Rector Jan Danckaert already pointed to it after his re-election: in February–March 2027, the VUB will undergo an institutional review by the NVAO. The Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisation will assess the university’s educational policy and quality assurance processes. Vice-Rector for Education and Student Affairs Nadine Engels and Head of Educational Support Steven Van Luchene explain what is really at stake: “This is a story that involves the entire university.”
What exactly is coming our way with the NVAO institutional review?
Nadine Engels: “Today, Flemish higher education institutions have the autonomy to safeguard the quality of their own programmes. That means we monitor quality ourselves and make adjustments where necessary. But autonomy also comes with accountability. Every six years, we are required to demonstrate how we take up that responsibility and we receive external feedback on it.”
Nadine Engels, Vice-Rector for Education and Student Affairs
You are currently preparing for the review visit and drafting a critical reflection, which must be completed by the end of September. What does that involve?
Steven: “The critical reflection is a self-evaluation that prepares us for four key questions the committee will ask. First: does our educational policy align with our vision and with wider societal challenges? That includes the Brussels context, but also questions such as: how are we, as an institution, dealing with GenAI? Secondly, the committee will examine whether our policies are actually effective. In other words: can you see the impact of those policies in the lecture hall? The third question focuses on the quality assurance system itself. How is it organised? Finally, the committee will assess whether there is a university-wide culture of quality. Is there a culture at every level of asking for feedback, critically evaluating ourselves and acting on that feedback?”
“Today, we have the autonomy to safeguard the quality of our own programmes”
Nadine: “That critical reflection is the culmination of a process that started during the previous institutional review. At the time, we received a series of recommendations. The idea is that you translate those recommendations into policy plans and concrete actions. You then need to demonstrate that in the critical reflection. At the same time, you also have to show how your quality assurance system works. The timing is favourable for us. After the previous review, we were at the beginning of a new quality assurance cycle, which has now been completed. That means we can look back on the entire cycle and evaluate what worked well and what could be improved. To do so, we gathered 360-degree input.”
Steven: “What also makes the timing particularly interesting is that we are between two policy periods. ASP5, the previous strategic plan, has just concluded and ASP6 is now taking shape. In that sense, the institutional review arrives at exactly the right moment to reflect on the past while looking ahead.”
Is it genuinely critical?
Steven: “Yes. The critical reflection is our self-evaluation report. It is not a promotional brochure, but an honest guide that shows what is working well, where we have made progress and where there are still areas for improvement. We are deliberately choosing to enter this review process with complete openness.”
Nadine: “An institutional review is an opportunity to learn. If you are not willing to open up and provide an honest insight into the institution, you gain nothing from the exercise.”
Why do you want to involve everyone?
Steven: “It is a misconception to think that a group of people in grey suits will simply come and speak to the central services and that will be the end of it. This is not just the story of the Vice-Rector for Education or the central quality assurance services. This is the story of the entire university. Anyone involved in creating, supporting, organising or shaping education is part of it. Quality assurance is not some abstract concept. Quality is about very concrete matters: from financial support for students, to curriculum design, to timetabling. Every one of those elements contributes to the quality of education. That is why we want the institutional review to become a broadly supported quality story.”
How can staff prepare themselves?
Steven: “First and foremost, by staying informed. In the coming months, we will regularly publish news updates and organise information sessions. Make sure that you and your colleagues are not caught off guard when the review comes up in conversation. Beyond that, people can also contribute actively. Keep the fundamentals of your role in good order. For example, critically evaluate the robustness of your exam questions in the context of GenAI. Contribute to educational innovation as well: stay informed about discussions within your programme council, know the strategic plan and take part in the priority actions.”
“This is not a promotional brochure, but an honest guide”
Steven Van Luchene, Head of Educational Support
How could that affect the institutional review?
Nadine: “Based on the critical reflection and an exploratory visit in the autumn, the committee will formulate a number of research questions. They will not only test those questions through interviews, but during the in-depth visit in the spring they will also examine how things work in practice. That is why they will select a number of programmes to verify whether the quality assurance processes actually function as we describe them.”
Is such a visit something to fear?
Nadine: “No. The NVAO promotes an appreciative approach. The previous review process went very well.”
Steven: “They are not coming here to look for holes in our story or to approach us with suspicion. But the institutional review is not without consequences. An institution can fail. I do not expect that to happen, but if you do not meet the standard, it means the committee believes you are not capable of safeguarding quality independently. In that case, you return to the old system, where every programme is assessed separately by an external body. The advantage of the current system is that, if the review is positive, all our programmes are accredited for the next six years and therefore remain government funded. Besides passing or failing, there is also the possibility of a resit. In that scenario, you receive a number of recommendations together with a strict deadline. Over the past few years, several institutions have faced that situation. Naturally, we want to avoid it.”
Who actually sits on an NVAO committee?
Steven: “Higher education experts with governance experience. Former rectors, for example, but also people from the wider societal field. There is always a student on the committee as well, alongside experts in international quality assurance. Naturally, independence is closely safeguarded; committee members cannot have any connection to the institution they are reviewing.”
Nadine: “Ideally, such a committee would assess every institution in Flanders and the Netherlands. Since it takes six years to review everyone, that is not realistic. But there is an effort to ensure as much overlap as possible.”
What do you expect the committee to focus on?
Steven: “I am certain they will examine how we deal with GenAI at programme level. GenAI has transformed higher education profoundly in recent years. The committee will want to see how our policies have responded to that shift, but also what impact that has had on programmes themselves. How have exam questions been adapted? Are students being properly guided towards responsible use of GenAI? In addition, our critical reflection places a strong focus on study success. We invested heavily in that throughout the past policy period. I expect the committee will look closely within a number of programmes to see what those initiatives actually mean in practice.”
We are operating in a climate of budget cuts. Could that affect the institutional review?
Nadine: “Just like the rise of GenAI, budget cuts are part of the context in which we operate. We will have to demonstrate that we are making smart and realistic choices within that context. Spreading slightly less funding across everything may not be the right approach. You need to make realistic, well-founded decisions about what you will and will not prioritise.”
Steven: “The context is changing. The question is how you respond to that as an institution. Is the policy responding to the financial crisis in a mature way? And does that policy have sufficient support within the academic community? Those are questions the committee will also examine.”