From Bildung to
Bologna-A comparison between the
Dutch and German
university reform agendas
Lars Olthof
28-01-2018
Universiteit van Amsterdam
Master Duitslandstudies
Student number 11422033
Supervisor: Hanco Jürgens
From Bildung to Bologna- A comparison between the
Dutch and German university reform agendas
Table of Contents
1: Preface
2: The Bologna Declaration
3: Different Reception of Bologna in Germany and the Netherlands
4: The structure of the higher education landscape in Germany and the Netherlands 4.1 German Higher Education: Do not leave out the Länder
4.2 Dutch Higher Education: Small and transparent
5: Educational Reforms and successive crises in Germany and the Netherlands 5.1.1 The Postwar Period6
5.1.2 Crisis of the late 1960s and the reforms of the 1970s 5.1.3 German Higher Education in Crisis, 1980-2000
5.2. History of higher education reforms in the Netherlands1 5.2.1 The Postwar Period 1945-1980
5.2.2 The neoliberal Period
6: New Public Management as the magic words in the Netherlands 7: The rootedness of the Humboldtian Legacy of Bildung
7.2 German Critique on Bildung
8: The National, European and American University: different perceptions in Germany and the Netherlands
9: Conclusion References
Primary Sources Literature
1: Preface
University reforms often emerge from a perceived state of crisis, as crises spur the need to address some fundamental features of the role of the university. Questions regarding the relationship between the university and society have continued to puzzle reformers and governments. The most relevant ones are aptly put forward by Guy Neave, in his book The Universities’ Responsibilities to Societies: International Perspectives1
How is the “community” to which the university is answerable conceived? What is the role of central government in controlling or steering the university? What is the place of Academia in the Nation? Is the university an institution for stability or change? What purpose does the knowledge transmitted and generated by the university play in society’s
development? Should society – through government – determine the type of knowledge which should have priority in the University?
These questions already concerned Wilhelm von Humboldt at the start of the nineteenth century, when the modern university was founded which still bears his stamp. His answer to these questions bring forward three principles of university, which are still adhered to in Germany: The first is the unity of research and teaching (die Einheit von
Forschung und Lehre); the second is the protection of academic freedom: the freedom to
teach (Lehrfreiheit) and the freedom to learn (Lernfreiheit) and the third is the central importance of the faculty of philosophy (the faculty of Arts and Sciences in modern terminology) 2
About 200 years later, with the global economic crisis, as well as the 1999 Bologna declaration, initiated a reassessment of the questions as posed by Guy Neave. The debate in Germany centered on the tension between Bildung (personal development) and Ausbildung (learning for a profession). The Bologna declaration can be seen as a first attempt to forge a ‘European university’, as it encourages different countries to adopt a comparable degree system, based on a undergraduate and a graduate degree of bachelor and master, as well as a common terminology, common standards and a
1 Neave, G. ‘The Universities‟ Responsibilities to Societies: International Perspective
2 Kwiek, M., ‘The Classical German Idea of the University Revisited, or on the Nationalization of the Modern University’,
common grading system. The Bologna Process intends to define the role of the university at the European level, which induces European governments to not only take into account the role of the university in their own nation, but on a global level as well. The globalization process has induced the university to no longer merely compete on the local, regional or national level, but to be competitive on a global scale, taking into account international developments, researches and innovations.3 Unsurprisingly, throughout Europe, national actors have dealt with the Bologna Process in different ways. These varieties cannot be disconnected from the historical contexts of European countries and the ideas that have been developed of the relationship between the university and society. What immediately catches the eye, is the vehement objections to Bologna that emerged in Germany, not only by professors and intellectuals, but by students as well. The German discourse regarding the Bologna Declaration is dotted with phrases like ‘Humboldt is dead’ and ‘Dichter und Denker statt Bachelor und Banker’ (Poet and thinker instead of Bachelor and banker).4 Furthermore, German newspapers reported on a Bildungsstreik, mentioning ‘50.000 students and pupils protesting nationally’ or even ‘almost 100.000 students” and “over 40 German cities.’5 This stands in stark contrast with the reactions in Germany’s neighbor country the Netherlands, where fierce protests by students did not appear and, apart from some objections on the part of some professors, the Declaration almost passed by unnoticed. How can this be explained? Why did the Bologna Declaration fuel so much more protest in Germany than in the Netherlands? Why did The main trigger for policy change in EU, increased competition on global level between Asia, the United States and Europe confront so much resistance in Germany and not in the Netherlands? And, subsequently, what does this tell us about the position of the university and of science as a whole in German society? Several features and characteristics of the German and the Dutch educational system will be discussed in a comparative analysis, in which I will conduct an extensive literature review including a range of primary and secondary sources. I will mainly study German and Dutch scholars, but also some international authors, that have elaborated on what the role of the university in society ought to be and how universities ought to deal with changes on the national, European or
3 Pavlenko, S. and C. Bojan, ‘Reclaiming the Idea of the University as a Possible Solution to Today’s Crisis’ in: Centre for
Educational Policy Sudies, vol. 4, no. 2 (2014)
4 https://www.hu-berlin.de/de/pr/nachrichten/archiv/nr1010/nr_100930_03
5
http://www.universityobserver.ie/2009/11/24/studentsprotest-across-germany, http://www.stern.de/politik/deutschland/bildungsstreik-heisserherbst-an-deutschlands-unis-1522566.html
international level. Using respective inputs from the German, Dutch and European context, I will attempt to enhance the knowledge on the historical explanations to the somewhat different approaches and measures taken towards the themes stated above. The first section will deal with the Bologna Declaration in more detail. What is envisioned in this Declaration? What goals does it intend to achieve and how should it be implemented? What ramifications does it have for European universities?
The second chapter will provide an overview of the critique of Bologna by the main German stakeholders. I already briefly mentioned some quotes by critics but this will be elaborated on further in the second part. What are their main objections? And what are their motives for these objections?
The second part of this thesis will deal with some central features and characteristics of the German university system in comparison with the Dutch system. Features that cannot be omitted are the differences in the structure of the university landscape and their institutional autonomy and the financing mechanisms in Germany vis-à-vis the Netherlands. In some aspects, the higher education landscape in Germany possesses some unique features that are fundamentally different from the Netherlands, but also from the rest of Europe.
