Education Inspectorate: Faster intervention when education goes wrong
A failed educational innovation, few teachers, useless subjects... If things suddenly go wrong in education, who intervenes? There is a “gap” in the supervision of universities and colleges, the Education Inspectorate believes.
Just as cars must pass an annual MOT, higher education programs must get approval from the Education Inspectorate NVAO every six years. Without “accreditation,” they are not allowed to award diplomas and their students cannot get study grants.
Accreditation is sometimes criticized. Isn't it a paper tiger? Doesn't it take too much time? What does that inspection really say about the quality of education? Politicians continue to tinker with the system.
But this accreditation is “generally fine,” writes the Education Inspectorate in its final report on accreditation in higher education. Students can assume that the quality of their education is in order.
Powerless
At least, at the time of inspection. But six years between two accreditations is quite a long time. In the meantime, things can change. What if the quality deteriorates? Neither the Inspectorate nor the Education Inspectorate NVAO can intervene as long as a program complies with laws and regulations.
The Inspectorate calls this the “supervision gap.” The NVAO should conduct interim visits if there are signs that quality has declined drastically, the inspectors believe. This is something they would like to discuss with the minister and NVAO.
Independent
There are also additional things that could be improved, according to the Inspectorate. Last year, there were already several recommendations in the first part of the survey. Because who pays the panel of experts that comes to inspect a program? The university or college itself. The Inspectorate calls this a perverse incentive and argues for greater independence.
And how high do programs aim? Experts should be able to judge more strictly the “intended learning outcomes” of a program. The only problem is if they give a failing grade for this, the program of study must close its doors immediately. So things must be very bad if the examiners decide to criticize this point. But if courses of study can be given a second chance, it can be expected that these experts would judge more harshly.
Politicians also once thought that there should be a difference between judging and recommendations. An open conversation regarding possible improvements should be possible between the panel and the program. Since 2018, such a “development conversation” has been mandatory. But this has achieved little, according to the Inspectorate. It feels forced.
The Inspectorate suggests stopping this and putting the improvement recommendations prominently in the visitation report as before.
Institutional accreditation
Will government inspections of programs disappear? There have been discussions for years about so-called “institution accreditation.” Like now, programs would then be inspected by external experts, but universities and colleges would be allowed to make the final assessment themselves. The NVAO would then only check on whether they do this properly and give the stamp of approval to the entire university or college at once.
The Education Council, among others, warned of the dangers of such a new system. “However you set it up, let the NVAO continue to inspect the quality of individual programs,” said Chair Edith Hooge. “The government should not depend solely on the judgment of education administrators themselves.”
But Minister Dijkgraaf waved away these objections last year. He wanted to introduce the new system as early as 2025, but after the collapse of the cabinet, he deferred this decision to his successor.
The Education Inspectorate takes a neutral stance but says that a new accreditation system must be at least as reliable as the old one. A national organization such as the NVAO is indispensable for this. Among other things, it should check beforehand whether the members of review panels are truly independent.
