Presentation from webinar on 15 November 2021 on quality agreements in the Netherlands

1. 1
Performance agreements
The Netherlands
OECD 15 november 2021
Reinout van Brakel

2. 1 Institutional landscape
2

3. 3

4. Funding 1st and 2nd cycle
• Tuition fees
• Fixed grant for education
• Student dependent funding
• Enrollment fee
• Degree fee
• Different weighting factors
• Humanities & Social Sciences = 1,0
• Engineering and others = 1,5
• Medical = 3,0

5. Income of Dutch Research Universities (2020)
Direct Public Funding
€ 4.576M
58%
Dutch Research
Council
€ 479M
6%
EU
€ 399M
5%
Industry
€ 301M
4%
Post
Graduate
Education
€ 189M
2%
Non-
Profit
€ 259M
3%
Public
Govern
ment
Bodies
€ 257M
3%
Tuition Fees
€ 781M
10%

6. Breakdown of Direct Public Funding
Student based funding: 50% Enrollments & 50% Degrees

7. Representative advisory bodies
7
The Dutch law on higher education (WHW) includes extensive regulations on the
so called “medezeggenschap”, both at the central level of the institutions and at
faculty and program level.
When referring to the generic process of having a voice in decision-making,
medezeggenschap is usually translated as 'participation in decision-making'.
When referring to the actual bodies at the universities through whom
'participation in decision-making' takes place, medezeggenschap is usually
translated as 'representative advisory bodies’. Other terms used: ‘participation
bodies’.
Regulations have changed in the past few years, strengthening the role of the
participation bodies at the program level (opleidingscommissies), and specifying
the specific role of these bodies in reviewing the budget.

8. 2 Design features of institutional
agreements
8

9. System between 2012-2015
• 5% of the education budget linked to performance
agreements aimed at improving education quality and
study success.
– 7 common indicators, monitored by institutional
accountants and Review Committee
– Budget cuts (and redistribution) in case targets not
reached
• 2% of the education budget linked to specialisation and
focus to enhance diversity and quality of the higher
education landscape
– Resources assigned on the basis of plans of institutions.
9

10. What were the results in 2016?
10
Progress on 7 indicators, but…
• Too much focus on indicators had negative side
effects – students and staff felt too much pressure.
• Only 1 out of the 7 indicators could be measured
reliably and objectively.
• Attributing progress to additional funding nearly
impossible. Some of the indicators, like study
success, were already improving since 2008.
• All universities reached targets set, some UAS didn’t.
Budget cuts for UAS were perceived as unfair – and
were limited to 50% of planned budget cuts.

11. Developing a plan based on coalition agreement 2018
• The coalition agreement (for the new government) stated:
The budget saved by abandoning student loans will be linked to
performance agreements on institutional level. Institutions are free to set
their goals and indicators (…). These performance agreements will be
reviewed by an independent institution. At the end of the agreements, the
Ministry will decide whether the goals have been achieved. If the goals
have not been achieved by an institution, there will be budgetary
consequences in the future.”
11

12. Getting to a more effective system of agreements
12
• Decentralized approach: local ambitions and indicators
(institutional level).
• Not a fixed and obligatory set of indicators for each
institution.
• Use existing planning and control cycles of universities
• No new Review authority or Higher Education Authority, but
one single body that reviews.
• No role for institutional accountants
• Strong request for excluding financial
settlement/consequences
• Increase 4 year planning period to 6 or 7.
• Increasing overall transparency

13. Quality Agreements 2019-2024
• 5% of the education budget returns to fixed grant.
• Institutions develop their own plans
• This budget can be spent within 6 themes
• There is no obligation to formulate ambitions on all 6 themes
• There are no main/central indicators.
• This plan can be identical to an existing institutional plan.
• The plan includes a multi-annual budget
• Role of the representative advisory/ participation councils is strengthened
• Independent peer-review panels by the Dutch Accreditation Organisation
NVAO.
• Funding (million euro):
13
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
69 82 140 175 184 209

