they collapse under their volume and excessive prescription, as are those of the South African national qualifications framework.

    Stating and monitoring outcomes is therefore not the answer to maintaining educational standards.

  • Demagogues dictating curricula?
  • Posted by Prof Ed on July 29, 2008 at 4:55am EDT
  • Possibly, it is just the sentence structure of Adelman's statement: “But here if I say that all history majors in the state have to have a program that has time depth to it – that you can’t just major in 1850 to 1900, you’ve got to have a bigger range in history ..." that causes pause. However, it is qualified specialists through their professional societies, not demagogues, who need to be defining the curricula.

    Dictating curricula is not assessment, evaluation, or accountability. Rather, it is a few meddling in the affairs of the many with qualifications. The last thing we should tolerate is for the demagogues of the world to be drawing up the curricula that can prescribe who qualifies for everything from obtaining a history degree to deciding what constitutes adequate preparation for a license to practice a profession like engineering or accounting. Becoming a philosophy major does not qualify one to write others' curricula.

    This Inside Higher Ed article seemed to present graduation criteria of meeting competencies as something that originated recently with Europeans. A read of Self Assessment at Alverno College reveals the practice as several decades old and at a private school.

  • Bologna
  • Posted by Tim , Professor of the Law and Policy of Higher Educatio at Leeds Metropolitan University U.K. on July 30, 2008 at 6:55am EDT
  • The Bologna Process is multi-faceted and does include aspects of institutional autonomy, academic freedom, life long learning, public good and social dimension as well as the use of learning outcomes and the association of learning outcomes, student workload and credit within qualifications frameworks. Issues of quality are central to all of this.
    46 countries recognising the need for development and change and that a collective effort may well deliver better results than isolated efforts. The level of analysis is high both at a macro level and at the level of the individual signatory states (see the country reports submitted at each ministerial conference and the stocktaking reports). The engagement of academics ("faculty") is increasing (with the Tuning process evidencing this). The degree of student involvement is unprecedented. It is work in progress - but progress is the word.

  • Just a reminder...
  • Posted by Dr. K on July 30, 2008 at 11:10am EDT
  • PS, please don't forget that most people teaching in higher ed do not have tenure. Those that have certainly have earned the right to determine the depth and scopes of their programs.

    You also state "Professors need to end their internal, narrow version of learning (an area most of them know startling little about) and realize colleges exist to meet student needs, not their own." This is not true. Colleges exist to meet the needs of various constituencies, including the professional and research needs of the professorate, as well as the needs of the students, the alumni, the staff, the taxpayers, the state, and so on. To not acknowledge this is to indeed have a "narrow version of learning."