Since the 1960s, the university sector in Italy has grown massively in terms of student numbers, institutions, faculties and courses. Reforms of the organizational structure of the university system have, however, been few, limited in scope and rarely applied. In particular, the educational reforms introduced by education minister Ruberti (1989-92) had only limited effect and failed substantially to transform the system. (1) During the XIII Legislature (from 1996 onwards), however, first under Prime Minister Romano Prodi and education minister Luigi Berlinguer and subsequently under Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema and university minister Ortensio Zecchino and under-secretary Luciano Guerzoni, a more systematic attempt has been made to introduce a number of far-reaching reforms and finally implement the reforms proposed in the legislation passed in 1989-92. The most important of the recent laws and policy documents are law 127/97 (2) and the associated ministry report (Martinotti report, 1997) (3) and the relevant implementation instructions (Note di indirizzo, 1998; Schema di regolamento, 1999). (4)

In October 1996, a working party was set up by the Education Minister Berlinguer, chaired by Senator (and university professor) Guido Martinotti. The working party reported in October 1997 and the document was issued for consultation. The Martinotti report is in three parts: the first part explains the background to the reform proposals, the second lists the organizational principles according to which reform is to be undertaken, and the third advances a series of specific proposals for change. A review of this report will provide an introduction to the issues which the government is seeking to address. It is also instructive to examine the ways in which some of Martinotti’s proposals were subsequently modified in practice.

In the first section, the Martinotti report identifies the main problem with the university system as ‘particolarismo universalistico’: in other words, the use of general abstract laws and norms for the pursuit of particular ends. The report cites as examples the misuse of the national appointments procedures, designed to ensure fairness and equality at a national level but subject to corporatist manipulation; or the system of freedom of access to universities, designed to provide equality of opportunity but resulting in massive imbalances and distortions in the student population. The report argues that not everything is wrong with the system and that there have been local examples of innovation and renewal, and in any case, all university systems are facing similar pressures (increasing numbers, declining resources) and there are no universal solutions. The report also recognizes that there are other reforms under way which need to be taken into account, such as the reform of the secondary education system, the needs of post-school vocational education and training, and the continuing learning needs of the adult population at large. The report does not propose a total redesign of the system, firstly because the system is too complex to tackle via legislation alone; secondly because interests are sufficiently well entrenched to be able to resist any attempt at innovation imposed by central government (any proposals for reform being rejected on the grounds that they represent a lowering of quality); and thirdly, because the process of autonomy which has already been set in motion has reduced the capacity to introduce reform from the centre. The report therefore suggests a series of partial reforms, which are nevertheless linked and have clearly defined objectives and time frames for implementation, rather than an organic reform of the system as a whole. Despite Martinotti’s reservations about the ability of central government to impose reform, the subsequent implementation instructions issued by the ministry indicate a far more interventionist stance than perhaps he thought possible, and which to some extent contradicts the supposed ethos of the reforms, which is to enhance university autonomy.

The second section of the Martinotti report outlines the organizational principles which are intended to inform the final proposals. These are:

• a new relationship between students and universities replacing the old passive, quasi fiscal relationship of iscrizione (registration) with a more formal (contrattuale) relationship seeing universities as communities in which students are active, adult participants and universities provide courses to clearly defined and transparent standards;
• greater diversity of university provision: the report accepts that direct competition among universities is not possible for a variety of social (including familial) reasons, but it does suggest that greater diversification could be achieved to allow students to make better choices of university course based on future occupational objectives, rather than just choosing the local university;
• greater diversity in the modes of study to include part-time study and lifelong learning and to eliminate the problem of students taking longer than the prescribed period to complete their courses (fuori corso);
• greater flexibility in the curriculum to facilitate the rapid approval of new course structures and content and provide more varied modes of delivery including the use of new technologies;
• mobility of human resources: the report is scathing in its denunciation of the rigidity of the current system and calls for much greater flexibility and mobility;
• a new system of certification or accreditation of university courses to gradually replace the ‘once and for all’ a priori recognition of the degree title with an a posteriori system of accreditation based on criteria such as the social and economic utility of the award title and the adequacy of resources to deliver it;
• adoption of a credit accumulation and transfer system to apply not only to the university sector but also to other forms of higher education and training, including work-based learning;
• greater support for ‘bottom up’ initiatives to replace ‘top down’ planning and control;
• a system of external evaluation both of institutions and individuals within the system;
• greater transparency in the management of the system to ensure that it is meeting the government’s overall objectives.

