Fewer students, significant budget cuts, smaller programmes disappearing, labour market shortages, young researchers in distress… ‘Strategic choices’ are needed to address these issues, writes minister Bruins of Education to the House of Representatives. In an extensive letter regarding further education and scientific research, he outlines the broad lines for the future as he envisions it.
Bruins wants a less market-driven system. Educational institutions should not create trendy programmes to attract as many students as possible; instead, they must determine the educational offerings through mutual consultation. This would allow the government to take a step back.
Conflicts
Especially in times of budget cuts, it is by no means a given that educational institutions will align neatly. Maastricht University has once again started recruiting international students, and the universities of applied sciences are facing conflicts over support for shrinking regions.
Bruins is well aware of this. He indicates in his letter that competition is increasing. “In recent years, more programmes have been started than terminated”, he observes. Nevertheless, he wants to bring the institutions to the table.
Mutual consultation
His solution is an amendment to the law. Bruins will enforce mutual consultation. Universities and universities of applied sciences will not be allowed to start or close programmes without discussing it with other institutions.
Such consultation is not entirely new. There has already been a degree of ‘self-management’ and mutual coordination in various ways, the minister notes. “This is a good movement that I wholeheartedly support and wish to sustain.” However, he wants to make this less optional.
The details are not yet fully crystallised: together with the universities, he wants to explore what form this consultation should take. In any case, he wishes to retain small or unique programmes if they are important for society or the region. Thus, a university will not be able to simply discontinue a Dutch programme if only a few students enrol.
Conversely, he also wants universities and universities of applied sciences with a good educational offering to capitalise on opportunities for the economy and society. The system must therefore encourage this, although it is still unclear how.
Less interference
At the same time, he claims he wants to have less interference with the institutions. He prefers not to concern himself with issues such as workload, scientific integrity, diversity, inclusion, and social safety. Universities and universities of applied sciences should take care of these matters themselves, without special budgets and regulations from The Hague.
Or as Bruins puts it: “In the coming years, I will gradually reduce the ad hoc incentivising role of the government in this regard.” He also aims to reduce the administrative burdens on the institutions.
In line with all this, Bruins believes an adjusted funding system is necessary. He wants to look at ‘the entire mechanism through which the government budget is established’. His focus is on ‘predictability, stability, and collaboration’.
Accessibility
A footnote reveals that this could affect accessibility to education: perhaps it will become harder to continue studying if you wish to do so. Bruins wants to ‘look at the consequences of upward pressure and the funding of transitions and dropouts’.
Behind the term ‘upward pressure’ lies the political conviction that too many students aspire to obtain the highest diploma: they prefer university over a university of applied sciences, and a university of applied sciences over vocational education. The previous minister of Education, Robbert Dijkgraaf, wanted to transform this ‘ladder’ into a ‘fan’ and emphasised the equivalence of vocational education, higher vocational education, and research universities.
Bruins discusses it similarly. In his letter, he writes: “It would be beneficial for students if there is less emphasis on maximum self-development and upward pressure.” A significant difference is that Bruins apparently intends to enforce this through the funding of further education. However, he has not specified how.
Postdoctoral researchers
Despite the budget cuts and the announcement that he wants to involve himself less in the policy of the institutions, Bruins also writes about the careers of young researchers. “They represent the next generation of top scientists who work on research and innovation to solve societal issues.”
“Don’t eliminate them”, his critics will likely shout, but he does not pre-empt such criticism. He notes that particularly postdoctoral researchers are struggling. Their career paths are uncertain, and according to the minister, they are ‘facing (too) many temporary positions’.
According to the minister, the ball is in the court of the universities. They must reach good solutions for young researchers at the collective labour agreement tables. This is one of the few subjects for which Bruins allocates specific funds.
Amounts
40 million euros will go to PhD candidates, postdoctoral researchers, and newly appointed assistant professors. The previous cabinet had established ‘starter grants’ for this purpose to create ‘calm and space’ and reduce work pressure, but Bruins is taking a different approach. “I am not establishing a separate mechanism for allocating these funds”, he writes.
Thus, universities will have the discretion to use the money as they see fit. “This way, the administrative burden for the universities remains limited,” the minister affirms. However, he wants to know what they will do with the money to improve the position of young researchers.
For addressing work pressure, he is providing universities with an additional 25 million euros annually until 2028. This funding comes on top of the remaining budget from the previously cut starter and incentive grants: 78 million euros annually until 2031.
Reception?
It remains to be seen how Bruins’ plans will be received. They involve significant changes, particularly in funding. The opposition will undoubtedly scrutinise them, but not everyone within the coalition is likely to react positively either.
For instance, the VVD party has always advocated for stricter controls and performance agreements in higher education. The party recently posed critical questions to the minister regarding some universities of applied sciences dropping the binding study advice. Moreover, the liberal party has previously encouraged competition among institutions. This all conflicts with the content of this letter.
Similarly, the PVV consistently demands more control over the policies of colleges, particularly regarding diversity, climate change, or silence spaces. Or in cases where an unwelcome speaker is invited to campus.
However, many of Bruins’ proposals require further discussion, exploration, and research. He will likely be able to persuade his coalition partners to wait for the outcomes of these processes.
