The Dutch Public Policy on the Funding of Higher Education

The Dutch Public Policy on the Funding of Higher Education

H

igher Education is often considered to be of essence to a Nation’s future, as it brings forth a bright new generation apt to ensure a prosperous continuity in both private and public sectors. That is why, when the libertarian Cabinet Rutte-I in the Dutch Government proposed a new policy change regarding its financing back in 2010, it caused an incredible controversy dividing the country. In fact, it took no less than five years to finally implement the first change to the policy and even still, now, in 2019, the policy is often vigorously criticised by groups and organisation going from political parties to informal local protest groups. I think it is fair to say that every single Dutch person who has had something to do with Higher Education in the last couple of years will not only have knowledge on the policy available, but most likely will also have a strong opinion on it. Reasons enough to investigate the process of this policy-making thoroughly.

The law the former public policy was based on, and which was modified for the desired policy change, was the “Wet Studiefinanciering 2000”^[1] (Law on the Financing of Studies), which originally came into effect in the year 2000. It concerns the policy of funding of studies in the Higher Education system, which, in the Netherlands, is a term used to describe all education offered after the Secondary Education (VMBO, HAVO and VWO), internationally comparable to middle school and high school combined. Formerly, all students in the three higher educational levels of “MBO” (practical college), “Hogeschool” (college) and “Universiteit” (university) received a “basic bursary” by the State, the amount of which depended on the level of education, as well as on whether the student still lived with their parents or not. It would be around hundred or three-hundred euros a month. Another complementary bursary was offered depending on their parents’ income and could get up to almost three-hundred euros a month. Next to this, all students could travel by public transport for free in either the weekend or in weekdays for the nominal studying period plus three years, and college and university students could additionally apply for a Government loan and “tuition fee credits” for an attractive interest (about five-hundred euros a month maximum), which they would have to pay back within fifteen years after finishing their studies. If their first study was not completed within ten years, those travel costs and the basic bursary would have to be paid back as well. If the students earned too much in a job beside this, their right to the basic bursary would be lifted. Moreover, three-quarters of the tuition fees for the first bachelor’s and master’s study were paid for by the State too.

As the Dutch authorities systematically upload to the internet all correspondence between the Parliament (in the Netherlands consisting of the Second and the First Chamber of the State General) and the Cabinet, all internal sessions of both parliamentary chambers, as well as all the economic and judicial advice all involved parties gather, a reasonably complete chronicle of events was able to be set out. Although the sequential model of Jones (identification, development, implementation, evaluation and accomplishment) is not perfect for describing the progress of the making of this public policy, because of continual and cyclic changes to it, I will nonetheless make use of his method to structure this paper, in order to demonstrate the evolution of the policy chronologically and step by step, making it easier to comprehend as a whole. Moreover, the complexity of the public policy goes far beyond this paper and only a part of it will be discussed.

In this paper, first it will come forward that if the policy change was anticipated to be a fairly small one in 2010, it soon became substantially bigger. Secondly, it will become clear that following changing political realities, the policy was altered several times, eventually becoming an almost complete reform of the policy for the funding of studies in the Higher Education. Finally, it will be observed that more recently, evaluations have been published, which, in their turn, led to yet other changes and possible future adaptations.

IDENTIFICATION

The first traces for a desire for a new public policy on the financing of the Higher Education system in the Netherlands can be found in April 2010, when the Veerman Commission “Toekomstbestendig Hoger Onderwijs Stelsel” (Future-Proof Higher Education System) publicly published a rapport^[2] in which it gave an advice on whether the system in the Netherlands could cope with the growing number of students in Higher Education institutions and if not, what should be done about it. The motivation for its research was the request of the Minister of Education, Culture and Science at the time, Ronald Plasterk, in his last months in function. This member of the political party PVDA (Labour Party), left on the political sphere, was not the Minister receiving the results of the rapport, though. In between there were parliamentary elections, which were won by the rightist VVD party, who, having formed an alliance with several small parties, put Marja van Bijsterveldt in the position. She is a member of the Christen Democrat Party (CDA), considered to pursue centre-rightist policies. Hence, it is she who accepted the rapport in April 2010 and who had to decide to change Government policy or not. The results of the rapport were harsh but straight-forward: the system in place was not future-proof. Advice: “Give a powerful (financial) impulse to improve the quality and diversity of the Dutch Higher Education system.” To be able to realise this, seven propositions were presented to the Government. One of them suggested a reduction of dependence of the Higher Education institutions on funding based solely on student numbers. Rather, funding should be given to specific programmes, over which the institutions could compete with each other. It is this research that VVD State Secretary Halbe Zijlstra refers to in his policy note to the Chair of the Second Chamber of the State General the 14 of March 201^[3]. Additionally, he mentions a research from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) of 2008, utilising the following quote: “Use cost-sharing between the State and students as the principle to shape the funding of tertiary education. In light of the evidence of the private benefits of a tertiary degree, graduates could bear some of the cost of the services offered by tertiary institutions. (...) Cost-sharing allows systems to continue to expand with no apparent sacrifice of instructional quality and makes institutions more responsive to student needs.”

...