The end has been reached by the decision to close the PVO school in Amsterdam
The decision to close the Amsterdam School for Personal Vocational Education (PVO) next summer has been thrown out by the national employee participation dispute committee. The decision 'cannot be upheld', the committee ruled today in an emergency ruling.
Picture: Type tank
Due to the urgent importance, the committee has made a decision more quickly, the substantiation of which will follow later. It is clear that, according to the committee, the school board has made mistakes in the participation procedure.
What will happen next is currently unclear. PVO spokesperson Janneke Dijke was not yet able to provide a substantive response on behalf of the board. "We are considering it. Naturally, the board is aware of the seriousness." The participation council could not yet respond to the ruling this afternoon.
Influence
It is a legal obligation to request advice from the participation council regarding the proposed closure of a school. With this advice, the council must be able to influence decision-making. This carries extra weight in such a drastic decision as the closure of the school, the committee indicated during the hearing on Monday. The proposed decision was presented to the participation council on February 16. That was a month after parents and staff were informed by letter that the board intended to close the school.
That happened on January 18. That afternoon reported Minister Mariëlle Paul told the House of Representatives that next summer she will turn off the money tap of the PVO school in Kapelle and the HAVO department of the Utrecht location. That same evening, then director Anneke van der Schaaf announced that she did not see a future for three other schools under the PVO flag, those in Amsterdam, Hoorn and Hengelo. Each school would consider how these could best be phased out or transferred. The participation council of the Amsterdam PVO school went to the National Commission for Disputes WMS. In his view, the decision had already been made at that moment.
Seat
At the hearing yesterday afternoon in Utrecht, the criticism was already clearly reflected in the questions from the Disputes Committee to the PVO board. “Why did you first go to parents and staff in January and only later to the participation council? The advice of the participation council must be able to have a significant influence on the decision. What significant influence can an advice you requested in mid-February have?”
The communication was too strict in the beginning, acknowledged lawyer Jochem Streefkerk on behalf of PVO. He pointed out that the negative advice from the council does not change the need for the closure. Play alongside critical inspection reports lagging student numbers contribute to the proposed closure of the various schools. This also applies to the Amsterdam PVO school, which is currently under the cancellation standard sit. After the third time, the minister will turn off the money tap, as is now happening at the PVO school in Kapelle. The financial situation also plays a role; the foundation is looking at a loss of nine thousand euros.
Fictional
“An advisory process is about more than just facts,” said lawyer Gabi Stouthart, who is assisting the mr, during the treatment. “The manager must be able to critically question or investigate facts. We have now all ended up in a kind of parallel, fictitious advisory process.”
At the beginning of December 2023, then PVO director Van der Schaaf briefly outlined the worrying situation of a number of schools in an email to the supervisory board. Stouthart referred to it. “If the mr had been taken into account at the time, we would have been able to think along. The right to advice is a very strong right that Mr. But for this the MR must also be informed. The message in January was: we are closing. That set everything in motion. Open days were no longer held. There is no longer any significant influence, it is an afterthought.”
I can only acknowledge that the process did not go well
“I can only acknowledge that the process did not go well. Something was announced in mid-January with a certain amount of certainty, but several steps were skipped. I can sympathize that this evokes a lot of emotions,” responded interim director Joost Eijkhout, who took office together with Barbara Dijkgraaf at the end of March, after Van der Schaaf was suspended.
At the end of March, Mr and the school board also faced each other, then at the Amsterdam court. The participation council wanted to use summary proceedings to prevent the board from pre-empting the closure before the advisory process was completed. But according to the judge, no irreversible actions had yet been taken, it appears the pronounciation from last Friday. The judge left it up to the Disputes Committee to decide whether the decision was legally valid.
