The House of Representatives approves the learning outcomes bill
The House of Representatives has approved the Learning Outcomes Act, which makes higher education more flexible. The law allows students to offset taking courses against practical experience and makes personal learning paths within courses possible.
Image: XF&M
AOb-director Douwe van der Zweep points out that training committees have the right of consent. “Universities of applied sciences cannot simply do this top-down through the central participation council.”
Last week the House of Representatives discussed this the bill from outgoing education minister Robbert Dijkgraaf (D66). The AOb sent prior to the debate a letter to all MPs and thus ensured that the bill - which the association does not support in principle - has been amended. Two parties (SP and GroenLinks-PvdA) submitted amendments where the AOb has worked hard for. One ensures that the law is passed more quickly, is evaluated after just two years. The other amendment provides that teachers obtain the right of consent. If teachers reject working with learning outcomes for their training, the board cannot implement the method.
Universities of applied sciences cannot simply implement this top-down via the central participation council
The new law ensures that colleges and universities can organize courses differently. In addition to a fixed and regular education program, institutions can let students put together an individual study path. Students then agree with a teacher how they can demonstrate that required learning outcomes have been achieved. They no longer have to follow all the fixed course units and it is possible to cancel subjects against practical experience, so that students obtain a diploma more quickly.
Refresher courses
The law makes higher education more flexible, for example for workers who want to further train. They can use their work experience to obtain a diploma more quickly. In addition to dual and part-time courses, the law applies -thanks to a CDA amendment- also for full-time courses with an important practical component.
A lot of work and coordination
De AOb has always been critical of the bill and points out in the letter to Parliament on the risks. AObpolicy officer Renske Visser heard major concerns from higher professional education teachers who, for example, teach at teacher training courses. “For them, personalized learning routes are a lot of work in addition to the regular students who follow the normal program. They have clearly expressed these concerns to us and we have also conveyed them to the House.”
For trainers, personalized learning routes are a lot of work in addition to the regular students who follow the normal program
Working with learning outcomes requires a lot of coordination within training courses, because when is something 'good' and how do you demonstrate that you have mastered a skill. “It takes a lot of time,” says Visser. “Many courses have a logical structure and coherence. Working with learning outcomes undermines the carefully constructed curriculum. Moreover, examination boards have an extremely difficult task to assess students. We see many differences between courses.”
Thanks to hhe CDA amendment Full-time courses can also make their education more flexible with the bill. The AOb argued in favor of ignoring full-time courses. “During the pilot, no full-time courses took part in the experiment,” says policy officer Visser emphatically. “Students who are 17 or 18 years old often start this form of training. They have little insight into what the training entails in practice. Furthermore, it appears that students actually prefer a fixed course offering instead of a flexible learning route."
Education committee approval
AOb-director Douwe van der Zweep is receiving signals that colleges are already busy introducing the learning outcomes. “I point out that the program committees - which include students and teachers - have the right of consent. The House agrees with us on this.” These committees must be given a say on whether they want to work with learning outcomes and then on implementation. “Directors cannot just discuss this with the central participation council and implement it without consultation,” says Van der Zweep.
Program committees - which include students and teachers - have the right of consent. The House agrees with us
Minister Dijkgraaf confirmed in the plenary debate that the right of consent lies with the training committees, he said AOb-participation specialist Marcel Koning. “Dijkgraaf said that the board determines whether a training course can use learning outcomes, the central management has the right to advise and the training committee has the right of approval. With this he indicates that the involvement of teachers with their knowledge and expertise is crucial.”
What about the right of consent of the training committee?
Working with a learning path-independent interpretation of a course is not a subject that can only be decided in consultation with the central participation body. The House has also confirmed this with an adopted amendment.
This concerns a change to the Education and Examination Regulations (OER) to which the program committee must agree for each program. For example, the program committee has a legal right of consent (Articles 9.18 and 10.3c WHW) regarding 'the organization of a program and the educational units that form part of it'. For example, the training committee will have to assess whether learning path-independent education/testing is suitable for the course, in line with the final objectives.
It is therefore not possible for the institutional management to work with learning outcomes top-down imposes on the programs without the program committees having also agreed to this. A training committee also has the right to advise on those parts of the OER over which a central MR has the right of approval.
Do you want help with participation? View our service packagesRead more about AOb-Participation
In addition to the mr and training committees, sub-councils (sometimes also called 'institutional mr') are often part of the participation structure of a higher professional education institution. However, such a sub-council can only be given the tasks and powers (instead of) of the training committee if the organizational unit for which the sub-council has been established only includes one course and the regulations provide that these powers are exercised by the sub-council (art. 10.3 c paragraph 6 WHW).
If the institutional management wants to implement learning outcomes for all courses centrally, and without the consent of the program committees, it may be necessary to enforce its own legal position. Sometimes it is sufficient to point out consultation and consent rights regulated in law (and at institutional level). But where necessary, each participation body must be prepared to take legal action. This does not only apply to the program committees. The central councilor can also take the lead in this. Moreover, practice shows that the mere threat of a dispute often leads to parties sitting around the table again.
