The system of councils and committees through which students and staff have a say in the policies of their educational institution is called ‘The Co-determination’. The rules that ‘The Co-Determination’ has to deal with come from the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (WHW). This is a hugely important reference work for co-determination members. But it is also a long and complex set of rules. In this guide, we cover the layers of co-determination, the different co-determination systems, and the role of the Student Assessor. We also take a closer look at a number of exemptions to these rules.
In this guide, we use many terms and abbreviations. Some of these come directly from the law, some of these are common within the codetermination system. Many abbreviations, terms, names of council types, etc. may vary from one institution to another. If we use a different term than you, then this does not mean that you are using the wrong term. Be aware of that!
The Participation Helpdesk is always available for questions about rights, obligations, forms of co-determination or other matters related to co-determination!
The Co-determination layers
The co-determination is usually not just one council or committee that has a say in all matters at the institution – that would also be very difficult! No, co-determination is divided into three layers: central, decentral and programme level. There are a few institutions where this works slightly differently; we will deal with the exceptions later.
The central level is also known as the institution, university of applied sciences, or university level. This is where the codetermination bodies are situated that discuss central issues such as the central budget, the institutional plan and the quality assurance system with the Executive Board. Councils at this level are often called Central Councils, University Councils or University of Applied Sciences Councils.
The decentralised level is also called the faculty or academy level. This is where the codetermination bodies sit who discuss decentralised matters such as the decentralised budget and parts of the Education and Examination Regulations (“OER”) with their faculty director, the dean or the faculty board. Councils at this level are often called Decentralised Councils, Faculty Councils, Partial Councils or Academy Councils.
At the programme level are the co-determination members who discuss programme matters, such as parts of the Education and Examination Regulations (OER), and how they are implemented with their programme director, the programme director or the programme management. Co-determination at this level era referred to as programme committees.
(Un)divided systems of co-determination
First of all: the different co-determination systems. This actually comes down to one choice: the divided or the undivided council (WHW article 9.30; or WHW article 10.16a). In an undivided system, at central level there is one university council or university of applied sciences council, and at decentralised level one faculty council (also known as academy council) per faculty/academy, which includes both students and employees. In a divided system, there are two councils at central and decentralised levels: one for students, and one for employees. The Programme Committee is always undivided. See the figure on the side for illustration.
This is quite a complicated story. What is important to remember is that there are several options, which carry certain legal consequences. In practice, a co-determination member does not have to deal with this theory. You basically only have to deal with the system that applies at your institution. In case you need it, we will discuss the pros and cons of both systems below.
The Joint Meeting (NL: “Gezamenlijke Vergadering)
What stands out in the figure is that it also depicts a joint meeting (and faculty joint meeting). These are bodies where students and staff come together to engage in discussions with their board members or dean. For some files only the joint meeting has rights, while the students and staff separately do not; At most institutions, the budget is such a file. Often, the joint meeting also has committees.
The difference between the co-determination systems
The figure seems to suggest that the difference between the co-determination systems is mainly a cosmetic choice, this is not the case! When choosing an undivided system, the entire council is subject to the Higher Education and Scientific Research Act (“WHW”). With a choice of a divided system, this is slightly different. This is because then the Workers’ Councils Act (“WOR”) also applies to the university or university of applied sciences. In practice, this means that the Workers’ Council (“OR”) falls under the WOR, and any additional rights and obligations mentioned in the WHW also apply (WHW article 9.30 paragraph 1a; or WHW article 10.16a paragraph 1a).
Student co-determination does remain subject to the HRA. This is because if a divided system is chosen, the Executive Board will draw up a co-determination regulation that provides students with at least the rights they would have under an undivided system (WHW article 9.30 paragraph 3; or WHW article 10.16a paragraph 3).
Furthermore, the shared system means that students and staff no longer decide (together) on all matters. There is often less contact between students and staff, and there is often less sharing. However, a divided system does mean that there is more legislation to rely on as co-determination, and there are more opportunities to engage with the board and/or dean. It also prevents students and staff from having to “just fight it out” if they disagree on a particular issue. This sometimes happens in an undivided system, where the student and staff delegates legally have a collective say only.