The third section of the report details a number of specific proposals related to credit rating of courses, course structures, internal and external monitoring and evaluation, student support and guidance (orientamento), cooperation and competition between institutions, links with other European systems, and the collection of data the analysis of which will form the basis for further development of the system.

The credit rating of university courses was already provided for by law no. 341 of 1990 but this has largely remained a dead letter. The Martinotti report now recommends the adoption of the European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) as a replacement for the current system which divides courses into years (annualità) and hours. Martinotti believes the adoption of a credit system will deliver a number of benefits: more transparency in teaching loads and demands, and a shift of emphasis from teaching to learning; greater student mobility between courses and institutions; greater diversity in teaching methods, more appropriately tailored to the needs of a more differentiated student population; a more collegial approach to teaching among staff and between staff and students; more flexible course structures; opportunities for new relationships with public and private sector organizations especially in the provision of traineeships and/or work placements; and better articulation with institutions concerned with post-secondary vocational training. Martinotti also indicates that a credit accumulation system which is flexible enough to recognize learning carried out in professional and vocational contexts is an important constituent of lifelong learning.

The award titles allowed by the Italian university system are the laurea (undergraduate degree, usually four years long for most disciplines), the diploma universitario (university diploma of two or three years duration and often with a more specific vocational orientation, sometimes referred to as the laurea breve) and the dottorato or research degree. The latter qualifications were introduced by law 341/90 and further modified by law 127/97. These laws also allow for a two-year (120 credits) university certificate (certificato universitario di base, c.u.b.) which was intended as a common foundation programme which could stand on its own or be used as preparation for a number of subsequent degree programmes; and also a post-degree or post-diploma qualification with an element of professional specialization, of 60 credits (one year) and equivalent to a Masters degree in the Anglo-Saxon tradition.

The purpose behind the development of these new awards is at least in part to address the enormous wastage of the Italian university system. Sixty-five to seventy per cent of students who register for the first year subsequently fail to graduate and those who drop out are not entitled to any award or certificate. Martinotti proposes that the certificate, diploma and degree should be designed to allow continuity and progression but also exit points at the lower levels and curricula should be designed to allow able and diligent students to complete their course within the specified period. In order to facilitate this, Martinotti suggests that the system should provide tutorial support for students so that they make appropriate choices among a variety of articulated curricular possibilities. In summary, the report suggests a first year of foundation studies, common to a broad curricular area, and forming the basis of study which could lead to either a diploma (after one-two further years) or to a degree (after a further three years) and with a further possible exit point after one year with a university certificate. The degree structures which were finally to emerge as the ministry’s preferred structures would be rather different (see below). What is perhaps significant about this part of the report is that there is no discussion of the new qualifications which emerged post-1990 such as the university diploma. The qualification would become redundant if the curriculum ran in series with the existing proposed new degree structure, but the report does not address the issue of those diplomas which run in parallel with the degree, offering a more vocational orientation.

Courses should be described in terms of credits, 60 for each academic year or 30 for each semester, which may be accumulated at a slower rate by part-time students. Universities should also make provision for the recognition and accreditation of prior learning. The report also specifies that intermediate and final assessments should be organized in such a way that students are not required to do more than three in any semester.

Ministerial control over university courses is reduced to that of ensuring that a certain number of criteria are met. These are that the course description should specify: a) the type of cultural and professional education it intends to provide; b) its duration and credit rating; c) its obligatory and optional components (the obligatory components may not occupy more than half the curriculum, and of the optional components a minimum of 30 credits in a degree course and 20 credits in a diploma course may be chosen from any faculty); and d) any extramural requirements such as work placements.

