- 1 -

Report of the Study Visit

to the Netherlands

April 2000

Edited by

John Harris & Allan Spencer

- 2 -

Contents

Page

Using this report 3

Chapter 1 Introduction Allan Spencer

5

Chapter 2 Managing Universities Fiona Longstaff

9

Chapter 3 Students and their Academic Context Rosemary Harrison

18

Chapter 4 Programmes of Study and Awards Rosemary Harrison

25

Chapter 5 Student Support Carol Smith

32

Chapter 6 Teaching Quality Jill Parker

39

Chapter 7 Planning and Finance Craig Henderson and Allan Spencer

48

Chapter 8 Marketing Student Opportunities at Home and Abroad Colin Matheson

54

Chapter 9 Personnel Policy and Staff Development Jeffrey Clements and Bland Tomkinson

57

Appendix 1 Acknowledgements and Participants 64

Appendix 2 Planning the Study Visit Rosemary Harrison

67

Appendix 3 List of Figures 69

Appendix 4 Educational Quality Review Systems in the Netherlands and the UK Rosemary Harrison

71

Appendix 5 The Role of the UCEA 75

Appendix 6 Problem-based Learning Bland Tomkinson

76

Bibliography 78

Glossary 81

- 3 -

Using this report The current report covers a broad range of topics, reflecting the wide scope of the study visit. It is not an attempt at a comprehensive definition of Dutch universities at the time of the visit. We visited a limited range of institutions and are not in a position to comment on how typical these institutions are of the whole of the sector. Nor did we cover all the major areas of activity of these institutions, research being a particular topic which was not addressed in any great detail in the sub-group streams.

That said, the report covers a lot of ground. We are aware some readers may have specialist interests and may wish to pick out chapters relating to their own professional areas. Where possible we have tried to allow the chapters to be reasonably autonomous within the structure of the report. Nevertheless readers of the specialist section will benefit from a familiarity with the core of the report. We would suggest that readers engage with the context of Dutch universities by reading the Introduction (Chapter 1), Managing Universities (Chapter 2) and Students and their Academic Context (Chapter 3). The second chapter gives the background to the governance and management of universities in the context of government and sector-wide bodies. The third places the admission of students to university and their subsequent progression within the framework of the system. These chapters cover the main terminology and context of Dutch universities in a fuller way than the glossary and will provide a backdrop for the specialist chapters which follow. Chapters are preceded by a list of topics to give readers some indication of the subjects covered.

A report such as this needs to strike a balance between being precise about Dutch terminology (with attendant clarity about meanings) and producing a text cluttered with detail. In an attempt to achieve this, we have adopted the following approach:

1. There is a detailed glossary, to which readers should refer whenever they encounter an acronym or Dutch terms which are not explained immediately in the text.

2. We have limited expansions of abbreviations and explanations of background in the text to the key points where concepts are explored for the first time, with the result that readers who want to concentrate on one chapter in isolation may have to refer to the glossary or to another chapter.

3. The three institutions which we visited are variously identified by their full names or their abbreviations:

TUD = Technische Universiteit Delft

UU = Universiteit Utrecht

UvA = Universiteit van Amsterdam

- 4 -

4. Unless otherwise stated, all references to �the Ministry� or �the Minister� relate to the Ministry of Education, Science & Culture (OCW).

5. There is a bibliography for works referred to in the text, so that references to sources remain brief and are made without footnotes.

John Harris & Allan Spencer, March 2001

- 5 -

Chapter 1: Introduction by Allan Spencer

The visit in overview

The study visit to the Netherlands involved a group of twelve UK university administrators from a variety of functions visiting a government ministry, a sector representative body, and three universities over a period of a week in April 2000. The format of the week�s visit was the fruit of a long planning period which involved the assembly of the group and a programme of visits tailored as far as possible to the needs and interests of the participants. The composition of the group and acknowledgements of assistance received can be found in Appendix 1, and detailed background to the organisation of the visit may be found in Appendix 2.

List of topics

The visit in overview

Key contrasts between Dutch and UK universities

Visits were arranged for our first working day to the Ministry of Education, Culture & Science (OCW) and the universities� representative body, the VSNU, in order to set the context for the sector and the university environment. The roles of the Dutch state � especially the Ministry of Education, Culture & Science � and the VSNU are explored in the chapter on Managing Universities. This was followed by three intensive days visiting three universities (Universiteit van Amsterdam, Technische Universiteit Delft, and Universiteit Utrecht). The morning of the fifth day was spent in group discussions and report planning. At this point, the official study visit programme concluded, and the final afternoon was devoted by some participants to extra sessions arranged around their particular professional interests. UvA provided three sessions for individuals on research funding and policy, management information systems, and educational quality management (the last to supplement the discussion held during the main study day in Amsterdam). Other members of the group visited the Faculty of Medicine at UU and the problem-based learning project at TUD�s Faculty of Architecture.

The results of our programme planning were among a wide range of relevant material mounted on a web-site hosted by UMIST. The web-site was also used to provide links either to relevant documents on Dutch web-sites or to information summarised by members of the group for our own use. This allowed large amounts of preparatory reading to be completed at our desks. The use of email and access to the internet also facilitated exchanges of information, plans and impressions before the visit itself � indeed before many of the group had met

- 6 -

face to face. The existence of the web-site was also useful for our Dutch hosts, who could view the entire week�s detailed itinerary and thereby put our visit to their particular institution in context. This detailed and accessible programme (and the volume of its contents!) impressed more than one of our hosts.

The formal sessions were complemented by formal and informal social events, starting with a visit to the world-famous Keukenhof gardens, where many of the group met each other in person for the first time. On the Sunday, after a planning meeting, UU arranged for a guided tour of the city, the University museum, and its botanical gardens. Throughout the week, colleagues from the three universities generously combined lunch and dinner gatherings with further opportunities for animated discussion. Our hosts at UvA took us to dine in a stylish downtown café in Amsterdam, our colleagues from TUD to a nationally renowned fish restaurant by the sea at Scheveningen near The Hague and we were guests of UU at the Faculty Club in their prestigious ceremonial building (the Academiegebouw) in the shadow of the highest church tower in the Netherlands.

Key contrasts between Dutch and UK universities

For those readers unfamiliar with the Dutch higher education system some immediate differences from the UK system are worth highlighting. Readers will clearly gain a far greater understanding of the subtleties of Dutch higher education by reading individual chapters, but it may be of use to grasp immediately some of the fundamental distinctions (see Figure 1) of the system being addressed by the study visit.

Figure 1: Key points of comparison between Dutch and UK universities

As far as concerns post-school education, the admission age of students is largely the same as in the UK. A major differentiating factor however is the continued existence of two main strands of higher education: one delivered by the universities and the other by hogescholen. Preparation for these two types of institutions is recognised in specialisation in the later years of pre-higher education, though it should be noted that entry routes to one or the other type of institution are not rigidly fixed by immediate experience prior to entry to higher education. The distinction between these two types of body corresponds broadly to the hogescholen carrying out programmes more closely allied to vocational and professional outcomes than those in universities. Universities also teach vocational subjects but usually within a research environment. More detail on the teaching background is to be found in Chapter 3: Students and their Academic Context. Our visit, which was bound to be limited in scope, focused on the university sector, in large part due to the fact that the majority of the study group work in institutions more closely aligned with the mission of the Dutch universities.

The state has a strong history of direct involvement in the governance of institutions. A particular interest of carrying out the study visit at this time was the recent legislation which gives universities a far greater responsibility to manage their own affairs and their own assets. This has led to large-scale review by individual institutions of how they are managed and how they plan for change. For more details, read Chapter 2: Managing Universities.

continued �/

- 7 -

Figure 1 (continued)

In particular, the sector largely manages the external quality assurance process for both teaching and research through the sector representative body, the VSNU, which it carries out subject reviews and reports both publicly and in more detail to university management bodies. Again, for more details, read Chapter 2: Managing Universities.

Courses at universities typically consist of at least four years full-time study, though many students take longer than the notional time to complete their studies. The level of the courses is not directly comparable to the standard UK Bachelor�s degree, and the issue of comparability is dealt with in detail in Chapter 4: Programmes of Study and Awards. Students gain their qualifications through credits on modules in a far more flexible way than that experienced by most UK students. The concept of a full-time student in the same sense as in the UK � in spite of the more recent trend for our own undergraduates working their way through university � is far less prevalent in Dutch universities, where students commonly work considerable hours to assist in funding their education. The higher credit load expected of students may also contribute to the length of courses and the time taken to complete them. Chapter 5 is dedicated to issues surrounding Student Support and Chapter 3 covers the credit load for university students.

The institutions we visited were among the largest in the Netherlands: all large institutions by UK standards, ranging from 13,000 to 20,000 registered students and with staff complements between 3,000 and 5,000. All have missions which combine excellence in teaching with pre-eminence in research. UvA benefits from varied buildings throughout the city, many of them in the centre. It also has a medical campus based outside the city, and is developing plans to relocate some of its subjects to a purpose-built campus on the edge of town. TUD is a specialist university of science and technology, based at a campus within walking distance of the centre of Delft. We were fortunate enough to use seminar rooms in the massive, cantilevered main auditorium building and to visit its spectacular recently fully-opened Library. UU was formerly based, like UvA, in many individual buildings at the centre of its town. Though some subject groups still remain in the city, together with its ceremonial centrepiece, more than half of the University has moved to the Uithof. This campus, based just out of town, has been growing in importance over the last twenty years and features some recent innovative buildings such as the acclaimed Educatorium, combining vast lecture theatres with catering, social, and exhibition spaces.

On our three days at different universities, the sessions were split between plenary sessions and smaller group sessions based around our four specialist themes. The plenary sessions provided details of each institution�s governance and management structures, but also explored areas which distinguished the institution from its fellow institutions in some way. The status of TUD within the Netherlands as one of three specialist universities of science and technology in the country and unique provider of eight disciplines has led the institution to seek an international dimension on recruitment and quality standards. We discussed TUD�s links with international peers for the accreditation of courses, and their international student recruitment initiatives. At UvA, we heard of the recently-introduced Aansluitprogramma, which aims to make prospective university students better informed about the choices open to them and the experience of being a student, and to help reduce drop-out rates. We also learnt something of the work of a new �virtual� institution � the Universiteit en Hogeschool van Amsterdam (UHA) which has recently been set up to facilitate collaboration not only in the use of facilities but also in providing foundation-year opportunities, with a view to

- 8 -

easing student progression within either parent institution. At UU, we focused on recent marketing initiatives designed to allow the better targeting of prospective students, and on the unique Universitair Strategisch Programma (University Strategic Programme), directed at tackling strategic issues using a mixture of central and devolved resources in a strongly project-managed environment.

The availability of senior administrators and academics to address us on these occasions was much appreciated, as was the effort it took to provide four parallel streams of specialist-theme subgroups within each institution. In formal sessions, as well as at lunch-times and at the dinners which each of the institutions hosted with warmth and enthusiasm, we had illuminating discussions with around fifty senior Dutch colleagues over the week. This meant that, despite the time limitations, we felt we had had a reasonably wide exposure to the Dutch university sector and had gained some sense of how it felt to be an administrator in the Netherlands. The structure of the days at the three universities was particularly interesting, in that the group was all present at the plenary sessions, but attended different specialist-theme meetings. When the group reassembled on public transport back to our base or over meals, there was an excited buzz as pieces of a jigsaw fell into place from our joint and separate experiences of the people we had met, and our impressions of the contents of sessions.

Many of the group had had little prior contact with Dutch higher education and the week was a fascinating experience as we helped each other gain understanding and knowledge of the sector as a whole, and the different responses to the challenges of the Dutch context. Parallel to our learning experience of Dutch universities came other opportunities to learn from the visit. The different professional and institutional backgrounds of the study group meant that there was a diverse range of skills and experience of different parts of the UK higher education sector represented. The study trip was also a chance to stand back from our day-to-day experience of our own institutions and compare and contrast them with other UK higher education institutions. It offered insights into the constraints on institutions in the same sector under a different regulatory and cultural context. This prompted reflection on how far the apparent constraints for both UK and Dutch higher education institutions are genuine and how far they are perceived. Normally, our responses to challenges tend to be generated within the limits of what is, or is perceived to be, possible or not possible; the wider perspectives offered by the study trip allowed energetic discussion of problems and solutions both in the Dutch and UK environments. Despite the hard work which our learning curve required, the compactness of the sector and the privileged access we were given on the study visit provoked in many of us the wish to be able to �complete the set� and visit all of the Netherlands� institutions! It would certainly be fascinating to make another visit in five years� time to see the outcomes of the approaches and measures currently being adopted.

- 9 -

Chapter 2: Managing Universities by Fiona Longstaff

Introduction

This chapter sets out an overview of the governing legislation and management structures of universities in the Netherlands and gives a brief impression of the structures at the three universities which we visited. Two aspects will be immediately striking to those looking at the structures from a UK perspective. The first is the history of strong central government influence on university management, even though this is now markedly reduced. The second is the fact that there are two distinct types of higher education institution in the Netherlands: universiteit translates accurately into �university� while the hogeschool has a more strictly defined role than the UK �polytechnic� used to have (see Chapter 3 for more about the universiteit/hogeschool distinction).

List of topics

Introduction

The impact of government legislation � the MUB

Management structures as defined under the MUB

Consultative procedures as defined under the MUB

Government guidance to higher education and HOOP 2000

Vereniging samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU � the Association of Universities in the Netherlands)

Visits to individual universities

The impact of government legislation � the MUB

Under the legislation of the 1960s, Dutch universities were directly responsible to the Ministry of Education, Culture & Science (OCW) for many aspects of their operation, including the management of staff and the ownership and management of the estate. The legislation provided for full participation by staff and students in decision-making processes. Institutional plans and policy required the approval of a large Council with considerable student and staff membership. The ethos of that period was described to us as management as a community or as an academy, by contrast with the recent move towards management by executive authority. Budgetary management was centralised in the hands of the College van Bestuur (Executive Board), supported by the secretaris (Secretary General) and her/his central administrative staff.

In the mid-1990s, significant amendments were introduced into the law regulating higher education. Ownership of the estates was transferred to the universities and they were given the freedom to negotiate employment conditions for their staff. The major Dutch law regulating higher education in the

- 10 -

Netherlands � WHW, Wet op het Hoger onderwijs en Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek � was changed in 1997 by an amendment known MUB � modernisering van de universitaire bestuursorganisatie (modernisation of university management structures). This revised the principal decision-making structures of universities and defined new mechanisms for consultation on institutional policy-making within the public universities; the confessional universities (funded and managed by religious bodies) were and are managed under separate arrangements which closely parallel the revised public university structures. Institutions were left to make their own choices on various options and details. As a result, there has been considerable change within individual universities as they have established their new management structures. Interested readers will find the issues affecting one university � UvA � addressed in detail in Acherman (1998). The new culture and structures were described to us as having produced a shift towards universities being run as a business company or as a professionally-managed organisation. In the UK there has also been a shift in balance away from the committee-based, consensus-oriented collegial academy towards management by identified executives. However, this has been a gradual process, starting in the early 1980s or before. The changes in the Netherlands seemed to us to have been derived directly from the MUB, or closely associated with it, and to have been very much more of a step-change than a gradual transition.

Management structures as defined under the MUB

A range of structures has been defined, or re-defined, by the MUB (see Figures 2 and 3), and there is some scope for local variation, particularly at Faculty level. The research institutes � and teaching institutes where they exist � do not necessarily map on to the departmental structure. We made our most detailed study of local management arrangements at UvA, where the need to implement MUB was one factor driving a series of radical changes introduced in recent years.

At UvA, we found it interesting to consider the relative responsibilities of Dean, Director of Teaching Institute, Director of Research Institute, and Chair of Department for the management of staff and of budgets. This is probably an area which will see some change as structures bed down. As we understood it, the institutes exist alongside the afdeling (Department), which is a subject-based administrative unit in which academic staff are based. Teaching and Research Institutes buy out staff time for teaching duties, using budgets owned by Deans. Deans, however, also have the freedom to buy staff time from other universities. Somehow or other, the Chair of a Department must ensure that all her/his staff are fully bought-out, to do teaching or research. For further information, see under Universiteit van Amsterdam later in this chapter.

- 11 -

Figure 2: Management structures as defined under the MUB

Raad van Toezicht (Supervisory Board)

The Raad van Toezicht is a small body (of three to five members), responsible to the Minister (OCW) and appointed by her/him, after taking into account the views of the university�s consultative bodies. Its predominance of lay (largely business) members was described to us as emphasising the importance of business input to the strategic development of universities.

College van Bestuur (Executive, or Management, Board)

The College van Bestuur is another small body (of one to three members), responsible to the Raad van Toezicht and appointed by it, after taking into account the views of the university�s consultative bodies. The Raad van Toezicht chooses the chair of the College van Bestuur. Membership must include the Rector Magnificus, the senior academic officer with responsibility for teaching issues. Members of the College van Bestuur attend meetings of the Raad van Toezicht in an advisory capacity.

Faculties

Under MUB, there are two options for the management of Faculties. The College van Bestuur may either appoint an executive Dean (after consultation with the consultation bodies referred to below) or establish (and appoint the members of) a Faculteitsbestuur (Faculty Management Committee). Any Faculteitsbestuur would be chaired by the Dean and include a student observer. Every faculty has medezeggenschapsorganen (consultation bodies) as described below.

A survey in 1998 indicated that most universities had chosen to appoint executive Deans to manage their Faculties (Klankbordgroep Invoering MUB (1998)). The executive Deans can be professional appointments or seconded academics. We formed the impression that the professional appointment was deemed to echo more the corporate business model that was envisaged in the creation of the Raad van Toezicht and that universities were having difficulty in identifying appropriate staff for secondment. The optimum mixture of academic and professional/managerial skills was relatively rare.

Degree programmes

The Deans have responsibility for determining the form of a degree programme, within the framework of what is permitted by the government requirements and subject to consultation with the medezeggenschapsorganen. Below this level, under MUB, there are again two options for the management of an opleiding (degree programme). For programme management, Deans may appoint an opleidingsdirecteur (Programme Director) or a management committee. The 1998 survey (op. cit.) indicated that most universities had chosen to appoint opleidingsdirecteuren.

Teaching and Research Institutes

The MUB provides the option to establish onderzoekinstituten/onderzoekscholen (Research Institutes/Schools). These can be established with semi-autonomous status within a Faculty, within a university as a whole, or between universities. Similarly, some universities have created onderwijsinstituten (Teaching Institutes). Universities have made differing uses of these structures. At UvA, for example, the functions of the opleidingsdirecteur (Programme Director) are included in the responsibility of the onderwijsdirecteur (Director of Teaching Institute). TUD has no teaching institutes.

- 12 -

Figure 3: Illustration of higher-level management structures and options

Consultative procedures as defined under the MUB

There are statutory consultation procedures providing for consultation with staff and students. These can be through a single consultative body representing both staff and students (ongedeelde medezeggenschap � undivided representation) or through two separate bodies (gedeelde medezeggenschap � divided representation). There are similar bodies at university and at faculty level, and the choice of joint or separate representation at university level will be mirrored at faculty level (see Figure 3).

On some issues the approval of the consultative bodies must be obtained, while on others they have only an advisory/consultative capacity. The approval of the central consultative body is required for the institutional plan, the Universiteitsreglement (university regulations), the quality assurance system, the Studentenstatuut (regulations at institutional level setting out student rights and responsibilities), and the detailed institutional management and consultation arrangements relating to the health, welfare, and safety of personnel. Even where there are separate consultative structures, certain decisions must be taken at a joint meeting of the two bodies.

