The abolition of the basic student grant in 2015 means that many students now pay thousands of euros more for their education. On the plus side, assurances were given that universities and universities of applied sciences would use the extra available funds to improve the quality of their education. To this end, quality agreements were made with participation bodies and supervisory boards.

But then came the coronavirus crisis and the entire education system was turned upside down. Almost every aspect of education had to find a way forward online. So what will become of the quality agreements? Has the pandemic rendered them obsolete?

Sticking to quality

“Talks with universities and universities of applied sciences reveal that the funds for the quality agreements have been used to finance the transition to online education”, Van Engelshoven writes in a letter to the House of Representatives. “This transition has been accelerated by the coronavirus pandemic.”

It’s a development she seems fine with. “Within the currently approved agreements, there is room to realign the available budget to step up the quality of online education”, she adds.

But all this is news to the universities and universities of applied sciences. “As a rule, we are sticking to the quality agreements as they stand”, says Pieter Duisenberg, the president of the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU). “Of course, there are significant costs associated with our response to the coronavirus crisis. But we are not covering those costs with money earmarked for the quality agreements.”

Pandemic

In his view, the majority of these quality agreements can proceed as planned: more teaching staff, better guidance, education on a smaller scale... “In a pandemic, there is a real need for these things too. But we cannot ignore what is going on with the funding of our universities. We have a shortfall of 1.1 billion euros and funding per student continues to decline. The money freed up by the introduction of the loan system has simply slowed that decline a little.”

The higher professional education sector also has no plans to abandon the quality agreements as they stand. “Of course we don’t”, says Maurice Limmen of the Netherlands Association of Universities of Applied Sciences. “Those agreements are the result of painstaking consultation with participation bodies, and those investments are being channelled into a variety of themes.”

Many educational institutions had already included expenditure on digitisation in their quality agreements. Limmen therefore believes that any acceleration of IT investments can simply be slotted in as required. “These agreements take the form of multi-year plans and, in consultation with the participation bodies, there is scope to recalibrate budgets.”

Rapid decisions

But are the participation bodies that represent staff and student interests really in a position to negotiate effectively about such adjustments? Yes, say the relevant bodies in both higher professional and university education. “At the start of the coronavirus crisis, things were different”, says Karl van der Linde of Hbo Medezeggenschap, the foundation that supports student participation in higher professional education. “At that stage, the board had to make rapid decisions and there wasn’t always room for proper consultation.”

Even so, he believes that the quality agreements will end up being modified. “We suspect that many a good plan will wind up in the wastepaper basket due to the additional cost of responding to the crisis. The time is simply not right to achieve a demonstrable improvement in education. As it is, universities of applied sciences are stretched to the limit just to keep classes going.”

The money freed up by abolishing the basic student grant was never intended to cushion blows of this kind, he says. “That is something the next education minister will have to address.”

No extra funds to IT

At the universities, sometimes the opposite appears to be the case, with decision-makers insisting that no money from the quality agreements should be channelled into IT. Stijn van Uffelen from LOF, the national foundation for consultation groups, shares an example he heard only last week. “A student from a faculty council had proposed spending part of the money for the quality agreements on IT, but was told that the rules did not allow it. That proposal didn’t go ahead.”

While he stops short of painting a national picture, Van Uffelen notes that in a LOF webinar with representatives from five universities, no one had the impression that more money from the quality agreements had gone to IT.

So where does the Ministry of Education get that idea from? From ‘talks’ with universities and universities of applied sciences it would seem. But when asked for an explanation, a ministry spokesperson cautiously points out that the actual amounts spent on online education will only become clear in the annual reports of 2020 and 2021.

Shifting needs

And even then, the spokesperson adds, there would be nothing wrong with steering funds towards online education. “That wouldn’t involve throwing the quality agreements overboard.” Institutions have the latitude to bring forward expenditure in certain areas “according to the shifting needs of the education sector during the coronavirus crisis”. He is quick to point out, however, that any shifts should be properly coordinated with participation bodies and the supervisory board.

The coronavirus crisis has impacted us all, but the ministry does see one silver lining: a great deal of knowledge and experience is now being gained in the field of online education. Experience which “can help improve the quality of education even after the crisis is over”.