All of these reforms are to be introduced gradually over a two to four year period but during the transitional period a proportion of the resources allocated to the university sector will be held back and directed towards those universities which have already adopted the reforms. Additional resources will also be allocated to universities which develop ways of ensuring that without lowering standards courses are designed so that students can complete them within the prescribed duration. This of course, begs the key question: how do you get students through the system within the prescribed period if they are not preselected and the school leaving exam is too easy? Martinotti is silent on this, though this is an issue on which the government was forced to take quick action (see below).

It is a fundamental principle of the law on university autonomy (no. 537/97) that there can be no autonomy without responsibility and no responsibility without evaluation. The report observes that some ninety percent of universities have evaluation procedures but that these are uneven and that overall the provisions for internal monitoring are unsatisfactory, especially in the areas of student satisfaction and the evaluation of the technical and administrative functions. The report is vague about what internal evaluation procedures and processes should be in place, and also about how these should link with external monitoring, except to say that each university should agree a system with the ministry. The issue of external evaluation is not addressed either in the report or in the subsequent implementation instructions.

The report addresses a wide range of issues which relate to the support provided for students before, during and beyond their university studies (orientamento) including accurate and useful information to school pupils about alternative post-secondary educational opportunities, academic and personal tutorial support for students at university, general cultural and social awareness and citizenship, development of the student as an autonomous learner, and preparation for the world of work. Again, the report does not propose a blueprint about how this is to be achieved, but rather lists a number of criteria which universities should address in developing their own systems:

• new courses and methods of delivery should take account not only of the demands of the discipline and the research interests of staff but also of the characteristics of the student body (aspirations, motivation, existing knowledge and abilities);
• course design should also take account of input from local, regional and national economic institutions and actors;
• course design should also take account of the needs of students for personal and professional development;
• faculties should define and periodically review their standards of quality and their teaching and educational aims and objectives;
• universities should establish objectives relating to the personal and professional development of students and regularly review the ways in which these objectives are met;
• universities should enhance the transition to the world of work (though this is largely seen as being through the removal of institutional inhibitors rather than the provision of enhanced support);
• universities should introduce self-regulatory codes of practice to avoid or eliminate malpractice in marketing or competition;
• all of these activities imply a significant shift in the definition of the role of the academic staff to include not only the traditional responsibilities of teaching and research but also a much greater involvement in administration (course design, quality assurance and enhancement) and also tutorial support and guidance.

Martinotti affirms that if universities fully embrace the responsibilities and opportunities provided by institutional autonomy this can and must lead to both competitive differentiation and regional cooperation between universities. Competitive differentiation may however not require a radical overhaul of each university’s range of courses but simply better information about the current provision and better articulation of university provision with other providers of tertiary education and training. Martinotti also recommends greater regional cooperation between institutions but this need not happen exclusively within the existing regional framework (the Italian regions are responsible for managing some aspects of the right to access to universities (diritto allo studio)); the system is to be extended to allow and encourage direct contacts between university vice-chancellors (rettori) and/or deans of faculty (presidi) on the one hand and representatives of the local (economic) communities on the other. The thrust behind these proposals (though this is not explicit in the report) seems at least in part to be to try to address the problem of overcrowding in some universities: Italy has 46 public universities (with a further thirty-five subsidiary colleges or sedi distaccate in other towns) and 1.6 million students but eighty percent of students are concentrated in eight universities. (5)

Martinotti reinforces the point that all the reforms being proposed are linked with developments currently taking place in all major systems of higher education not only in Europe but across the world.

Martinotti calls for the monitoring of a number of system indicators in order that Italy’s post-secondary educational provision can be planned to meet the country’s employment needs. Employment trends should be monitored so that both overeducation and undereducation can be eliminated. The occupations of students who drop out of the system should be monitored to identify gaps and further training needs. Non-university post-secondary training needs to be developed and should also include continuing vocational training needs and this should also include in-house company training schemes.