Where the university chooses the single consultative structure, this comprises a universiteitsraad (University Council) and a faculteitsraad (Faculty Council) in each faculty. The universiteitsraad has up to twenty-four members, who must not be Deans, or members of the Raad van Toezicht, or of the College van Bestuur. There are equal numbers of staff and students, who are elected from the two separate

- 13 -

constituencies. A member of a faculteitsraad may not be a member of a faculteitsbestuur. UU has a single consultative structure.

Where the university chooses the divided consultative structure (gedeelde medezeggenschap), this comprises two councils: an ondernemingsraad representing staff, and a studentenraad representing students. These exist both at university and at faculty level and are not described in detail in MUB since the representation of staff by this means is dealt with in a separate law � Wet op de ondernemingsraden. TUD and UvA have separate consultative structures.

There is also a role for consultation prescribed in the administration of degree programmes. The management of degree programmes was described above but in all cases each degree programme also has an opleidingscommissie (Programme Committee), whose members must not include the Dean or members of the programme management committee if one exists. The opleidingscommissie is mainly advisory and its work includes a formal annual review of the implementation of the programme. Where the Faculty delivers only one programme, these functions may be vested in the Faculty consultative body.

Government guidance to higher education and HOOP 2000

The Ministry (OCW) issues a planning document for higher education, the Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoek Plan (Higher Education and Research Plan), currently on a four-year cycle. HOOP 2000 is the latest such document, making recommendations which apply to universities and to hogescholen. Proposals which struck the study visit team as being of particular interest are set out in Figure 4.

Although funding issues are not specifically determined by HOOP, staff at the Ministry reminded us of the importance, in the Netherlands, of output-based funding, alongside the student numbers-based funding which is common in the UK. Study programmes are supported and controlled by government through output-based funding of those individuals who graduate from government-approved programmes. This is in clear contrast to the UK�s input-based funding system whereby student numbers are funded and controlled by government through the Funding Councils (see Chapter 7 for more about funding issues).

Figure 4: HOOP proposals of particular interest to the study visit team

The balance between deregulation and accountability

The context for this is that the Ministry has had major responsibilities for the management of universities (pre-MUB) and for the approval of degree programmes (see Chapter 4 for more about programmes). Flagged up in HOOP are moves designed to increase institutional autonomy while also developing mechanisms for accountability (see Chapter 6 for more about quality assurance). One such mechanism would be a national quality assurance body independent of the universities, instead of the current arrangement whereby teaching and research assessment is done by the VSNU.

continued �/

- 14 -

Figure 4 (continued)

Ensuring that the Dutch system is well-placed internationally

The Dutch first-degree system straddles the undergraduate/postgraduate levels identified in the Bologna Declaration. There is a need to consider the Bachelor�Master structure of their traditional four-year doctoraal programme. There is also a need to consider how to attract international students to the Netherlands. At TUD, the last two years of the doctoraal can be taught in English and international students can be admitted direct into the programme. The issues surrounding postgraduate Master�s degrees are now being explored, as is the question of relaxing the controls on the amount of undergraduate teaching that can be conducted in English. Thought is being given to international input to accreditation of degree programmes (see Chapter 4 for more about programme structures, and Chapter 6 for more about international inputs).

Increasing inter-institutional collaboration

It appears that the binary system is to remain, but there are current discussions about removing the legal barriers to mergers between universities and hogescholen. It is suggested that there is value-added potential in areas such as pedagogical developments, the optimisation of the use of facilities, and progression of hogeschool graduates to university study (see Chapter 5 for more about collaboration between UvA and the Hogeschool van Amsterdam). Hogeschool education is characterised by a strong orientation towards professional practice, while universities emphasise the integration of education with research. Thus, even if institutions move towards merger, it is expected that the hogeschool and the university degree programmes will remain distinct, with clearly differentiated goals and different systems for funding and quality assurance. Co-operation with universities outside the Netherlands is encouraged. This has two benefits: foreign language and other intercultural skills are seen as increasingly important for graduate employment, while collaboration on teaching quality assurance is seen as a way of providing an external perspective to the internal quality assurance procedures of the VSNU.

Increasing flexibility in the student�s study programme

A particular theme here is the need to improve student retention, particularly beyond Year 1 (see Chapter 3 for more on student progression). Flexible support, a greater variety of pathways within study programmes, and development of the role of opleidingscommissies (Programme Committees � see above) are sought.

Support to research developments

In marked contrast to the UK government�s emphasis on the commercialisation of research, HOOP 2000 refers to the need to ensure that contract research does not detract from basic research � or from teaching. This is a shift away from an earlier policy of government stimulation of applied research.

Vereniging samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU � the Association of Universities in the Netherlands)

The nearest UK equivalent is Universities UK (formerly the CVCP), but the VSNU gave the impression of being more a tightly-constituted consortium of universities than UUK, and also has clear operational (rather than purely representative) roles within universities. With fifty staff (forty full-time equivalent staff � FTEs), the VSNU has responsibilities relating to quality assurance in research and teaching, for the negotiation of salaries, and for staff development initiatives. While the work of UUK covers some aspects of these matters, it is on the basis of voluntary subscription with permissible local variation. Significantly, the Netherlands has no structure comparable to the Funding Councils between the relevant Ministry and the universities. The Dutch Ministry has delegated its

- 15 -

responsibility for carrying out teaching and research assessments to the VSNU (together with KNAW in the case of research), although the Ministry also retains for itself a direct monitoring function (see Chapter 6).

Ten FTE staff at the VSNU are engaged in its quality assurance role for teaching and research, supporting the quality assurance process and the secretariat for Discipline Panels. The VSNU is now starting its third cycle of quality assessment reviews (see Chapter 6).

The human resource responsibilities are more recent, with the Netherlands-wide salary negotiations handled for the past five or six years and the staff development work taken over recently from government. Fifteen FTE staff are involved (see Chapter 9).

Issues identified by VSNU staff as particularly significant in relation to our study visit are set out in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Issues identified as significant by VSNU staff

The scope for increasing diversity and flexibility in the university sector.

Mechanisms for bringing an independent input to the QA procedures.

A political call for more independence and less central control of universities.

Recruitment and retention of staff with the context of an ageing population of university employees in a buoyant and global labour market.

Recruitment and retention of students when the school population is declining and there is a buoyant labour market.

An increasing movement towards the internationalisation of university education and of quality assurance.

These issues are explored in more detail in subsequent chapters.

Visits to individual universities

It is important to emphasise that we only made a short visit to each university and only saw a limited number of staff. The descriptions below are inevitably impressions of what we saw and discussed, and a different visit might give a different perspective. We hope we have avoided any gross distortion in the following impressions of the management structures and approaches of three universities!

Universiteit van Amsterdam

UvA staff described themselves as having now a much more decentralised, flatter structure than in the 1960s. They have adopted the corporate business model offered by MUB, with appointed executive Deans who are accountable for the performance of their Faculties. Deans are part of the central management team and the University has adopted a market-driven system, with the work being done in the Teaching and Research Institutes. Indeed, the Research Institutes can be headed by non-academic staff. This has brought a significant need for training in management skills, which is provided routinely now to all new professors.

- 16 -

Degree programmes are managed by the Directors of the Teaching Institutes rather than by management committees.

Faculties have been reduced in number, from fifteen to seven. One Director commented to us that decisions were made much faster now that there is stronger executive authority within the faculty. However, there is a need to establish new routes for communication; Directors have to have meetings to keep staff informed of these decisions!

The relationship between Dean, Head of Department, Head of Research Institute, and Head of Teaching Institute would be interesting to follow through further. Since January 2000, staff have been located in the Research Institutes, and the Teaching Institute is a virtual body.

Technische Universiteit Delft

Staff at TUD also described a shift, post-MUB, to the management of the University as a company. In talking of their Raad van Toezicht they made comparisons with the type of regulatory board set up to deal with privatised public utilities. They also compared the relationship of the Raad van Toezicht and the College van Bestuur with the relationship between the shareholders and the executive board of a private-sector organisation. The language used to describe interaction between managers and the Raad van Toezicht focused on obtaining measurable results: PhD numbers, publications, etc. The resource allocation procedure is based on the concept of Faculties selling their products to the College van Bestuur.

TUD has a Groepsraad: an operational committee composed of the College van Bestuur and the Deans. Faculties have been reduced in number from thirteen to seven. They have no Teaching Institutes and their Research Institutes include inter-departmental structures.

We heard something of the transition period to the new structure. In the 1980s there had been a period of polarisation between the old Universiteitsraad and the College van Bestuur. At one point the Minister had to be asked to intervene. Relations are now good between the College van Bestuur and the new staff and student bodies, the Ondernemingsraad and the Studentenraad. However, we did hear that the Studentenraad managed one year to stall the final approval of the institutional plan!

Universiteit Utrecht

Again, we heard of the contrast between the current management structure and a somewhat unwieldy pre-MUB predecessor. The previous structure, as we understood it, was based round consultative processes and consensus decision-making. Under the previous regime, the College van Bestuur had five members and operated through two day-long meetings a week. The Universiteitsraad met weekly. There were fourteen Faculties and one hundred and fifty vakgroepen (disciplinary groups). Under the new structure, the College van Bestuur has one half-day meeting a week and the Universiteitsraad one meeting a month. Operational management is delegated to Teaching and Research Institutes. Strategic management is handled by the College van Bestuur in association with the Deans (further explained as the �Club of Thirty-One�, below).

- 17 -

The structure of management at Faculty level was described as the Utrechtse Ruit (Utrecht Diamond) and comparisons might be made with the structure at UvA. At UU, the Dean is responsible for budgetary allocation, staffing policy, and programme approval. The Chair of the disciplinary group is responsible for staff policy and the development of disciplinary expertise. The Director of the Teaching Institute is responsible for the development and implementation of teaching programmes. The Director of the Research Institute is responsible for the development and implementation of research programmes, for contract research, and for PhD students.

Of particular interest was the mechanism developed, with guidance from the management consultants Twynstra, for taking forward the Universitair Strategisch Programma (University Strategic Programme). In 1996/97, a mission and long-term goals had been agreed. In 1997/98, Deans, the Directors of the central Programme Bureau, and the College van Bestuur formed themselves into the �Club of Thirty-One� to develop a series of short-term goals. The Deans then developed Faculty working programmes from these goals. Attainment of the goals is now achieved through a series of projects with clearly-agreed contracts for budgets and clearly-identified project managers. The project managers are often the Deans, assisted by project secretaries who are usually the staff of the Programme Bureau and who are described as Education Consultants. The contracts must be about change-management, not operational management, and must have a duration of no more than two years. The Club of Thirty-One conducts an annual review which monitors and evaluates the projects and structures the annual plan. The annual plan is approved by the Raad van Toezicht.

- 18 -

Chapter 3: Students and their

Academic Context by Rosemary Harrison

Entry to higher education

The basic principle of entry to higher education in the Netherlands is that passing the appropriate school leaving examination in the relevant subject is a guarantee of admission. There is a system of recognised equivalences for foreign school-leaving examinations, while home mature students � of whom there are considerably fewer than in the UK (see Chapter 5) � are normally expected to be qualified on the same basis as eighteen-year-olds.

List of topics

Entry to higher education

Degree programmes and student choice

Studeerbaarheid and student progression

Internationalisation and the student experience

Programme information for students

Conclusion

Exceptions to the open admissions policy are made in respect of certain subjects designated by the government � including at present university programmes in medicine, veterinary medicine, medical biology, and dentistry. In these cases there is a weighted lottery system among qualified individuals, which has been a matter of vigorous public policy debate for many years.

The system of secondary school education is divided into three parallel streams (VMBO, HAVO and VWO). The organisation of the upper secondary school curriculum underwent very substantial change with effect from 1999/00. The system retains the basic principles that success in the VWO stream (achieved by about 15 percent of pupils) is essential preparation for entry to university-level higher education (wetenschappelijk onderwijs (WO)), and that there exist modes of entry to the non-university sector (hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO) � literally �higher professional (or vocational) education�) which do not apply to universities. In practice, many HBO students possess VWO certificates (i.e., they are formally qualified for university entry). There are arrangements under which HBO students may be allowed to transfer to related programmes of university education at various levels of their course of study, or after graduation, with or without advanced standing. Of students entering universities in 1997/98, all but 10.7 per cent had either previously studied in the HBO sector or had the VWO qualification. A schematic representation of these routes, in the context of the overall structure of the educational system, is given in Figure 6.

- 19 -

Figure 6: Illustration of the sequence of stages of education

The institutions at which HBO is delivered are known as hogescholen, and these are collectively responsible for a substantial proportion of higher education provision, delivering four-year programmes which have a different legal status from university degree programmes (see Chapter 4). HBO is provided in the following seven sectors: agriculture; engineering and technology; economics and business administration; health care; the fine and performing arts; education/teacher training; social welfare.

In 1997/98, there were 154,900 students enrolled in WO and 268,400 (including 42,200 officially designated as part-time) in HBO (see Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands: Facts and Figures 1999 (1999)). As noted in Appendix 2, the AUA group chose to confine its detailed study to the universities, and the present chapter is therefore devoted to that part of the higher education sector, except where explicit reference is made to the hogescholen.

Degree programmes and student choice

Degree programmes in the Dutch universities are most commonly designed to last for four years. However, programmes in a significant number of subjects have a longer official duration: six years for medicine, pharmacy, theology and veterinary medicine, and five years for dentistry, engineering, agricultural science, physics, biology, medical biology, mathematics and some programmes in the natural sciences. The official duration of a degree programme is used for some planning purposes, but in fact most university students study for considerably longer than the prescribed period. An intermediate examination (propedeuse) is taken, notionally at the end of the first year of study but in practice often

- 20 -

significantly later. The overall degree award is an unclassified pass, arrived at by aggregating results from the accumulated components of the programme. The later stages of university degree programmes stress research training � and in particular the final graduation project (scriptie) � to a much greater extent than UK undergraduate programmes: this has for a long time been a significant issue in discussions concerning the comparability of awards between the two university systems.

Degree programmes (in hogescholen as well as in universities) are structured on the basis of a nationwide system of 42 credits per year of planned programme duration (so that a standard four-year doctoraal award constitutes 168 credits). One credit represents 40 hours of full-time study, including both contact hours and hours spent in private study. The notional number of study hours per year is thus 1,680, and this is spread over a 42-week full-time working year. This model may be compared with the commonly-used UK model of 1,200 notional study hours per year at undergraduate level (120 credits), based on a full-time working year of around 30 weeks. UK arrangements at postgraduate level involve a higher credit rating (typically 180) and a longer working year. Figure 7 provides further comparisons in this area.

Figure 7: Some official statements on credits and notional study hours

UK

Credit framework outline (QAA Consultative Paper on National Qualifications Frameworks (1999), essentially reiterated in the Position paper for Scotland (July 2000)):

Credit points are awarded for the achievement of appropriate learning outcomes at a particular level. One point is to be regarded as reflecting the learning outcomes achieved through 10 notional hours of student effort, which may include work done in formal teaching situations, practical activities, research work, private study, preparation for assessment and so on. The learning normally achieved in a year of full-time undergraduate study is to be considered equivalent to 120 credits. It has already been agreed that the learning achieved in a year of full-time postgraduate study will be considered equivalent to 180 credits.

It may be inferred from this that a student working year for undergraduates in the UK is considered to be 1,200 hours, and for postgraduates 1,800 hours.

Netherlands

Description prepared by NUFFIC for the European Commission Diploma Supplement initiative:

The workload is measured in credits (studiepunten). One credit represents one week of full-time study (40 hours) including both contact hours and hours spent studying and preparing assignments. University and HBO study programmes lasting four years require completion of a total of 168 credits, or 42 credits per year.

Implied student working year: 1,680 hours (i.e., 42 credits x 40 hours). Implied working hours for a whole four-year degree programme is thus 6,720 hours.

continued �/

- 21 -

Figure 7 (continued)

European Credit Transfer Scheme

Description of the ECTS credit framework (from the European Commission web-site):

ECTS credits are a value allocated to course units to describe the student workload required to complete them. They reflect the quantity of work each course requires in relation to the total quantity of work required to complete a full year of academic study at the institution, that is, lectures, practical work, seminars, private work � in the laboratory, library or at home � and examinations or other assessment activities. In ECTS, 60 credits represent one year of study (in terms of workload); normally 30 credits are given for six months (a semester) and 20 credits for a term (a trimester).

Unlike the arrangements common in UK higher education, the Dutch credit system does not incorporate formally-designated generic levels. Hence, academic progression through core and optional courses is defined entirely by individual universities and at the subject level, although this certainly does not prevent the transfer of credit between universities in approved circumstances. VSNU teaching quality assessment committees (see Chapter 6) present in their reports national comparative studies of core/option structures and learning progression within the range of degree programmes in their respective disciplines.

A very large majority of students in Dutch universities obtain a degree bearing a single discipline title, but a number of interdisciplinary programmes also exist � such as Life Sciences and Technology (a collaboration between Leiden and TUD), or Environmental Studies (Milieutechnologie). UvA has introduced the �Major�Minor� as a standard programme structure (in which students obtain the title of doctorandus in their major subject). At propedeuse level, this university has for some years been engaged in a radical experiment which combines the social and natural sciences (the beta�gamma propedeuse), and a broad social sciences propedeuse has been launched for 2000/01 at its new satellite campus in Almere. (In the Dutch higher education system, the humanities are commonly known as alpha subjects, the exact sciences and technology as beta and the social sciences as gamma.) Current national discussions suggest that initiatives of this kind, involving the broadening of curricula, represent the way in which Dutch higher education more generally is set to develop in the future (see Chapter 4).

This growing interest in the broadening of curricula applies not only to the practice of combining disciplines within a study programme, but also to combining study with work experience. A recent innovation in the university sector is the introduction of duale opleidingen (dual programmes), in which work-based learning is integrated with academic study. HOOP 2000 refers (§ 5.4) to the existence in the universities of forty duale opleidingen for trainee teachers, and twenty-eight in other subjects in the universities. (In the HBO sector duale opleidingen are already more common.) The government wishes to facilitate flexible means of combining study and work, and this was made explicit when the new national system of financial support to students was proposed (see Chapter 5). Overall, a gradual erosion of the distinction between full- and part-time study is under way � the VSNU visiting committee for Literature (1998) even referring in their report (§ 2.6) to the �myth� of the full-time student.

The principle of automatic entry to higher education for those with appropriate school-leaving qualifications has in practice already guaranteed a high participation rate for many years. At the level of the individual subject, it

- 22 -

inevitably creates difficulties for universities in planning a suitable level of staffing to respond to fluctuating, fashion-driven, demand. In the more extreme cases this may have significant implications for the quality of delivery � as was highlighted, for example, in the recent VSNU teaching quality report on Communication Studies (see VSNU press release, 7 June 1999, on the report of the visiting committee Communicatiewetenschap). Problems created by uncontrollable expansion of the student population have also emerged in film and television studies, philosophy, psychology, computer science and fiscal studies, while there has in general been a low rate of student interest in mathematics, the natural sciences, and languages.

Studeerbaarheid and student progression

Studeerbaarheid is variously translated in English versions of official documents as �studiability� (a literal rendering), �consumability�, and �practicability�. The Studeerbaarheid project was a government-funded initiative carried out in 1996�98, which focused attention on the need to identify and remove obstacles preventing students from completing particular study programmes within the prescribed time. Both universities and hogescholen were able to bid for funding for specific projects concerning, for example, staff development and new methods of course organisation. Although the project itself is now terminated, the general issues to which it gave prominence are still high on the policy agenda and are highlighted in both institutional and national policy documents including, for example, the VSNU�s protocol for educational quality assessment visits for 2000�05 (see Quality Assessment Made to Measure, § 2.5). The VSNU protocol emphasises the ongoing monitoring of curriculum organisation (including the scheduling of examinations and study load), and any progression difficulties encountered by particular student groups, such as ethnic minorities.

