{"id":99941,"date":"2019-06-14T11:11:21","date_gmt":"2019-06-14T09:11:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/?p=99941"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:23:23","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:23:23","slug":"nearly-half-of-universities-fail-to-meet-their-obligations-under-the-additional-investments-agreements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2019\/06\/14\/nearly-half-of-universities-fail-to-meet-their-obligations-under-the-additional-investments-agreements\/","title":{"rendered":"Nearly half of universities fail to meet their obligations under the quality agreements"},"content":{"rendered":"

Up to ten of the 23 higher education institutions that have so far drawn up plans on the allocation of the millions of euros they were promised after the abolition of student grants may have to re-draw them. NVAO chair Anne Flierman has said his organisation will start providing more information on what is required, but the rules will remain the same.<\/p>\n

\"\"

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tAysha Gasanova<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

\"\"\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/svg>\n\t\t<\/button>

NVAO chairman Anne Flierman <\/span><\/p>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tNVAO<\/span>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>

It had been rumoured for a while in the tertiary education sector: the NVAO committees that are reviewing the degree programme improvement plans with which Dutch universities and universities of applied sciences are seeking to fulfil their obligations under the quality agreements have rejected quite a few of these plans.<\/p>\n

Utrecht University of Applied Sciences<\/a><\/u>\u00a0and\u00a0Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences<\/a><\/u>\u00a0are two tertiary education institutions known to have failed NVAO\u2019s assessment, and it is rumoured that Delft University of Technology, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Hotelschool The Hague and Iselinge University of Applied Sciences have also seen their plans rejected. Utrecht University escaped this fate, having seen its plan approved<\/a><\/u>\u00a0two weeks ago, although it was a close call.<\/p>\n

Erasmus University\u2019s plan has not yet been assessed; this is expected to happen sometime in late 2019. The university was granted permission to submit its plan later, since the investment plans are largely tied up with the university\u2019s new long-range strategy, which is currently being developed. The plans will not be able to be assessed properly until this strategy has been finalised.<\/p>\n

More than expected<\/h2>

Anne Flierman, the Chairman of NVAO (the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders), would not name any education institutions, but was willing to confirm that NVAO\u2019s review committees have issued negative recommendations on 10 of the 23 plans audited so far. \u201cThat\u2019s more than we expected. I\u2019ll be up front about that.\u201d<\/p>\n

If NVAO\u2019s board chooses to uphold the negative recommendations issued by the committees, and if the Minister for Education does, too, the tertiary education institutions will be given a year to improve their plans, after which they will be reassessed. \u201cWhich is not to say that the plans are useless and might as well be tossed into the bin right now. Some of the revisions won\u2019t require much time or much of an effort. Other revisions will.\u201d<\/p>\n

What is proving to be the most common issue?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cPrior to drawing up their plans, many institutions\u2019 executive boards feared that the discussions with their representative bodies would be hard, but those actually seem to have gone very well. In many cases, the supervisory boards were also involved in the decision-making process very properly.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat many institutions struggled with was the requirement that the quality agreements must contain clearly defined plans and measures to be implemented. This requirement was included in the Education Sector Agreement<\/a><\/u>\u00a0the Minister concluded with the universities, universities of applied sciences and student organisations in April 2018. An institution that merely states that it will improve its study facilities will be given a hard time, because that is not specific enough. You\u2019re expected to specify what exactly you are going to do in order to improve those study facilities.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn addition, we are coming across plans that are not quite long range enough. We asked for plans covering the entire 2019-2024 period. We did say that the plans for 2023 or 2024 didn\u2019t have to be extremely detailed. Moreover, institutions are given the opportunity to revise their plans later if they find they do not work. And obviously, plans must be revised in consultation with the institution\u2019s representative body.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cBut on the other hand, you can\u2019t just say, \u2018I\u2019ll put the money we got when student grants were abolished in a huge jar and I\u2019ll think about how to use it later.\u2019 You must actually allocate the money to a clear purpose, and the plans must be clearly defined, particularly for 2019, 2020 and 2021. We have found that universities of applied sciences are having some difficulty making sure that their long-range plans are in line with their annual budget forecasts.\u201d<\/p>\n