The third part will deal with the history of educational reforms and the reactions they confronted in Germany and the Netherlands. A commonly held belief is that the Netherlands undergoes changes quite swiftly, while German universities are less prone to reforms and modernization attempts. In the Netherlands this is reflected in educational experiments encompassed in umbrella terms like ‘studeerbaarheid’ (‘studiability), ‘het nieuwe leren’ (‘the new learning’) and ‘het studiehuis’ (the study house), all drafted within a neoliberal discourse, that entered higher education already in the 1960’s.
Then, the fourth part will deal with the core of this thesis. For more than a 100 years, German higher education suffers from ‘the Humboldt-syndrom’, in which there is a sheer discrepancy between the rhetoric and the realities at German universities. Every attempt to modernize the German educational system is tested on their correspondence to the Bildungsideal, as put forward by Wilhelm von Humboldt two centuries ago. The rootedness of Bildung as a central feature of the German university is a key component in any account on the relationship of the German university and society. A historical
account of this ideal will be provided, as well as an overview of the different perceptions of a ‘European university’ in Germany and the Netherlands. As a result, a coherent conclusion can be provided of the position of the university in society in Germany and the Netherlands, which can explain their different reactions to the Bologna Declaration.
2: The Bologna Declaration
I will now turn to the Bologna process in more detail, in order to provide some clarifications about its goals for European higher education. In 1999, a statement of policy was signed by 29 European ministers of Education in the Italian city of Bologna. The Declaration makes references to earlier declarations of Sorbonne and Paris, in which plans have been drafted that reappear in the Bologna Declaration. Its primary aim was the establishment of a common European higher education architecture by the year of 2010. This would assure that students, researchers and teachers could move more freely within the European Union. The Declaration argues that ‘a Europe of
Knowledge is now widely recognized as an irreplaceable factor for social and human growth and as an indispensable component to consolidate and enrich the European citizenship’6 , but that joint action is also necessary to safeguard that ‘higher education
and research systems continuously adapt to changing needs, society's demands and advances in scientific knowledge.’7 These needs and demands the Declaration claims to account for are phenomena like globalization, communication intensity, the need for innovation and growing competition. Therefore, the European system of higher education had to increase its international competitiveness and to maintain its attractiveness for international human capital. These intentions were followed by some clear-cut objectives:
- Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable degrees, also through the implementation of the Diploma Supplement, in order to promote European
6 European Higher Education Area, ‘The Bologna Declaration of 19 June 1999’,available online at http://www.magna-charta.org/resources/files/BOLOGNA_DECLARATION.pdf [Retrieved June 11, 2017]
citizens employability and the international competitiveness of the European higher education system
- Adoption of a system essentially based on two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate. Access to the second cycle shall require successful completion of first cycle studies, lasting a minimum of three years. The degree awarded after the first cycle shall also be relevant to
- the European labour market as an appropriate level of qualification. The second cycle should lead to the master and/or doctorate degree as in many European countries
- Establishment of a system of credits - such as in the ECTS system – as a proper means of promoting the most widespread student mobility.
- Promotion of European co-operation in quality assurance with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies.
- Promotion of the necessary European dimensions in higher education, particularly with regards to curricular development, interinstitutional co-operation, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research.
However, there should be borne in mind that the Declaration just serves as an intention for the signatories. Bologna is a voluntary reform—there are no international treaties or legally binding agreements—which means that there are no official incentives, corrective mechanisms, or punishments to encourage or force countries to implement Bologna properly.8 The Declaration had a bottom-up approach, with the starting point that national governments and educational systems would know the best way to implement the objectives. This is fully coherent with the general outline of EU policy, which regards the structure and content of education belonging to the jurisdiction of its member states. The noncommittal character of the Declaration is a surplus: it allows a flexible approach by member states. Unarguably, a policy with compulsory elements would have provoked antagonism and rejection. International peer pressure, at most, is what should drive members states to demonstrate efficacy in the implementation process. The term ‘process’ is of vital importance: the use of the term signifies an ongoing chains of reforms. Hence, the Bologna Declaration has been accompanied by a
8 Caddick, S., ‘Back to Bologna: The Long Road to European Higher Education Reform’, in: Science and Society, vol. 9, no. 1 (2008) , pp. 18-21
series of follow-up European conferences to evaluate the progress, for example in Prague (2001), Berlin (2003), Bergen (2005), London (2007), Louvain (2009), Budapest (2010), Bucharest (2012) and Yerevan (2015).9
Even though the Bologna Process is by 2017 implemented by all 27 EU member countries, as well as 20 European and non-European countries that have undertaken the role of ‘observer countries’, the Bologna Process initiated with a wave of protest in some countries, but especially Germany, where the objectives as put forward by the Declaration were seen as being fundamentally at odds with the characteristics of the German national university system.
3: Different Reception of Bologna in Germany and the
Netherlands
As aforementioned, the reactions to Bologna in Germany greatly differed from those in the Netherlands. In Germany, both representatives of the student bodies and academics raised a critical voice. In his 1998 lecture ‘La université sans condition’, the French philosopher Jacques Derrida’s was the first to point at the negative side effects of the Sorbonne Declaration, which preceded the Bologna Process. His main theory encompasses that the modern university should be devoid from any imposed ‘condition’ and should be unmoved by any ideological, religious or economic considerations. In his lecture, Derrida draws a parallel between the Third Reich and the developments that were underway in the eve of Bologna: a will-less self-surrender of the German university’s sovereignty and identity to the vagaries of a dictatorship, in this regard the market economy.10 His appeal resonated, but was merely seen as a philosophical treaty in which the spirit of the 1970’s lagged.11 At that time, the possible ramifications of the Bologna Process – two main cycles, undergraduate and graduate system, the quality standards, comparability- were not yet visible. The impacts of the proposed reforms
9 European Higher Education Act, ‘Ministerial Declarations and Comminiqués’ available online at https://www.ehea.info/pid34363/ministerial-declarations-and-communiques.html [Retrieved June 12 2017]
10 Borchmeyer, D., ‘Was ist Deutsch? Die Suche einer Nation nach sich selbst’ (Berlin: Rowohlt 2017) p.725
could increasingly be distinguished from 2005 onwards, which gave impetus to a new wave of protest – on the part of academics and students.