There is now a national system, coordinated by the VSNU, for collecting data on student progression from universities according to a prescribed format (including a common census date of 1 February for measurements relating to the entry cohort). Universities are also themselves recognising the benefits of better student tracking systems in informing improvements to student support systems (see, for example, the Universiteit van Amsterdam Actieplan Onderwijs (1999), p. 6). Success rates, although varying considerably by subject and university, are overall very low by UK standards. It should be noted however that the official picture is distorted � perhaps even more so than in the British system � by the difficulty already noted of defining which �full-time� students are effectively full-time.

The cumulative average success rates in the propedeuse nationally for the 1993/94 entry cohort were 27 per cent after one year, 53 per cent after two years, and 63 per cent after three years. No equivalent figures are yet available for this cohort�s post-propedeutic studies, but for the 1988/89 entry cohort the cumulative success rates were 2 per cent after four years, 50 per cent after six years and 72 per cent after eight (see Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands: Facts and Figures 1999 (1999)). In a discussion at UU, the group heard of the action that the University had taken action to meet nationwide progression targets for beta degree programmes. According to the current agreement with the Minister, 70 per cent should pass the propedeuse in the scheduled time of one year, and 90 per cent of these should subsequently obtain the doctoraal degree in the prescribed further period. In view of present patterns at UU and elsewhere, these are

- 23 -

demanding objectives. UU requires 28 credits to permit progression to the second year without repeating the first; which, although considerably short of the notional annual load of 42 credits, is in excess of the 21-credit threshold for entitlement to continued student financial support (see Chapter 5).

National concern to improve progression rates focuses not only on educational improvements to degree programmes, but also on more systematic and effective provision of advice to students to prevent them from entering on unsuitable courses of study. In the propedeuse phase, universities have a right to issue so-called bindend studieadvies, under which an unsuccessful student can be forced to abandon a degree programme. Though more common in the hogescholen, among universities this is currently implemented only by Leiden; the Ministry has advocated wider use of this procedure (HOOP 2000, § 5.5), but the approach does not generally seem to be favoured in the university sector.

Progression to employment is a factor measured by the VSNU in its assessment of teaching quality, and universities are therefore formally obliged to collect the relevant data, although it is clear that most would wish to do so in any case. At present there is no national system for undertaking career destination surveys, although a number of institutions sub-contract this monitoring function � for example, to ROA, a specialised agency based in Maastricht. Tracking of graduates is perhaps easiest for technical universities, whose graduates normally enter well-defined professional fields, in which almost all employees within the Netherlands will be graduates of one of three institutions. As the student body becomes more international, and career paths of Dutch nationals more frequently take them abroad, effective alumni relations will presumably become increasingly difficult to achieve.

Internationalisation and the student experience

The high priority placed on internationalisation is evident in a wide range of aspects of university life (see also Chapters 4, 6, and 8). In its protocol for educational quality assessment visits (see Quality Assessment Made to Measure, § 2.10), the VSNU specifies internationalisation as a criterion of educational quality (comparable to an �Aspect of Provision� in UK Subject Review terms), and lists particular aspects of internationalisation which are indirectly or directly relevant to the student experience. VSNU reports have for some time given details of the number of students in Dutch degree programmes completing periods of study abroad, and the level of student mobility achieved can be very high � for example, as much as 20 per cent of students in the case of the Biology programme at UU (see VSNU report, Biology (May 1997), p. 123).

In view of the strong emphasis given by TUD to its own international character, including extensive teaching in English on some types of course, it was interesting to observe the results of a student-organised survey published in 1999 on the issue of internationalisation. Students were roughly evenly divided on whether there was a need for their University to teach in English in order to have a leading international profile, and again on whether three months of study abroad within each degree programme should be compulsory. The current TUD Institutional Plan (see Instellingsplan 2000�03: Implementatieplan 2000) sets an objective of 80 per cent of students spending at least two months abroad.

- 24 -

Programme information for students

One of the government measures introduced at the time of the national Studeerbaarheid initiative was the requirement for each university to have a document (Studentenstatuut) stating student rights and obligations generally. Such a document has, unlike most UK student charters, detailed discipline-specific variants (Opleidingsstatuten) describing the curricular structures, modes and organisation of assessment, and overall management arrangements that apply to particular programmes. HOOP 2000 contains a proposal (§ 5.5.1) that in some institutions the Studentenstatuut should be more user-friendly, and points out that its existence is often little-known among students.

HOOP 2000 also suggests that the systems for informing potential students about available degree programmes should be strengthened. It is envisaged that this would be done by giving the existing comparative directory of degree programmes � Keuzegids Hoger Onderwijs � a more official status by establishing an independent body to oversee its operations.

Conclusion

The issues highlighted in this chapter reveal a number of areas in which the higher education agendas of the Netherlands and the UK are broadly similar. These include a preoccupation with the improvement and systematic measurement of student progression � including progression to employment � and an emphasis on the accuracy and user-friendliness of information given to students. The automatic right of access to higher education for successful students from the Dutch VWO school stream is a significant difference between the two systems, although in practical terms they have been brought closer together in the last decade or so by the increasing focus in the UK on widening access. Although an interest in attracting overseas students is evident in both systems (see Chapter 8 for more about marketing), the internationalisation of the home student experience takes a very different form in a small non-English speaking country from that familiar in British universities. In general, the range and structure of degree programmes in the two countries are still quite dissimilar, although it seems likely that the systems will tend to converge in the future (see Chapter 4 for more about programme structures and awards).

- 25 -

Chapter 4: Programmes of Study

and Awards by Rosemary Harrison

Introduction

The recognition of specific degree programmes by the state and the legal protection of award titles are long-established concepts within the Dutch higher education system, as is the case in many continental European countries. A central register of higher education programmes � the Centraal Register Opleidingen Hoger Onderwijs (CROHO) � is kept by the Ministry (OCW), recording the fields of study and award titles recognised by the state, the universities offering programmes leading to them, and many other details. Inclusion in the register is a precondition for public funding of degree programmes, both in terms of the student-driven element in a university�s block grant and financial support for individual students (see Chapter 5 for more about student support and Chapter 7 about funding issues). In addition, CROHO defines the scope of the national quality assurance system for higher education (see Chapter 6 for more about quality assurance) and is a means of controlling entry to regulated professions.

List of topics

Introduction

The present framework of state-recognised higher education qualifications

Programme structures and approval processes within the state-recognised framework

Awards outside the state-recognised framework

Developments in the aftermath of the Bologna Declaration

Originally, CROHO provided an overview of all higher education within the Netherlands. In recent years, however, there has been a growth in programmes outside the state-recognised framework � notably taught postgraduate degrees with English language delivery � and the position of these in the context of both the inherited national framework and the Bologna Declaration is currently the subject of discussion.

The Bologna Declaration of June 1999 has had a much more significant direct impact on public policy debate in the Netherlands than in the UK, as a result of the widespread awareness that Dutch degrees are inadequately understood abroad in terms of their level and nature, and that this presents a problem for the mobility of graduates and the position of Dutch higher education in international markets. At the time of the AUA study visit, a major review of the implications

- 26 -

of the Bologna Declaration for Dutch higher education was being carried out by a national commission (the Commissie Rinnooy Kan), and the group heard and read something of the associated discussions in universities. The Commission�s report, which proposed a substantial programme of action in terms of the legal recognition of qualifications, as well as curriculum design and lifelong learning, was published in July 2000. Some of its major recommendations are outlined in the rest of this chapter, though no account could be taken of the subsequent discussions, which were in progress as the AUA group was finalising the present report.

The present framework of state-recognised higher education qualifications

University graduates have the right in law to use one of the following academic titles:

Figure 8: University graduate titles

Title Abbreviation Area of study

ingenieur ir technical subjects

meester mr law

doctorandus drs other subjects

Any of these titles may be replaced by the English language title �Master�, reflecting an official judgement by the Ministry (OCW) concerning comparability with Master�s degrees in English-speaking countries. Courses of study at hogescholen lead to a distinct award separate from those of universities.

Despite current discussions on the removal of legal barriers to mergers between universities and hogescholen (see Chapter 2), considerable importance is attached by the Ministry to ensuring that the binary system is preserved at the level of degree programmes. It is envisaged (HOOP 2000, § 3.3) that, even within merged institutions, the two types of programmes � WO and HBO respectively (see Chapter 3 for more on this distinction) � would be clearly differentiated in terms of award titles, external quality assurance mechanisms, and funding arrangements. During the briefing session provided for the AUA study group at the Ministry, officials indicated that universities could not legally offer HBO-type programmes (nor hogescholen WO programmes). This continuing commitment to the binary system, at least on the part of the current government, is particularly evident in discussion papers and official statements generated within the Netherlands in relation to the Bologna Declaration, which give a clear high priority to making the distinctive character of HBO education visible internationally (see below, under Developments in the aftermath of the Bologna Declaration).

- 27 -

Programme structures and approval processes within the state-recognised framework

Though CROHO also lists programmes in the hogescholen, the following description focuses on the operation of CROHO in relation to universities, which were the object of the AUA study visit.

The registration system for state-recognised degrees has generated a situation in which the range of awards possible is very limited. In April 2000, the number of programme titles for university degrees stood at 140, having been reduced from a total of almost 300 a few years before by merging many related programmes under common titles. Despite an emerging interest in marketing and competitiveness in the Netherlands (see Chapter 8), the common UK practice of frequently renaming and restructuring degree programmes in pursuit of small advantages in market-share is, for the time being, unknown.

The process of proposing a new programme for inclusion in CROHO is a complex one lasting approximately eighteen months. A national advisory committee on curricula, the Advies Commissie Onderwijsaanbod (ACO), plays a key role in considering proposals for new programmes, and consultation with all the other universities is also undertaken. The decision process includes consideration not only of the proposed programme itself but also the availability of suitable buildings and equipment, and the question of compatibility with the overall subject mix of the institution wishing to deliver it. (We were told by the Ministry that a technical university would not, for example, be allowed to offer a degree in the language/culture area.) Once a new programme has been approved (usually for delivery at one or two universities in the first instance), further universities can apply to introduce it. Before permission is given, the opinions of the other universities already offering the programme are sought.

As noted above, a key function of the CROHO register is to define the higher education provision eligible for public funding. However, funding only becomes available for new programmes within the university�s block grant after two years of operation, and full funding only after the graduation of the first cohort of students. The financial risk involved for institutions is deemed by the Ministry (HOOP 2000, § 3.4) to provide an incentive for universities to ensure that proposed programmes are fit for purpose.

Changes in the procedure for introducing new degree programmes are proposed in HOOP 2000 (§ 3.4), under which higher education institutions are to be given greater independence in amending degree programmes (for which they currently require the approval of the ACO in certain cases), and in adding new programmes to their portfolios � whether or not these already exist in another university. It appears that the ACO will soon be abolished, that the level of detailed information recorded in CROHO will be curtailed, and that increased powers will be given to the Raden van Toezicht of individual universities � including the power to make decisions about the delivery of programmes at locations within the Netherlands other than the university�s main campus (see Chapter 2 for more about governance).

This policy shift will bring with it significant changes in national quality assurance arrangements. With the curtailment of procedures for initial approval of new programmes by the state, the assurance of academic standards and educational quality at national level will inevitably rely more heavily than hitherto on

- 28 -

arrangements for the quality assurance of existing programmes. The proposed system (and in particular the exact role of the existing VSNU visitation procedures within it) remains to be worked out in detail. A single unified process is envisaged, to be known as accreditatie. (This is usually translated as �accreditation�, although in fact the process envisaged would be more likely to be referred to in the UK context as �(external) validation�). The procedural elements of accreditatie are as follows:

!" Periodic explicit approval of individual programmes by the Ministry at five-year intervals based on the existing visitation system;

!" An initial approval process for future new degree programmes which will be less onerous for universities than the present one.

In terms of national responsibility for accreditatie, the Rinnooy Kan Commission has suggested that there should be a single body covering the whole of higher education, which could be subdivided into university and non-university (HBO) sections.

The range of models under discussion in respect of accreditatie includes programme approval by a future international consortium of quality assurance bodies (which would also be responsible for the evaluation of programmes in other countries) or by a foreign quality assurance body authorised by the Dutch Ministry to act on its behalf in respect of particular quality assurance roles. These possibilities are to be seen in a context of increasing interest in the idea of European consortia for quality assurance � whether on the basis of inter-university collaboration (such as the formation of the IDEA grouping between Imperial College London, TUD, ETH-Zurich, and Aachen universities) or of international collaboration at government and national agency level. HOOP 2000 (§ 6.3) mentions the current negotiations with the UK, Flanders, and Germany in connection with the latter.

Awards outside the state-recognised framework

There has been a growth in recent years in Master�s level qualifications, delivered in English and lying outside the Dutch system of state-recognised degrees, which has taken place in hogescholen, universities, and specialist institutes of international education. Where provided by hogescholen, these programmes are typically validated by UK universities or by the Dutch Validation Council. There has been concern within the Netherlands that, given the decision some years ago by the Ministry of Education to allow holders of doctoraal awards from universities to use the title �Master�, there is a possibility of confusion about the distinct types of education offered by Dutch universities and hogescholen. The fact that these non-recognised degrees also fall outside current national quality assurance arrangements has added to the unease. HOOP 2000 (§ 6.4) envisages the introduction of a voluntary national register, separate from CROHO, for Master�s degrees of this type.

A confusing feature of the present variety of provision is that, alongside Master�s programmes outside the state framework, there are also Master�s programmes which differ from mainstream doctoraal programmes only by being delivered through the medium of English. This is a feature of the provision at TUD, where Years 4 and 5 of the mainstream programme are made available in this way to foreign graduates entering with advanced standing (and, at least in theory, also to

- 29 -

Dutch HBO graduates). At UvA, some Master�s programmes are state-recognised while others are not.

Although most of the developments in higher education outside the state-recognised framework have been at the taught postgraduate level, the broadly-based Bachelor�s degree programmes at University College Utrecht (a small constituent body of UU delivering in English what appear to be US-style programmes) are now being looked to explicitly as a model for the new state-recognised post-Bologna degree structures to be introduced nationwide.

Developments in the aftermath of the Bologna Declaration

The decision by the Netherlands to sign the Bologna Declaration took place against a background of increasing interest in the internationalisation of Dutch higher education. As noted above, one aspect of this was the realisation that graduates from Dutch institutions of higher education � especially HBO graduates � had some difficulty in gaining appropriate recognition for their qualifications abroad.

The key clause of the Bologna Declaration for recent debates in the Netherlands is the one referring to the two-cycle course of study on the �anglo-saxon� model:

Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate. Access to the second cycle shall require successful completion of first cycle studies, lasting a minimum of three years. The degree awarded after the first cycle shall also be relevant to the European labour market as an appropriate level of qualification. The second cycle should lead to the master and/or doctorate degree as in many European countries.

The Netherlands has made a formal supplementary declaration in connection with its signing the Bologna Declaration, the main points of which encapsulate the key issues for Dutch higher education regarding implementation of the Declaration, as follows (HOOP 2000, § 4.2.1):

!" University education leads to the doctoraal, equivalent to the international Master�s level. Recent legislation also makes it possible to identify an intermediate phase of study (kandidaat) at Bachelor level. University education thus covers both levels of the Bologna Declaration, whereas HBO education has one cycle corresponding to the Bachelor level.

!" Higher education in the Netherlands thus includes two types of Bachelor�s degrees: for the first cycle of university education and for the HBO programmes at hogescholen. Both types are of equal value, but differ in their content, and both are obtained after study periods of comparable duration. The HBO type lasts four years, with entry from a five-year preparation period; the first cycle at universities lasts a minimum of three years with entry from a six-year preparation period (see Chapter 3 for more about the different types of school education designed to lead to university and HBO education).

!" The kandidaat level at universities (minimum duration three years) is a step towards a full two-phase structure, although the present arrangements for the kandidaat phase are enabling rather than prescriptive. This examination is at present used principally for the five-year programmes � e.g., those at the technical universities or those in science or technology subjects (beta programmes) at UvA or UU. It is not at present envisaged as a terminal

- 30 -

qualification but provides a defined stage at which intending Master�s level students can be admitted with advanced standing.

!" Given the different types of programmes available, progression from the Bachelor�s to Master�s level cannot be automatic but is to be decided by admitting institutions.

!" Postgraduate Master�s degrees exist within hogescholen, but these are not legally recognised. Clearer mechanisms need to be found for recording these programmes, as a first step towards accreditation and clarification of their position internationally. The development of postgraduate HBO programmes should not be allowed to undermine the international status of doctoraal awards in universities as degrees at Master�s level.

!" Given the differences between the study programmes available in Europe, an improved level of international collaboration on quality assurance is needed. Initially, bilateral arrangements for joint validation (accreditatie) are envisaged, preferably to be developed later multinationally.

The concept of the kandidaat award as a stage preceding the degree of doctorandus � facilitating national and international mobility and overall transparency of the national framework rather than (as envisaged in the Bologna Declaration itself) as a viable qualification in its own right � was reflected in views heard from Dutch colleagues during the AUA study visit.

The Report of the Rinnooy Kan Commission, set up following the Bologna Declaration to consider the implications of the Bachelor�Master structure for Dutch higher education and published in July 2000, in fact appeared on the World Wide Web almost simultaneously with the QAA�s two position papers on National Qualifications Frameworks. In respect of qualifications framework issues narrowly defined, the proposals of the Commissie Rinnooy Kan are as summarised (and compared with the structures simultaneously proposed for the UK) in a �snapshot� in Figure 9 below.

The report proposes Bachelor�s level awards at kandidaat level (in universities) and with a distinct English-titled �Professional Bachelor� designation for HBO awards of the present type. An entirely new state-recognised (but not necessarily state-funded) postgraduate qualification to follow the established HBO award, the �Professional Master�, is also proposed.

In addition to making these recommendations in terms of awards, the Rinnooy Kan Report goes beyond technical qualifications framework issues to address wider educational implications. In this respect the report seems to a British reader just as closely related to Chapter 9 of the Dearing Report as it does to the immediately obvious comparators in the more recent UK statements on Qualifications Frameworks. The new Bachelor�Master structure in the Netherlands is envisaged as a basis for a fundamental rethinking of curricula, with the possibility of broader courses of study being introduced at the Bachelor�s level in a context of increased diversity of programmes across universities. This might include programme structures similar to joint or dual honours in the UK, multidisciplinary programmes, and greater emphasis on generic skills. The Rinnooy Kan Report notes that the broadly-based Bachelor�s degrees in operation at the Universiteit Utrecht outside the state framework may provide a useful model. However, it is clear that there are already initiatives within the mainstream state system from which universities could also draw

- 31 -

experience for the development of a broader-based curriculum. It is envisaged that the Bachelor stage would be followed by more specialised Master�s courses, with alternative pathways related to a variety of academic (especially research-based) and vocational orientations. The two-cycle structure is also seen as a means of enabling lifelong learning, by facilitating the intercalation of substantial periods of employment between periods of study.

Figure 9: Summary comparison of proposed national higher education frameworks in July 2000 � a snapshot of systems in evolution

Bologna UK Netherlands WO Netherlands HBO

First cycle Bachelor with honours

Commonly 360 credits for 3,600 study hours (except 480 credits for 4,800 study hours in Scotland) [n.b.: the statement from the QAA identifying this as the UK�s Bologna first-cycle award was made in November 2000.]

