“Students have been sidelined,” was the initial reaction of the student organisations ISO (the international students’ organisation) and LSVb (the Dutch Student Union) to the recommendations presented by the Van de Donk Committee on Monday morning: Van afvinken naar aanvonken (From ticking off to spurring on).
These recommendations stipulated that the hundreds of millions saved from the basic student grant were to be spent on performance-based funding, although, they added, this rewarding performance had to be carried out in a more ‘intelligent’ way than it had been in recent years.
Stunning
‘The committee has included pictures of students in the report, but that’s where the student involvement ends’
“This is stunning,” responded the chair of the LSVb, Jarmo Berkhout. “The basic student grant has been abolished to invest in education, but the proposals from this committee mean that students are to see nothing at all in return.”
While ISO chair Jan Sinnige sneeringly commented that: “The committee has included pictures of students in the report, but that’s where the student involvement ends.” In his opinion, Van de Donk would like both the universities and the universities of applied sciences to finance research and enter into collaborations with external parties at the ‘expense of the students’.
Under guardianship
‘It would be unwise ‘to judge institutions simply on the basis of their academic achievements and place them under guardianship’
The Netherlands Association of Applied Sciences has also voiced criticism. In time, hundreds of millions of euros will only be provided to higher education under certain conditions and a permanent body will have to supervise all an institution’s plans. “We do not believe that this is a step in the right direction,” stated their chair, Thom de Graaf. He said it would be unwise ‘to judge institutions simply on the basis of their academic achievements and place them under guardianship’.
He also argued on the students’ behalf, saying that the institutions should make agreements with their students regarding the spending of money released by the abolition of the basic student grant. “Ultimately, it’s about their money and their interests.”
De Graaf would like the government to keep a greater distance, as recommended by an evaluation committee which was instructed by the universities of applied sciences to consider the performance agreements: universities of applied sciences should no longer have to make agreements with the Ministry, but with their interested parties.
Greater accountability
Over the last few years, the performances of the universities and the universities of applied sciences have been assessed by a ‘review committee’, led by the educational heavyweight Frans van Vught. Six of the universities of applied sciences eventually had part of their budgets axed as they were unable to comply with parts of their performance agreements. Van Vught has very different ideas about the future of performance agreements.
He let it be known that he believes the Ministry should make new agreements with individual universities and universities of applied sciences, as, according to him, it worked well. Although he conceded that institutions should be given more space to make their own choices, and they must indeed be accountable to their stakeholders: students, those in the same field of work and other interested parties.
Not beneficial
‘As far as improving the quality of education, the threat of financial consequences is definitely not beneficial’
The universities are also ‘against the expansion of performance-based funding’ and they aren’t in favour of a permanent national committee, as proposed in the report. Karl Dittrich, the chair of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU): “As far as improving the quality of education, the threat of financial consequences is definitely not beneficial.”
The universities are also siding with the criticism expressed by the students: “In the same way as the student associations ISO and LSVb, as well as the Association of Applied Sciences, we are distancing ourselves from the Van de Donk Committee’s proposal that the resources from the study advance should be used more broadly than simply to enhance educational quality.”
The funding (on what basis can universities and universities of applied sciences be judged?) is the most important political question facing higher education in the coming months. The new cabinet will have to map out a course and all the interested parties will have to do their best to influence this course.
