Education council cracks plans for 'own' quality inspection of higher education
Quiz question: why does the government monitor education? Answer: to determine whether the education is good enough. Do not lose sight of that simple principle, says Edith Hooge of the Education Council, with new advice in hand.
Picture: Type tank
From primary school to university, the government monitors education: how is the quality? What are we actually paying for? Can we trust that pupils and students are properly educated?
Weerstand
In higher education, all programs are inspected once every six years by the accreditation organization NVAO, but there is a lot of resistance to this. It takes time and effort, and by far most courses are good enough. Leave it to us, say the universities in particular. See if we have our own systems and policies in order and then trust us. We approve our courses ourselves.
There is a lot of resistance to the NVAO inspection once every six years
And they are heard. Various ministers have looked into whether they can move in that direction and the accreditation organization NVAO also foresees few problems. The idea is that instead of 'program accreditation' there could be 'institutional accreditation'. Just like in Flanders.
The big advantage? Institutions can place more emphasis on aspects that they consider important in their study programmes. And in practice it wouldn't even matter that much: in the end, panels of experts make the judgment. That is already the case, and in the new system it will remain the same.
frivolous
But in the new advice Essence of external supervision the Education Council makes comments. Don't take it lightly, it says. “However you set it up, let NVAO continue to inspect the quality of the individual programmes,” says chair Edith Hooge, who is also professor of education management in Tilburg. “Government should not depend solely on the own judgment of education administrators.”
What is the danger of institutional accreditation?
“It would be a drastic change, so you have to think it through carefully. The tenor of our advice is: whatever form you choose, ensure that NVAO directly supervises the quality of education in practice. You can see how the institution organizes its own quality assurance, but how do you know that the system works? You have to be careful not to create a paper reality. That is why you should always assess the courses yourself.”
However you organize it, let NVAO continue to inspect the quality of the individual programmes
In Flanders they already have institutional accreditation.
"That's right. But in this advisory, we ask fundamental, principled questions. Why are we monitoring? How are we supposed to do that?”
You therefore want to maintain external supervision of training. Are you against institutional accreditation?
“We say: external supervision must regularly assess the quality in each study programme, with supervision at board or institutional level on top of that.”
And it is therefore not enough to look at the courses on a random basis?
"New."
But then you are outright against institutional accreditation, aren't you?
“No, we are just saying that external supervision must always make a full quality assessment of the individual programmes, even if a new system of accreditation is introduced. In addition, you can of course give an opinion about the vision on education quality and the policy of the institution as a whole.”
A pilot is now underway with institutional accreditation, linked to a lighter assessment of the degree programmes.
“We would not argue for a lighter inspection. You have to talk to teachers and students and hear about the quality of their education. It also seems to me to be a professional desire, if I may call it that. You have the need for someone else to make a critical judgment, well-substantiated. That may also provide starting points for improving education, but that is not the essence of supervision.”
The primary task of external supervision is to monitor and assess. You shouldn't let that snowball you
According to your advice, supervision is not intended to improve education. Why not? It will be helpful to hear the advice of the expert evaluators.
“There are all kinds of ways to promote the quality of education, such as cooperation between the study programs or critical discussions with colleagues. We also have the National Education Agency (NRO), which makes all kinds of didactic research accessible. This is very important, don't get me wrong, but the primary task of external supervision is monitoring and assessment. You shouldn't let that get you down."
You advocate clear, legal standards for the supervision of schools and MBO institutions. Why not for higher education?
“It is different in higher education. The law has hardly any substantive quality standards for higher education. That is not necessary, because instead we have the opinion of experts who come to assess the courses. If the experts combine related programs from different institutions as a cluster, then the standards are fairly clear.”
Sometimes politicians want to force a change through accreditation. For example, English-taught programs will soon have to explain to NVAO why they are not Dutch-speaking.
“The external supervision focuses on content, final level, testing, quality of the teachers, etc., but also on the level of language proficiency. That way it would fit in.”
But then accreditation is not a good means of counteracting the 'anglicisation' of higher education?
“The experts have to determine how good the education is. The language of instruction is another matter, which does not fit into the accreditation. The Education Inspectorate does write 'The State of Education' every year. It would fit in there, and then politicians can make choices. But we say: keep the accreditation pure.”
How is accreditation going now?
Quality inspection
Higher education programs are subject to an inspection by the NVAO accreditation organization every six years. Only approved degree programs are allowed to issue diplomas. Students can also apply for student finance for these courses. New courses must be approved before they can start.
How does such an accreditation work at the moment?
Panels of experts receive information from the programs and talk to administrators, teachers and students. They look at the level of theses, the educational programme, the facilities and more. In the end they make their judgment. NVAO then issues the approval stamp. A course may be given one or two years to eliminate any imperfections.
Do many courses have such a recovery period?
In the past more than now. This concerns about 5 percent of the courses. It rarely comes to real disapproval. If this threatens to happen, the educational institution usually chooses eggs for its money and closes the program before NVAO draws a red card.
Is an accreditation a lot of work?
Critics think so. That is why the institutional assessment of quality assurance (ITK) was devised. A university or college of higher education can demonstrate that its own system of quality assurance is in order. Then this does not have to be checked every time for all programmes, so that the program accreditations become 'lighter'. An ITK is – just like an accreditation – valid for six years.
What is the difference between an ITK and institutional accreditation?
After an ITK, all programs are still inspected every six years by the NVAO, only the test is lighter. Institutional accreditation is different. NVAO also approves an entire university or university of applied sciences. The idea is that they can then monitor the quality of the individual courses themselves.
Always stay up to date with the latest news from your education sector. Download the AOb-members app in the Google Playstore of Apple Store