Kandidaat/Bachelor (BA; BSc)

126 credits for 5,040 study hours (incorporating the propedeuse which is it proposed to retain)

Professional Bachelor (with titles indicating discipline, cf. BEd, and HBO engineering title ing to be retained as an alternative)

168 credits for 6,720 study hours

Master (incl. MPhil)

Graduate entry plus commonly 180 credits (min) for 1,800 study hours (min)

Doctoraal (drs) / Meester (mr) / Ingenieur (ir) / Master (MA; MSc; MPhil)

Kandidaat plus credits (min) for 1,680 study hours (min) (The minimum may be greater in a specific discipline)

Professional Master (new state-recognised award)

42 (?) credits for 1,680 (?) study hours

Second cycle

PhD PhD -

The new framework also has significant implications for the whole national system of higher education quality assurance. Such diverse provision as is now being proposed, and the complex student progression pathways which it implies, would be difficult to handle within the somewhat burdensome approval procedures of CROHO in its present form, which are clearly already under strain. This gives added impetus to the plans for the development of the new accreditatie approach already outlined in HOOP 2000. Moreover, beyond the operational imperatives, there is a sense of a system in transition between an environment of high state regulation and one of greater independence for institutions, associated with greater responsiveness to national and global markets. The design of supporting mechanisms to ensure the international visibility and quality of programmes and awards, within this context of increasing institutional autonomy, is a key challenge facing higher education in the Netherlands.

- 32 -

Chapter 5: Student Support by Carol Smith

Introduction

The process of secondary education (from the age of twelve) in the Netherlands is very much more �streamed� and controlled than in the UK. Young people are directed into particular sectors of the school system as they grow, depending on their interests and abilities. At the age of eighteen, there is an expectation of a natural progression of the cohort into either one of the fourteen universities, or one of the sixty or so hogescholen.

List of topics

Introduction

Funding arrangements

Personal support

Other aspects of provision

Conclusion

Of the cohort of eighteen-year-olds reaching the end of secondary education in one of the streams being prepared for post secondary education, around 42 per cent will enter university, another 41 per cent will enter a hogeschool and 17 per cent will not progress to either form of higher education. There are no further entrance requirements for those achieving the appropriate certificate in their secondary education, so that admission is as of right except in certain areas such as medical, dental and veterinary studies where there is a quota system.

Courses of study are commonly of four years� duration, leading to different awards at the universities, and the hogescholen. The workload in both types of institution is measured in credits or studiepunten. The notional working year is longer in the Netherlands than the UK (see Chapter 3 for further details of this and of the credit system generally), and this may be a factor contributing to the difficulties of retaining students into their second year of study � in some institutions as little as 50 per cent of their first-year intake will continue their studies. Attempts to address this include financial measures and some development of specific institutional support programmes such as the Aansluitprogramma (Crossover Programme) at UvA (see Figures 10 and 11).

- 33 -

Figure 10: Case Study 1 � The Crossover Programme (Aansluitprogramma)

This is a project at the UvA for creating links with school students in forty designated schools, with student volunteers acting as mentors and academic staff giving presentations. The aims are twofold: to increase access to higher education in schools/areas where the participation rate is low; and to help students who will go on to higher education anyway make more informed choices about study programmes, to prevent drop-out.

Student objectives

To improve motivation

To increase awareness of the demands of university-level studies

To improve social skills and learning skills required at university

University objectives

To improve on-course support during students� first year

To create a continuous study path from school to university and continuous career guidance

To establish a network between school and university staff

Themes covered

Personal development

Choice of profession

What it means to be a student in a WO or HBO

Process

Orientation

Experience on the ground

Evaluation

Student mentors

Screened by personal interview

Training/instruction manual

Supervision

Provide role model

Use own experiences as material

Personal development

Outcomes

Monitoring shows greater retention, fewer transfers

Higher achievement in first year

Figure 11: Case Study 2 � The Transition Year Project

This is a joint initiative of the UvA and the Hogeschool van Amsterdam launched in 1998/99 and still under development. It provides an orientation year for seventy-five students intending to enter higher education, in either institution, and the possibility of gaining credit towards a programme of study at either. Students usually work to support themselves during this year and pay for the programme. Future possibilities include the development of joint modules carrying credits for mainstream programmes at either institution, co-operation in postgraduate teaching, and sharing of student residential and/or library facilities.

Close co-operation is demonstrated between UvA and HvA � in the context of a new joint-managed virtual institution, the Universiteit en Hogeschool van Amsterdam (UHA) � but this is not a merger and this degree of collaboration is apparently unusual in the sector.

- 34 -

As described to us at UvA, issues like student progression appeared to be handled in more relaxed way than in the UK. We were informed that students who had enrolled on a programme of study at one institution could change courses or move to another university easily. Only one of the institutions we visited made active use of disciplinary or regulatory procedures to allow the management of or effect the withdrawal of �problem students�. Whilst our Dutch colleagues differed in their views on this subject, the �perpetual student� image still seems stronger in the Netherlands than in the UK, and this appears consistent with the history of the student funding process. This fluidity is almost certainly not the case in the hogescholen, which are focused on turning out qualified professionals in four years (see Chapter 4 for more on programmes of study and awards).

Exploring the concept of �mature� students was interesting. Whilst there was some acknowledgement at UU and UvA that there may be �thirty-somethings� who would wish to have a career change, or make good previous failure, these were seen as unusual and very small in number. The whole system is geared to maximum participation of the eighteen-year-old cohort. Any discussion of �widening participation� therefore tends to focus on how to increase the numbers of students in pre-university education streams taking up places in higher education at the age of eighteen, though the proportion moving into higher education is already much higher than in the UK. A consequence of this is that the provision of childcare facilities is not a major issue in Dutch universities. We were told that most women students will defer having children until after they have graduated, which may be any time from twenty-two to thirty years of age. This is also consistent with the success of the Netherlands in achieving low teenage pregnancy rates: there are fewer young mothers wanting to rejoin education in their twenties after having children.

This chapter covers two main aspects of student support which were explored during the visit: student funding arrangements, and the delivery of services for personal support and guidance.

Funding arrangements

As in the UK, the last decade has seen some significant changes in the funding system for students, moving from a very flexible grant-aided system to one which is more loan-based and of more limited duration. Nevertheless, by UK standards, the system appears far more flexible and consistent, and rewards effort and success. Its hallmark is a broadly-based political acceptance that supporting students is a three-way partnership involving the state, the student and the parents. In a detailed presentation to us at the Ministry (OCW), it was stressed that the system is designed for young people, and that there is very little funding for the over-thirties, although limited loans and tax credits are available under the new system described below.

Student funding has typically in the recent past been made up of a combination of the prestatiebeurs (basic grant), additional grants (means-tested depending on parental income) and loans. Students have been eligible for four years of grants and typically three years (concurrently or consecutively with the grants) of loans. This has restricted students to obtaining their qualification within six or seven years and has come to be seen as unhelpful, in the sense that with the heavy study programme, students have found it hard to fit in paid work, or take a year

- 35 -

abroad. On the other hand, the Ministry was unwilling to increase the actual amount of financial support as it had been trying to reduce expenditure in this area. It had also had some success in an arrangement since 1996, by which student loan funding could be converted to a grant provided certain levels of achievement were reached.

In a proposal to parliament in February 1999, the Minister proposed a more refined but flexible system of funding from 2000/01, with the following elements:

!" The overall level of support, through state funding, parental support, and student earned income, is aimed at the Social Security threshold for a young person.

!" Students can receive up to forty-eight months of prestatiebeurs (bursary) supplemented if they wish by a loan, either during the same period or afterwards (up to thirty-six months in all). This funding can be applied for on a month-by-month basis. The prestatiebeurs is initially treated as a loan.

!" This package of support can be taken up during a maximum period of ten years, but the prestatiebeurs will cease anyway when the student reaches the age of thirty; nor is loan funding available past the age of thirty-four.

!" Provided graduation is achieved within ten years, the prestatiebeurs will be converted to a grant, even if by then the student is over the age of thirty.

!" A student who achieves at least 21 credits in the first year will have her/his prestatiebeurs converted to a grant for that year anyway and those poorer students who qualify for supplementary funding will receive it as a grant during their first year whatever happens subsequently. This is clearly an attempt to support poorer new students and improve retention rates.

!" The student travel pass giving access to free use of public transport in the Netherlands continues to be a significant part of financial support.

!" Fees (approximately £950 per annum) are paid by all students out of their grant/loan.

!" Repayment of loans starts two years after graduation for a maximum of fifteen years. Remission or rescheduling of the debt is possible on low-income grounds, and it is remitted anyway if unpaid after fifteen years.

This package of measures received final parliamentary approval after our visit, on 27 June 2000.

We found that the greater flexibility was genuinely welcomed by students and staff, largely because it enabled students to work in paid jobs and so avoid taking out loans, to which there appears to be widespread aversion.

- 36 -

Figure 12: Other interesting aspects of the student support context

81 per cent of students live away from the parental home.

28 per cent of university students and 40 per cent of hogeschool students receive a means-tested supplementary grant due to low parental income, which takes into account the need to pay fees. The monthly payment arrangements are apparently �normal.� The prospect of monthly loan payments to UK students could be an unenviable prospect for the UK Student Loans Company, but there are only 314,000 students in the Netherlands and only 18.7 per cent of university students took a loan in 1996/97.

Around 70 per cent of students work, but many only work around eight hours a week. The threshold for earnings, above which student loan funding is reduced, is around £5,000 per annum. Clearly some students will be better off working as they cannot receive state support above the social security level, whereas earnings will often exceed this. There is also support in principle in the sector for study-related student employment, as it is regarded as enhancing transferable skills and therefore improving job prospects (see Chapter 3 for more on duale opleidingen).

The funding arrangements apply only to students on taught degree programmes. Research degree students are salaried workers employed either by universities or by the national research funding body. Referred to as AIOs (trainee research assistants), they are funded for four years on an intensive taught programme leading to a PhD.

We found that there is nothing comparable to UK Access Funds in the Netherlands, but that universities are able to use some of their general funding to ameliorate hardship, e.g., by paying fees if a student is ill for a period and can neither study nor work. There is also nothing comparable to UK Disabled Students� Allowances and it is the responsibility of individual institutions to decide how to meet the needs of disabled students, by providing, for example, dyslexia testing. Disabled students can obtain funding for a longer period, and there is a central Bureau called Handicap en Studie which is responsible for assisting them from secondary school onwards.

Personal support

A higher proportion of the relevant age group participates in higher education in than in the UK, and this appears to make the experience of being a student less problematic for Dutch students than for at least some of their UK counterparts. Patterns of support appear both more diffuse and more embedded within the whole institution than in some UK universities. There are typically two levels of personal support most commonly found: those we in the UK would recognise as student advisers are located in departments in the Netherlands, and the UK role of student counsellors is carried out by trained and qualified psychologists who are based centrally. The former are trained as generalist advisers with a focus on students� academic needs, the latter have a therapeutic role. At some universities, including UU, there appeared to be additional provision, with study advisers in the Schools, counsellors (in this case more specialist welfare advisers) working centrally, and psychologists providing some support for groups of students as well as individual therapy. (This is described by Paul Herfs in his article, �Student Counselling at Utrecht University�, International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling (1995/96)). In addition, UU has an adviser for disabled students. Other central provision generally includes doctors, dentists, chaplains (usually

- 37 -

Christian only) and sometimes a vertrouwenspersoon � a confidential adviser on issues of gender/sexuality.

It appears that the ongoing discussion about what services it is necessary to provide centrally, how they should be delivered, what else �Student Services� can contribute to the institution, and relations with student representative bodies, is at least as live in the Netherlands as in the UK. A common model is the Service en Informatie Centrum or Studentenadviesbureau � basically a one-stop-shop. The importance of training for staff working on reception in order to provide effective and appropriate �gate-keeping� and referral is well recognised as it is here. Some models include some of the �complaints and grievances� functions often handled by a Students� Union advice service in the UK, and mention was made of an ombudsman. Careers Advisory Services and advice about Accommodation also form part of the Information Centre or Advice Bureau models.

�Student Services� in the Netherlands may be located within a department like �Academic Affairs� as at UvA, or may be free-standing as at UU, reporting directly to a member of the Board and advising the latter on issues of student welfare. We formed the impression that at TUD student support provision was less centralised and was largely provided by the equivalent to the Students� Union in each department.

Other aspects of provision

Internal financial support for students from bursaries, charitable funds or endowments varies between institutions as in the UK. There is evidence of some financial provision for particular groups, e.g., refugees or students from a specific background.

The provision of dedicated accommodation for students appears to be unusual. Housing for those aged under twenty seven, both students and young workers, is available from the equivalent of Housing Associations and is particularly important for universities like UvA based in very crowded city centre sites. Utrecht has some student housing on its Uithof (green-field site on the outskirts) but it has taken over twenty years to be approved and constructed and with 1,000 places it seemed atypical. This project was considered necessary because of the pressure on rented housing in Utrecht, one of the most popular residential cities in the Netherlands. Whilst it is the case that many students live at home, those from less well-off families may find that space to study at home is problematic, and may try to find more appropriate accommodation within the same city. As in the UK, these students will then have to cover the cost of rent and will need to work to do so.

Student participation in governance is documented elsewhere. There appears to be a very lively and focused student life on campus. Each department has a student organisation, which provides a focus for cultural and sporting activities, and may also provide services like student mentoring for international students. These organisations are funded centrally as part of a Students� Union. The welfare and advice services usually found in Students� Unions in the UK do not tend to feature in these organisations in the Netherlands.

- 38 -

Conclusion

While there were both similarities and differences in student support between the UK and the Netherlands, we were particularly struck by the regular recurrence of shared concerns. These include: relations between departmentally-based and centrally-based advisers; the role of �personal tutors� or their equivalent; support for international students (particularly in the context of the requirement for proficiency in Dutch, which limits recruitment except on special programmes); and the concept of �widening participation� and what it means. Looking at the �streaming� systems in Netherlands secondary education led some of us to wonder whether secondary provision in the UK is not focused enough on higher education, with too low expectations in the majority of students. All these were interesting discussions with the colleagues who were kind enough to give us their hospitality and share their experiences and ideas.

- 39 -

Chapter 6: Teaching Quality by Jill Parker

Introduction

Higher education in the Netherlands has a background different in some respects from the UK system, but also faces many of the same problems, as previous chapters have shown. The government has maintained a policy of tight control of the degrees available. The initial propedeuse year acts as a foundation year, and has a low pass rate (generally around 30 per cent) which in effect has been used as a filter. This is followed by a three- or four-year degree course with the final year containing a research project or dissertation, and the degree awarded is regarded by the Ministry (OCW) as the equivalent of a Master�s level degree in English-speaking higher education systems.

List of topics

Introduction

The role of the VSNU in external assessment of quality

The role of the Ministry

New management structures in support of quality assurance

Internal quality assurance

Current and future issues

Recent pressures within the country include a large rise in student numbers overall, decreasing numbers of students in science, mathematics and engineering subjects, and a decline in funding in real terms. This has combined with a growing government awareness of the need for comparable national or international standards, for methods of measuring, assuring and improving the quality of education, and for accountability both to the taxpayer and to the student. It was recognised that the way forward lay in ensuring that high quality teaching was maintained, enhanced, and monitored by means of a close association between internal and external quality management arrangements. There is also a perceived need to become internationally renowned, particularly for a small country with a multilingual culture and a history of outward-looking exploration and identity. The Bologna Declaration has recently set the stage for the movement towards greater European standardisation, and in the Netherlands there is a great deal of discussion about moving towards internationalisation and away from the doctoraal programme which crosses what we would see in the UK as the Bachelor�Master divide (see Chapter 4 for more on awards). In tandem with this, the specialisation offered by some highly scientific degree programmes and the need for quality assessment and assurance has led TUD, in particular, to develop explicit mechanisms embedded within its routine quality assurance systems for the comparison of its degree programmes with those of peer institutions internationally.

- 40 -

The recognition of the importance of quality issues in both the national and international contexts was an important factor in the reorganisation of university governance structures that took place in 1997. Radically reforming legislation has enabled the universities to sweep away the old structures of governance and put in their place a system with a more coherent management function (see Chapter 2). Deans now have overall responsibility for quality issues within their faculties and report directly to the university�s College van Bestuur (Executive Board). In some cases, financial incentives are available in the form of extra funding where excellence in teaching and research has been identified. This adds considerably to staff involvement in quality issues and increases motivation for ensuring that standards of excellence are maintained, monitored and improved. The strategy for quality issues is developed in close association with the external quality assessments organised by the VSNU.

The role of the VSNU in external assessment of quality

The VSNU is an association of the universities in the Netherlands. It represents the interests of the universities in political, governmental and community organisations, negotiates with the government, and develops activities to provide services to its members. The Board of the VSNU consists of the Chairmen of the Boards of the fourteen universities. As one of its functions, it provides a system of quality assessment by peer review on a subject discipline basis. The principal aim of this is to strengthen the position of university education and research in society.

The goals of the Quality Assessment system are improvement of the quality of education and accountability both to the Ministry and to society. (A tabular comparison of the Netherlands� system with that of the UK is set out in Appendix 4.) The VSNU works in close partnership with the universities, although ultimate responsibility lies with the universities themselves. The approach is focused on particular subject disciplines, which are usually related to specific degree programmes, and involves a visiting committee of peers nominated from the relevant VSNU subject discipline committee and approved by the universities. In many cases, the visiting committee will include an academic of international standing:

Wiskunde (mathematics) included a Professor from the California Institute of Technology, Department of Mathematics

Communicatiewetenschap (communication studies) included the head of the Department of Communication, University of South Africa.

In the latter visitation, the reports covered the three Communication Studies programmes in the Netherlands and also three in Belgium.

The visiting committee has four tasks: assessing, advising, comparing, and informing. The educational study programmes are assessed over a five-year cycle, with findings and conclusions being assessed and published in a single report for all similar state-recognised degree programmes nationally. Funding is not related to the results of quality assessment.

The process involves providing an advance package of necessary data, study plans, and institutional strategic plans, and includes a self-evaluation of the relevant degree programme. A site visit then follows. By 1999, all universities had

- 41 -

been visited twice; a third round of visits is currently in progress. The three-day visit includes interviews with students and lecturers, former students, and management, with the aim of identifying any problems. All comparable programmes at different universities are reviewed, and the conclusions and recommendations are published in a single, public report. The underlying rationale is to stimulate critical self-analysis and to improve the quality of education. The process enables the committee to judge the self-evaluation, to determine whether the institution is able to resolve any problems identified, and to make comparable judgements on aspects that have changed over the preceding five years.

The report takes the form of a comprehensive booklet (see Figures 13 and 14 for typical contents, and illustrative comments). The goal of the public report is to stimulate the process of quality care on which the faculty can formulate its policy. To make the process visible, every university publishes a reaction on the results of the visitation in their yearly report.

Figure 13: Typical contents of a quality assessment report

The principles underlying the process of quality assessment.

Information about the visiting committee, its tasks, composition, frame of reference and methods of evaluation.

General findings, including detailed and specific elements of importance to the subject discipline, objectives, the organisation of the teaching, structure and content.

A general comparison of all the relevant study programmes under different quality aspects.

A detailed report for each study programme to illustrate how it is assessed according to the common framework, with conclusions and recommendations.

A comparative checklist in tabular form.

Figure 14: Illustrative comments from the VSNU report on Quality Assessment of Medical Education in the Netherlands (1999)

(The study visit group is grateful to the VSNU for permission to quote in extenso from its teaching quality assessment reports.)

On self-evaluations

The committee [also] believes that the writing of self-evaluation reports provides the faculty an ideal opportunity to take a critical look at the teaching, on the basis of which the external review can also make a contribution to internal quality improvement.

The committee is satisfied with the critical and analytical level of most self-evaluation reports. [�] Many of the committee�s points of criticism were already explicitly mentioned in the self-evaluations. The self-evaluations of [a named university], on the other hand, were clearly below standard. The committee understands, both from students and from instructors, that the self-evaluation presented too rosy a picture of the course. The committee finds this reprehensible.

continued �/

- 42 -

Figure 14 (continued)

On previous reviews

In many cases the recommendations [of the previous review committee] formed a subject for discussion within the education committee and/or other representative bodies within the faculty. The committee also considers it to be important that faculties have produced extensive arguments as to why some recommendations of the previous review committee have not been adopted.

