‘European cooperation in higher education may be hindered by new cabinet’

Held in Tirana, Albania, the latest European Higher Education Area (EHEA) Ministerial Conference marked the 25th anniversary of the Bologna Declaration, when 29 European countries committed to a reform process to make their higher education systems more comparable and thus facilitate academic exchange and collaboration. Also known as the Bologna Process, this reform introduced the three-cycle degree structure (Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctorate), for example. Today, 48 countries are engaged in this process. They meet every two or three years in a conference to assess their progress and set new goals. 

Ramon Ellenbroek, Team Leader for Student Life and Mobility at Utrecht University, was in Albania as a representative of the European Association for International Education (EAIE), on whose board he has served. His takeaway: “It’s fascinating how many of the targets in the Tirana Communiqué don’t align with current governmental plans.” 

The Tirana Communiqué, which sums up the goals agreed upon at the conference, was signed by all countries, including the previous minister of education of the Netherlands. The document declares that the 48 countries “are resolved to make an inclusive, innovative and interconnected EHEA a reality by 2030.” It states that higher education institutions should be “safe spaces of open-mindedness and diversity” and that higher education plays a pivotal role in the integration of refugees into society – so much so that the countries vow to “intensify” efforts to remove barriers to their enrolment. The communiqué also pays attention to students’ mental health, with ministers committing to tackle socio-economic issues that affect students’ wellbeing, such as access to housing and the rising cost of living.

Ramon Ellenbroek Photo: EHEA

Diametrically opposed to new government
As observed by Ellenbroek, all this sounds diametrically opposed to the new cabinet’s plans for higher education. At the time of Ellenbroek’s interview with DUB, the cutbacks to the higher education and research budget had been announced but not yet confirmed (traditionally, this only happens on Prinsjesdag or Budget Day). Civil servants and several actors in the higher education and research sector have criticised the budget cuts by saying they risk making Dutch higher education less inclusive, less innovative and less interconnected. 

For example, the association of universities of applied sciences and student organisations like ISO and LSVb argue that the 3,000-euro fine for students who need more time to graduate may dissuade lower-income students from pursuing a degree in the first place, thus making education less inclusive. They also argue that the announcement of the fine alone is a source of stress for students, especially considering the increased cost of living. Students renting rooms in the Netherlands will have to spend 113 euros more per month next year and the compensation for the “unlucky generation” is criticised as meagre.

The employers’ association VNO-NCW argues that the cutbacks to research will harm the country’s capacity to innovate in the future. As for interconnectedness, one of the cabinet’s main goals is reducing the influx of international students, while the Tirana Communiqué emphasises a shared commitment to mobility. According to the document, at least 20 percent of those graduating in the EHEA should experience a study or training period abroad. 

While the Tirana Communiqué states that higher education institutions should be “safe spaces of open-mindedness and diversity,” the winning party in the Parliamentary elections, PVV, and now part of the coalition, has defined the budget as a means to combat “woke ideology” in universities. An MP from the party criticised the employment of diversity officers and initiatives to decolonise the curriculum, for instance. The new cabinet has also announced several measures to reduce the influx of refugees, make provisions for them “more basic”, and ensure that they leave if their countries of origin are considered “safe” again. 

All things considered, it seems unlikely that the Netherlands will put its money where its mouth is. However, even though the next EHEA Ministerial Conference will happen in 2027, there is no deadline for these commitments. The countries only commit to making an action plan. “The speed with which countries implement action may differ, of course,” notes Ellenbroek. “In all honesty, the government representative told me as such. ‘We are in the top group, so maybe we could wait for the others to catch up before we do more.'"

The Bologna Process included the adoption of a three-cycle degree structure (Bachelor’s, Master’s, Doctorate) and a common system for accumulating and transferring credits (ECTS), but its targets are not only related to practicalities. They also aim to promote a set of shared values, such as academic freedom and academic integrity. The ultimate objective of the Bologna process was establishing the European Higher Education Area (EHEA), with joint programmes, mutual recognition of diplomas, and a common quality assurance system. Even though the EHEA became a reality in 2010, the implementation of the Bologna Process is still uneven. Some countries have met more targets than others.