14. 6 themes
14
1.More intensive and small-scale education – e.g. smaller groups,
more teachers, improved student-staff ratio
2.More and better tutoring– e.g. more advisors or counselling
3.Educational achievement including accessibility and equal
opportunities – e.g. initiatives to prevent drop-out at beginning of
programmes.
4.Education differentiation – e.g. new, targeted courses to meet the
needs of students and employers.
5.Appropriate and good educational facilities – e.g. investment in
libraries or lab facilities
6.Further staff development – e.g. training for lecturers, opportunities
to improve research skills

15. Instruments accompanying the institutional agreements
National level
• National agreement with the representations of universities and universities
of applied science
• Legal framework describing the legal conditions for allocating the funds
• Agreement between ministry and the NVAO, outlining their tasks as
reviewer
• Protocol Assessment of quality agreements Higher Education 2019-2024 by
the NVAO, outlining the rules for the review committees
• Reviews and reports for Parliament
Institutional level
• Plans by institutions – linked to specific themes and submitted to the NVAO
• Separate paragraph in the annual report by the universities, describing the
process and results of the Quality agreements
• Independent review by the representative advisory councils as part of the
public annual report
15

16. 3 Evaluation of achievements
16

17. Three phases of reporting
17
1. 2019: assessment of the plans in which the
institutions specify how they intend to spend their
grants;
2. 2022: assessment of the realisation of the plans;
Annual reports 2019-2021 are the basis for the mid-term review
in 2022.
3. from 2023 on: evaluation of the realisation of the
plans.
Only in cases where plans are considered inadequate, can the
rise in the annual budget be blocked for any institution.

18. Criteria assessment phase 1
18
1. Criterion 1 The plan makes a reasoned contribution to improving
educational quality. The institute’s proposals for the revenues from
the student loan system and the aims it seeks to realise with them
in relation to the named educational quality themes are clearly
formulated and are in keeping with the institute’s context, history,
and broad vision.
2. Criterion 2 The internal stakeholders are sufficiently involved with
the drawing up of the plan and there is sufficient support among
internal and external stakeholders.
3. Criterion 3 The proposals in the plan are realistic in the light of the
proposed use of the instruments and resources, and of the
institute’s organisation and processes.

19. Criteria assessment phase 3
19
1. Criterion 1 Up to 2024, the institute has sufficiently
realised its proposals, bearing in mind the efforts
that have been made and how it has dealt with
unforeseen circumstances.
2. Citerion 2 The participation bodies and other
relevant stakeholders have been sufficiently involved
during the implementation of the plan.
Source:
https://www.nvao.net/files/attachments/.97/Protocol_Assessment_of_quality_agreements_High
er_Education_2019_2024.pdf

20. 4 Key lessons
20

21. How is the budget spent?
21
• Large part spent on
intensive and small-
scale education,
which often means
hiring more teachers
• Small part of budget
spent on educational
achievement.
451
89
32
83
94
100
Intensive and small scale education Better tutoring
Study Success Educational Differentiation
Education facilities Professionalisation of teachers

22. Conclusions on effects so far
22
1. Better quality of education through direct and an
indirect, cultural effect
• Direct effect: investment in quality pays off
• Cultural effect: as a result of the quality
agreements, institutions were requested to think
more explicitly what quality means, having a
cultural effect
2. Dialogue between board and participation councils
improved

23. Discussion and learning points
23
1. Large part of the budget has been spent on ‘filling the gaps’ in
educational staff. One can question whether money from the
quality agreements should have been spent on filling up these
gaps, as these funds were meant to be additional to the core
budget.
2. Large part of the budget is spent by faculties and programmes,
instead of centrally. Strengthening the participation councils at
decentral/ faculty level is important for improving involvement
and decision making at the level were money is spent.
3. The open formulation of goals and lack of KPIs will keep the
pressure on the ministry in terms of accountability – it is difficult
to keep trust when evidence on impact is qualitative.
4. Context has changed dramatically. In 2021 and 2022 universities
get an additional 43.8 and 39.8 million euros for dealing with the
Covid-crisis.

24. Thank you!
24