The Appeals Tribunal for Higher Education (CBHO) gives a final ruling on cases – some 250 each year – lodged by students who disagree with decisions made by education institutions. Such cases might concern, among other things, the binding study advice, tuition fees or presumed plagiarism. At TU/e, the decision made last academic year to lift two conditions for being eligible for a board grant (a first-year diploma requirement and the 75 percent credit rule) was directly related to a previous ruling made by the CBHO regarding the Student Financial Support Fund at TU Delft. By now, the requirement that student board members need to obtain fifteen credits during their board year has also been dropped.

The Appeals Tribunal for Higher Education (CBHO) makes rulings on cases brought by students against their educational institution on issues such as the binding recommendation on continuation of studies, tuition fees and alleged plagiarism. The tribunal hears around 250 cases per year.

But if the House of Representatives agrees, this special court, which has been in existence since 1993, will be disbanded. This is contained in a bill on vocational education that was introduced by the previous government.

One of the proposals in the bill is that the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State would be better suited to carry out the tasks of the CBHO. The continuity of this small court would then be better safeguarded. Moreover, similar legal protection for secondary vocational education could be instituted at the same time.

The House of Representatives will discuss it next week with the Minister of Education Robbert Dijkgraaf. It is his first debate.

Rapid turnaround

His predecessor, Ingrid van Engelshoven, felt that the change would make little difference to students, because the court fees would remain low and there should still be a rapid turnaround. The expertise of the judges would not be lost either; most of the CBHO judges already partly work for the Council of State.

So far, the House of Representatives has asked very few questions about it. Members of the House are particularly happy that students in secondary vocational education would get more legal protection; that is actually what the bill is all about.

Some lawyers have major misgivings about the bill. Even the Advisory Division of the Council of State has its criticisms. Can there really still be a rapid turnaround? “The Division is not entirely convinced about that.”

“A foolish plan”, was how an educational lawyer described the proposal at a meeting of colleagues of the Dutch Education Law Association (VvO). Another said bluntly: “I’m against it.” Among those present were judges, barristers, other lawyers and students.

Doubts

Doubts were expressed about the legal protection of students by the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, which has only recently offered its apologies for the treatment received by parents in the childcare benefits scandal. Do you really want to send students there?

Not everyone has a negative view, however. The National Student Law Office LSR (part of the Dutch National Students' Association ISO), for example, sees few problems – even though the government’s plan appeared rather late on the radar. “The change had been hidden from the student organisations for a long time”, says LSR chair Bas van ’t Hek, “and the ministry got us involved only at a late stage.”

But he says the ministry has promised him that the current, specialist judges will continue their work and that support will continue normally. Furthermore, if the judges continue dealing with the cases quickly, Van ’t Hek sees no practical disadvantages. “Should that not be the case, we will be the first to call attention to it.”

The CBHO judges sometimes have a considerable influence on higher education. For instance, they have previously reined in educational institutions over issues relating to the binding recommendation on continuation of studies and the strict deadline for the re-enrolment of students.