4. Quality agreements

Dutch universities have reached agreements with the Minister of Education, Culture and Sport on quality standards for the period 2019–2024. These are connected to the use of the study financing resources (studievoorschot). Radboud University created a plan to allocate those resources, and the Minister approved it in October 2019, based on a positive recommendation from the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO).

In this section, we will highlight the quality agreements for educational improvements, which have been partly implemented with the help of the study financing resources. We will look back on the period from 2019 onwards. A small part of the budget is spent centrally, but the majority is in the hands of the faculties. This section will account for the funds spent centrally and the process followed. We will also outline the choices made by the faculties. The Quality Agreements appendix contains more detailed descriptions of the faculties’ quality agreements.

Radboud University invests the vast majority of its resources at the faculty level. This means that decisions are made as close as possible to the primary educational process, although implementation may vary between faculties. All faculties have made their own plans for this. The table below shows the themes on which the faculties spent their resources. Most faculties’ plans in the framework of the quality agreements are in line with previously formulated plans, strategies or visions. By far the most resources are invested in themes 1 (more intensive and smaller-scale education) and 2 (more and better student guidance). Examples of investments in theme 1 are the appointment of educational innovators at the Faculty of Science and the appointment of additional lecturers to reduce group sizes at the Faculty of Law. And at Nijmegen School of Management and the Faculty of Medical Sciences, integrated student counselling and the use of coaches are investments in theme 2.

These kinds of plans are dynamic. Changes are inevitable, but the faculties generally stay on course. As shown in the table below, there are differences between the original budget and the realisation in the period from 2019–2021. However, the vast majority of the funds was spent within the intended themes. Some differences are due to the use of additional own resources on projects made possible by the quality agreements. This means that more was and is being invested in implementing the quality agreements than was included in the original plans. The COVID-19 pandemic also caused projects to be delayed or accelerated, or to be redefined; for example, in recent years there has been an earlier and stronger focus on the plans for digitalising education. These changes and the justification for each action are accounted for at the faculty level. These justifications are described in the Quality Agreements appendix.

Of the funds that Radboud University has available for the quality agreements, the largest part has been distributed among the faculties. Only a small part has been invested at the central level (see table below).

Various initiatives were launched using the central funds. Extra study facilities were made available in the University Library by extending the opening hours and increasing the number of study workplaces. There were also investments in educational innovation using ICT, such as digital assessment and Brightspace. Finally, a project was launched to make web lectures future-proof, increasing their flexibility and capacity.

The table above shows the realisation through 2022 and the estimates through 2024. The intended plans were implemented using additional investments from our own resources. The coronavirus pandemic has had an impact since March 2020 by accelerating the adoption of digital education facilities. Thanks to the (pre-)investments we made in this from 2017 to 2019, the transition to periods with fully online education went smoothly. Additional capacity for digital assessment and web lectures and extra capacity in the university library were realised according to the original plan. The university library was not allowed to be open during parts of the pandemic, so the budgeted amount for opening hours and extra study workplaces there was not fully realised in 2020 and 2021.

The way in which stakeholder involvement is organised is described for each faculty in the Quality Agreements appendix. The appendix also includes an independent reflection from each Faculty Joint Assembly (FGV), which reflects on the process followed since 2019 and the progress made on the quality agreements. A meta-reflection on the faculty reflections from the central participational bodies (UGV) is at the end of this chapter.

Faculty participational bodies have advisory rights regarding the main points in the faculty budgets. The Faculty Student Council (FSR) and the Representative Council (OC) from the FGV have the right of consent for the use of faculty funds for the quality agreements. All faculty representative bodies agreed to the plans for the quality agreements in the budgets for 2020, 2021 and 2022.

In addition, the quality agreements for each faculty are discussed twice a year during the annual report discussion and budget discussion in the presence of the Executive Board, the faculty’s Executive Board and the student assessor. The student assessor is specifically asked about the progress and involvement of the participational bodies in implementing the quality agreements. In each meeting, the student assessors indicated their satisfaction about the involvement of the participational bodies.

At the university level, the university’s participational bodies (UGV) have the right of consent to the main points of the budget and the use of university funds for the quality agreements. Twice a year, the Executive Board reports to the UGV through the regular planning and control cycle with the annual report and the annual plan, including the budget. The use of quality funds at the central level was determined for several years in 2019. As the plans have not been changed since then, decision-making on this part of the funds only took place in 2019 with the agreement of the UGV. The UGV has written a meta-reflection based on the independent reflections of the faculty participational bodies.

Two to three times a year, central support services organise a meeting to which faculty and university participational bodies are invited. The goal is to inform the participational bodies of their rights regarding quality agreements and to promote the exchange of practices and information. These meetings also ensure that the participational bodies know where they can go in the organisation with questions about the quality agreements.