Evaluation and accreditation of education in The Netherlands Karl Dittrich,

1. Evaluation and accreditation of education in The Netherlands Karl Dittrich, Amsterdam, April 12 2013

2. HISTORY Universities started evaluation process in 1986 Answer to enlarged autonomy Organized by VSNU, in separate domains Each six years On programme level Peer review Directed mainly towards improvement

3. HISTORY Evaluation reports have been published Got broad attention by newspapers System functioned well, but we learned the rules of the game Almost daily routine

4. Bologna process System of bachelors and masters External q.a. mechanism Dutch government wanted accountability introduction of accreditation system on top of evaluation Together with Flanders NVAO as accreditation agency For whole Higher Education system

5. Dutch HE-system 14 Research universities 42 Universities of applied science ±65 Private H.E.-institutions

6. Dutch HE-system

7. Principles Programma level Self education report is starting point Peer review Site visit Open report Accreditation basis for funding (yes or no) Each six years

8. Evaluation framework (2003 – 2010) Six standards, 21 criteria Goals and objectives Content and examinations Quality and quantity of staff Facilities and counseling Internal QA system Results and outcomes

9. Appreciation (2003 – 2010) Positive: Good basis for quality; “wrecks’ have been removed Internal q.a. improved Internationally well understood

10. Appreciation (2003 – 2010) Negative: Too much attention on processes and protocols Fear for negative results Enormous administrative burden New ‘caste’ of q.a. staff Little room for improvement; accountability dominated

11. New system (2011 – now) Institutional audit on ‘internal q.a.’ Combined with limited or extensive programme evaluation ‘Recovery period’ for negative evaluation on programme level

12. New system (2011 – now)

13. New system (2011 – now) Five standards for institutional audit Vision and ambition Policy Information system Improvement measures Organizational structure and quality culture

14. New system (2011 – now) Standards for limited programme evaluation What do you want to achieve? How do you want to do this? Do you achieve what you promise?

15. New system (2011 – now) Standards for extensive programme evaluation Standards for limited evaluation Internal QA Facilities Staff

16. Tentatively appreciation (2011 – now) Institutional audit is substantial; thus ‘fear’ for negative outcome New incentive for internal q.a. Executive boards more attention for quality of education New administrative burden (Almost) no reduction on administrative burden on programme level

17. Composition of panels Experts in discipline or field or profession Knowledge of international development in disciplines, field or profession ‘Educational’ expert Experienced auditor Student

18. What about the labour market? Labour market is especially involved in ‘professional programmes’ through: Definition of learning outcomes, qualifications in programmes Membership in panels Empoyability figures Employers are actively involved in site visits