Were any institutions penalised for \u2018decentralising\u2019 their obligations?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cAt the request of the institutions, we included a provision in the Education Sector Agreement stipulating that executive boards may pass on some of the funds made available after the abolition of student grants to their faculties or institutes, and that they are allowed to ask them to draw up plans themselves, on the condition that the faculties in question involve their representative bodies in the decision-making process and that our committees will also assess this plan at the faculty level. We\u2019ve come across institutions that passed the money on to their faculties and said, \u2018It\u2019s their job to figure out what they are going to do with it.\u2019 We won\u2019t accept that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Some critics are saying the assessments are quite harsh.<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cWhen we were negotiating the Education Sector Agreement, the student organisations demanded that the money that became available when their grants were abolished be used to genuinely improve the teaching students are receiving. Which is why our assessments are a little like audits involving checklists. But yeah, when a plan isn\u2019t sufficiently satisfactory yet, we can\u2019t say that we trust things will be all right in the end. Either the plans are satisfactory or they aren\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\tEveryone was given sufficient time. Of the institutions that submitted their plans early, Maastricht University received a positive recommendation by the Minister, while Utrecht University of Applied Sciences did not.\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

How do you ensure that some committees aren\u2019t hasher judges than others?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThe NVAO-appointed coordinators supervising the committees discuss their findings with each other and try to deal with these matters in a uniform manner to the maximum extent possible. In addition, we regularly consult the chairpersons, who also share their experiences with each other. Recommendations are subjected to a second opinion by our officers, who ask themselves: Would I have arrived at the same conclusion? Is it clear how the committee arrived at its conclusion? And finally, NVAO\u2019s board issues an opinion of its own, which involves questions such as: Isn\u2019t this one committee being much pickier than others? Is this negative recommendation justified? Or, the other way around: Didn\u2019t this committee go too easy on that institution?\u201d<\/p>\n

How many times have the committees\u2019 recommendations been overruled?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cSo far, twice. But I\u2019m not going to go into detail on that.\u201d<\/p>\n

Were the institutions given too little time to draw up their plans?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cNo, I don\u2019t think so. The first assessments were performed half a year to three quarters of a year after the publication of the Education Sector Agreements and the assessment protocols. Everyone was given sufficient time. Of the institutions that submitted their plans early, Maastricht University was given a positive recommendation by the Minister, while Utrecht University of Applied Sciences was not.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have yet to assess 31 plans, and given the number of negative recommendations we have issued so far, we have decided to provide the institutions with more information. Today we are sending the institutions a letter in which we explain where many institutions are going wrong, just like we\u2019re doing now.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t
\n\t\tAt the end of the day, we will all benefit from these plans being solid and from the funds obtained from the abolition of student grants being properly used.\n\t<\/blockquote>\n\n\t<\/figure>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t<\/div>\n

Is that fair to the institutions that have already been assessed?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cThose who are still drawing up their plans may benefit from the additional information. But many governors and employees of universities and universities of applied sciences are sharing their experiences by e-mail or WhatsApp, anyway. None of which alters the fact that they are expected to draw up proper plans. We will assess those plans in the same way as the plans we\u2019ve examined so far. We\u2019re not changing the rules of the game after the fact. That wouldn\u2019t be fair.\u201d<\/p>\n

Are you expecting this to result in fewer rejections?<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u201cI hope so. We are carrying out a procedure to which the various student organisations and students all agreed. At the end of the day, we will all benefit from these plans being solid and from the funds obtained from the abolition of student grants being properly used to improve our degree programmes. That\u2019s what it\u2019s all about.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t

De redactie<\/h2>\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t