So, there are many arguments for and against both systems. It is important to be aware of this, because the choice of system is not fixed. This choice can be made again and again, but not within five years since the last amendment took effect (HRA Art. 9.30 paragraph 2; or HRA Art. 10.16a paragraph 2). In the case of an undivided council, an amendment decision requires the consent of the Central Council (HRA Art. 9.33 paragraph 1f; or HRA Art. 10.20 paragraph 1g) or the consent of both the Central Student Council (HRA Art. 9.33 paragraph 1f; or HRA Art. 10.20 paragraph 1g), and the Workers’ Council (HRA Art. 9.30 paragraph 5; or HRA Art. 10.16 paragraph 5). In practice, we see very few system changes.
The Student Assessor and exceptions
In this piece, we discuss the role of the Student Assessor, and some exemptions to the rules that could potentially affect the co-determination structure at your institution.
The Student Assessor
In principle, at the head of a faculty there is only one administrator: the dean. This structure can be deviated from (and many institutions do!) by appointing a “multi-headed” board. These individuals make the decisions together, and also all count as “directors” (think a dean, vice-dean, education portfolio holder and the like). In the case of a multi-headed faculty board, a Student Assessor is appointed. This is a student who participates in the meetings of the faculty board and has an “advisory voice” there (WHW art. 9.12 paragraph 2; WHW art. 10.3b paragraph 4). This student also has access to all relevant documents for these meetings. At many institutions, the Student Assessor and forms of co-determination (such as, for example, the Faculty Council/Faculty Student Council) work closely together. Although of course the Student Assessor is not allowed to share all the information just like that. Please note that the student assessor is not part of the co-determination. They are technically administrators.
The same kind of rules apply at programme level: In the case of a multi-headed programme board, a Student Assessor is also appointed (WHW article 9.17 paragraph 2; WHW article 10.3b paragraph 4). In practice, this is a lot less common because study programmes have a multi-member board less often.
The student assessor is also sometimes called differently. There may also be an assessor at central level, or assessors may be assigned by department rather than programme level. It is important here to recognise the difference between a different interpretation of the law, and a violation of the same. What is named above are the rules, more than that is allowed, less than that is not allowed, even if something else takes its place. A student-assessor at the central level is allowed, for example, but if that is a replacement for the compulsory decentralised student-assessors, it is of course not allowed.
Universities with only one faculty
At Universities with only one faculty, a number of exception rules apply. At such institutions, the Dean is the Rector Magnificus, and the Executive Board also fulfils the duties of the Faculty Board (WHW Art. 9.12 paragraph 3). In this case, there is a multi-headed board at the head of the faculty and therefore a Student Assessor is present.
Universities of Applied Sciences with one or no faculties
For University of Applied Sciences, this is not regulated in the same way. Whereas at Universities, education takes place in faculties by definition (WHW Section 9.12(1)), this is not the case at Universities of Applied Sciences. This means that it is possible for a university of applied sciences not to contain any faculties. In that case, there are only central co-determination council and education committees and no faculty co-determination council. The Executive Board takes all decisions that do not fall to the programme boards.
If the university has only one faculty, there is an executive board (and central co-determination) and Dean or Faculty Board (and faculty co-determination council).
Faculties with only one programme
Faculties with only one programme are also possible. Something special is also possible here: it can be decided that the faculty co-determination takes on the function of the Programme Committee. (WHW article 9.18 paragraph 6; WHW article 10.3c paragraph 6) In this case, the faculty co-determination also takes over the rights and duties that would belong to the Programme Committee.
University of Applied Sciences with only one programme
It may be that a college contains only one programme (think, for example, of categorical pabo’s). In that case, we take two rules mentioned above together. In that case, the central co-determination council also acts as the decentralised co-determination council and the programme committee.