Last autumn, thousands of students, lecturers and researchers gathered on Malieveld in The Hague to protest budget cuts in education and research. Among the demonstrators was higher education ‘gatekeeper’ Paul Rullmann.
Which is somewhat incongruous, given that it is Rullmann – or his successor – who will be tasked with implementing a controversial piece of government policy. Namely, the language assessment for bachelor’s programmes. The current government wants a larger share of the country’s higher education to be in Dutch again, especially at research universities.
Still 168 million
By reducing the number of foreigners who come to study in the Netherlands, the measure would have yielded a savings of 293 million euros. A deal with several opposition parties brought this amount down to 168 million euros.
A former executive board member of Delft University of Technology, Rullmann has been chair of the Higher Education Efficiency Committee (Commissie Doelmatigheid Hoger Onderwijs, CDHO) for nine years. New degree programmes need CDHO approval to be eligible for funding (see box).
What is the CDHO?
The CDHO was established fifteen years ago to assess plans for new degree programmes, evaluating aspects such as relevancy, employability and overlap between institutional curricula. Roughly 70 percent of all applications are approved.
The Committee was originally set up to curb the ‘proliferation’ of degree programmes. In the early 2000s, Dutch research universities and universities of applied sciences began introducing programmes in popular subjects to ramp up enrolments. “There’s still a danger of this happening”, explains chair Paul Rullmann, “because institutions are funded on a per-student basis”.
The system also isn’t foolproof, Rullmann adds. “With some programmes, you can’t help but wonder: why should we want this? Some concept, say ‘sustainability’, gets hot and suddenly new programmes like ‘sustainable gaming’, or what have you, crop up. But eventually sustainability gets woven into all curricula and isn’t special anymore.”
The Committee does not consider programme size either. “Whether they enrol ten or a hundred students, we don’t look at that. We look at employment potential, societal relevance and differentiation from existing programmes.”
Back when the teaching language criterion was in the works, former D66 party Education Minister Robbert Dijkgraaf asked Rullmann and his committee if they could assess it.
The idea was that if bachelor’s programmes were offered in languages other than Dutch – in practice, mostly English – they would have to provide their rationale for doing so. Failing this, they would have to switch to teaching in Dutch within a few years. The rule would extend to two-year associate degree programmes at universities of applied sciences as well. The new government adopted this proposal with only one notable difference: it tacked on cuts for international students, thus making it part of a raft of spending cuts in education and research originally amounting to two billion euros.
“All those cuts would create a completely different climate”, Rullmann says, “and that’s why I was protesting on Malieveld”. Though softened now, they still add up to 1.25 billion euros, mainly hitting higher education and research.
Tremendous uncertainty
“These cuts are making it incredibly difficult for institutions to go on offering programmes in other languages”, Rullmann says. “Many are large programmes that are central to the faculty. They are all gathering arguments now in hopes that, when the time comes, we’ll say: sounds logical, you tick the boxes. But it’s a waiting game. This situation is creating tremendous uncertainty and will have huge knock-on effects.”
Some effects are evident already, he says. “International students who are here now are wondering if they’ll be able to stay and are telling friends not to come to the Netherlands. This harms your reputation as a knowledge economy. I’m extremely worried about these sorts of things. The Committee is supposed to carry out the policy as set, but, if you ask me, this isn’t the way.”
The CDHO is in danger of changing from a neutral arbiter into a vanguard of austerity. And this will stir considerable resentment, Rullmann predicts, not least because the language assessment only piles on more costs for institutions. “They will have to work out if their English-taught courses are relevant to the labour market, for example. That means hiring a pricey agency to make a solid case, even though they’re already facing cuts.”
Shouldn’t the Committee have turned down this task? Rullmann: “Then-Minister Dijkgraaf came to us asking if such an assessment was possible. We had constructive discussions about it. We genuinely got the impression that careful, nuanced thought was going into the question of how to better balance the internationalisation of higher education. In the end, our answer was: yes, we could do this language assessment, provided the criteria are sufficiently clear-cut. If they were too ambiguous, every negative decision would wind up being appealed, and you don’t want that.”
Step down?
However, the current government is actually tightening the criteria and already banking on the cuts. Rullmann is particularly critical about the latter: “While economising could be an effect of such an assessment, it must never be the goal.”
Rullmann considered stepping down, but says he won’t. “It kept me up at night, but it was all still uncertain. We were waiting for a deal with the opposition and didn’t know yet what it would be. Now we have an exemption for particular regions, but still don’t know what it will entail. It’s musical chairs, and in two months my term is up. Slamming doors on my way won’t do any good. Creating a fuss doesn’t help.”
The regional exemptions are only one sticking point. “Say ten universities offer more or less the same programme in English, and all ten give the same solid justification for teaching it in that language. Does this mean all ten should get the green light? Or should two teach it in Dutch – or eight? And then, which ones? Our role is purely to give advice; it’s the minister’s job to decide in such cases.”
This decision is less complicated where new programmes are concerned. Rullmann: “There are no students and staff yet, so no stakeholders. There’s only a plan, which we can assess in advance. But with existing programmes, it’s different.”
As clear as possible
Degree programmes which do have to switch to Dutch will be given several years for this. Years in which anything can happen. A new government could take office, for instance, and change course.
According to Rullmann, the only thing the CDHO can do is be as clear as possible about the expectations and considerations. “Early on, the CDHO was something of an ivory tower. You dropped an envelope in the mailbox describing your plans for a new programme and eventually got a go or no-go. Things are different now. For example, we have weekly office hours for people to ask questions. We regularly consult with higher education institutions before they submit applications. We never say: write such and such and we’ll approve it. What we do say is: look, here are points you need to consider. It will be the same for programmes taught in other languages. We want to be an open body.”
Rullmann is well aware of grumbling about the CDHO. “Some say it’s all bureaucratic and administrative nonsense. That they can work a lot of it out for themselves. But, in the end, institutions do see the usefulness of this mechanism for market division. In a football match, you can insult the referee, but everyone understands that he’s necessary.”
He fears that the language assessment for existing degree programmes will change this. The Committee was never meant to make cuts, but now, effectively, it will. Rullmann: “I think the whole package of education and research cuts, of which the foreign language restriction is a part, is overkill. It has adverse effects that we’re already seeing now and that will only get worse.”
Translation: Taalcentrum-VU