Accreditation, along with assessment and audit, is one of the three main approaches to quality assurance in tertiary education. While audit focuses on internal procedures to achieve established objectives and assessment makes graded judgements, accreditation is an evaluation of the extent to which an institution meets a threshold standard and qualifies for a certain status (OECD, 2008). Quality assurance of universities has received a growing attention in OECD countries for the increase in scale and diversity of tertiary education systems, along with the need for policy makers to show that public funds are spent effectively and that the public purposes for financing tertiary education are actually fulfilled (OECD, 2009).
In the Netherlands, the Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders (NVAO) assesses the internal quality assurance of higher education institutions, and the quality of the programmes they provide. There is a mandatory general accreditation process for all university programmes, including ITP programmes. Accreditation reviews occur every six years and are conducted by a panel of peers. Also, institutions can voluntarily apply for an institutional quality assurance audit, which assesses institution-wide quality assurance and quality culture aspects. A positive result entitles to a more “limited” assessment in the accreditation of the programme. Most of the Dutch universities have applied for this voluntary audit.
The limited assessment framework focuses on four aspects related to the substantive quality of the programme (NVAO, 2018):
NVAO may decide that the programme will be accredited for another six years, that the programme will not be re-accredited, or that the current accreditation term will temporarily be extended within the context of an improvement period.
The institutional assessment process respects the autonomy of the higher education institution. Rather than focus on a “checklist” of mandatory components, the process evaluates the vision, quality delivery, and culture of improvement in the institution. Institutions must provide evidence of their internal quality assurance and whether the institution is continuously working on development and improvement (NVAO, 2018). The accreditation by the NVAO works in cycles of six years that can be extended to eight – ‘recovery period’ – if the assessment finds that the quality is partially compliant with the standards.
On one hand, the quality assurance “system” aspect of the review evaluates structural features, including aims and objectives, an improvement cycle, periodic evaluations, and systematic monitoring of improvements. On the other hand, the quality “culture” aspect assesses the institution’s ability to create a sustained culture of improvement. Site visits determine whether there is a clear and manifested vision, a shared focus on improvement, leadership, co‑operation and self-management (see Error! Reference source not found.).
“This key question is answered on the basis of four coherent questions that constitute the point of departure for the institutional audit:
In the framework, the above questions have been translated into four standards: 1. vision and policy; 2. Implementation; 3. evaluation and monitoring; 4. focus on development.
The four standards constitute a “reflective cycle” on the basis of which the institution demonstrates that all its departments observe a strong quality culture focused on development, and follow up policy results. The quality culture is supported by an efficient internal quality assurance system that continually safeguards the quality of the education it provides.”
Thanks to the work of NVAO, system analysis of ITP programmes showed that primary teacher ITP programmes have made significant progress in order to improve the enrolment of students, the teacher educators, the preparedness of students and the quality culture of these programmes. Further, ITP programmes at the university level showed areas that needed improvement, e.g. the teaching of didactics and more practice related skills (Brouwer et al., 2016).
The OECD review team in its review of the Netherlands on 6‑10 March 2017 concluded that the accreditation system is a strength in that it:
The OECD review team also noted that:
There are few systemic initiatives for sharing best practice and incentivising school participation in ITP.There is a strong culture of collaboration in the Dutch system, but there are few expectations placed on institutions via accreditation to share quality practices across the entire system. In particular, schools should be explicitly accounted for their role in preparing teachers and initiating partnerships with ITP providers. Moreover, the school inspection process could include the extent in which schools develop strong ITP/professional activities in collaboration with ITP providers.
Brouwer, P. et al. (2016), OECD TALIS Initial Teacher Preparation Study Country Background Report The Netherlands, The national Centre of Expertise of Vocational Education, ’s-Hertogenbosch. 
NVAO (2018), Assessment framework for the higher education accreditation system of the Netherlands, NVAO, The Hague, https://www.nvao.com/procedures/assessment-framework-accreditation-system-netherlands-2018. 
OECD (2009), Higher Education to 2030, Volume 2, Globalisation, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264075375-en. 
OECD (2008), Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society: Volume 1 and Volume 2, OECD Reviews of Tertiary Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264046535-en. 
This case study describes a “promising practice” drawn from an OECD review of initial teacher preparation in the Netherlands from 6-10 March 2017.
The OECD Review Team – Hannah von Ahlefeld (OECD), Michael Day (University of Roehampton), Kjetil Helgeland (OECD) and Danielle Toon (Learning First) – identified a number of “Promising practices” in each country. These practices may not be widespread or representative, but seen in the context of other challenges, they represent a strength or opportunity to improve the country’s initial teacher preparation system – and for other countries to learn from them.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to firstname.lastname@example.org.