The Bologna Process also did not generate a positive response under academics. Jürgen Schriewer, professor at the Humboldt University in Berlin, analyzed Bologna from a sociological-theoretical perspective. He concludes to disregard the Bologna Process as a product of ‘neo-institutionalization.’ He argues that, in fact, that a European system of higher culture is ‘a rationalized myth’ as, die Rationalitätsunterstellungen und
Homogenisierungstendenzen der transnational zirkulierenden Leitideen, Reformkonzepte und Programme nicht notwendigerweise und nicht einmal in der Regel dem spezifischen Entscheidungsbedarf historisch-konkreter Handlungskontexte gerecht werden.12 It is a myth, as supranational and non-governmental organizations portray European higher education as a homogeneous entity and disseminate their ideas in the media and in conferences.
He is not the only academic that has had firm critique on the Bologna process. Stefan Kühl, professor in Sociology at the University of Bielefeld, expressed his concerns on the possible ‘Sudoku-Effect’ Bologna brought forward. According to Kühl, the Europe-wide system for counting and transferring the academic credit that a student has earned, brings a necessity for students ‘in Leistungspunkten ausgedrückten
Veranstaltungen, Prüfungen und Module so miteinander zu kombinieren, dass das Studium punktemäßig aufgeht.’13
The former president of the German research Council, Wolfgang Frühwald, firmly critiqued the Bologna reforms in Die Zeit: “mental resistance to this reform is huge. I
hardly know anyone – to be honest, no one – who is inspired by the change to Bachelor and Master courses. (…) The reforms are pushed by university managers, higher education organizations, and policymakers. The gap between those who design the reform and academics at the bottom is huge.’’ Hence, German academics tend to see the
Bologna Process through the lens of discrepancy between managerial reforms and accountability mechanism on the one side, and academic freedom on the other side. The German critiques on Bologna have a fundamental character: they hold that the reforms as envisioned in the Process involve an end of the ‘German’ tradition. Dieter Borchmeyer argued that an end had come to ‘the most important part of the
12 Schriewer. J. "Bologna" - ein neu-europäischer "Mythos" in: Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 53 (2007) 2, S. 182-199, p.183
13 Kühl, S., ‘Der Sudoku-Effekt: Hochschulen im Teufelskreis der Bürokratie. Eine Streitschrift’ (Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag 2014)
university’s ideological conception – the academic freedom and the unity of teaching and research.’ Borchmeyer argues that, due to economization, the modern German university, which came into being in the early 1800’s, had lost the battle for self-determination.14 ‘Humboldt is dead’ was a famous quote in the Bologna-discourse, used as a reference to the father of the modern German university, who is alleged to be dead and buried by Bologna.
Many critics have argued that Bologna’s emphasis on quality assurance as a central measurement of higher educations has reshaped education from a cultural good to a market, in which education is a product and students are the consumers, and a market in which economic interests prevail. Mitchell Ash, an American observer and expert on German higher education frames it the following: ‘In this discursive framework, ‘autonomy’ appears to have become a code word for the delivery of higher education into the tender hands — or rather the gaping maw — of the market.15
Sociologist Richard Münch from the Ruprecht-Karls-Universität in Heidelberg used comparable rhetoric. His foresees a trend, for which the Bologna Process gave impetus, in which ‘the quality assurance of higher education transfers from the universities to accreditation agencies.’16 The market economy has taken over our university system, which threatens the Bildung of students, Münch laments.
In 2009, Germany also experiences strong protests among students for several weeks. The spirit of the protests can aptly be captured in some slogans being used: ‘In former times I was a poet and a philosopher; now I am a Bachelor.’17 Another popular slogan also ‘juxtaposes the spiritual sphere of cultivation with the vulgar sphere of commerce’, in which the Bachelor represent the vulgar: ‘rather a poet and a philosopher than a banker and a Bachelor’.18 What really caught the eye is the vigor in the protests by the German students, exhibiting awareness of fundamental features of their higher education system at stake. Again, the term Bildung prominently featured in the protests. In Stuttgart, students crowded together holding banners ‘Wir sind hier; wir sind laut, weil man uns die Bildung klaut’ (We are here and we are loud, when they take away
14 Borchmeyer, D. ‘Was ist Deutsch’ p.722
15 Ash, M. ‘Bachelor of What, Master of Whom? The Humboldt Myth and the Historical Transformations of Higher Education in German-speaking Europe and the US’ in: European Journal of Education, Vol. 41, No. 2, 2006
16 Münch,
17 Pechar, H., The Decline of an Academic Oligarchy. The Bologna Process and ‘Humboldt’s Last Warriors’, in: A. Curaj et al. (eds.), European Higher Education at the Crossroads: Between the Bologna Process and National Reforms (Dordrecht: Springer Business Media 2012)
our Bildung).19 In total, several ten thousands of students gathered in over 40 cities, the so-called Bildungsstreik, which would in the eyes of the students cause a cleavage in society. Their protests resonated under leftist politicians. Nele Hirsch, from Die Linke denounced the Bologna Process as ‘an anti-social and un-democratic Bildungspolitik should be accepted by no one.’20 For students it should feel like a ‘slap in the face’ when the government and the Länder can provide billions to bail out banks, but does not want to spend money on smaller classes, more teachers and a free access to higher education.’ Many newspapers and (online) magazines devoted countless articles on the strike between July and November 2011, amongst others Deutsche Welle , Der Stern and University Observer.
In the Netherlands the reactions were much more moderate. In the biggest newspapers, the Bildungsstreik featured only marginally, and there were no fierce critiques on the part of the academic body. In early 2011, a grand student protest was held on the Malieveld in the Hague, but the overall thrust here was the so-called Langstudeerboete, a planned increase of the tuition fee for students who exceeded the nominal time to graduate by more than one year. However, this protest was directed against a reform that was planned by the Dutch government and was not part of an overarching European restructuring of higher education. The term Bologna was not specifically adopted in the protest. A preliminary conclusion holds that the Bologna-planned reforms were implemented rather smoothly.
