Task Force issues recommendations to improve representation of the education sector
How can the voice of the education sector be better represented within the faculty? At the request of the Faculty Board, the Education Management and Organisation Task Force has been examining this question over the past few months. A detailed report has now been produced. Vice-Dean Jos Schaeken, who commissioned the report, and LUCAS Director of Education and task force member Esther Op de Beek explain.
In recent years, education within the faculty has been under pressure. Due to financial shortfalls, several programmes were at risk of being discontinued, and structural flaws in the organisation became apparent. ‘We derive the biggest part of our income from education, but at a level that transcends individual programmes, education is insufficiently represented,’ says Op de Beek.
‘In the current situation, we have vice-deans who oversee education as a whole. They devise policy from a fairly isolated position, which is then presented to all programme chairs in a very large consultation. Those programme chairs are responsible for the quality and content of their own programmes, but are not always aware of budgets or the costs of modules. That makes it difficult for them to contribute to questions such as: for how many courses in a programme can seminars be funded? At the same time, it isn’t desirable for institutes to implement cost-cutting measures in education without prior consultation. This became apparent when the faculty came under financial pressure, and a core group of programme chairs organised themselves to represent that intermediate level. The task force has now developed a consultation structure that formalises that initiative.’
Matrix structure
It is not the intention to make changes to the faculty’s matrix structure, which allocates staff and finances to institutes and determines the quality and content of teaching for degree programmes. Schaeken: ‘We could also have called for an organisational structure to be created outside the matrix, where the relationship between institutes and degree programmes is made unambiguous and the roles and responsibilities of the vice-dean, director of education and programme chair become clearer, but we are in a period in which we have only just averted a reorganisation. Tackling the matrix structure would probably mean a formal reorganisation. Whilst this would not result in compulsory redundancies, everyone would be assigned a different role within the organisation, including, for example, changes in management. That is not the Faculty Board’s choice at present.’
Clustering
For the time being, the report therefore focuses on changing the culture of consultation. To ensure that the voice of the academic community is better heard, various committees, such as Examination Boards, should also be clustered. A Faculty Education Council (abbreviated to FOWB) is also being established, comprising nine ‘cluster representatives’ alongside an education director, the heads of Education and Student Affairs (OSZ) and Policy, Advice and Strategy (BAS), and the assessor. The cluster representatives will represent various degree programmes. Op de Beek: ‘A small consultative body like this makes it easier to raise different interests; faculty-wide educational issues (such as AI), staff and financial resources, including those of OSZ, and the link with the research profiles of the institutes. At the same time, the cluster representatives can also give a voice to those who may currently be less heard.’
Getting started quickly
If the task force’s recommendations are indeed adopted in May, they could be put into practice quickly, if Schaeken has his way. ‘Hopefully, we can then immediately begin the process of selecting cluster representatives. We aim for a group that is as balanced as possible, with a good mix in terms of gender, experience and other characteristics, which together provide a good representation of all degree programmes. In discussions with programme chairs, the task force has also noted that it makes a difference – both in terms of actual representation and the experience of it – whether your programme belongs to a single institute or is shared across several institutes. As the task force has already done a great deal of preparatory work, we hope to be able to launch on 1 September. I’m looking forward to the FOWB’s kick-off meeting in September. Unfortunately, Esther will no longer be with us for that, as she will soon be moving to the VU, where she has been appointed Professor of Modern Dutch Literature. It’s a fantastic move that we, as the Faculty Board, are delighted to see her make.’
The members of the taskforce were Egbert Fortuin (chair), Aya Ezawa, Casper de Jonge, Renée Joosse, Jaap Kamphuis, Joëlle Koning, Esther Op de Beek