Higher education institutions will have to tighten their belts in the coming years: the number of Dutch students is declining, while the government is keen to restrict the intake of international students. On top of this come the government’s sweeping cuts to higher education.
As a result, jobs are disappearing and programmes are being axed. At VU Amsterdam, for example, the curtain is falling on Earth Sciences and a number of small language programmes will have to merge.
In theory, this should not affect current students, who have the right to complete the programme they started. But are they still getting a good education? The government has no way of telling.
Gap in supervision
The State of Education, the annual report published today by the Inspectorate of Education, speaks of a ‘gap in supervision’. Government supervision of higher education is divided between two organisations: the Inspectorate and accreditation body NVAO. But they are not equipped to cover every aspect of the sector.
Their respective remits break down as follows. Once every six years, degree programmes are required to pass an NVAO quality assurance assessment or they will not be permitted to confer academic titles and their students will not be entitled to student financing. NVAO relies on the conclusions of experts who vet the programme.
Meanwhile, the Inspectorate of Education monitors compliance with laws and regulations in higher education. Its inspectors intervened at Delft University of Technology, for example, in response to reports that social safety at the institution was severely compromised.
“These bodies have been set up as separate entities”, Alida Oppers explains, “but that does not reflect the real world.” The result? Supervision blind spots, she warns.
Could you give an example?
“In the papers, you can already read about the Roosevelt Academy in Zeeland and the University of Twente and the cuts they are having to make. This is going to happen more frequently. We can expect all kinds of degree programmes to be ‘phased out’ in the near future: shut down, in other words. A programme that is being phased out falls outside the scope of NVAO, yet there are still students on the programme who are also entitled to a good education.”
So a programme can obtain accreditation, be phased out five years later and for another five or six years there will still be students completing their studies without the government checking whether their education is up to standard.
“In theory, that could be the case. Such a situation is by no means inconceivable in this day and age. In The State of Education, we have noted for the first time that the financial resilience of higher education institutions is in serious need of attention. Not only due to austerity measures, but also demographic trends. Student numbers will fall in years to come and the government is also taking a critical stance on the influx of students from abroad. Plus they have inflation and high energy bills to consider.”
Shutting down a programme isn’t the only option. You can also scale back the number of teachers. Who keeps an eye on whether this will impact the standard of education?
“We are currently conducting a survey across all the universities: how are they dealing with this more challenging financial outlook? That entails looking at the quality of education, for example the number of teaching staff involved in a programme.”
So in tough times, the standard of education some students receive could fall short. Can the government close that gap?
“Perhaps but it’s a process that takes a few years. For some time now, we have been arguing for a review of the Higher Education Act. That would allow a rethink of how best to organise supervision.”
Are there other blind spots in supervision?
“If the quality of education on a programme takes – or threatens to take – a serious downturn between inspections, we are not in a position to intervene and neither is NVAO. For example, if an educational innovation goes awry. That risk is inherent in the current system, in which the NVAO assesses the quality of programmes once every six years.”
But The State of Education says the accreditation system is working well.
“That’s true overall but there are areas of concern. In most cases, for example, expert assessors get to spend only one day at the actual programme. And in that time they have to assess all the variants: part-time, full-time, various locations. That is a vulnerable system.”
The Inspectorate also mentions the importance of citizenship in education. Is supervision in that area another blind spot in higher education?
“The Higher Education Act states that an institution must pay due regard to its students’ sense of social responsibility. But the wording of that section is so abstract that as a regulator, we cannot really act on it.”
In cases of ‘mismanagement’, however, the Inspectorate of Education is able to take action. It did so at TU Delft, for example, when social safety turned out to be an issue. Doesn’t that give you sufficient scope to intervene when problems arise?
“Our inspections of higher education institutions have become more frequent, even in cases where there is no prior evidence of mismanagement. We can’t say how many institutions we are looking into. That’s something we only communicate in our reports. What I can say is that such inspections definitely used to be an exception. That is no longer the case.”
At TU Delft these problems came to light, but similar things are happening elsewhere. There’s always a professor who turns out to be a tyrant or a governor who refuses to tolerate dissent.
“We have received significant input from other institutions and inquiries are ongoing. Without wishing to generalise about the problems, you can say that certain conditions in the academic world heighten the risks. These often come down to a combination of hierarchical dependencies and a huge workload in a competitive environment. As a result, people can easily find themselves crossing boundaries. But that’s really the domain of the Labour Authority.”
You are not concerned with social safety?
“We are if mismanagement is the root cause. And our other key concern is whether these circumstances are impacting the quality of education.”
And even when the quality of education does appear to be at stake, you are not always in a position to intervene.
“Which is why we are arguing for a system that provides full coverage. We don’t mind where the responsibility lies, as long as it lies somewhere.”