There is also a great discrepancy in terms of the student unions’ reactions to the Bologna Reforms. In the course of 2009, the website of the ‘freie zusammenschluss von studentinnenschaften (fzs)’ is mainly about criticism of students on the study system, reforms, tuition fees, or the Bildungsstreik.21 On the Bologna reforms the Dutch student unions did not elaborate in great detail. Also academic, researchers and teachers did not voice much critique. Does this mean that in the Netherlands, the goals envisioned in the Bologna Reforms are met with great appraisal? Or is a lack of protest due to the characteristics of the Dutch university landscape? The different characteristics of the German and Dutch educational landscape will be expounded in more detail in the next section.
19 http://www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/streik-wir-sind-laut-weil-man-uns-die-bildung-klaut/1370308.html
20 Ibidem
21 Püschel, M., ‘The Bologna Process in Germany and the Netherlands: a research about the potential explanations for different student perceptions’ University of Twente Student Theses 2012
4: The structure of the higher education landscape in
Germany and the Netherlands
In order to address the different reactions in Germany and the Netherlands to the Bologna Process, we need to look at some central features of their respective national structures of higher education. Also the place of the university in society cannot be understood without an outline of the structures, which will be provided in this section. I will also elaborate on the different mechanisms of financing higher education in Germany and the Netherlands.
To start off, the German and the Dutch system of higher education have a lot in common. Both are highly regulated systems, featuring predominantly public institutions (private universities are rare in both countries), have a state-run bureaucracy and enjoy a high level of academic freedom. 22 Both systems are characterized by a dual divide between universities and technical colleges/ universities of applied sciences, which are
22 Pritchard, R. ‘Trends in the Restructuring of German Universities’ in: in: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 50, No. 1 (February 2006)
more practice-oriented and offer shorter degree programs, whereas focus more on research (a PhD degree can only be obtained at a university).23
However, there are some central discrepancies can be discovered between both countries, not only in terms of structures, but also the financing mechanisms and the level of university autonomy differs greatly.
4.1 German Higher Education: Do not leave out the Länder
One central aspect we need to highlight in Germany’s higher education system is its decentralization and its autonomy. The German higher education model can best be described as ‘diversity within unity.’ The German Federal Republic is comprised of 16 states, named Länder, a result of unification between the German Democratic Republic and the Federal Republic of Germany on October 3, 1990. As stipulated in the German 1949 constitution, the Länder hold autonomy and responsibility over the administration, legislation, planning and finance of higher education, as one of the few fields in they have full autonomy. Hence, higher education functions in the jurisdiction of the Länder. The federal government can refine orientations to the Länder, but the separate states have the last say in whether or not they want to adopt in their university system what is suggested by the government. This organizational structure requires grand mobilization efforts between different authorization bodies before reforms can be realized, like the Bologna Reforms. The Länder are endowed with cultural autonomy, for a long time, the Federal government exerted no influence at all on the development of higher education.24 Culture was one of the few fields in which Until 2006, there was even a Kooperationsverbot, which prohibited the Länder to cooperate with the central
government in Berlin on the field of higher education.25 Policies that needed to be coordinated nation-wide required a meeting of all the Ministers of Education and
23 David, J., ‘Bildung, Ausbildung and the Future of European Higher Education: Understanding the Bologna Process form a German Perspective’ in: Honors Thesis University of Michigan (2009), p.10-11 Klumpp, M., H. de Boer and H. Vossensteyn, ‘Comparing national policies on institutional profiling in Germany and the Netherlands’ , in: Comparative
Education, vol. 50 no.2 (2014), p. 159
24 Künzel, R. Political Control and Funding: The Future of State Support. In: M. Ash and others, German Universities Past
and Future: Crisis or Renewal?
Cultural Affairs of the separate Länder, a so-called Standing Conference. The Länder are endowed with an own Ministry for Education and a Ministry for Research.
Cultural autonomy, as one of the particularities of German federalism, and the resulting decentralist structure of German higher education is already an important explanation of the difficult implementation and the protest to the Bologna Reforms. For
Länder, education remained ‘one of the last protective barriers against the forceful grip
of political centralization.’26 The Länder traditionally defended their political autonomy in the policy field of education. Some goals of the Bologna Declaration do not match with Germany’s decentral structure: some degrees are not compatible within German borders. For example, not all Länder recognize a degree obtained in another Land. Therefore, it is not surprising that many Länder consider the goals of Bologna to establish a Europa-wide system of comparable and mutually recognized degrees a bridge too far.
Every Land aims to calculate a maximum gain for its own university system. As a result, the federal government does not always succeed in introducing legislation to the
Länder. Refined directions by the federal government can become target of legal
counterattacks.27 Laws put forward by the central government are often diluted and attenuated, as they are felt by the Länder to be heavy and restrictive.28 Heiko Walkenhorst aptly states the difficulties for the German higher education system to reform by pointing out that ‘innovations and reforms cannot simply be imposed by the federal government without having achieved a long-term change of mind on the part of all interested parties and among society as a whole.’29
Aforementioned, since the 16 German Länder enjoy cultural autonomy and have political responsibility over their higher education, they are also responsible for funding. This is sometimes a bit problematic, as only the economically more powerful states like Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and Nordrhein-Westfalen have the financial power to sustain global competitive universities. Likewise, the salaries for professors are much higher in those states than in smaller states like Sachsen-Anhalt, Saarland or even
26 Toens, K., ‘The Bologna Process in German Educational Federalism: State Strategies, Policy Fragmentation and Interest Mediation’ in: German Politics, vol. 18, no. 2, p.248
27 For example, the five Länder Baden-Württemberg, Bayern, Hessen, Saarland and Hamburg took legal action against a Federal Framework Act to prohibit universities from asking tuition fees
28 Pritchard, R. ‘Trends in the Restructuring of German Universities’,
Berlin. As the German Federal Government only provides some general guidelines for education, its funding in higher education is limited. On average, universities receive 76% of their revenue from the state grant (excluding medicine), whilst this share is even 91% for Fachhochschulen.30 Universities are governed as public institutions and incorporated in the state administration. Their expenditures are thus funded by public
Länder budgets.31 This model is traditionally accepted and appreciated by the Länder and the parliament.