The committee really believes that [three named universities] have not given enough consideration to the recommendations of the previous review committee. Many points of criticism made by the present review committee [�] are also to be found in the report [�] made five years ago.

Modifications made to the system by the VSNU after the first round included more focus on content, and an evaluation of the standards achieved. A �management letter� containing advice to the institution can be requested by the institution or produced by the visiting committee outlining findings of the visit and, for example, problems to be resolved. Such letters remain confidential to the university, and as a part of the process are still at an embryonic stage. Other innovations include the introduction of scoring and grading different aspects of the provision and processes, greater attention to the specific characteristics of the discipline, the institution, the study programme and its evaluation in an international context, and the opportunity to ask the review committee for targeted, confidential advice. The 2000�05 Protocol has published the conclusions of a 1997 VSNU Strategic Working Group on the Future of Quality Assessment, indicating that research and education should usually be assessed separately (even though the interrelationship between the two would make a combined evaluation desirable), that the assessments should be more obviously tailored to the subject areas, and that greater account should be taken of the specific context in which the education or the research takes place.

The role of the Ministry

Monitoring of the external QA process is the responsibility of the Ministry. A government inspectorate evaluates the report and the procedure of the VSNU visiting committee and makes a decision on the quality of the study programmes. Where necessary, the inspectorate will make a follow-up visit two years after the assessment visit, to assess and monitor administrative responses to the report. Failure by an institution to implement measures to improve matters outlined in a critical assessment report may ultimately result in withdrawal of government funding for that individual study programme. Recent experience has shown that the Ministry may also intervene immediately on the basis of a critical report, even if the VSNU assessment team has judged that a minimum necessary standard of attainment on graduation is being maintained in respect of the programme in question.

Rather than a tight control on student numbers for each university, the Ministry controls through CROHO the number of approved and funded degree programmes. New programme proposals have to go through a lengthy set of procedures before they are allowed to be offered. Universities are then free to

- 43 -

recruit students as they wish for almost all programmes, in a context where more students attracted to University A simply means fewer students at University B.

Government policy on quality assurance has become increasingly focused on the enhancement of programmes� international orientation, with geographical and language issues dominating, and increasing awareness that quality needs to be measured on an international scale. This has led to recommendations that universities should consider benchmarking their processes that incorporate an international orientation, and has fostered a belief that the quality of education is improved if both students and staff gain experience of study or placement abroad.

New management structures in support of quality assurance

There has been a recent trend for universities to become more geared to the quality of their research. Staff have tended to be appointed for their international research record, with the consequence that teaching was being undertaken on occasions by staff with little or no experience of teaching, a factor that could have an adverse effect on its quality. With the spotlight returning to teaching matters and the advent of the quality procedures for teaching assessment, it has become clear that the new structures should attempt to solve this anomaly.

The VSNU report on the Quality Assessment of Medical Education in the Netherlands (January 1999) states that �The MUB offers universities the possibility to adopt a better structure for teaching and research, particularly through the introduction of separate teaching and research institutes. The committee noted that the educational institute model is being introduced by an increasing number of universities�.

Staff at UvA described how a Director of Teaching now has the flexibility to buy in teaching from the Departments within the Faculty, or from within the University, or from outside. He/she can choose, for example, those fluent in Dutch who are good with large numbers of students for the first year, or internationally renowned lecturers whose mother tongue may be English for a final-year course which may be delivered in English. If there are no suitable lecturers available, or the students have complained about the quality of the education, other lecturers can be hired from other universities. In effect, when fully implemented, this will be a system based on market forces within and between the faculties. UvA has retained Departments (afdelingen), but the role of the Head of Department has diminished since the creation of Teaching and Research Institutes, and has become a human resources management role (see Chapter 2). Departments at UvA are a pool of fifty-to-eighty academics whose teaching services are bought by the relevant teaching and research institutes; the problems this structure raises are still being addressed.

At UU, we were briefed on this University�s initiative in introducing standardised teaching qualifications for staff as a tool for promotion. This programme was introduced in the University�s 1993�97 Development Plan, prompted by a desire to restructure teaching to put it on a par with research for staffing structures and promotion, and to develop a University quality standard of teaching. The programme (FLOW) sets out the levels of skills required at a basic and at a more senior level, the methods of testing these, and the training and coaching facilities used (see Chapter 9 for more about human resources). Under these procedures, a

- 44 -

member of the academic staff must have good qualifications in both teaching and research to be awarded a chair. The recognition of teaching qualifications is now being studied by the other Dutch universities, and may be implemented by others.

The remit of our study visit did not cover quality assessment on the research side. The most recent protocol published by the VSNU has recognised that there are advantages to having separate visits for research and teaching aspects (see above). A Director appointed from within the academic staff of a university, whose responsibilities include the quality of research, postgraduate students, and research strategies, heads each Research Institute (see Chapter 2 for more about these structures). These institutes can cross faculty and department boundaries, and can form or evolve in line with research funding. At TUD, funding for research is allocated according to a detailed points system based on, for example, an annual count of publications, grant income, and studentships. At TUD, financial rewards earned by research institutes are retained within them, increasing staff motivation to keep up the impetus of high quality research.

Internal quality assurance

All universities include student and staff input to teaching quality. There are opleidingscommissies (Programme Committees) at both a faculty and at degree programme level, consisting of staff and student members (organised either separately or together). The Faculty/Programme committees have a direct input to teaching, syllabus and related matters, and advise the Director of Teaching on specific programmes or discuss any related problems. At the university level, students are involved in commenting on overall quality and policy matters (see Chapter 2 for more about the universiteitsraad or studentenraad). It is worth noting that in practice the faculty studentenraad tends to have more power than the opleidingscommissie. The VSNU report of Quality Assessment of Medical Education in the Netherlands, picks up on the importance of internal quality assurance:

For quality control in education, the contribution of the students must also be assured. The education committee must therefore play a central role in quality control. [Editorial note: �education committee� is a literal translation in the official English version of the original from the Dutch opleidingscommissie, which is covered in the glossary and Chapter 2.]

[�] accommodating teaching in an institute with clearly specified authority is a good development. A condition for this is that the education committee must also have well-specified authority, so that it can actually perform its regulating and evaluating function in practice.

Questionnaires are used, both on individual degree programmes on an annual basis, and as part of the central university system of course evaluation. At TUD, direct feedback is elicited as part of quality monitoring, with designated groups of students observing both the teacher and the class during the course and reporting back findings to the lecturer. Here, booklets are published annually with the opinions and findings of the students on some aspects of a limited number of courses offered. At UU, similarly, the Onderwijs en Evaluatie Rapport provides an independent evaluation of programmes by the students. These reports are available in the public domain, and can play a key role in student choice of a university and/or degree programme. Increasingly, other direct feedback is being utilised from former graduates and from the labour market.

- 45 -

On student feedback, Quality Assessment of Medical Education in the Netherlands comments:

The committee notes that education is being evaluated everywhere (albeit to a variable extent) in the form of written questionnaires or verbal assessments. It is really not always clear what is being done with the results of these questionnaires. This applies [�] to the evaluations made at [three named universities]. At [one named university], the relationship between those representative bodies that play a role in the evaluation and management is not obvious so that it is not clear to either lecturers or students to whom they must go when they want to discuss the content of and possible changes to the curriculum.

To the satisfaction of the committee, students practically always play an active and stimulating role in quality control.

Each university we visited has in place mechanisms for internal accountability that involve regular reports to the Deans or Executive Boards, strategic plans, and close monitoring of any remedial actions arising from QA reports. At UvA, an evaluation of quality and the associated management and administration is conducted on an annual basis. Negotiations based on the findings of these faculty reports form the basis of an agreement between the Faculty and the Board that is monitored the following year.

At UU, quality plays a central role in the mission statement, and quality assurance is an integrated process which involves internal and external groups. A workbook with tips, suggestions and links between internal and external quality procedures is published for the use of those in charge of study programmes. The Universitair Strategisch Programma (the University Stategic Programme � a group of staff working on a project basis) gives training before external visits, and support with such things as writing the self-evaluation document, quality procedures, or drawing up an action plan. For a systematic and structural approach of improvement processes the university has developed a Quality Management plan. This is an annual report to the Board, with the performance for the year, plans for the coming year, student reports and guides, and a yearly self-evaluation report, all contributing to a longer-term management plan. Internal and external QA evaluations are included in this process, and the university organises internal audits that focus on both facilities and the quality aspects of education. Since 1991, UU has held an annual conference organised by ACKO (an advisory committee on the quality of education) where all faculties exchange views and good practice. This takes place over a whole day in January/February and is open to staff and students. The results and conclusions of all discussions and workshops on a set topic are published. In 1999, for example, the discussions centred around the introductory year, keeping staff and student enthusiasm high, student choice, and use of personal tutors. The day also provides a natural opportunity for the award of prizes for the best lecturer and the best talented young lecturer of the year. The lecturers are nominated by students and selected by a jury of lecturers. UU has extensive networks of communication between Directors of Teaching in all the faculties, the Deans, and student counsellors, which ensure good communication between faculties and gives a greater sense of cohesion within the university.

At TUD, as in UU, there are Education Quality Management advisory committees (AKO) for advising the Executive Board on quality assurance matters, for providing an additional control cycle to monitor faculty initiatives, to embed QA procedures at managerial level, and to provide a close link between internal and external QA and feedback mechanisms. At TUD, for example, all

- 46 -

faculties produce a policy plan, which contains an overview of the actions arising from external assessment, future plans, and planned educational improvements. This plan defines goals, policies and targets for the faculty. A yearly report from each faculty provides a snapshot picture of teaching and research programmes that will be included in the annual managerial consultations between the Executive Board and the Deans (see Images of Quality, (c. 1998)). In addition to this, every two years these reports are assessed by an external group of experts including representatives from academics, industry, business, and government.

Current and future issues

Some current concerns have arisen either as a direct result of quality assurance procedures, or an awareness of the need for more accountability to students and taxpayers. The high wastage rate of students in the propedeuse year has led to government pressure to increase the pass rate from around 30 per cent to 70 per cent in the first year. Staff from the Science Faculty at UU described to us how they have implemented some changes to the first year of study: smaller group tutorials to supplement large lectures, retakes of examinations possible after one month instead of six, training for postgraduate AIO tutors, improved student�lecturer relationships, and a re-arrangement of teaching patterns to allow more flexibility of choice.

At UvA, a beta�gamma first year (propedeuse) allows a combination of sciences and mathematics to be interwoven with social science subjects over the three terms, with specialisation in one area only occurring in the final term. A few particularly able students are allowed to study both disciplines in the final term. Students are selected for this experimental programme, which has addressed an imbalance between the numbers of students wanting to study each of these areas; it is also hoped that more female students will be encouraged to study sciences and mathematics. Results have been encouragingly good, and have led to discussions about joint degrees and an alpha�beta (humanities combined with sciences and mathematics) option. (See the Glossary for fuller explanations of the concepts of alpha, beta and gamma in the context of degree programmes.)

Ideas now under discussion now include the Bachelor�Master issue (see Chapter 4) prompted by the impact of the Bologna Declaration. Teaching quality matters are associated with these discussions: there is an increase in courses being taught in English, measured by accreditation by international standards. TUD has eight degree programmes unique in the Netherlands, and is implementing a programme of international accreditation with organisations such as ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology in the USA) to enhance their graduate engineers� international mobility. Its intention of becoming one of the top international universities has recently led to the establishment of links with other similar institutions in the world � in particular, the formation of the IDEA grouping (Imperial College London, TUD, ETH-Zurich, and Aachen universities). This has encouraged, for example, staff sabbaticals with partner institutions; study opportunities abroad for undergraduate and postgraduate students for six or twelve months; strong teaching links; shared postgraduate supervision and transfer of research grants. The TUD programme of internationalisation (see Chapter 3) includes initiatives to foster student transfers and study-abroad programmes, the promotion of staff sabbaticals, and improvements in language and housing support.

- 47 -

The overall impression we gained was of a small and dynamic country only two years into a dramatic period of change, which it has grasped with courage and imagination. The changes in recent years have been wide-ranging, and only perhaps possible in a small country, where all universities are relatively close and few in number.

- 48 -

Chapter 7: Planning and Finance by Craig Henderson and Allan Spencer

Funding and finance

Universities are mainly financed through three separate funding streams: government block grants, student fees, and research and other contract income. This general situation is clearly evidenced in university accounts and indeed the terms first, second and third flows of funds (geldstromen) are official government terminology. The sector receives around 70 per cent of its funding directly from the Netherlands government, the rest coming from tuition fees (around 5 per cent) and contract research funding and other activities (25 per cent).

List of topics

Funding and finance

Central government block grants

Research funding

Observations on the universities visited during the study tour

Management structures and staff

Resource allocation and management

Delivery of support services

Of the fourteen universities in the Netherlands, twelve receive direct mainstream funding from the Ministry (OCW). The scope of our visit did not encompass the Agricultural University in Wageningen (funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature Management & Fisheries) and the Open University. Government funding is distributed directly by the relevant Ministry: there is no intermediary body like the UK funding councils.

In common with many other Western countries, the government is seeking to reduce the burden of higher education on the public purse. The Ministry is promoting institutional self-sufficiency through a reduction in the unit of resource for teaching and encouragement to find other sources of income. Nevertheless, progress has been concentrated on �traditional� areas of activity for the sector � the three funding streams identified above. Third party research contracts, especially in the sciences, have become an ever more vital source of funding and the provision of research and consultancy is making up a growing proportion of universities� turnover. It was notable that issues such as the exploitation of intellectual property were not seen as particularly relevant for universities; indeed the Ministry stressed that the Minister has bucked the international trend by funding and incentivising �blue-skies� research in universities.

We heard of plans to move into fund-raising and obtaining loan finance, though many such initiatives were still firmly in the future and institutions were looking to acquire expertise in fund-raising and borrowing. It was interesting to observe

- 49 -

that reforms seems to have been driven more by revisions in the statutory management framework of universities, rather than principally through financial changes. The transfer of estates to university ownership has placed considerable assets at the disposal of the institutions to manage as they see fit. We heard of plans to embark on extensive estates strategies to be funded by property sales and external finance; this is one example of where new management and finance were coming together to fulfil institutional objectives.

Central government block grants

The Ministry receives a block budget for the twelve universities it funds directly. In recent years, the total quantum of the budget has not been derived directly from units of resource and volume measures such as student numbers, staff:student ratios or completion rates. Since a high point in 1995, there has been a downward trend in the central government grant to universities. The total sum set aside has been adjusted, as in the UK, for inflation on the one hand and a requirement for efficiency gains on the other. This sum acts as a fixed budget within which the Ministry must fund the sector.

Figure 15: Central government grant to universities

1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98

Central government grant (in NLG Millions)

4,595.1 4,606.8

5,012.3 4,942.1

4,920.2

Enrolled students (x 1000)

179.8 177.5

170.5 159.6

154.9

Graduates (x 1000)

23.7 24.7

28.0 25.1

no data

No. of staff in FTEs (x 1000)

42.0 41.4

40.0 39.2

*41.9

Figures taken from Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands: Facts and Figures 1999, published by the Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen

* Data from Universities in the Netherlands, VSNU (August 1999)

The Ministry grant to each university is composed of a fixed component and a variable component calculated on the basis of performance indicators including the number of new entrants and students completing first degrees and doctorates. Thus an individual university�s funding depends on the total allocated to the Ministry, and the changes in its own volumes and performance compared with its peers. Since there is a cap on total funding, an institution which fails to keep pace with its peers is at financial risk since it will obtain a decreasing proportion of the total funds.

The government grant to each institution is made up of three elements � teaching, research and integration (to fund the integration of teaching with research). The Higher Education Finance Model (HOBEK) is the funding model used to calculate the Ministry�s grant to each institution. It is based upon a number of performance indicators, including:

!" The total number of students in attendance.

- 50 -

!" The number of students at the university who have been studying for four years or less. As a result, students studying for more than four years are effectively only partially funded.

!" The number of graduates in the previous year. This accounts for 50 per cent of the teaching element of the grant, thus placing the emphasis on outputs.

!" The number of research students graduating.

As a derivative of these indicators, the integration element is based upon the teaching and research budgets.

Some differences from the UK system are striking. The greater the number of students a university attracts, and the more quickly they graduate, the greater the share of the total sector funding money the university receives, though the price of this may well be a declining unit of resource. While students may stay registered and study for awards over an extended period of years, there are clear incentives for universities to encourage earlier graduation: students studying beyond the �standard� period for a degree (who are very numerous) are effectively ignored in counting student volume. The same applies for the research budget, where the greater the number of students who gain PhDs, the more research money the university receives. However, this emphasis on outputs could discourage innovation, particularly as a result of its implications for funding new programmes of study. New programmes are not funded at all for their first two years, and only begin to be fully funded the year after the first students graduate. Theoretically there could also be fears about the effect on academic quality of financial incentivisation of outputs such as timely graduation, though this did not appear to be a matter for concern.

Though the Ministry�s grant calculations define elements for teaching, research and integration, individual universities are allowed freedom to decide their own spending priorities and how resources are split between teaching and research, provided they stay within budget and spend the funds appropriately.

Research funding

Research is funded by several different major sources. As noted above, part of the central government block grant is allocated to fund research activity. After this institutions also apply for specific contracts. Much of the contract research income comes from government organisations such as the NWO (Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek � the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research) and the KNAW (Koninglijke Nederlandse Academie van Wetenschappen � the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences).

Research in Dutch universities is subject to a subject review process to monitor quality. As with teaching, the VSNU acts as a consortium of the universities carrying out inspections providing ratings and feedback to institutional management on research performance. The process operated by the VSNU is to review the same subject across all institutions operating in that subject and report on that subject area. This can be contrasted with the situation in the UK, where the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) reports on all subject areas at the same time at an interval of five years. The Dutch process is therefore very similar in nature to the review process for teaching in the Netherlands and is closer to the QAA Subject Review in the UK, than to the RAE. Another similarity with the

- 51 -

UK�s teaching quality programme is that results in the research review do not have any direct implications for funding, so that the possibility of periodic step changes in funding associated with the RAE are not replicated in the Netherlands.

Observations on the universities visited during the study tour

Our study visit incorporated meetings with staff at three institutions. To give an idea of scale, the following table presents some overall statistics relating to these institutions

Figure 16: Facts and figures 1999/2000

UvA TUD UU

Government Grant (NLG Million) 654 740

Tuition Fees (NLG Million) 60 54

Research Grants and Contracts (NLG Million) 122 99

Other General Income (NLG Million) 101

*

144

Total Annual Income (NLG Million) 937 * 1037

Total Students 21,985 12,924 21,439

Total Staff (FTE) 2,966 4,846 5,667

* no data

While attempting to avoid the purely anecdotal, it may be of interest to give a flavour of the concerns and projects exercising the minds of our Dutch colleagues in Planning and Finance.

Management structures and staff

At the institutions we visited, the MUB has had a clear impact on organisation and planning. All three universities visited had chosen the streamlined �commercial� management option and had appointed Deans rather than faculty management committees. In contrast with the position under the former committee structures , this has empowered a relatively small number of individuals to make decisions on funding and operations. Consequently the problem nowadays seems to be not in making decisions but in ensuring they are adequately communicated to staff. The institutions had all simplified their management structures: in all cases the number of faculties had been cut substantially by consolidating existing units into larger groupings.

It was clear that the opportunity for universities to control their own destiny, without the former recourse to the Ministry as decision-maker, was being seized with a sense of purpose and optimism. A wealth of experience previously not exploited in the Dutch system was being harnessed to run universities, with �captains of industry� and politicians or senior civil servants from the Ministry taking prominent roles in the institution.