It is difficult to underestimate the scale of the challenges posed by the Martinotti report and indeed in the process of their implementation a number of modifications have been introduced (rather in the same way that the recommendations of the Dearing Report on the UK university sector were subsequently modified for implementation by the Labour government). It is instructive to examine the ways in which changes have been introduced.

The difficulties associated with the introduction of a credit-rating system are illustrated by the guidelines (Nota di indirizzo) sent by the ministry to the vice chancellors in June 1998 advising them on the implementation of the reforms. One section of the circular advises on the implementation of the credit accumulation and transfer system. Universities are advised that 1 credit is to represent 30 hours of learning, and that one year of a course would equate to 60 credits and 1800 hours of learning. Simple arithmetic tells us that this requires Italian students to spend 36 hours per week for 50 weeks of the year (or 60 hours a week for a more typical 30-week academic year) to accumulate the annual credit target. Universities are further advised that in order to implement the credit system it is sufficient simply to allocate 60 credits per year to existing courses and to divide the total for the year by the number of subjects to be studied to derive the credit weighting of each subject. This is entirely in line with guidance provided by the European Commission on the implementation of ECTS which suggests that ‘credits are a relative rather than absolute measure of student workload’ and that ‘credits should be allocated on a top-down basis. The starting point should be the full programme structure and the normal pattern of courses a student would have to take in an academic year to complete the qualification in the official length of study’. (6) However, this would defeat the prime purpose for introducing credits, which is to reduce the real length of courses to coincide with their legal length. As the figures suggest, this cannot be achieved without first tackling the real problem, which is the apparent overload of the curriculum. The ministry identifies subject groupings (macro-aree, of which there will be five: health; science and technology; humanities; law, economics and social science; and engineering and architecture), which will be the subject of further guidelines at a later date. This unfortunately provides precisely the loophole that universities have exploited in the past. Universities will defend the academic content of their courses on the grounds that to reduce it would be inevitably to lower standards – and it would be a brave (or foolhardy) university that was the first to break ranks.

The ministry has in fact already begun to modify its advice to universities on the credit-rating of courses. According to the new regulations issued after consultation with the Consiglio Universitario Nazionale (CUN) and the Conferenza dei Rettori delle Università Italiane (CRUI) in May 1999, (7) the value of one credit is 25 hours of study, or 1500 hours of study for 60 credits (still 50 hours per week over a traditional 30-week academic year). But even here, subject areas are allowed to vary this credit-rating by twenty percent.

If the curriculum is already crowded and to reduce it would be to lower academic standards, this is an equally powerful argument to resist some of the other proposed curricular reforms (the right of students to study electives from outside their main discipline of study, foreign language tuition and IT training for all students etc).

The ministry circular also reminds universities of curricular reforms which have been possible since 1990 (law 341/90) but which have not been taken advantage of: the possibility for students to follow a common foundation course as a preparation for a range of degrees across subject areas; the possibility that students who have acquired sufficient credit to graduate before completing the prescribed period of study; allowing students to register for dual awards; the introduction of work placements and also of student support systems. The universities are also reminded that the ministry is committed to announcing its decision on all curriculum reform proposals within sixty days.

The ministry circular anticipates that one obstacle to the introduction of these reforms will be the lack of flexibility in the academic staff but it reminds universities that they have the power (under law 341/90) to require academic staff to engage in teaching innovation, student support and guidance, and diversification of academic programmes as well as their traditional roles in teaching and research. To this end, the universities have the power to set up any managerial or decision-making structures they see fit and are not constrained within traditional structures. It is difficult to see how this could be operationalized, however, given the highly democratic nature of the academic management structure – chairs of boards of studies, deans of faculties and vice-chancellors are all elected to their fixed term positions. It would be impossible for elected officers to introduce the sort of managerial changes which are allowed under the law.