However, it should be mentioned that the federal government has been expanding its influence on higher education. This was partly due to the fact that the number of student enrollments have been growing faster than government expenditure on higher education. Because the Länder could no longer cope with the financial burdens, the federal government has been making billions of additional funding available to higher education. From 2018, there are plans to make a total of 12 billion euros in additional funding available over the following four years.32 To bypass the cultural autonomy and the Länder’s responsibility for financing higher education, the federal government exerts its influence on research and development through the financing of research institutes outside universities and research programmes.
Therefore, the German research and development sector has been described as a ‘diversity of actors.’33 To clarify, Germany has over 750 research institutes outside the university. The most significant are the famous Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, the
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, the Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft and the Leibniz-Gemeinschaft. These
institutes are being financed by the federal and Länder governments and enjoy worldwide prestige. Especially the Max-Planck-Society, comprised of a number of independent and autonomous research institutes, are of known repute and professional competence. They use internally managed budgets, often helped by third party funds. Because they work together with both the industry and the university sector, they serve as ‘bridge-builders’ in research and development and the German knowledge society.34
30 Schwarzenberger, A., ‘Public/Private Funding in Higher Education: a Social Balance’ in: HIS Forum Hochschule Report, no. 5 (2008) , p. 67
31 Hartwig, L., ‘Funding Sytems and their Effects on Higher Education. Country Study Germany’ in: Bavarian State
Institute for Higher Education Research and Planning (November 2006)
32 Fuller, C. ‘More Money for Schools and Universities’ , Goethe Institut [February 2017], available online at https://www.goethe.de/en/kul/wis/20925479.html [Retrieved August 5 2017]
33 Nijhuis, T., ‘Vasthoudend Innoveren: Een onderzoek naar het Duitse wetenschapslandschap en R&D-beleid’, Adviesraad
voor het Wetenschaps- en Technologiebeleid & Duitsland Instituut Report’ (November 2012)
Furthermore, the imprint of the German professoriate on the university’s higher education outline is much larger in Germany due to the method of appointment. The faculty that has a vacant chair to be filled by a professor usually sets out a
Berufungsverfahrens, a formal procedure to appoint a professor that comes with
binding legal obligations. Therefore, a professor in Germany can set out more demands to enhance their autonomy in science. This vastly differs from the Netherlands where neoliberal discourse induces professors to become managers in the first place while teaching and research play second fiddle. More attention to neoliberal discourse in Dutch higher education will be devoted in chapter six.
A last distinctive feature of German higher education is the pivotal importance of the
Habilitation, which has no equivalent in many other European countries, such as the
Netherlands. It remains the key access to a professorship and the highest academic qualification. It is usually earned after a long period of conducting research, university teaching or leading a research group. The Habilitation is one step further than the PhD. Even though the Bologna Declaration does not advocate for an abolition of the
Habilitation, it aims to make the different European higher education systems more
compatible. This means that once a European system of higher education is to be established, the Habilitation would run the risk of losing its prominent position, which explains the protective attitude by the German professoriate and their reluctance to the implementation of Bologna.
4.2 Dutch Higher Education: Small and transparent
In the Netherlands, the higher education landscape comprises of 13 research-led universities and 41 universities of applied sciences (Hogescholen).35 However, unlike Germany, the political responsibility for the educational system is held by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW). This Ministry is bound by national legislation: the Higher Education and Research Act (Wet op Hoger onderwijs en
Wetenschappelijk onderzoek, WHW) and the Student Grants Act 2000 (Wet studiefinanciering 2000, WSF 2000).36 The Ministry also sets the educational policy,
35 Ibidem
defines the admission requirements and the structure and objectives of the educational system in the long term.37 Hence, the Dutch system of higher education is firmly centralized. Universities have to plan their activities and draft their policies within the legal boundaries as provided by the state. Universities traditionally do not develop their own policies in terms of foundation and maintenance/planning; administration and staffing policy.38
However, universities tend to have considerable room for policy-making with regard to content of research and education (educational and organizational design) and aspects of identity (pupil policy and external relations).39 As a result, new study programmes could be established and financial autonomy to finance the content of these programmes has been increased. 40
Funding occurs in three flows: the first flow concerns a lump sum directly from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The lump sum entails that the money can be spend by the universities in the desired way and can be divided amongst the different faculties according to the universities’ budget allocation standards. The second flow consists of research project funding awarded by Dutch research councils such as the NWO (Dutch Organization for Scientific Research) and the KNAW (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences) and the third flow stems from third parties, such as EU funding and contractual research.41 In the Netherlands, federal government’s funding directly flows to the universities. This makes implementation of Bologna Process more viable.
5: Educational Reforms and successive crises in Germany
and the Netherlands
37 Ibidem
38 Sleegers, P. and A. Wesselingh, ‘Decentralization in Education: a Dutch study’ in: International Studies in Sociology of
Education, vol. 3, no. 1
39 Ibidem
40 Klumpp, M., H. de Boer and H. Vossensteyn, ‘Comparing national policies on institutional profiling in Germany and the Netherlands’
41 National Institution for Academic Degrees and University Evaluation ‘Quality Assurance System in Higher Education: the Netherlands’ , NIAD-UE Report (2011)
This section will provide a comparative analysis of the different histories of education reforms and modernization attempts between Germany and the Netherlands. A look at the history of postwar educational reforms, and in the German case the lack of reforms, can along with other features, partly explain why the reactions towards the Bologna Declaration were more moderate in the Netherlands, as the goals of the Declaration seemed to present less of a breakthrough with the national system of higher education than was the case in Germany. The first part will provide an outline of the German reforms, while the second part will discuss the situation in the Netherlands.
I will merely focus on the period after the Second World War, when the Federal Republic of Germany was established. Before that time, even tracing back to the early 1800’s, the most important reform in German history was already achieved: the founding of the modern university by Wilhelm von Humboldt. The legacy of this university is the educational concept of Bildung, which is still lively today and offers a great deal to an explanation why German higher education is reluctant to reform. This, however, will be further elaborated on in the next chapter. This chapter will primarily focus on the attempted reforms in both countries and how the historical attitude towards modernization of the higher education system can help clarifying attitudes in Germany towards the Bologna Process.
