‘Language test shouldn't be a crowbar to impose austerity’

In November 2024, thousands of students, teachers and researchers demonstrated in The Hague against the austerity measures soon to be implemented by the government in higher education and research. "Gatekeeper" Paul Rullmann was there too.

His presence was remarkable, considering he or his successor will soon have to implement part of a controversial policy: a test to determine whether or not undergraduate programmes should be taught in English. The government finds that universities should go back to teaching in Dutch in many cases.

Still 168 million
This would save the government 293 million euros, as fewer foreign students would come here. After a deal with some opposition parties, this was reduced to 168 million euros.

Rullmann, former director of TU Delft, has been the chair of the so-called Committee for the Effectiveness of Higher Education (Dutch acronym: CDHO) for nine years. New programmes must first get approval from this committee. Otherwise, they will not receive funding from the government.

The previous Minister of Education, Robbert Dijkgraaf, asked Rullmann and his committee to develop the test that would help determine which programmes should be taught in foreign languages.

Most bachelor's programmes taught in other languages are ministered in English. Soon, those programmes will have to explain why they do not teach in Dutch. If they cannot do so, they will be given a few years to switch to Dutch. The new cabinet is keeping the idea, with one important difference: the number of international students should be reduced to help shrink the budget for higher education. In total, the government is cutting two billion euros from education.

"Such an accumulation of austerity measures creates a different climate," says Rullmann. "That's why I was in The Hague". Though the budget cuts have since been toned down thanks to a deal with opposition parties, they still amount to 1.25 billion euros, much of which affecting higher education and research.

Huge uncertainty
"These budget cuts put enormous pressure on institutions to keep their foreign-language programmes afloat," says Rullmann. "Many of those programmes have many students, they are a hub within a faculty. The institutions are all gathering arguments now, hoping that later we will say: "This makes sense, you meet the criteria." But it all remains to be seen. This situation generates a lot of uncertainty and has major consequences."

Some of these consequences are already happening, he says. "Current international students wonder if they can stay here. They are telling their friends not to come to the Netherlands, which affects our reputation as a knowledge country. I am extremely worried about this. The committee has to implement the policy, but if you asked me, I'd say we shouldn't do this."

To quit or not to quit?
Rullmann predicts that CDHO risks turning from a neutral referee into a forward post of austerity, which will make people resent it. One of the reasons for this resentment is the fact that the language test will cost a lot of money. "Soon those programmes will find out if their English-taught courses are relevant to the labour market. They will hire an expensive agency to substrate that, even though they are supposed to tighten the belt."

Asked whether CDHO should have refused the contract, Rullmann says: "We were asked by then-minister Dijkgraaf to look into the possibility of working on a language test. We had good conversations about it and were under the impression that the government was giving careful and nuanced consideration to finding a better balance when it comes to the internationalisation of higher education. We answered that we could implement such a language test if the criteria were sharp enough. After all, if it is too vague, you will get objection procedures with every negative decision."

Now, the current cabinet is making the criteria stricter and booking the budget cut in advance. Rullmann is particularly sceptic about the latter. "Saving money cannot be the goal of such a test. At most, it can be a consequence."

Rullmann considered resigning but ultimately decided against it. "I lay awake over it, but everything was still uncertain. There was going to be a deal with the opposition and we didn't know what would come out of that. So, now there will be an exception for certain regions and we don't know what that means yet. Everything is in flux and my term ends in just two months. There is little point in leaving at the last minute, slamming doors. It wouldn't help to make a fuss."

He still has many questions. "Suppose you have roughly the same English-taught programme at ten universities and all ten give the same solid justification for their language of instruction. Should all of them remain English-taught? Should two of them become Dutch-speaking, or maybe eight? If so, which ones? We only give them advice. At the end of the day, the minister of education would make the trade-off in such cases."

Such a consideration would be a little bit less difficult regarding new programmes. "In such cases, there are no students or staff yet. Nobody has any interests. All there is is a plan, which we can test beforehand. But things are different if we're talking about existing programmes."

As clear as possible
Programmes forced to switch to Dutch will be given several years to do so. Anything can happen in the meantime. The cabinet might fall and the new government could take a different direction.

Rullmann believes that the only thing CDHO can do is be as clear as possible about expectations and considerations. ‘"CDHO was a bit of an ivory tower at first. You threw an envelope with your plan for a new programme in the letterbox and then you would get a plus or a minus. It is different now. For example, we have a weekly consultation hour for anyone with questions. We regularly consult with universities before submitting applications. We don't say: 'write this down and we'll approve it' but we do say: 'Look, this is what you should pay attention to'. It will be the same with non-native speakers. We want to be an open agency."

He also knows there is sputtering about CDHO sometimes. "They think it's nothing but bureaucratic and administrative drivel. We can get a long way with self-direction, they say. But, in the end, institutions acknowledge that it is a useful element in market division. During a football match, you can call the referee all sorts of names but everyone understands why we need him."

He fears this will change with the language test for existing courses. His committee was never there to impose austerity measures, but soon it will be used for that purpose. Rullmann: "I think the amount of cuts to education and research, of which the restriction of foreign language is a part, is simply an overkill. It has harmful effects that we are already seeing and these will only get worse."

What is the CDHO?
The CDHO has been in existence for 15 years. It assesses plans for new degree programmes, evaluating if they are relevant, if the labour market needs them and if other institutions offer them too. About 70 per cent of applications are approved.

The committee was set up to curb the "proliferation" of study programmes. Universities created many "fashionable" degree programmes at the beginning of this century, with the main purpose of attracting as many students as possible. "The danger of a proliferation of study programmes is still looming because the institutions get money according to the number of students."

In his view, the system isn't flawless either. "Sometimes we see programmes that make us wonder whether they are desirable at all. For example, ‘sustainability’ is fashionable right now, and then you get new programmes like ‘sustainable gaming’. That's not a real programme, I'm just making that up. But, after a while, sustainability will be part of all programmes, so it will not be so special anymore."

The committee does not care about how many students the programmes will attract. "There may be 10 or 100 students, we don't look at that. We look at its relevance to the labour market, its social relevance, and how it differs from existing programmes."