The course structures finally agreed between the ministry and CRUI are a degree (laurea) – intended as the basic qualification for entry at a professional level on the labour market – and a specialized degree (laurea specialistica) – providing more advanced professional education. Universities may also award diplomas of specialization (diploma di specializzazione) and 60-credit Masters degrees, and research doctorates (dottorato di ricerca). The degree is three years in length (180 credits), and may be followed by a specialized degree of a further 120 credits. The diploma of specialization requires a further 120-180 credits (depending on the discipline) after the degree. The existing two-year university diploma is to be credit-rated and the credits recognized towards the award of the degree. The university diploma and other experimental degree structures introduced between 1997 and 1999 are effectively discontinued.

The commentary on the implementation guidelines (8) makes it clear that specialist, post-secondary, higher courses are to be limited in future to courses specifically required by the application of Italian or EU law or regulations. Such provision is normally to be made via the post-degree specialization courses. The thrust of these reforms appears to be to separate academic and vocational education in the post-18 sector, leaving the universities to concentrate on the academic provision. The reform of post-secondary vocational training is the subject of further legislation and is outside the scope of this article.

The ministry circular also prescribes the types of activities to be included in all degree courses:

• subjects related to basic (foundation) study;
• subjects related to further (discipline-related) study;
• subjects of an interdisciplinary or contextualizing nature;
• subjects chosen independently by the student;
• preparation for the final exam and (for the degree) a foreign language (the final dissertation is a requirement of the specialized degree, but not of the degree);
• further electives not covered by the previous categories and more specifically vocationally oriented.

No more than 2/3 of the credits may be assigned to compulsory subjects; and such compulsory activities are further constrained: activities (a)-(c) must occupy not less than10 percent and not more than 50 percent of the curriculum; activities (d)-(f) must occupy not less than 5 percent and not more than 20 percent of the curriculum.

This very tight specification of course structures appears to contradict the notion of university autonomy and also Martinotti’s fears about the difficulty of imposing reform from the centre. The Italian system has always been heavily centralized, and the ministry seems as reluctant to release control as the universities are to embrace autonomy.

There has been considerable debate in Italy in recent years about the capping of student numbers in certain disciplines (the so-called numero chiuso) leading to the referral of the matter to the Constitutional Court in December 1998. The decision of the Court was that although it was legal for the government and the ministry to limit access to university places, it could only do so if there existed a legal framework which set out the criteria by which student numbers could be capped – but the government had failed to introduce the necessary legislation to define these criteria. (9) The bill (disegno di legge) was finally introduced in May 1999 which allowed the government to control access to courses, especially those which required a period of training (such as medicine, veterinary science, architecture and education), other specialist courses and new courses being offered for the first time. The ministry (and not the individual universities, as was previously the case) will set the number of places open on such courses (numero aperto) in relation to the ability of the sector to cope (numbers of academic and support staff, available laboratory space and classrooms, etc.). In determining the criteria, the minister explicitly rejected other criteria suggested by fellow ministers, such as the needs of the labour market (for example for trained personnel in the health service). (10) When finally approved (July 1999), the law also provided an amnesty for students who had registered illegally for such courses and had appealed against the restrictions. (11)

From 1999/2000, the system of calculating marks for the school leaving certificate (maturità) will change. From now onwards, marks will be awarded out of 100 instead of 60, with the pass mark set at 60. Students who obtain 70 or above will be entitled to means-tested grants, subsidized university accommodation and fees exemptions. (12) This is a further modification of the student support system begun in 1997 aimed at increasing student mobility within the system and weakening the links between universities and their local markets.

The objectives for the government, set out by under-secretary Guerzoni at a conference in Bologna in June 1999, (13) are:

1. a gradual reduction in the drop-out rate and in the number of students who are unable to complete their studies within the prescribed time limits;
2. a fall in the average age of graduates and a rise in the number of graduates;
3. improved employability for holders of university qualifications (degrees and diplomas);
4. the same opportunities on the domestic and international labour market for young Italians as compared with their contemporaries in other European countries.