5.1.1 The Postwar Period
Saul B. Robinsohn and Kasper Kühlmann call the period between 1950 and 1970 polemically ‘the two decades of non-reform in German education’, meaning that ‘in contrast to some other European countries, the adjustment of the educational system to the socio-economic and cultural developments of the mid-twentieth century’ had not taken place in Germany.42 The pre-war system of unity of teaching and research (Einheit von Lehre und Forschung), autonomy (Einsamkeit und Freiheit) and decentralization remained largely intact. Intellectuals like Karl Jaspers advocated a return to the classical values incorporated in the Bildung ideal, in which the philosophy would undertake a central role. In a nutshell, 150 years of traditions remained intact.
42 Robinsohn, S.B., and K. Kuhlmann, ‘Two Decades of Non Reform in West German Education’, in: ‘Comparative
Konrad Jarausch describes the West German university system in the postwar period as ‘both highly successful and deeply troubled.’43 In his view, universities seemed to attach more value to inspirations from the distant past than to the challenges of the present. He identified a Humboldtian founding discourse which guided the self-understanding of German higher education. This was clearly of help in overcoming the atrocities of the recent Nazi past, but also constrained institutional development. The recovery of old traditions instead of initiating reform is aptly described by Jarausch as an ‘Academic Sonderweg.’44
A possible explanation for this phenomenon is provided by Robinsohn and Kuhlmann, who argue that all the powerful groups within the higher education system discouraged and in some occasions even hindered reform. In their view, both teacher, professors and professorial organizations (the ‘producers’ of education), as well as the students, university bodies and commercial organizations (the ‘consumers’ of education) used the argument that any radical reform would lead to loss in quality, thereby warning against ‘experiments with the school.’45
In the first two postwar decades, a sense of conformity predominated in West Germany. A discourse of reconsolidation and reconstruction figured prominently. As a result, public opinion could be mobilized against structural educational reforms, or helped by neutralizing it. Again, cultural autonomy by the Länder contributed to thwart reform. As far as discussions on reform existed, they were nipped in the bud by the Cold War ideology. The leading political parties did not employ an educational reform agenda, deeming it unnecessary spurred by the economic growth West Germany was undergoing. Modest reforms like the extension of elementary schools were denounced as being "socialist," "levelling down," "Eastern," and "communist.’46
5.1.2 Crisis of the late 1960s and the reforms of the 1970s
43 Jarausch, K.H., ‘The Humboldt Syndrome: West German Universities, 1945-1989- An Academic Sonderweg? In: M.G. Ash and others, ‘German Universities Past and Future: Crisis or Renewal? (Providence: Berghahn Books 1997), p.33
44 Ibidem, p.38
45 Robinsohn and Kuhlmann, ‘Two Decades of Non Reform in West German Education’ , p.323
Only at the end of the 1960’s, the emergence of the mass university enhanced government’s visibility at the university. Many circumstances influenced the youth revolt of the 1960’s, which also bore its stamp on the German education system. Until then, German universities had primarily been elite institutions. However, demographic developments had left German universities systematically overcrowded and underfunded. According to Konrad Jarausch, a combination of societal and educational factors underpinned youth revolt. Where the previous decades were marked by conformism, the new students, the postwar generation, rebelled with what they called ‘hierarchical authoritarianism’ at the universities.47 Now there was a demand for a greater social inclusion in higher education, as well as a need for qualified employees. The main problem German universities were suffering from was a ‘widening access to higher education and meeting industry’s increased need for qualified graduates.’48
There was an increasing demand for vocationally trained university graduates, which the elite institutions could not provide. The student body needed to be diversified, which induced a need for higher education to provide an environment in which specific skills could be mastered. Hence, the first major involvement of the federal government was the pragmatic decision to establish to integrate the existing institutions of vocational training into the higher education system. The result was the establishment of a series of
Fachhochschulen in West Germany between 1969 and 1972.
The traditional university had come under scrutiny in Germany. Intellectuals and philosophers like Jürgen Habermas expressed criticism on the way German science operated. In his famous work Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie, he lamented that science had become an ideological tool, where the interdependency between technique and science was being used to as means to legitimate the federal government.
There was an ongoing tendency towards inclusiveness in the German higher education landscape. The Federal Government started to provide financial aid to students from a poor or rural background. From the end of the 1960s onwards, democratization and objections towards the university as an elite institution with little relevance for society had entered the higher education discourse.
Against this backdrop, several Reform-Universitäten (Reform Universities) were founded. In Lübeck, Konstanz, Bielefeld and Bochum, new universities were designed to
47 Jarausch, K., The Humboldt Syndrome: West German Universities, 1945-1989- An Academic Sonderweg p.41
48 Vogel, M.P., ‘The Professionalism of Professors at German Fachhochschulen’ in: Studies in Higher Education, vol. 34 no. 8, p.875
translate the new reform-like spirit into higher education. Their mission was to extract science from the ‘ivory tower’ in which professors engaged in internal polemics but were far removed from society. Hence, the Reform-Universitäten aimed at the transition from ‘stiff faculties and institutions to open schools along interdisciplinary lines, open for every student.’49 As a result, the libraries were open day and night and for all study
fields.
Another reform was the law that was passed which gave the Wissenschaftsrat (German Council of Science) legal authority in planning physical facilities for higher education institutions. Also, the Basic Law was adapted to grant the federal government participatory power in the areas of construction and research.50
Another basic reform that German higher education underwent was the 1976 establishment of the Hochschulenrahmengesetz which paved the way for more local regulation. This law proposed that students ‘be made capable of scholarly and artistic work and of responsible behavior in a free, democratic and social state, ruled by law.’51 It was the first attempt to correspond the laws of the Länder to the general outline of education as stipulated by the federal government. The First Framework Act for Higher Education established certain common elements to be adhered to in the higher education laws of the Länder.52
The reforms were mainly directed towards a better functioning of the university. Jarausch argued that the reforms that were passed in the Hochschulenrahmengesetz only resulted in modest innovations that abolished the worst abuses. The HRG had some key features.53
- In order to strengthen and to extend the capacities of institutions to coordinate issues of teaching and research, the traditional and rather large faculties were divided into smaller departments.
- Most Länder established governance structures at higher education institutions with more responsibility for its members.