At the tail end of the outward mobility list
Indeed, the Netherlands is doing well when it comes to the implementation of the Bologna Process. It is among the most advanced countries in dozens of targets. In addition, it is the fifth country with the highest public investment in higher education (1.7 percent of the GDP in 2020), only behind Austria, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. The question is whether holding back is the wisest thing to do. “After all, we are not that far ahead on certain points and, for some of them, we’re actually running behind. No, not even running. We’re either walking or doing nothing,” says Ellenbroek.

For example, the Netherlands is at the bottom of the list regarding outward mobility. Only 3.1 percent of Dutch students go abroad for a degree programme. Going on exchange is slightly more popular, but not that much: 12.6 percent of students do that for credits (including students from universities of applied sciences). And when they do go abroad, they don’t go far: Belgium is the number one destination among Dutch students (23.7 percent). In total, 17 percent of Dutch students engage in cross-border mobility. Not that far from the 20 percent target, right? “Well, for countries in European University Alliances, like we are, the target is actually 50 percent,” explains Ellenbroek. In his view, there is much work to be done at UU, as outward mobility rates in Utrecht are lower than the national average. 

Moreover, Ellenbroek observes that “mobility is not only about numbers. It’s also about the learning outcomes of mobility, which is often forgotten. If you don’t check learning outcomes, what do you organise mobility for?” Apart from the Netherlands, Liechtenstein and France, all countries engaged in the Bologna Process have requirements or recommendations indicating that higher education programmes should include explicit intended learning outcomes. The three exceptions only have recommendations or requirements regarding the description of achieved learned outcomes in the documents accompanying higher education qualifications. 

“But we’re working on that with the Charm-EU Alliance, so we’re bound to take steps in that direction,” Ellenbroek notes. “Within Charm-EU, several UU academics have taken the lead to organise an intercultural reflective module to be done online, predeparture, by all outgoing students.  This will be offered for mobile students going abroad from Spring 2025 onwards.”

In addition, the Netherlands is lagging in terms of support for the mobility of vulnerable, disadvantaged, and unrepresented groups. There are no targeted measures in this regard. “Even Ukraine is doing better than we are,” Ellenbroek sighs. 

Academic freedom not in the constitution
Two other aspects in which the Netherlands could do better are academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The European University Association (EUA) defines academic autonomy as “the capacity to decide on overall student numbers; ability to select students; ability to introduce programmes; ability to terminate programmes; ability to choose the language of instruction; capacity to select quality assurance mechanisms and providers; and ability to design content of degree programmes.” The full report of the Tirana conference notes that, in many countries, “this is a delicate balancing act.”

Some argue that the Dutch government’s efforts to reduce the influx of foreign students are interfering with universities’ autonomy to decide on student numbers and the language of instruction. “The purpose of a university’s language policy is not meant to control the influx of international students but rather to be transparent about the languages used. It’s very unheard of that a lawmaker takes a decision on what is and what is not taught in a programme, and how it’s taught,” Peter Schrijver, head of the Department of Languages, Culture and Communication, said to DUB last year.

Unlike other European countries, like France or Germany, academic freedom is not protected by the Dutch constitution. Neither is institutional autonomy. These are defined in education or higher education legislation, which are easier to change. “You can see it now,” says Ellenbroek. “We get a different government and suddenly universities are moving away from what they said was important before. Yes, formally we are free from government influence, but if you look at it for a second, our minister [of education] appoints the boards of the universities. That’s not indirect, it’s fully direct. Of course, we have procedures and we don’t think something weird will happen, but they could.”

“We are not protected”, concludes Ellenbroek. “And I fear we will not make any progress in this regard in our next governmental term.”