All the universities had adopted top-down, bottom-up planning processes with Faculty plans being developed within a strategic context set by university senior management. Faculty plans are then consolidated into the university strategic plan. All the universities had adopted relatively long planning cycles, typically

- 52 -

four years. All observed that such a long time-scale, though useful for strategic plans, was rather difficult to manage and integrate with annual budgeting and accounting cycles.

As in the UK, the staffing of Planning offices in particular drew upon individuals from a wide range of backgrounds (civil servants, ex-Ministry staff, career managers). In keeping with the spirit of administrative modernisation, it was a common experience to find that consultants were being employed to assist with management structures, management information and strategic vision and planning. For example, at UU, a considerable budget is being set aside each year for the Universitair Strategisch Programma (University Strategic Programme). This has given rise to a unit with permanent staff, which is deployed in conjunction with staff seconded from all over the University, to undertake strategic projects identified and prioritised by the University�s senior management �Club of Thirty-One�. Formal management techniques and literature were encountered at all three institutions, which testified to the injection of new ideas and a desire to improve organisational decision-making and accountability. Often the emphasis on accountability has brought into question the quality of management information and processes. Institutions have been implementing new administrative systems to match their new management structures, which has placed great strain on control mechanisms. Nevertheless, there was optimism that investment in more integrated systems would lead to greater understanding and better foundations for decision-making.

Resource allocation and management

A short visit allows only a brief investigation of complex issues such as resource allocation. Institutions varied in their attitudes to the historic models of allocating resources. There was often resistance among users to changing models and it was difficult to unravel old methodologies and figures.

The emphasis on output funding rather than input funding was common. In the same way as Ministry funding is geared to both the number of graduands within a specific time period from start date as well as the number of new entrants, so we heard of output factors being used in internal funding models. These ranged from rewards in respect of graduating students on the teaching side, to complex ratings of research outputs by means of weighting publications by size (e.g., books, articles, papers), place of publication (e.g., ranking some journals higher than others) and number and location of citations.

There was an emphasis on the one hand on historical output data, allocated using precise and quantifiable formulas, but on the other hand, on forward-looking strategic investment. There was variation in techniques of distributing funding for strategic matters. However, the concept of the �centre� matching funding provided by departments/faculties or by an external organisation such as the NWO was pervasive. Another innovative technique involved the introduction of bonus payments payable to research divisions exceeding certain performance indicators. Though institutions vary in the UK and the Netherlands, we received the impression that in general the Dutch universities we visited managed to reserve much higher proportions of their income for strategic funding than their UK counterparts.

- 53 -

Delivery of support services

The provision of support services was another area which institutions were grappling with. Issues were recognisably familiar from the past few years to UK colleagues: performance measures and the desire for accountability, cost cutting, a more commercial attitude involving trading with third parties. A wide variety of approaches was being adopted even within individual institutions. We heard of outsourcing to commercial providers, the introduction of charging for services and the implementation of service level agreements. With the latter, purchasing groups (including the College van Bestuur itself) were having to engage with defining their priorities and the service levels they wished to commission from service groups such as public relations. Some of these innovations were at an experimental stage but it was clear that institutions were finding the process of change illuminating and departments were becoming more aware of the cost of providing effective support services.

- 54 -

Chapter 8: Marketing Student

Opportunities at Home and Abroad

by Colin Matheson

Introduction

During our brief visit we had the chance to discuss the marketing of student opportunities at one formal session at the Universiteit Utrecht, and informally with some Dutch colleagues who were not generally working in this area. Acknowledging our limited exposure, we nevertheless gained the impression that the Dutch universities are coming somewhat late to the concepts of marketing and internationalisation. Marketing has not been seen as a priority until recently, though the universities have a longer history of involvement in recruiting students overseas and has more developed more coherent policies and practices for internationalisation. In particular, the Netherlands organisation for international co-operation in higher education (NUFFIC) has well defined strategies for promoting international consortia in higher education. However, as with any national body, the local interpretation of policy varies.

List of topics

Introduction

Marketing

Internationalisation

Marketing

The structures of Dutch universities are responding to the changing environment both within the Netherlands and internationally. The market has clearly been a major driver of change, though this may be more or less directly acknowledged.

The MUB (see Chapter 2) has allowed the universities to adopt a more business orientated, professionally managed organisation with much more freedom to control their own destinies. Having adopted commercial management structures, the universities have realised that education is to some extent like any other business and as such is subject to market forces and that they must respond to them.

- 55 -

The only formal presentation we were given about marketing was at the Universiteit Utrecht, where we learned of the University�s marketing policy. It was interesting to learn that this was focused exclusively on an attempt to improve the quality of its undergraduate population, particularly in those subject areas which are losing popularity with potential students.

The University had been undertaking a project in the beta sciences, a group of subjects corresponding to the �hard� sciences in the UK and including Physics and Chemistry, which are �scarcity areas� having difficulties recruiting students in the Netherlands (as in many countries). The aim of their project is to make UU the �university of choice� in these subjects. To achieve this, the University set itself two complementary objectives. The first was to improve completion rates and especially to encourage students to complete on time. The second was to set a target of 100 per cent employment within one year of graduation. This secondary goal feeds back to the first in that students can be expected to choose UU above other universities if their chances of entering employment are enhanced. This campaign was being implemented largely by links with secondary schools (including publication of textbooks), targeted advertising, and use of alumni. Once within the institution, students could choose modules not traditionally associated with the �hard� sciences, such as business studies and administration, which enables students not wishing to pursue a purely scientific career path to prepare for roles with a wide variety of employers such as the civil service.

At UU, marketing is seen as a tool to enhance the quality and quantity of students within a specific subject area which is having recruitment problems. This can be contrasted with an approach which attempts to position a university generally or to generate additional income by attracting international or full-fee-paying students as is the case in many UK institutions. This may be because there are fewer universities in the Netherlands and that competition is less fierce between them than in the UK, or because the use of pure marketing techniques is relatively new in Dutch universities. From our brief visit, we had the impression that a formal marketing approach is not given a high priority.

Internationalisation

European mobility of students and graduates has for some time been high on the government agenda as most recently reflected in the HOOP 2000 and Rinnooy Kan Commission report on the proposed Netherlands response to the Bologna declaration (see Chapter 4). However, individual universities have already developed their own overseas recruitment policies � ostensibly to respond to the demands of globalisation, but often in reality to tap into the lucrative international student market.

Universities such as TUD and UvA have developed a suite of international Masters� courses taught in English specifically designed to attract fee-paying international students.

In its policy document, �The Street of the Silversmiths: Joint strategies for promoting international consortia in higher education�, NUFFIC recommends joint strategies. This appears to be an attempt to impose some order on a fragmented situation where most international links appear to have grown from contacts between faculty members in specific subject areas. NUFFIC is calling

- 56 -

for a planned institutional approach and goes as far as to say that any institutions not having a well developed plan to internationalise will stagnate: �in this age of globalisation, to remain isolated means to be left behind�.

A priority for the Netherlands has been to address the agenda of �European unification�. Policies adopted in this area have been highly effective and all Dutch universities now have extensive European links, and others which have �transcended the continent�s borders�.

The government has actively promoted internationalisation initiatives by providing financial resources. The impetus for this appears to be the feeling that as a small country the Netherlands must co-operate internationally or risk being marginalised by alliances in a more powerful mainstream. An example of government involvement is the Ministry funding the establishment of the Netherlands Education Centre in Jakarta.

NUFFIC itself plays a similar role to that of the British Council in that it promotes the strengths of Dutch higher education with emphasis on its long tradition of high quality and its innovative approach. Part of this mission involves the promotion of higher education through international fairs, conferences and other activities. NUFFIC has strongly promoted the use of English in its own publications and has encouraged the Dutch universities to do the same and recommended the use of English as first language in courses designed to appeal to the international market, which are primarily at taught postgraduate level. While there is disquiet in some quarters about this approach, it is eminently sensible from a commercial viewpoint and allows the Netherlands to compete very effectively with the UK, USA and Australia for international students.

NUFFIC also devotes considerable time and effort to trying to convince universities that, while they may see each other as competitors in the international arena, they must co-operate for the good of all and each concentrate on their acknowledged areas of excellence rather than try to do everything. Indeed they are encouraged to pass students and contracts on to better qualified institutions where appropriate or to make joint bids for consultancy where one university does not itself have the total range of expertise required. While there are successful examples of collaborative bids, there is little evidence to suggest that institutions are actively passing on contracts and students to rival institutions.

NUFFIC also highlights the benefits of involving alumni to further the interests of the Dutch universities and strongly recommends that institutions establish alumni associations.

The quality of Dutch higher education is seen as a strong market advantage both in establishing international links with reputable overseas institutions and in the recruitment of international students. This issue is expanded in Chapter 6 of this report.

- 57 -

Chapter 9: Personnel Policy and

Staff Development by Jeffrey Clements and Bland Tomkinson

Introduction

As will be evident from other chapters in this report, human resource management (HRM) has undergone major changes over the last few years, partly in response to major changes in the legislative framework for the governance of universities. Some of these changes were similar to the impact on staffing in parts of the higher education sector in the UK of the Education Reform Act 1988 and the Further and Higher Education Act 1992. Some universities have taken the opportunity to streamline management structures and lines of accountability, and senior academic staff, whose previously sphere of activity was almost exclusively discipline-based, now find themselves with new and greater responsibilities for HRM. Nationally, a new Collective Employment Agreement (CAO) has been negotiated and agreed with representative trade unions.

List of topics

Introduction

Personnel in universities

The role of the VSNU in HRM

The Collective Employment Agreement (CAO)

Current VSNU strategic advice and projects/initiatives

Institutional issues

Organisational structures

Internal markets

Staff development issues

Conclusion

The Dutch labour market is buoyant and, as in many Western economies, the workforce is becoming increasingly skills-based. This not only places demands on the higher education sector to deliver the graduates who will form the backbone of this economy but also puts pressure on universities in their role as employers, where there are skills shortages in certain areas and talented individuals are often enticed abroad to further their careers. Our visit allowed us to discuss the current environment with our three host universities and with the VSNU.

Personnel in universities

The fourteen universities which are members of the VSNU provide employment of a total of approximately 33,000 men and 19,000 women. Dutch universities therefore employ some 52,000 people (42,000 FTEs), fifteen per cent of the people employed in the educational sector in the Netherlands (see Figures 17 and 18).

- 58 -

Figure 17: Number of employees (full-time) by gender and field of study, 31 December 1997

Field of Study Male Female Total

Agriculture and Natural Environment 1,377 524 1,901

Natural Science 4,188 1,287 5,475

Engineering and Technology 5,231 1,230 6,461

Health Care 5,233 3,481 8,714

Economics 1,442 558 2,000

Law 1,146 906 2,052

Behaviour and Society 2,145 1,430 3,575

Language and Culture 1,851 1,114 2,965

Miscellaneous 5,482 3,307 8,789

TOTAL 28,095 13,837 41,932

Universities in the Netherlands, VSNU (August 1999)

Figure 18: Number of employees (full-time) by gender and function, 31 December 1997

Function Male Female Total

Professor 2,324 121 2,445

Associate Professor 2,431 197 2,628

University Lecturer 4,729 1,154 5,883

Other Academic staff 3,656 1,875 5,531

Trainee Research Assistant 2,806 1,598 4,404

Student Assistant 371 235 606

Support and managerial staff 11,778 8,657 20,434

TOTAL 28,095 13,837 41,932

Universities in the Netherlands, VSNU (August 1999)

As is to be expected, the distribution of staff is pyramidal, with larger numbers of junior staff than senior lecturers and professors. Unlike the situation in the UK, all trainee research assistants and student assistants have employee status. However, like their British counterparts, the Dutch universities currently usually employ their own staff to perform a wide range of support services. It is worth emphasising the low proportion of senior female academics compared to the UK and that 40 per cent of women employed by universities are non-academic personnel. VSNU staff told us that non-academic staff � �support staff� as they would be called in the UK � were regarded throughout higher education with what could be described as a �parity of esteem� in terms of their role and contribution to the service.

Comparative figures for the UK, published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), show the total number of academic staff in 1997/98 was 128,076. 86 per cent of staff were full-time, with 30 per cent of all staff employed only in research. 66 per cent of staff were male, and the average age of full-time staff was forty-one. The UK sector expanded by 5,323 staff over the previous year�s figures, a rise of 12.6 per cent (HESA, Press Release PR30).

- 59 -

Evidence presented by VSNU senior staff identified the following sector-wide HRM challenges:

!" Within the next five-to-ten years, they anticipated that around 33 per cent of staff in the university sector would leave. This would largely as a result of natural wastage, staff retiring from the service and early retirement as a result of favourable financial incentives.

!" The academic work force profile is ageing and key staff could be seen as blocking the system, preventing career development opportunities for younger members of staff. Their view was that young academics wanted a clear career path for development and that �older� members of staff were not relinquishing more senior positions to enable progression to take place at a fast enough pace.

!" Labour market analysis indicates that there will be shortfalls of appropriately qualified staff in key areas, e.g., engineering and technology. Concerns were expressed that the increasing globalisation of the labour market is leading to Dutch academics leaving the country to pursue careers abroad.

!" To exacerbate the previous point, half the contracts of employment currently issued to academic staff are fixed-term. The drawbacks (and benefits) of employing staff on fixed-term contracts have been well rehearsed in the UK and apply similarly to the Netherlands. In the Dutch context, fixed-term contracts may have the added benefit of attracting academics from English speaking countries, which has advantages in institutions focusing on an international context, but employing staff from abroad risks squeezing out home-grown lecturers wishing to develop their career.

The role of the VSNU in HRM

The VSNU represents the interests of the universities in their role as employers vis-à-vis employees, political and community organisations. The VSNU exercises its role as an employers� association in the activities listed in Figure 19:

Figure 19: Activities of the VSNU in its role as an employers� forum

Co-ordinating the collective employment agreement (CAO) that will contribute optimally to the function of the university as a working organisation promoting maximum development of its staff.

Contributing to the improvement of working conditions.

Providing an instrument for the control and management of salary costs.

Being a centre of knowledge and expertise for universities as employers.

Promoting professional human resource management.

It may be useful to compare the role of the VSNU with that of UCEA (Universities and Colleges Employers Association) in the UK whose objectives and activities are outlined in Appendix 5. The main point of similarity with UCEA is in the involvement in collective bargaining on pay and conditions of

- 60 -

service advice and support to the sector, though the UK has no single-table bargaining in pay negotiations.

The Collective Employment Agreement (CAO)

In 1995 the universities authorised the VSNU to deal on their behalf in negotiations with the government and the trade unions regarding their terms by which university staff are employed. From 1998 the scope of their role was extended to include pay, pensions and social insurance. The VSNU appointed a negotiation team to develop and agree a collective employment agreement for all university employees. The CAO was the product of those negotiations. The key issues underpinning the agreement were staff mobility and flexibility and reflected the need for universities to gain more control over staffing. In particular there was an emphasis on reforming current practices to maximise productivity.

With effect from 1 January 1999, the framework agreement on the legal position of the personnel of universities and research institutions was replaced by the Decree on the decentralisation of the specification of the terms of employment at universities, institutions of technology and research institutions. This decree completed the decentralisation of employment rules by allowing employers to set the general development of salary levels, the performance appraisal system, the general length of the working week, and social security. Agreements between the Ministry, the federations of government employees, and the VSNU were laid down in the Covenant on Decentralisation of the specification of the terms of employment in universities, signed on 1 June 1999.

The delegation of responsibility to universities and the negotiation of the CAO have meant considerable changes to the dynamics of the processes with Dutch industrial and employee relations within the university sector. Senior VSNU staff stressed the major impact was to lessen the former bureaucratic rules and regulations: individual universities are no longer directly dependent on government for this area of their operations but consequently have to deal with these complex issues for themselves. The CAO document was structured in such a way that individual terms and conditions were classified as: mandatory, strongly recommended for adoption, or optional. This gives the flexibility for individual institutions to negotiate local conditions in areas such as staff working hours and location.

Current VSNU strategic advice and projects/initiatives

The VSNU recommend member institutions to formulate a human resources strategy by focusing on their responses to two key questions:

!" What employees would they like to have?

!" What sort of university do they wish to be?

In support of the first question, the VSNU helps institutions directly by providing information about the labour market and indirectly by negotiating collective terms and conditions of service for staff. VSNU analysis and experience indicate that lack of staff mobility was declining in importance as a problem for individual universities. That is to say that the recruitment of staff from the immediate surrounding geographical areas was not as prevalent as in the past. Interestingly, the same patterns are being repeated with student recruitment,

- 61 -

and with universities becoming more �outward looking� this trend is perhaps inevitable.

In support of the second question, the VSNU can contribute to this strategic process by undertaking specific research to determine what made a particular institution �tick�, i.e., what were the key success factors that contributed to an individual institution, identifying and attracting quality staff and students.

Figure 20: Current sector-wide initiatives of the VSNU

The VSNU has a continuing portfolio of projects which are at various stages of their life-cycle. Current initiatives include:

Competence management

Development of flexible wage policies

Identification and dissemination of good HRM practice

Young scientist award

Analysis of the international labour market

Investors in People

Academic transfer

Dutch labour market monitoring

Institutional issues

The main issues raised at the three host universities centred on: the organisation of the personnel function and impact of new management structures; internal markets for staff; and staff development and the personnel function.

Organisational structures

The new organisation structures at our three hosts have resulted in different lines of accountability and organisation dynamics. Deans, Research and Education Directors are now directly responsible for staff matters including support staff and personnel department administrative staff. Academic leaders are now expected to give vision and direction, provide insight and organise teams. In addition to academic leadership they are now fully responsible for functions such as recruiting and selecting new staff, communication with other disciplines and staff development.

In the organisational structure of our three host universities, the majority of personnel administrative functions (for example, payroll, personnel records, appointments and resignation of staff) are dealt with at Faculty level and are ultimately the responsibility of the Dean. A small team of HRM specialists based in the centre of the university deal with the impact of the HRM changes and staff development issues, including organising events/programmes to meet those needs. Their role was close to being that of a �consultant� to the Faculty, identifying needs and organising and delivering staff development programmes. At the UvA, for example, the HRM team had supported the publication of the document Wervings-en selectiebeleid ten aanzien van hoogleraren (Policy on the recruitment and selection of professors) and published a staff development programme, including sessions on academic leadership and action learning.

- 62 -

Internal markets

At UvA and UU, we were introduced to broadly similar concepts of staff resource management in academic areas. Heads of Department have staff but no budgets for them and must make arrangements to �sell� the staff time to the Directors of Teaching and Research Institutes, who are the ones charged with delivery or research and teaching programmes. Heads of Department do, however, have a major role in the promotion of academic staff.

Staff development issues

At the institutions we visited we did not come across the equivalent of the discrete Staff Development Units existing in many UK universities. Rather the central human resource functions, as well as operating at a policy level on personnel issues, exercised some overview of staff development, while in addition we learned of a number of examples of staff development activity at a faculty level.

At all of the universities that we visited we heard of the issue of professionalisation of the university teaching role, analogous to the concerns that have been voiced in the UK. The Netherlands has not yet reached the point of formalisation of requirements as is occurring in the UK with the new national Institute for Learning and Teaching. However, in response to this agenda, the UvA now requires candidates for full Professor to demonstrate excellence competence in teaching and management as well as in research.

Another major concern at the universities we visited was the fostering and career development of young staff. The VSNU and some of the universities visited, expressed interest in competence-based models, (such as HERA in the UK), where the skills required to perform the key tasks are used to rate the technical contents of posts. The UU has undertaken a policy statement about the expected achievements and skills contents required of classes of post and has codified in its FLOW document what is expected of staff to reach the posts of full, assistant, and associate professors. Organisational issues had to be addressed here, too (see Figure 21): at UU, the group responsible for staff development in this area had identified a cohort of four hundred professors.