49 Reichwein, M., ‘Diese Beton-Unis waren Deutschlands Aufbruchbuden’, in: Die Welt (Augst 7, 2016)
50 Welsh, H.A., ‘Disentangling the Reform Gridlock: Higher Education in Germany’ in: Program for the Study of Germany
and Europe Working Paper 02.7 (2001)
51 Jarausch, ‘The Humboldt Syndrome: West German Universities’
52 Kehm, B.M., ‘Higher Education in Germany: Developments, Problems and Perspectives’, in: The Insitute for Higher
Education Research Wittenberg & UNESCO European Center for Higher Education Bucharest (Wittenberg and Bucharest
1999), p. 70
- The non-professorial academic staff (including junior academic staff), students, and non-academic personnel received a substantial proportion of the seats in the self-government bodies at institutional and departmental level.
- Lastly, representational office of the rector was given a longer term (four to six years) with increased power and additional functions in administration and in the self-governing bodies.
However, as Jarausch argued, whilst the reforms maintained a modest character and were only employed to improve the functioning of the already existing institutions and a better maintenance of the increasing influx of students. None of the abovementioned reforms dealt with ontologic questions about what a university should look like and what its role in society ought to be, in sharp contrast to the Bologna Process, which aims to formulate a new answer to the questions that society asks itself with respect to universities, as put forward by Guy Neave in the preface.
5.1.3 German Higher Education in Crisis, 1980-2000
The 1980’s in Germany with respect to higher education has been characterized as a period of ‘inertia’54, ‘retrenchment and inaction’55 and ‘massification without adaptation’ and ‘reformstau.’56
The number of students that had entered higher education had increased almost tenfold between 1950 and 1990: from 28.000 to 300.000. This was not accompanied by grotesque reforms of the sector, only modest reformstook place, as set apart in the previous section. Efforts had been made to start a debate on the increase of differentiation and competition in the higher education sector, but these efforts never resulted in any structural reforms. The massification of higher education again led to a perceived state of crisis. According to Science Magazine, two parties were to blame for the ‘massification without adaptation’: The universities, as they ‘strongly resisted change and sprouted overblown, cumbersome administrative structures’ and the local governments, as the ‘dead hand of local government regulation stifles attempts at
54 Maassen, P.A.M., ‘Governmental Steering and the Academic Culture’ (Utrecht: de Tijdstroom 1996)
55 Jarausch, K., ‘The Humboldt Syndrome: West German Universities, 1945-1989- An Academic Sonderweg’, p.44
56 Wölter, A., ‘From State Control to Competition: German Higher Education Transformed’ in: The Canadian Journal of
reform.’57 Unlike many other Western European countries like the Netherlands, the level of institutional autonomy remained high in Germany, and the majority of the academic class resisted to any utilitarian approaches in higher education.
From the 1990’s onwards, the process of renewal of the higher education sector as a whole was hindered by the re-unification. Reform was directed towards restructuring of the East German academic institutions and their adaptation in the West German system, which in its turn passed through a ‘crisis of legitimacy.58 In 1991, Dieter Simon, at that time the head of the German Science Council, stated that ‘German universities were rotten to its core.’59 The once so praised German universities had become under immense scrutiny, due to international competition and a chronic state of underfunding. A 2000 Science Council research shockingly revealed that at the 132 examined degree programs at German universities, at only 11 universities, more than a third of the students graduated within the prescribed time period. 60 Due to its chronic state of being underfunded and inefficient, the once praised German university (half a century ago a head supplier of Nobel prizes) had stranded in decline. This is not to say that the complete research landscape in Germany was in crisis. Many academic breakthroughs and valuable contributions to science could still be attributed to research institutes like
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft.
This figures suggest that reform of the higher education sector is urgently needed, in order to enhance international competitiveness and deal with the chronic underfunding. The urgency of reform was widely perceived amongst intellectuals and government officials as well. Than why does reform still take place so slowly? Why is the Bologna Declaration regarded with so many suspicions? Why are there still so many objections against modernization attempts? The answer lies in the political discourse and the place that the political system envisions for the university. One key feature in addressing the objections to reforms, is an assessment of the Humboldt Syndrom, that will be elaborated on in the next chapter.
5.2. History of higher education reforms in the Netherlands
57 Science Magazine, vol. 273, pp. 172-174 (1996)
58 Ibidem
59 Führ, C. ‘The German Education System since 1945: Outlines and Problems’ (Bonn: Inter Nationes 1997), p.182
In comparison to Germany, educational reforms could pass way more easily in the Netherlands. This is due to a couple of factors, which will be discussed in the following section. The Dutch history of educational reforms can be divided into two periods.
5.2.1 The Postwar Period 1945-1980
Roughly until 1980, the Dutch system of higher education was characterized by a high degree of academic self-regulation and state involvement. This was due to the necessity of dealing with a higher attendance of higher education after the Second World War, as well as a solid faith in the government’s ability to structure the higher education sector. The Dutch society was an excellent example of the postwar sprouting welfare state, in which the state provided the framework for higher education regulation. Government interference showed in legislation, decrees and administrative supervision. On the other hand, despite the government interference in higher education, academic affairs were largely left to professors. The degree of academic freedom and the unity of teaching and research was comparable to the German situation. As state regulation and academic freedom went hand in hand (unlike in Germany, where institutional autonomy was well preserved), the Dutch system has been described by John Clarke and Janet Newman as ‘bureau-professionalism’, which means that university remained untouched by government policy.61 It was also a closed system as society at large hardly exerted any influence on academic affairs.
The 1968 protests, the wave that wavered throughout Europe also reached the Netherlands, although it started only one year later. Also here, students regarded universities as oligarchic elite institutions. The public image that universities held was one of an ivory tower in which unworldly professors kept the youth of the streets. At the end of the 1960’s decade, under the influence of the student movement, this image was replaced by a ‘critical university’, expected to become the spearhead of the democratization and social inclusion.62 This also marked the starting point of a discussion about the accountability and relevance of science for society. The governmental steering did not produce the desired results. Alike in Germany, the growing number of student enrollments and increased participation in higher
61 Paradeise, C., E. Reale, I. Bleiklie and E. Ferlie, ‘University Governance: Western European Comparative Perspectives’ (Springer Science 2009) , p. 108
education, which was not accompanied by an increase of funds, led to restructure the
higher education system.
