Quality assurance in higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders

• Conclusions
• Quality assurance
• Supervision
• Comparison of the two systems

The quality of higher education is important for the development of the knowledge-based economy and the economic position of the Netherlands and Flanders. The Netherlands introduced a transparent system of external quality assurance in 2002 and Flanders in 2005. The Netherlands Court of Audit and the Court of Audit of Belgium have carried out a joint audit of quality assurance in higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders. The two organisations published their report, Quality Assurance in Higher Education in the Netherlands and Flanders, on 4 September 2008.

Conclusions

By means of external assessment and accreditation, quality assurance enables higher education institutions to measure and improve the quality of the education they provide. Our general conclusion is that the quality assurance system for higher education has been implemented well. The internal quality assurance systems used by the institutions are also sufficiently comprehensive. Improvements can be made in a number of areas, however, for example in the formulation of targets and the involvement of alumni and the profession.

The accreditation process has also been well organised. Higher education institutions in Flanders and the Netherlands are accredited by an independent body, the Netherlands-Flanders Accreditation Organisation (NVAO). All too frequently, however, the assessment panels and the NVAO do not base their conclusions on substantive aspects of the quality of education. Moreover, the assessment panels are not always sufficiently specific or clearly reasoned, even though the NVAO has to rely on them. There is therefore a risk of courses being accredited even if they are not entirely up to standard.

Up

Quality assurance

With regard to external quality assurance, we conclude that the self-assessment reports prepared by university and HBO (higher professional education) departments are of use to the assessment panels. It is not always evident, however, why the assessment panels arrive at a particular conclusion. The NVAO has organised its procedures and activities well and defined them by means of regulations, protocols and plans. It takes clear decisions that it then makes public.

To improve external quality assurance, the Belgian and Dutch Courts of Audit recommend that study programmes be reviewed and accredited in groups wherever possible in order to improve the comparability of conclusions. This would also ensure the accuracy of the opinions. The Belgian and Dutch Courts of Audit also recommend that the NVAO improve its supervision of the selection of panel members. The panels should base their assessment activities on the quality of the self-evaluations and decide for themselves who they interview and which documents they inspect. Furthermore, the free-market strategy for assessments in the Netherlands should be reconsidered.

The cost of quality assurance is uncertain. The Belgian and Dutch Courts of Audit therefore recommend that the institutions improve their monitoring of the cost of internal and external quality assurance so that they can take efficiency measures to improve implementation.

Up

Supervision

With regard to the supervision of the quality assurance system, we recommend that the Dutch Minister of Education ensure that it is clear which study programmes are accredited. We also recommend that the Minister put an end to the irregular financing of study programmes that are temporarily unaccredited and the unlawful awarding of diplomas as soon as possible. We recommend that the Committee of Ministers work more closely together in reforming the accreditation system and harmonising legislation.

Up

Comparison of the two systems

With regard to comparisons between the two accreditation systems, the NVAO and the Flemish quality assessment agencies should consult each other in a more systematic manner. It should be determined whether the performance of the quality assessment agencies can be harmonised. The roles of the NVAO and the quality assessment agencies should be defined more clearly. It should also be determined whether accreditation without the use of intermediary organisations would be possible and desirable.

We further recommend that a study be carried out to determine whether the separate assessment of teaching and research can be better synchronised in the case of accreditation of university courses or at least how the quality of research can be included more specifically in the assessment of teaching. Finally, we recommend that the harmonisation of accreditation periods of validity be considered and that the possibility and/or desirability of making the periods of validity more flexible be studied.

Up