The urge to grow undermines higher education
Higher education will probably receive an additional one billion euros a year in the new cabinet term. Experience shows that extra money does not automatically lead to better education or a lower workload. The Education magazine is investigating what needs to be done to prevent the extra money from evaporating again.
Picture: Nanne Meulendijks
Pumping extra money into higher education does not automatically lead to smaller-scale education and a reduction in work pressure. We have listed three measures that, according to experts, can prevent the extra billions from evaporating again, as happened previously with the hundreds of millions of the basic grant.
1. Get growth incentives from the funding
It is essential to remove the growth stimulus from the funding system, according to Leiden educational historian Pieter Slaman, who obtained his PhD on research into two hundred years of student grants and wrote a book about one hundred years of education policy. Since the XNUMXs, a large part of the higher education budget has been distributed on the basis of the number of students and diplomas. This system encourages colleges and universities to bring in as many students as possible. Fifty years ago this was still desirable, but now that the Dutch market is saturated, institutions are targeting the unlimited international market with English-language programs.
Successfully, the number of international students has doubled in the past five years. One in five students at universities now comes from abroad. At Maastricht University this is more than half and at the Design Academy, an art college in Eindhoven, even three out of four students come from abroad. Because the education budget does not automatically grow with the number of students, the amount that institutions receive per student decreases. Not growing is not an option, because then the total income decreases. “As long as institutions keep each other in this stranglehold, just putting more money into the system is not a solution,” says Slaman. “I really believe that internationalization can contribute to the quality of education, but it has now become a survival strategy.”
As long as institutions keep each other in this stranglehold, simply putting more money into the system is not the solution
Since intervention in funding always produces winners and losers, the institutions cannot be expected to quickly agree on a new system. “Then the minister must dare to intervene. Growth must really be limited, if necessary by maximizing the number of international students. You could agree that a maximum of one in three students may come from abroad. The competition knob really needs to be turned a lot lower. Universities are now eroding each other.”
2. Democratize the University
Paola Gori Giorgi also thinks that the funding system should be overhauled. The growth incentives work through to the capillaries of the university. “At the VU, we are judged on the number of student points. In order to be able to retain all employees of our department next year, we must ensure that our students obtain sufficient credits. Credits are money, that perverse incentive must disappear.”
But democratization of the university is just as important, according to the Italian scientist. When she came to the VU ten years ago, she was shocked to discover that Dutch universities are super-hierarchical institutions where unelected managers rule. “A dean has a lot of power. As an employee you are really a subordinate.”
A dean has a lot of power. As an employee you are really a subordinate
What this leads to became clear in the spending of the basic grant millions. In theory, students and staff had a lot of influence on this. Universities and colleges had to draw up a quality plan stating what happens to the proceeds of the loan system. That plan was assessed by a panel of the accreditation organization NVAO. Former education administrators, students and experts tested whether the plan contributes to better education, is feasible and whether students and employees in the participation councils are sufficiently involved in its development.
“That sounds nice, but in practice it is difficult for students and staff to really talk to them”, says Paola Gori Giorgi, who is a member of the works council of the science faculty. “Exerting influence on such a quality plan is almost a day job. And if you then demand that the money be spent on additional teachers with a permanent appointment, you are told that only cheap junior teachers with a temporary contract can be appointed. These are recent graduates who have not obtained their doctorate, who cannot make a connection with research and who have to leave after four years. By then they have just mastered teaching. So we keep getting new colleagues with no prospect of a permanent job to whom we have to explain everything anew. That is very bad for education.”
But the works council has little to say against this kind of spreadsheet management. “That's why the university really needs to become more democratic. Decisions should be made in a collegial manner and not imposed by a manager. In countries such as Italy and Belgium, administrators and deans are elected and this does not affect the quality. KU Leuven is one of the best universities in the world.”
3. Demand visible educational improvements
“International comparisons by the OECD show that the Netherlands spends above average on higher education and research,” says Pim Breebaart, who, as panel chair for NVAO, has assessed eleven quality plans from universities of applied sciences and universities. “We are in the second tier with Scandinavian countries such as Norway and Sweden and spend considerably more than southern countries such as Spain and Italy.”
Breebaart relies on figures from 2015, before the basic grant funds. “Now there is also corona money and a substantial amount for the growth of the number of students.”
The former board member of The Hague University of Applied Sciences believes that extra money should be added, but that should be offset by educational improvements. “That did not go well with the quality plans. At the end of the day, institutions do not have to demonstrate that education has improved thanks to the use of the basic grant millions. The panels are only allowed to assess the efforts. If you've done your best, you'll get your money."
Institutions must demonstrate that investments yield social benefits
If Breebaart had the say, this time universities and colleges would have to indicate what results they will achieve with the extra billions. “I am talking about the learning results of students, i.e. less dropout, which means that more students obtain a diploma. Or deliver graduates who have demonstrably learned more or are better prepared for the profession. The institutions must show that these investments yield social benefits.”
Breebaart is on the same track as the Court of Audit, which warned at the beginning of April that experience shows that money in education does not automatically end up in the right place. Without a clear plan, the corona money will disappear on the big pile, argued President Arno Visser in NRC Handelsblad.
“The extra money should not just disappear into the lump sum,” says Breebaart. “You have to be able to control what happens to it from the outside, otherwise little will be done about improving education. My advice would be to set more substantive requirements for the annual reports, because what they can do now is far too meager. Clear plans with sharply formulated goals that are closely monitored and about which boards are transparently accountable are part of the autonomy that higher education cherishes. If no agreements can be made about this with universities and colleges, I wouldn't give them a cent extra.”
The full article, including extensive substantiation, has been published in the Education magazine of May 2021. As a member you will receive the Education magazine every month with interesting articles and background stories. Become a member and receive the Education Magazine monthly.