Democratization in the Dutch context meant a farewell to the ‘university of the professor in his ivory tower’ and an increased participation of students, academic staff and non-academic staff.63
5.2.2 The neoliberal Period
Until 1980, the Dutch higher education landscape could be characterized as strongly related to the German university tradition, with central features as the unity of teaching and research and academic freedom. In the last three decades, roughly tracing back to 1980, an Anglo-Saxon influence on Dutch higher education can be discovered. The post-1980 period in the Netherlands is marked by several neoliberal initiatives that aimed to enhance productivity, accountability and competition. A center-right cabinet acceded power in 1978, which heralded a new era of neo-liberalism and neo-conservatism in the public sector, including higher education. Paul Maassen describes the Netherlands as a unique case for studying the changing relationship between the government and higher education: ‘there is not any other Western European country in which government authorities claim a change of the state regulatory system to the extent the Dutch government does.’64 It mainly did so by a couple of retrenchment measures.
The most visible result was the implementation of the New Public Management (hereafter: NPM) agenda, much earlier than in Germany. As this represent such a considerable explanation for differing reactions to educational reform in Germany and the Netherlands, the NPM agenda will be discussed in a separate section. However, apart from the implementation of the NPM agenda in Dutch higher education, I will provide a short outline of some other neoliberal measures undertaken in the 1980’s, sometimes with sheer criticism, but could most often be seamlessly implemented.
63 Ritzen, J.M.M. and G. Marconi, ‘Governance and funding reforms in Dutch higher education: past, present, and future, in: European Journal of Higher Education, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 146-159
The greatest interference of the Dutch government in higher education was the 1985 policy paper Hoger Onderwijs: Autonomie en Kwaliteit (HOAK; Higher Education: Autonomy and Quality). The paper was mainly a response to some of the weaknesses of the higher education system, caused by its rapid growth: a high dropout rate and a long average time to degree, weak institutional management, and difficulties with attracting a large number of high quality academic staff members.65 The HOAK paper represented a new government strategy, as it refrained from interfering in institutional affairs and left the quality assurance to the higher education institutions, thereby adopting the role of ‘steering at a distance.’ The underlying assumption was that higher education had become too complex to be left to a single Ministry of Science of Education. Higher education could only be improved by strengthening institutional autonomy, as this would induce universities to function in a way that would better respond to the demands of society and an improvement of the quality of its primary activities. Enlarged institutional autonomy, hence, would ‘result in more scientific and technological breakthrough and better educated professionals.’66 Freedom for decision-making was left to the higher education institutions, whereby the state would take up a role as a watchman, mainly with regards to quality assurance. Detailed input control was replaced by checking afterwards whether the self-regulation of the higher education system led to outputs in an acceptable range, and only intervening when self-regulation was expected to lead to unacceptable or undesirable results.67
However, this did not mean that higher education was as a whole delegated to the institutions and the market. According to the Dutch constitution, the government retained the ultimate responsibility for higher education (so the government was even prohibited to forsake its educational duties). Moreover, the ‘rules of the game’ were still decided by the state, parallel to Germany, where the federal government provided some general outlines for higher education, in which the individual institutions enjoyed the institutional autonomy and executive power.
To sum up, the HOAK paper was an early attempt (one of the earliest in Western Europe) to make higher education more responsive to the market and encourage competitive behavior amongst institutions. Science should serve national (economic)
65 Maassen, P., E. Moen and B. Stensaker, ‘Reforming Higher Education in the Netherlands and Norway: The Role of the State and National Forms of Governance’ in: Policy Studies, vol. 32, no. 5 p.486-87
66 Maassen, P., ‘Governmental Steering and the Academic Culture’ , p.121
interests more directly; universities were increasingly supposed, or as academics might put it ‘forced’, to contribute to the nation’s welfare (which is considered far more problematic in Germany than in the Netherlands). It stressed the somewhat programmatic nature of science, and the first time the assumption that science should be at the disposal of society had entered the educational discourse.
The 1990’s were subsequently marked by several initiatives and measures to enhance the efficiency of the Dutch higher education landscape. One of these was the establishment of the so-called ‘studiehuis’, in which the balance of teaching shifts from the traditional classroom-teaching to individual learning and studying by the students. This was part of the plan ‘het Nieuwe Leren’ (the New Learning), which emphasizes responsibility amongst students. The 1990’s in the Netherlands, the period immediately preceding the Bologna Declaration, were marked by several initiatives and measures to enhance the efficiency of the Dutch higher education landscape. One of these was the establishment of the so-called ‘studiehuis’, in which the balance of teaching shifts from the traditional classroom-teaching to individual learning and studying by the students. This was part of the plan ‘het Nieuwe Leren’ (the New Learning), which emphasizes responsibility amongst students. The university equivalent was ‘studeerbaarheid’(roughly translated as ‘study ability), which included every measure to assure that students finished their degree in the allotted time.
6: New Public Management as the magic words in the
Netherlands
As highlighted in the previous chapter, from the 1980s onwards, the German and the Dutch higher education landscape developed in a diverse way. Where neoliberal influence in the higher education sector vastly gained momentum in the Netherlands, Germany adhered for a great deal to its traditional university system, with some modest reform attempts. As aforementioned, the New Public Management (NPM) agenda is one of the central aspects of the Anglo-Saxon, neoliberal outline of university structures. As the Netherlands was one of the first countries to implement this agenda, it already had more experience with the goals of the Bologna Declaration, mainly in the field of internationalization, accountability and ‘meeting the demands of society by means of education.’ Whereas Germany was rather a newcomer to NPM at the time the Bologna Declaration was drafted, the outlines of the Bologna Declaration represented a greater rupture with the traditional higher education landscape and its managerial structures. Thus substantially explains the dissatisfaction of university boards and intellectuals in Germany. The following section will elaborate on the features of NPM and the timeline of its implementation in both countries.
NPM is a well-known public sector reform that emerged in the early 1980’s under the Thatcher governments in the UK. NPM envisions a public sector that is based on markets, competition and result-orientation. It emphasizes that public actors, such as the governments, should adhere to their core duties, focusing rather on achieving the desired results and outcomes of their services than on the process and rules of delivery.68 These measures are aimed to establish a public sector that is smaller, more efficient and more result-orientated. Value for money is an important asset of the result-orientation. For public institutions like the university, NPM means that more emphasis is put on the direct results the universities yield and how their produced research benefits society,