Figure 21: Organisational questions being addressed at the institutional level

How do academic leaders learn and how they should supported?

What are the practicalities of engaging in this process?

Who are to be the target audience for these initiatives?

How can success and results be achieved?

Conclusion

Universities in the Netherlands are facing many issues similar to those in the UK and have adopted a pragmatic approach to solutions. The negotiation of the CAO � a comprehensive document in its breadth and detail � was a substantial achievement, resulting from determination from employers and employees to

- 63 -

reach an agreement. This has resolved issues such as single pay scales for academic and non-academic staff which have also arisen in the UK and currently remain unresolved here. The VSNU offers a forum and an agency to take forward issues across the sector and across all categories of staff. Within institutions, there continue to be roles for employees in the decision-making process in the new governance arrangements (see Chapter 2). At the universities we visited, an integrated management with a large measure of responsibility for academic staff has replaced the constrained but democratic committee structure and the greater flexibility offered is being taken up throughout these organisations.

- 64 -

Appendix 1: Acknowledgements and

Participants

AUA and its international links

The Association of University Administrators (AUA) exists primarily to further the professional development of its members � who work in institutions of higher education in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland � and includes among its specific objectives the dissemination of information on the international dimension of higher education. From time to time the Joint International Committee of AUA and the Association of Heads of University Administrations (AHUA) supports the organisation of study visits to universities in other countries by and for their members.

Acknowledgements

The study visit was organised by Rosemary Harrison, Assistant Registrar (Quality Assurance) at the University of Essex. The success of the visit is largely due to her.

All members of the study visit team wish to express their gratitude to all the Dutch colleagues whose generosity with their time and hospitality made the visit so instructive and enjoyable. These debts of gratitude relate not only to the meetings and contacts during the visit itself, but also to hours of effort during the planning processes, further advice and comment during the preparation of this report, and permission from copyright owners to reproduce documents on the study visit web-site either before or after the visit.

The team also gratefully acknowledges a travel grant from the Joan Balchin Memorial Fund (University of Leeds).

Participants

The following tables list the participants from the UK first in alphabetic order, and then by sub-group within which the special themes of the visit were pursued.

- 65 -

Figure 22: Alphabetical list of study visit participants

Mr Jeffrey Clements Personnel Officer University of Salford

Mr Ian Doyle Divisional Administrator University of Wales College of Medicine

Dr John Harris Senior Assistant Registrar University of Bath

Miss Rosemary Harrison Assistant Registrar (Quality Assurance)

University of Essex

Mr Craig Henderson Financial Information Systems Implementation Manager

University of Edinburgh

Mrs Fiona Longstaff Deputy Secretary University of Edinburgh

Mr Rob Lowe Head of Student Services University of Durham (Stockton Campus)

Mr Colin Matheson Deputy Director of International Education

University of Westminster

Ms Jill Parker Departmental Administrator (Mathematical Sciences)

University of Bath

Ms Carol Smith Head of Student Services Leeds Metropolitan University

Mr Allan Spencer Deputy Director of Finance University of Southampton

Mr Bland Tomkinson Director of Staff Development

University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology

- 66 -

Figure 23: List of study visit participants by sub-group

Management of Educational Quality

Dr John Harris Senior Assistant Registrar University of Bath

Miss Rosemary Harrison Assistant Registrar (Quality Assurance)

University of Essex

Mrs Fiona Longstaff Deputy Secretary University of Edinburgh

Ms Jill Parker Departmental Administrator (Mathematical Sciences)

University of Bath

Personnel Policy and Staff Development

Mr Jeffrey Clements Personnel Officer University of Salford

Mr Bland Tomkinson Director of Staff Development

University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology

Planning & Finance

Mr Ian Doyle Divisional Administrator University of Wales College of Medicine

Mr Craig Henderson Financial Information Systems Implementation Manager

University of Edinburgh

Mr Allan Spencer Deputy Director of Finance University of Southampton

Student Support

Mr Rob Lowe Head of Student Services University of Durham (Stockton Campus)

Mr Colin Matheson Deputy Director of International Education

University of Westminster

Ms Carol Smith Head of Student Services Leeds Metropolitan University

- 67 -

Appendix 2: Planning the Study Visit by Rosemary Harrison

When a study visit to the Netherlands was first proposed to all members of AUA and AHUA in the summer of 1998, it was already more than a decade since the visit undertaken by CUA (a predecessor organisation of AUA) in 1987. Apart from the huge changes which the Dutch higher education sector had undergone in the interim, the broader context for study visits had changed just as radically. In particular, the volume of international information exchange concerning higher education had increased markedly � notably as a result of the Web and the growth of EU programme activity in both teaching and research.

In response to this enhanced availability of background information, the initial publicity for the Netherlands study visit suggested an approach which was new for AUA. Instead of being composed entirely of plenary sessions giving a general introduction to the university system (as had almost invariably been the case before), it was proposed that the visit should address in more depth the specialist professional interests of those who had come forward as potential group participants. This would involve mastery of basic background information by all in advance (in the event this was facilitated by means of a study visit web-site � see below) and the organisation of much of the visit as small group sessions. A detailed questionnaire was sent to those expressing an interest in the project, and as a result of the analysis of the returns the adoption of this basic approach was confirmed for the visit itself. A further significant decision taken on the basis of the questionnaire returns was that the study visit should focus strongly on university education rather than attempting to cover the hogescholen. In the event, however, a brief session was held to explore the pioneering joint venture recently launched by the Universiteit van Amsterdam and the Hogeschool van Amsterdam.

In the spring of 1999, the study visit organiser had meetings with Dutch colleagues at three universities (chosen in part on the basis of suggestions in the questionnaire returns) and the VSNU. The purpose of these initial visits was to explore how the interests of potential AUA participants might be meshed with the topics on which colleagues in the Netherlands could best offer presentations, while maintaining some continuity of overall structure and a limited number of lines of enquiry for the AUA group. It was also important to ensure that detailed planning took account of the key current issues of both the UK and the Dutch higher education systems.

A particular area of interest in the Dutch system, seen from a UK perspective, was already apparent during the planning process: this was that, in broad policy terms, the Dutch system characteristically stands between the highly state-regulated �continental� tendency in higher education culture and the entrepreneurial �anglo-saxon� tendency. There also seemed to be more specific areas of administration which could more profitably be studied in the

- 68 -

Netherlands than elsewhere � including the concept of a national system of teaching quality assurance, which is still embryonic in many countries, but which in the Netherlands has a longer history than in the UK.

It was originally intended to visit four universities during the course of the week-long visit, but as a result of the wealth of potential discussion themes emerging from the initial meetings, it was decided to concentrate on only three: the Universiteit van Amsterdam, the Technische Universiteit Delft and the Universiteit Utrecht. This was an innovation by comparison with the general pattern of previous study visits in which more institutions had customarily been visited, bringing a risk of only superficial coverage. However, the fact that the publicly-funded university sector comprises only thirteen universities meant that visits to three institutions gave a reasonable proportion of the sector, albeit with a chance of bias.

The preliminary visits to universities were followed by a somewhat complex, iterative process during which the membership of the group was established. The decision to use AUA members� individual professional interests as the main driver in establishing the agenda created some difficulties at this stage, since it meant that the agenda could not be fully finalised until the group was almost complete. However, reflections during and after the visit suggest that the core concept of specialist �strands� pursued in small groups was generally perceived as both successful and worthy of use in the future as the model for other study visits.

The study visit group had a preliminary meeting at the University of Westminster in December 1999. It was here that the final decision was made on the four specialist themes, and the membership of the teams to pursue them. The themes were:

!" Management of Educational Quality

!" Personnel Policy and Staff Development

!" Planning and Finance

!" Mechanisms for Student Support (financial, academic, and welfare-related)

It was clear that, despite the adoption of a structure based on parallel sessions, the amount of ground which could be covered in a week-long study visit would be limited: the agenda-setting thus involved decisions to drop certain areas, such as research, as major themes of the visit. For various reasons � including changes of jobs and other commitments � the composition of the group changed between the London meeting in December 1999 and the visit itself. It was however pleasing that the group managed to recruit additional members in such as way that the specialist themes agreed at the preliminary meeting could be addressed as planned. This was done in part by recruiting participants from outside the existing membership of AUA/AHUA, who then joined AUA before the visit took place.

- 69 -

Appendix 3: List of Figures

Page

Figure 1 Key points of comparison between Dutch and UK universities

6

Figure 2 Management structures as defined under the MUB 11

Figure 3 Illustration of higher-level management structures and options

12

Figure 4 HOOP proposals of particular interest to the study visit team

13

Figure 5 Issues identified as significant by VSNU staff 15

Figure 6 Illustration of the sequence of stages of education 19

Figure 7 Some official statements on credits and notional study hours

20

Figure 8 University graduate titles 26

Figure 9 Summary comparison of proposed national higher education frameworks in July 2000 � a snapshot of systems in evolution

31

Figure 10 Case Study 1 � The Crossover Programme (Aansluitprogramma)

33

Figure 11 Case Study 2 � The Transition Year Project 33

Figure 12 Other interesting aspects of the student support context 36

Figure 13 Typical contents of a quality assessment report 41

Figure 14 Illustrative comments from the VSNU report on Quality Assessment of Medical Education in the Netherlands (1999)

41

Figure 15 Central government grant to universities 49

Figure 16 Facts and figures 1999/2000 51

Figure 17 Number of employees (full-time) by gender and field of study, 31 December 1997

58

Figure 18 Number of employees (full-time) by gender and function, 31 December 1997

58

Figure 19 Activities of the VSNU in its role as an employers� forum 59

Figure 20 Current sector-wide initiatives of the VSNU 61

- 70 -

Figure 21 Organisational questions being addressed at the institutional level

62

Figure 22 Alphabetical list of study visit participants 65

Figure 23 List of study visit participants by sub-group 66

Figure 24 Comparison of educational quality review systems in the Netherlands and the UK

71

Figure 25 Description of the role of the UCEA, from its web-site (http://www.ucea.ac.uk)

75

- 71 -

Appendix 4: Educational Quality

Review Systems in the Netherlands and the UK

by Rosemary Harrison

Figure 24: Comparison of educational quality review systems in the Netherlands and the UK

Netherlands current system at 2000

New UK Subject Review (Scotland and Wales from September 2000; rest of UK from January 2002)

England and Northern Ireland to Dec 2001 (where different from New UK Subject Review)

CORE PRINCIPLES AND MAIN ACTORS

The same Visiting Committee looks at provision in the whole country (plus in some subjects Flanders), with reference (see below) to the international dimension.

The relevant Discipline Panel of the VSNU has a strong and well-defined role within a relatively homogenous university system: proposes review committee membership to the VSNU and establishes a discipline-specific protocol to be used alongside the VSNU general protocol for teaching assessments.

Visit teams are set up per institutional evaluation (drawn from a register of Reviewers approved by the Quality Assurance Agency for higher education (QAA)).

Subject associations may be involved in the nomination of reviewers � but vary in their nature, and in their capacity to speak for the whole discipline.

Chair usually from the discipline under review.

Chair not normally from the discipline under review.

Student member of each panel (except Flanders) and panels hold meetings with students.

Students involved in drafting self-assessment.

Students not included in review panels but panel holds meetings with students.

Students likely to be involved in drafting self-assessment (called �self-evaluation� in the new UK process).

- 72 -

CORE PRINCIPLES AND MAIN ACTORS (continued)

Self-assessments form the starting point for a review. (Required format apparently less precisely defined than in the UK.)

Where there is more than one programme, a self-assessment is drawn up for each.

Self-assessments form the starting point (with format becoming less precisely prescribed than previously).

One document usually covers all taught degree programmes in the reviewed subject provision (although the submission of more than one document may be allowed if provision is very diverse).

Visiting Committees establish at the outset of the review process what features they expect to see (and the timetable leads to this happening after departments have embarked on self-assessment drafting); committees also evaluate the extent to which provider aims and objectives are met, and the clarity with which they are defined.

(This is to be seen in the context of a relatively homogeneous system in comparison with the UK � in terms both of institutional character and the effect of CROHO registration in leading to greater programme similarity nationwide.)

Review process makes use of both provider Aims and Objectives and the QAA�s published Subject Benchmarks.

Review teams have (procedurally) no definition of the subject at the outset; respond to provider�s aims and objectives statement.

FORM AND SCOPE OF THE REVIEW PROCESS

Visit lasts one evening + 2 days.

Multiple visits by two or more members of Review team.

Visit lasts 3½ days.

Teaching observation does not normally take place.

Teaching observation less important than previously.

Teaching observation important.

Review of student performance heavily focused on standard at graduation � in particular final pre-graduation research projects (scripties). Great importance attached to the research training function of these projects.

Review of student work across all years (hence projects/dissertations are a minor component overall); the process emphasises learning progression as well as output standards.

Brief evaluation of research student education, and of any teaching given by research students, generally included.

PhD theses not assessed.

Research students not included (except where they are evaluated in their role as teaching assistants).

- 73 -

FORM AND SCOPE OF THE REVIEW PROCESS (continued)

Visiting Committees include a foreign member (often from a Flemish university) and give explicit attention to internationalisation (especially from a European perspective) by:

(a) Evaluating trends in the nature of the discipline and degree programmes available internationally, in order to put Dutch provision as a whole in context.

(b) Evaluating internationalisation policies in individual university teaching units. (Internationalisation is a specific �Aspect of Provision� � evaluated in terms of policy and actual volume of exchange activity.)

Review entirely focussed on the national picture and no Reviewers are appointed from outside the UK.

REPORTING AND FOLLOW-UP

Procedure analogous to old Aspect scoring system in England (see right), but operating on a more finely-grained scale 1�10 on each of 11 Aspects (though not for Flemish universities where included in reviews).

Scoring replaces purely narrative analysis in the system which preceded it � i.e., direction of change is opposite to that planned by the QAA.

Separate judgements on academic standards (threshold level), and on the quality of learning opportunities (failing, approved, commendable). (Particular elements of provision may be highlighted as �exemplary�.)

Aspect scoring 1�4 on each of 6 aspects.

The outcome of the review process includes an overall judgement about whether each programme evaluated is satisfactory. There is also a general statement in the introductory national overview section summarising these overall judgements.

For aspects of the quality of learning opportunities, judgements are of overall provision in the subject. Judgements on academic standards may in certain circumstances be differentiated by degree programme.

A single report deals with both subject overview (in which institutions are compared � sometimes critically � by name) and evaluations of individual institutions.

One report is produced per individual visit, plus a separate Subject Overview report with a commentary in which individual institutions are not expected to be mentioned by name.

- 74 -

REPORTING AND FOLLOW-UP (continued)

Reports involve detailed comparison of the structure of available degrees in the discipline.

The Subject Overview report is general and does not make detailed comparisons (which given greater diversity in the UK would be impracticable).

Reports published in hard copy.

Unpublished �Management Letter� to an individual university may be produced by a Visiting Committee on its own initiative or at the request of the university.

Reports published on WWW (hard copy also available).

No unpublished formal outcomes (although this occurred in the UK before 1995).

Follow-up is recorded in each institution�s Annual Report.

Fast track involving the Higher Education Inspectorate (reporting to Minister) for dealing with seriously unsatisfactory provision.

Follow-up process purely internal (except in rare cases of provision officially deemed unsatisfactory), but falls within scope of next institution-wide academic audit (now �Institutional Review�) and relevant to the next subject-based review in the same area.

- 75 -

Appendix 5: The Role of the UCEA

Figure 25: Description of the role of the UCEA, from its web-site (http://www.ucea.ac.uk)

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES EMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION

OBJECTIVES

The two objectives of the UCEA are:

1. To promote and carry on as a non-profit making body the activities of an employers� association for subscribing universities and other higher education institutions in the United Kingdom and any of their representative bodies and associations including the provision of a framework within which representatives of institutions can discuss salaries, conditions of service, employee relations and all matters connected with the employment of staff and employees and by the negotiation of salaries, terms and conditions of service and employment-related matters on behalf of any institutions.

2. To act as a consultant and adviser to subscribing institutions and other bodies and persons on employment matters.

SERVICES

In pursuit of these objectives the UCEA will seek to provide the following services to subscribers and members:

1. Collective bargaining on pay and conditions of service at national level for academic and related administrative staffs, clerical, manual and technical staff.

2. Advice on the application and implementation of collective agreements.

3. Conciliation and mediation to assist in resolving local disputes where this is the wish of both parties.

4. Legal advice on employment matters (including professional legal advice where appropriate).

5. Research and provision of information and advice on current and good practice on personal issues.

6. Salary survey to identify trends especially in relation to senior posts.

7. Seminars on personnel and industrial relations issues.

8. Collection and analysis of staffing information in HE to support collective bargaining and to assist CVCP and SCoP, e.g.: with Public Expenditure Survey submissions.

9. Provision of a national focus for health and safety matters with human resource implications.

10. Operational support for the Competencies Consortium established by a large group of universities and colleges (with a view to devising a job evaluation system (HERA) appropriate for all staff in HE institutions).

- 76 -

Appendix 6: Problem-based Learning by Bland Tomkinson

Introduction

As an incidental to the main study itinerary, the Faculty of Architecture at the TUD was visited to find out more about the experience of Dutch universities in introducing problem-based learning (PBL). This appendix necessarily focuses on the experience of one faculty in one university and it is, therefore, difficult to draw out too many lessons. PBL appears to have been implanted in the psyche of Dutch universities for much longer than has been the case in the UK and has more widespread (if sometimes somewhat nominal) acceptance.

The need for PBL

The move to problem-based learning was prompted by an adverse report during the 1989 VSNU visit to the faculty. In particular, the visiting party had picked up on the need to better integrate lectures and practical design classes. Also there was concern about inadequacies in assessment, with too much emphasis on artistic and aesthetic elements. The move to PBL followed in 1990. Advice was sought from the University of Limburg (Maastricht), which had experience in this approach to teaching. A co-ordinator was recruited with previous experience of PBL in Policy Sciences at the University of Nijmegen.

The development of PBL

Although PBL had been introduced to a fairly tight timescale, the experience has been reviewed and this evaluation has been used to make progressive improvements to the system. Initially PBL was introduced to the first two years of teaching and it is still not the dominant style of delivery. A more recent report on the faculty revealed that some of the earlier problems persisted, particularly the integration of the underlying science and technology with the practical design classes. Some mathematics and physics (Building Physics, Applied Mechanics) has been integrated into the course, but some of it remains outside the PBL element.

Problems overcome

PBL was introduced into TUD without any training of the staff and this was initially quite a hurdle; even today, in excess of 600 hours are needed in the design of a module. The immediate effect of this has been to put additional pressure on the time of teaching staff. Guest teachers are employed to assist in

- 77 -

the teaching � in this case, architects in private practice provide the greatest element. Today, teachers are required to undertake a mandatory two-day training in didactic skills and also a one-day team briefing, which looks at working methods as well as content.

The �7-Jump� scheme used at Limburg has been found inappropriate at TUD and has been reduced to a four-stage model:

!" Defining the problem

!" Finding the information

!" Interpreting the information

!" Finding the answers.

An initial trade in log books and reports between successive years has been countered by changing the exercises.

Assessment has continued to cause some concern, and ways are being sought to deal with difficulties in giving individual scores for group work. A more pressing problem � which is to some extent unrelated to the method of delivery � has been to overcome a lack of competence in some key elements of the course (particularly those related to the underlying science) where an averaging system has allowed students to pass on to the next stage.