The programme of university reforms is far more radical and consistent and the guidance on implementation provided to universities far more detailed than hitherto. Nevertheless, the transition from a highly regulated and centrally-controlled system to a diversified and devolved system is not one which will occur painlessly or overnight. The government’s objectives may be undermined precisely by the institutional autonomy which was intended to engender competition and stimulate the system to bring about reform but which could be used perversely to resist change by claiming to defend standards. The elective nature of senior management positions in universities is a further institutional barrier to reform. In the debate over access, the government has explicitly rejected market needs as one of the criteria for setting student targets and has thereby rejected one of the mechanisms it could have used in encouraging the sector to serve the needs of the economy as a whole.

The target for implementation set by the government implies that the universities will have eighteen months in which to redefine their courses and syllabuses in time for the reform to be enacted in the 2000-2001 academic year. The scale of the university reform is ambitious but each of the perceived weaknesses is addressed systematically, even if there are still some loopholes which reluctant universities could exploit. However, the scope of the reforms and the timescale for their implementation imply a revolution on a scale never before witnessed in the sector and a commitment on the part of the universities to abandon deeply-rooted traditions and working practices. Whether such commitment exists remains to be seen.

NOTES

(1) For a summary of these laws and a fuller discussion of the context see William Brierley, ‘Italy: a corporation in control of a system in collapse’, in Managing the Academic Profession: International Perspectives, edited by David Farnham (Buckingham, Open University Press, 1999), pp. 139-157, especially pp. 147-8.

(2). Legge 15 maggio 1997, n. 127, Misure urgenti per lo snellimento dell’attività amministrativa e dei procedimenti di decisione e di controllo, Gazzetta Ufficiale, n. 113, 17 maggio 1997 – supplemento ordinario. Art. 17.

(3). MURST, Autonomia didattica e innovazione dei corsi di studio di livello universitario e post-universitario, 21/10/97: http://www.murst.it/progprop/autonomi/auton.htm   [01/01/99].

(4). MURST, Legge 15 maggio 1997, n. 127, Autonomia Didattica: Nota di indirizzo, 16/6/98: http://www.murst.it/atti/1998/no0616.htm   [01/01/99]; MURST, Schema della 2^a nota di indirizzo sull’autonomia didattica, 18/9/98: http://www.murst.it/atti/1998/no0917b1.htm   [01/01/99]; MURST, Schema di Regolamento in Materia di Autonomia Didattica degli Atenei. Issued 28 May 1999: http://www.murst.it/regolame/1999/adqart1.htm   [04/08/99].

(5). Brierley, op. cit., p 141, and CENSIS (Centro Studi Investimenti Sociali), 31^o Rapporto sulla situazione sociale del paese (Roma, Franco Angeli, 1997).

(6). Commission of the European Union, European Credit Transfer System: Users’ Guide, 31/3/98, pp. 4-5: http://www.europa.eu.int/.

(7). MURST, Schema di regolamento in materia di autonomia didattica degli atenei. Issued 28 May 1999: http://www.murst.it/regolame/1999/adqart1.htm   [04/08/99]. CUN is a committee of elected members of the academic community set up by law 341/90 to advise the ministry on university matters. CRUI has broader membership (all vice-chancellors) and a broader remit to discuss all matters of relevance to its members, not simply to advise the ministry.

(8). MURST, Schema di regolamento in materia di autonomia didattica degli atenei. Relazione. Issued 28 May 1999: http://www.murst.it/regolame/1999/adqrel1.htm   [04/08/99].

(9). Sabina Minardi, ‘Numero chiuso, scoppia la protesta degli studenti’, La Repubblica, 3/12/98.

(10). Claudia Morgoglione, ‘Numero chiuso, sì alle nuove norme’, La Repubblica, 7/5/99.

(11). Anon, ‘Numero chiuso, la Camera approva la sanatoria’, La Repubblica, 29/7/99.

(12). Sabina Minardi, ‘Diritto allo studio, cambiano i punteggi’, La Repubblica, 27/4/99.

(13). Luciano Guerzoni, ‘Higher Education Reforms in Italy’. Conference: The European Space for HigherEducation, Bologna, June18-19 1999: http://www.murst.it/convegni/bologna99/Guerzoni/Guerzonieng.htm   [04/08/99].

William Brierley

University of Portsmouth