Spending money on appropriate education big question mark
It is impossible to determine where the money for appropriate education - more than 2 billion euros in 2016 - exactly ends up, and what it will yield for pupils. Accountability by partnerships and school boards leaves much to be desired, partly because the government makes too few demands on it. More urgency is required from the Minister of Education Bussemaker.
That is what the Court of Audit has set today an alarming report, just under three years after the start of appropriate education. Due to the inadequate accountability, undesirable developments regarding the support of special needs students may not even come to light.
The situation is of additional concern because some of the partnerships in the east and south of the country have to cut back considerably through a redistribution of the national budget.
Due to inadequate checks and balances, the interest of the student is not guaranteed.
Too few requirements
For years, the Court of Audit has been insisting on the lack of insight into tuition fees in the lump sum. Over the past six months, she has conducted specific research into the flow of funds for appropriate education. In 2016, the Ministry of Education spent more than two billion euros on extra support for students in primary and secondary education. Since the start of appropriate education in August 2014, this has been managed by the 152 partnerships in both sectors.
The report concludes that so far little has come of the transparency promised by the minister about spending and results. The minister helped this by setting too few concrete and unambiguous requirements for partnerships and school boards.
“More requirements must be imposed on accountability,” says Court of Audit Board member Francine Giskes.
We note that we cannot determine what happens with the money, while that was the intention when the appropriate education was introduced. We are not saying that the money is being spent wrongly, but we are not saying that it is going well either. We simply don't know.
Shortcomings and risks
The Court of Audit finds a whole series of shortcomings and risks. The annual reports of partnerships and school boards provide insufficient insight, partly because the rules for the annual reports are not geared to appropriate education. Reports are difficult to compare because unambiguous guidelines are lacking.
“We see that money is going from partnerships to school boards. But what happens next is difficult to follow ”, says Giskes.
According to her, the fact that partnerships and school boards state different amounts is illustrative of the administrative ambiguity. Partnerships report that they paid more than 2014 million euros to school boards in 2015 and 559, while the boards themselves amounted to 511 million euros. And according to the annual accounts of the partnerships, they received 75 million euros more in that period than the Ministry of Education claims to have paid. Probably a result of differences in accounting treatment, the Court suspects, but that too cannot be determined with certainty.
Registration
There is also no clear insight into the care needs of pupils in regular education. “There is insufficient insight into how many children need appropriate education. That is very basic information that should be available. But we don't know. Regular schools register how many students receive extra support, but that is not the same yet. And that registration is quite rattling. ” The data in the Basic Education Register (BRON) on the basis of 'care ticks' are unreliable, according to the Court of Audit. This is because registration sometimes falls short and because there is a lot of uncertainty about the criteria.
The equalization (redistribution) of the national budget for heavy support for cluster 3 and 4 students requires extra attention. As a result, half of the regions will have to cut back in the coming years. One in five partnerships loses at least twenty percent of the heavy funding, figured the Education Magazine recently.
Financial considerations
“We see that in partnerships with a strong negative equalization, the proportion of students in mainstream education increases somewhat faster,” says Giskes, without attaching a value judgment.
There is a danger that financial considerations take precedence over the interests of the student. That is why the Court of Audit recommends further investigation.
Another problem is that control and participation within partnerships, the checks and balances, are 'poorly developed'. The Education Inspectorate also pointed this out earlier. Partnerships are managed by the school boards in the region. "The double caps mean that school boards can give priority to the interests of the institution over the interests of the pupil who needs extra support," says the report.
Response of the minister
In a response to the Court of Audit, outgoing Education Minister Jet Bussemaker acknowledges that accountability must be improved. A working group is examining how this is possible, she writes. Work is also underway on a legal obligation for educational organizations to publish their annual accounts, but it will take two years to be implemented. There is also a 'dashboard' in the making with which partnerships can compare themselves, but according to the Court of Auditors this will only be accessible to the boards.
Giskes: “We note that the minister does not seem very shocked. It is up to the House of Representatives to determine what they do with our findings and whether they are satisfied with the minister's response. ”