Conclusions

!" Universities in the Netherlands have a long (greater than ten years�) experience of implementing problem-based learning;

!" If PBL is to be introduced successfully, it needs careful planning and support, not least in building commitment amongst academic staff;

!" Care needs to be taken to integrate the practical and theoretical aspects of a subject;

!" Assessment has to be carefully planned from the beginning, to be appropriate to the method of learning and relevant to the learning objectives;

!" PBL can be time-consuming, but use can be made of external teachers who can bring in additional expertise;

!" A PBL course should be continually reviewed to ensure its effectiveness.

- 78 -

Bibliography

The International Context

Bologna Declaration, The (June 1999)

The Dutch National Context

Assessment of Research Quality, Protocol 1998 (VSNU, 1998)

Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst Nederlandse Universiteiten (CAO), 1999- 2000 (VSNU, 1999): collective employment agreement, English version

Description of the Netherlands� higher education system: prepared for the EU Diploma Supplement initiative

Education in the Netherlands (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen, February 1998)

Education, Culture and Science in the Netherlands: Facts and Figures 1999 (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen, 1999): this publication is updated annually, and the current version can generally be found on the Ministry web-site

Flexibele studiefinanciering � een stelsel dat past (February 1999): �Flexible study funding � a framework that fits� � Ministerial proposal for a new system of student funding

Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoek Plan (HOOP) 2000: four-year plan for higher education finalised by the Ministry shortly before the AUA study visit; references to section numbers are in the form �1.1�

Houdende Wijziging van de Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek in verband met de bestuursorganisatie van de medezeggenschap in universiteiten (modernisering universitaire bestuursorganisatie (27 February 1997): legislation containing the MUB provisions

Invoering Bachelor-Master systeem in het hoger onderwijs, Onderwijsraad, Adviesnr. 20000417/528 (5 juli 2000): the Rinnooy Kan report

Klankbordgroep Invoering MUB (1998): informal report of a national focus group which reviewed the range of institutional responses to MUB

Quality Assessment Made to Measure: Protocol for VSNU External Quality Assessment of Teaching 2000-2005 (VSNU, August 1999): plus separate, individual subject-based reports on teaching quality assessments, including in particular Medicine (1999), Communication Studies (1999), Biology (1996), and Mathematics (1995)

- 79 -

The Street of the Silversmiths: Joint strategies for promoting international consortia in higher education (NUFFIC, n.d.)

Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU, August 1999)

Wat is de VSNU?/What is the VSNU? (VSNU, July 1997)

Institutional Material

Universiteit van Amsterdam

Acherman, Hans, Strategic Governance and Decentralised Accountable Leadership: the Case of the University of Amsterdam (1998)

De Klerk, Rob, Klaas Visser & Liesbeth van Welie, Quality Assessment and Educational Policy at the Universiteit van Amsterdam (1998)

Kader � Interne Kwaliteitszorg Onderwijs (UvA, 1999)

Leydesdorff, Loet & Rob de Klerk, An Innovating Introductory Course at the University of Amsterdam (prepared for publication in the International Journal of Science Education)

Universiteit en Hogeschool van Amsterdam (UHA): publicity relating to the Aansluitprogramma

Universiteit van Amsterdam: Actieplan Onderwijs (1999)

Wervings-en selectiebeleid ten aanzien van hoogleraren (UvA): policy document relating to academic staff recruitment applicable at the time of the study visit

Technische Universiteit Delft

Images of Quality: advice from the ad hoc advisory committee of Delft University of Technology on yearly quality assurance for education and research (c. 1998)

Instellingsplan 2000�03: Implementatieplan 2000 (TUD, 1999)

Policy on Internationalisation of Delft University of Technology, The (1999)

Professional Human Resources Management � cornerstone of a new engagement (TUD, 1998)

Wakker, K F, Strategic Quality Management at Delft University of Technology (1998 )

Universiteit Utrecht

Betrekken en Binden (UU Adviescommissie Kwaliteit Onderwijs, 1999): report of an internal conference on learning and teaching

Handleiding � kwaliteitsplan onderwijs (UU, 1998)

Herfs, Paul, Student Counselling at Utrecht University, (International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 1995/96)

Hijman, Marie, Introducing teaching qualities in academic careers (paper presented at International Meeting of University Administrators, January

- 80 -

1996 & based on paper at AIR Conference, Boston, by Fried Keeson & Erwin Vermuelen, May 1995)

Universitair Kader Opleidingstatuut (UU, 2000)

Universiteit Utrecht: 2010 in perspective: strategic planning document

Werkboek � hoe maak it een extreme beordeling tot een success? (UU, 1999)

Web-sites

(Note: URLs listed were current at the time of the visit but will not be updated)

Dutch sites

NUFFIC � http://www.nuffic.nl

TUD � http://www.tudelft.nl

UU � http://www.uu.nl

UvA � http://www.uva.nl

VSNU � http://www.vsnu.nl

UK sites

HESA � http://www.hesa.ac.uk

National Committee of Enquiry into higher education (the Dearing report, 1997) � http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe

QAA � http://www.qaa.ac.uk

UCEA � http://www.ucea.ac.uk

Other

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology � http://www.abet.org

CRE (with link to Bologna Declaration pages) � http://www.unige.ch/cre

European Commission Education Programmes (with link to Diploma Supplement pages) � http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/progr.html

- 81 -

Glossary Aansluitprogramma � the Crossover Programme at UvA, a project to create links

with school students in forty designated schools; it seeks to make better information available to them, and to increase access to higher education.

ABET � see Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology.

ACKO � see Adviescommissie Kwaliteit Onderwijs.

ACO � see Advies Commissie Onderwijsaanbod.

accreditatie � usually translated as �accreditation�, but actual usage is in fact closer to �(external) validation�, as these terms are used in the UK outside the specific context of professional bodies.

Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) � US-based quality assurance body in the engineering area which also reviews degree programmes outside the USA (e.g., at TUD).

Adviescommissie Kwaliteit Onderwijs � an internal committee dealing with educational quality matters, known as AKO at TUD and ACKO at UU.

Advies Commissie Onderwijsaanbod (ACO) � a national committee to advise on proposed new degree programmes; its abolition was recommended under Rinnooy Kan proposals (July 2000).

afdeling � department.

AHUA � see Association of Heads of University Administrations.

AIO � see Assistant in Opleiding.

AKO � see Adviescommissie Kwaliteit Onderwijs.

alpha programmes � academic subjects in the humanities.

Assistant in Opleiding (AIO) � Research Assistant concurrently registered for a doctorate; this is the standard way in which Dutch research students are funded; see also OIO.

Association of Heads of University Administrations (AHUA) � professional body for heads of university administrations in the UK.

Association of University Administrators (AUA) � professional body for university administrators in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.

AUA � see Association of University Administrators.

beta programmes � academic subjects in the exact sciences and technology.

bindend studieadvies � right of universities and hogescholen to force an unsuccessful student to abandon a degree programme; as at April 2000, not

- 82 -

used by universities other than Leiden. (An analogous procedure for the hogescholen is, however, commonly used.)

Bologna-verklaring � Bologna Declaration.

CAO � see Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst.

CATS � see Credit Accumulation and Transfer System.

Centrale Registratie Opleidingen Hoger Onderwijs (CROHO) � register of state-recognised degrees in the Netherlands.

Club of Thirty-One � a senior management team at UU.

Collectieve Arbeidsovereenkomst (CAO) � collective employment agreement; a nationally-negotiated agreement between trades unions representing all university employees and the VSNU, which acts on behalf of the universities.

College van Bestuur � �Executive Board� is the most common translation; could also be �Management Board�.

Commissie Rinnooy Kan � commission set up to advise the Dutch government on the implications of the Bologna Declaration (reported July 2000).

Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP) � name for the umbrella body for UK institutions of higher education at the time of the study visit; succeeded by Universities UK (q.v.).

Communicatiewetenschap � Communication Studies.

Conférence des recteurs européens (CRE) � association of heads of European universities.

Conference of University Administrators (CUA) � a predecessor body to the AUA; the 1987 study visit to the Netherlands took place under the auspices of the CUA.

CRE � see Conférence des recteurs européens.

Credit Accumulation and Transfer System (CATS) � in the UK; see also SCOTCAT.

CROHO � see Centrale Registratie Opleidingen Hoger Onderwijs.

CUA � see Conference of University Administrators.

CVCP � see Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.

decaan (pl. decanen) � dean.

Dearing Report � informal name for the report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education, under Lord Dearing (reported in 1997).

doctoraal � award at the normal (as at 2000) first exit point for university graduates (! English �doctoral�); the academic level is defined by the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture & Science as Master�s level.

doctorandus (drs) � academic title of a person with a doctoraal degree (q.v.) from a Dutch university.

- 83 -

duale opleidingen � degree programmes in which academic and work-based learning are integrated; in universities, mainly used in the context of teacher training.

Educatorium � an acclaimed recent building at the UU, combining lecture theatres with catering, social, and exhibition spaces.

EOS � see Europees Overdrachtsysteem van Studiebelastingpunten.

EU � European Union.

Europees Overdrachtsysteem van Studiebelastingpunten (EOS) � European Credit Transfer Scheme (ECTS); Dutch term rarely used except in official EU publications.

Faculteitsbestuur � Management Committee at faculty level in the (few) universities which have not chosen to have an executive dean under MUB provisions.

faculteitsraad (pl. faculteitsraden) � consultative body at faculty level in a university with ongedeelde medezeggenschap (q.v.).

FLOW � see Functies, Loopbanen en Waardering (regeling voor het wetenschappelijk personeel).

FTE � full-time equivalent, used for staff or student numbers.

Functies, Loopbanen en Waardering (regeling voor het wetenschappelijk personeel) (FLOW) � Functions, Careers and Rating (rules and regulations for the academic staff), a personnel policy document at UU.

gamma programmes � academic subjects in the social sciences.

gedeelde medezeggenschap � see medezeggenschap.

geldstroom (pl. geldstromen) � funding stream; there are three main funding streams for higher education.

Groepsraad � committee within the central management structure of TUD, comprising the deans and the members of the College van Bestuur.

Handicap en Studie � a central Bureau responsible for assisting disabled students from secondary school onwards.

HAVO � see hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs.

HBO � see hoger beroepsonderwijs.

HERA � UK system (in pilot phase in 2000) for mapping all posts in universities on to a common grading structure.

HOBEK � government financial model for higher education.

hoger algemeen voortgezet onderwijs (HAVO) � a sector of the Dutch school system, primarily preparing pupils for entry to the HBO sector of higher education.

hoger beroepsonderwijs (HBO) � literally �higher professional/vocational education�; the type of higher education delivered in the hogescholen.

hoger ondewijs � higher education.

- 84 -

Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoek Plan (HOOP) � Higher Education and Research Plan, a national planning document for higher education (published 2000; next due 2004).

hogeschool (pl. hogescholen) � non-university sector college delivering the vocational category of higher education known as HBO (q.v.).

HOOP � see Hoger Onderwijs en Onderzoek Plan.

IDEA � A recently-established European consortium of higher education institutions in the Engineering area (comprising Imperial College London, TUD, ETH-Zurich, and Aachen universities, the acronym deriving from the names of the partner institutions).

Implementatieplan � implementation plan.

ingenieur (ing) � academic title of an engineering graduate from a hogeschool.

ingenieur (ir) � academic title of an engineering graduate from a university.

Instellingsplan � institutional plan.

kandidaat � intermediate university examination between propedeuse (q.v.) and doctoraal (q.v.); at present (2000) not extensively used, but expected to become more prominent as the Bologna first cycle award in Dutch universities.

Keuzegids Hoger Onderwijs � a �consumer guide� to Dutch higher education.

Klankbordgroep Invoering MUB � working group (1997/98) initiated by the Ministry of Education, Culture & Science on the impact of MUB in universities.

KNAW � see Koninglijke Nederlandse Academic van Wetenschappen.

Koninglijke Nederlandse Academic van Wetenschappen (KNAW) � Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.

MBO � see middelbaar beroepsonderwijs.

medezeggenschap � legal mechanism for representation of students and staff in the management of Dutch universities under MUB provisions (q.v.); may be gedeelde medezeggenschap or ongedeelde medezeggenschap, according to whether students and staff are, respectively, represented on separate consultative bodies or jointly. The groups which are so constituted are termed medezeggenschapsorganen.

medezeggenschapsorganen � see medezeggenschap.

meester (mr) � title of a graduate in law.

middelbaar beroepsonderwijs (MBO) � part of the vocational stream of the Dutch educational system (see Figure 6).

milieutechnologie � environmental technology.

Ministerie von Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen (OCW) � Ministry of Education, Culture & Science.

Modernisering van de universitaire bestuursorganisatie (MUB) � amendment (in force since 1997) to the basic higher education law in the Netherlands,

- 85 -

dealing with matters of university governance both centrally and at programme management level.

MUB � see Modernisering van de universitaire bestuursorganisatie.

National Qualifications Framework (NQF) � structure at present (2000/01) under development in the UK, on to which all higher education qualifications are to be mapped.

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) � Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research; the conventional translation of wetenschappelijk as �scientific� is in fact unduly narrow in this context, as NWO funds academic research in non-science as well as science disciplines.

NL � the Netherlands (as in currency abbreviations).

NQF � see National Qualifications Framework.

NUFFIC � Netherlands organisation for international co-operation.

NWO � see Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek.

OCW � see Ministerie von Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen.

OIO � see Onderzoeker in Opleiding.

ondernemingsraad � university-level consultative body for staff in a university with gedeelde medezeggenschap (q.v.).

Onderwijs en Evaluatie Rapport � a student-feedback mechanism at UU.

onderwijsdirecteur (pl. onderwijsdirecteurs) � director of an onderwijsinstituut (q.v.) at UvA.

onderwijsinstituut (pl. onderwijsinstituten) � teaching institute at UvA.

Onderwijsraad � standing independent body advising the Dutch government on educational matters on request.

Onderzoeker in Opleiding (OIO) � equivalent of an AIO (q.v.), but employed by the NWO rather than a university.

onderzoekinstituut (pl. onderzoekinstituten) � research institute.

onderzoekschool (pl. onderzoekscholen) � research school.

ongedeelde medezeggenschap � see medezeggenschap.

opleiding (pl. opleidingen) � degree programme; also, by extension, the members of staff responsible for the delivery of the degree programme.

opleidingscommissie (pl. opleidingscommissies) � Advisory committee for a degree programme committee, including substantial student input. (Sometimes known in English translations as �Education Committee�.)

opleidingsdirecteur (pl. opleidingsdirecteuren) � programme director; cf. opleiding.

opleidingsstatuut (pl. opleidingsstatuten) � formal document describing the curricular structures, modes and organisation of assessment, and overall management arrangements that apply to particular degree programmes; may also be presented in such a way as to

- 86 -

incorporate more general information derived from the university�s Studentenstatuut (q.v.).

prestatiebeurs � student loan paid with the normal expectation that it will be converted into a grant if the student obtains credits at the minimum prescribed rate.

PBL � Problem-based learning, as discussed in Appendix 6.

Professional Master � degree/academic title proposed by the Commissie Rinnooy Kan for Masters� degrees in hogescholen.

propedeuse � first level of university examination (in theory after one year, but generally passed later).

QA � quality assurance.

QAA � see Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) � UK body with a wide range of national policy-making and regulatory functions relating to higher education.

Raad (pl. Raden) van Toezicht � Supervisory Board; highest level committee in a Dutch university, with members appointed by the Minister of Education.

RAE � see Research Assessment Exercise.

Rector Magnificus � senior academic officer of a Dutch university (cf. vice-chancellor).

Research Assessment Exercise � the periodic review of research performance in the UK, conducted by the Funding Councils.

Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt (ROA) � Research Centre for Education and the Labour Market; an institute based in Maastricht, used by some Dutch universities for monitoring alumni employment patterns.

Rinnooy Kan � see Commissie Rinnooy Kan.

ROA � see Researchcentrum voor Onderwijs en Arbeidsmarkt.

SCOTCAT � Scottish equivalent of CATS (q.v.).

scriptie (pl. scripties) � dissertation.

secretaris � Secretary General.

Service en Informatie Centrum � the sort of facility which might be described as a one-stop-shop approach to student support.

SLC � see Student Loans Company.

studeerbarheid � Variously translated in English versions of official documents as �studyability� (a literal rendering), �consumability� and �practicability�; derives from a Ministry-funded initiative in 1996�98 to promote the review of curricular and related structures in order to improve student progression.

Student Loans Company (SLC) � company set up to administer the system of student loans in UK universities.

- 87 -

Studentenadviesbureau � the sort of facility which might be described as a one-stop-shop approach to student support.

studentenpsycholog (pl. studentenpsychologen) � professionally-trained counsellor offering support of a non-discipline-specific kind.

studentenraad (pl. studentenraden) � Student Council; university level consultative body for students in a university with gedeelde medezeggenschap (q.v.).

Studentenstatuut � regulations at institutional level setting out student rights and responsibilities.

studieadviseur (pl. studieadviseurs) � a student adviser primarily concerned with academic matters and often based in a department.

studiepunt (pl. studiepunten) � credit point.

Technische Universiteit Delft (TUD) � Delft University of Technology.

TUD � see Technische Universiteit Delft.

UCEA � see Universities and Colleges Employers Association.

Uithof � large campus on the outskirts of the city of Utrecht comprising a significant proportion of the UU�s estate.

UMIST � University of Manchester Institute of Science & Technology.

Universitair Strategisch Programma � the University Stategic Programme, a group of staff working on a project basis at UU.

universiteit � university.

Universiteit en Hogeschool van Amsterdam (UHA) � legal entity launched in 1998/99 as a vehicle for closer co-operation between UvA and the Hogeschool van Amsterdam.

Universiteit Utrecht (UU) � University of Utrecht.

Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA) � University of Amsterdam (a distinct institution from Vrije Universitiet van Amsterdam).

universiteitsraad (pl. universiteitsraden) � University Council; university consultative body in a university with ongedeelde medezeggenschap.

Universiteitsreglement � regulations at university level.

Universities and Colleges Employers Association � an employers� association for institutions in the UK, as described in Appendix 5.

Universities UK (UUK) � name for the umbrella body for UK institutions of higher education (successor to the CVCP, q.v.).

Utrechtse Ruit � Utrecht Diamond; university management structure at UU (as at 2000).

UU � see Universiteit Utrecht.

UUK � see Universities UK.

UvA � see Universiteit van Amsterdam.

Uvalon � centrally-managed student questionnaire system used by UvA.

vakgroep (pl. vakgroepen) � term for new departmental structures at UvA and UU.

- 88 -

Vereniging samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten (VSNU) � umbrella body for the Dutch universities, generally translated as the Association of Universities in the Netherlands, literally the Association of co-operating Universities in the Netherlands.

VMBO � see Voorbereidend Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs � A vocational stream of the Dutch educational system which can lead to entry to a hogeschool, but not directly to a university (see Figure 6).

voorbereidend wetenschappenlijk onderwijs (VWO) � sector of the Dutch school system primarily preparing pupils for entry to the university sector of higher education.

VSNU � see Vereniging samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten.

Wervings-en selectiebeleid ten aanzien van hoogleraren � Policy on the recruitment and selection of professors, a document at UvA.

Wet op de ondernemingsraden � law defining staff and student representation under gedeelde medezeggenschap (q.v.).

Wet op de studiefinancering (WSF 2000) � law governing financial support paid to students (passed in June 2000), based on the ministerial paper, Flexibele studiefinancering (February 1999).

Wet op het Hoger Onderwijs en Wettenschappelijk Onderzoek (WHW) � literally, Higher Education and Academic Research Law; the law governing a wide range of aspects of Dutch higher education, to which MUB was an amendment in 1997.

wetenschappenlijk onderwijs (WO) � university sector higher education (as opposed to HBO (q.v.).

Wiskunde � mathematics.

ver. 1.1 / 26 June 2001