The Role of Dutch Government in Curriculum Design and Change

Abstract

In 1985, the Dutch Ministry of Education and Science proposed a fundamental change in the relationship between the national government and the higher education system. In a policy paper entitled Higher Education-Autonomy and Quality (HOAK), the Ministry suggested replacing previous law, which emphasised the use of stringent governmental regulation and explicit objectives and procedures, with more institutional autonomy in decision making. Issues covered by HOAK included planning, funding, the division of the higher education system, educational matters (e.g. duration of studies, the examination system, admission requirements) and evaluation of institutional performance (Ministry of Education and Science, 1985; for an analysis, see Van Vught, 1989a; Maassen & Van Vught, 1988). In this article, we examine whether the new government approach has been fully implemented with regard to curriculum design and curriculum change. Our analysis is based on three distinct periods: (1) the Two-Tier Act (1981) and its implementation (1982), (2) the appearance of the policy paper HOAK (1985), and (3) the implementation of the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (1993). We have restricted the study to government involvement with the curriculum in the university sector because until 1993 different jurisdictions applied to the university sector and to the higher vocational sector (HBO). Regulation of curriculum development by the Ministry can take place in two ways. Regulations can try to bring about certain developments by focusing attention on specific actors in the educational system, such as institutions (individual or collective), faculties, departments or individuals (professors, teachers, students). For instance, government regulation can require university councils to develop internal examination regulations. Alternatively, government regulations can focus directly on the curriculum, including its content and design: regulations may prescribe the sequence of courses within the curriculum or the content areas which must be fulfilled by students. These two regulatory approaches roughly follow two steering models: state supervision and state control. In a state-controlled higher education system the national ministry of education regulates