AObchairman: "Not every receipt goes to the Hoftoren, but spending money should be less voluntary"
De AOb has been arguing for years for more supervision of education funding: tighter justification of expenditure, earmarking resources for a specific purpose. For a long time it was non-negotiable at the Binnenhof, but that attitude is changing. "If you promise the voter three thousand young teachers and they don't come because schools spend the money on something else, as a politician you are still a bit gagged." Says AOb chairman Liesbeth Verheggen in an interview.
De AOb questions the lump sum, education funding, at every opportunity. In recent months we ran into you at Nieuwsuur about the D66 janitors who didn't come and the money for appropriate education that remained on the shelf. At De Correspondent, the lump sum was put on the rack with explanations from the union. Isn't this note more of the same?
Verheggen: "For years we have been pointing out the problems that arise because school boards are currently not sufficiently accountable for their expenditure: they receive a bag of money from the government and have to provide education for it. AOb continues to address this problem. The problem is that especially the harrowing examples stick around. That's understandable, but we also have plenty of suggestions on how to do something about it. We have listed that story for the House of Representatives in particular. Because we like to keep our members informed about what we are doing, we have also made a public version."
Why now?
"Simple: next week there will be a debate in the House of Representatives about education funding. Like every advocate, we will make it known in the run-up to such a debate how we view it from the education staff. In this case, despite our continuous media offensive, it is necessary because MPs find it difficult to regain the confidence they have given, but it is necessary."
Because?
"Things went wrong on all fronts in recent years. First of all, the so-called lump sum itself: because the Ministry of Education no longer makes a distinction between the personnel budget and other budgets, the increased energy costs are recovered from the personnel."
In other words: a choice is made between larger classes or the heating two degrees higher. If you cut back on staff, the quality of education will suffer.
Money also remains.
"For example, the resources that are made available to partnerships for appropriate education: in many places, huge chunks of that budget end up as 'reserves' in the savings account. Partnerships consist of schools that already build up substantial reserves themselves. Now a nest egg is available fine, but what is the point of so much tax money that is intended for providing education in the bank? You would almost think that we have enough support. If only it were true. That immediately brings me to the third point: politicians have had money available in recent years made for support workers - janitors at primary school - and three thousand starting teachers.Only school boards did not have to account for the fact that the money was also spent on this, with the result that the budget disappeared in the big heap and it is impossible to find out whether it is actually used "We think: if the House says that money should go to janitors, then the money should also go to janitors. It is also impossible to explain to your constituents if such a promise is no more than a PR thing."
But those are the examples.
"Right. And the AOb has numerous solutions that do not put you in a situation where a school board has to account for every receipt in the Hoftoren and at the same time there is more control over the expenditure. First of all, there must be a separation between resources for personnel and resources for equipment. This makes boards more cost-conscious when it comes to energy consumption. And forces the government to a more up-to-date calculation of such issues. The resources that OCW calculates for this were barely sufficient when classrooms were still equipped with a chalkboard."
And further?
"There must be a guideline stating that education money is intended for teaching. The vast majority of the available budget must go to the classroom: to teachers, support staff. To teaching materials. Not to overheads. Come up with a clear definition of what in education is taken to mean overhead. And set a maximum percentage that may be spent on this. Deviations from this may be allowed, but only with the consent of the participation council, which must be given the right of approval on the entire budget. In addition, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science must no longer allow money for young teachers is spent on a leaking roof. Those kinds of plans must be earmarked for school boards."
No news.
"But it is important. We are asking for billions of euros extra because the education labor market is about to collapse. It is then also important that we, as a society, know for sure that the money ends up where it is intended. That realization is penetrating in more and more places through the Chamber, but I know that various politicians are not sure which buttons to press. The VVD has said in the run-up to the elections that they want to reconsider the question of whether education money can be spent more efficiently and has already motions indicated that alternatives should be sought in funding. So far, this has only led to one debate and then it became silent. Our plans meet the needs of the largest party in our country. But then we need the blessing of the House. "
Read it whole AObplan for funding in education 'Lumpsum 2.0' via this link. The AOb has sent several letters to the House of Representatives on this subject in recent years. You can find the letters here >>
