3.2 Control and monitoring
The control and monitoring of the Quality Agreements are part of the regular planning and control cycle. The Quality Agreements are explicitly on the agenda of the bilateral meetings between the EB and the School Boards twice a year:
Spring meeting: (1) progress and (2) review of achievements in the past year.
Fall meeting: (1) budget and annual plan (including plans for the Quality Agreements) and (2) progress.
Because the funds are allocated to the Schools, the substantive monitoring of the Quality Agreements within the Schools takes place according to monitoring schedules (which describe in detail what has/has not been achieved and why) and a financial dashboard.
The EB assesses the progress and whether the representative bodies have had sufficient opportunity to provide critical advice. This substantive assessment is included in this section. This section was discussed with the University Council separately from the other parts of the annual report on June 2, 2022.
Table 3.2.1 Progress in 2021 | ||||
School | Budget (in € thousand) | Actual (in € thousand) | Difference (in € thousand) | Progress |
TiSEM | 2,456 | 2,218 | -238 | 90% |
TLS | 1,106 | 996 | -110 | 90% |
TSB | 1,528 | 1,717 | 189 | 112% |
TSHD | 903 | 1,269 | 366 | 141% |
TST | 76 | 68 | -8 | 89% |
Total | 6,069 | 6,268 | 199 | 103% |
Based on the monitoring schedules of the Schools, it can be concluded that the special situation in 2021 (as in 2020) has led to substantial choices. The status is presented in Table 3.2.1. Figure 3.2.1 displays the expenditures for each theme, and Figure 3.2.2 displays the expenditures for each Quality Agreement. For 2021, the overall picture is that more has been invested in Theme 1: More Intensive and Smaller-scale Education (more than 130%). More was also invested for Agreement C (Action Plan for Student Well-being, Themes 2/3) and Agreement J (Promoting Digitalization in Education, Theme 6). Less was invested in Themes 2–6.
These choices were made at the level of the Schools. The differences between Schools are shown in Table 3.2.1. For example, TSHD (+41%) and TSB (+12%) invested more than was budgeted. For TSHD, this entailed catching up relative to 2020, when it had spent considerably less (-45%). TiSEM (-10%), TLS (-10%), and TST (-11%) invested less than they had intended. The differences between Schools were nevertheless smaller than they had been in 2020. The following section discusses the progress and choices made in 2020 for each School.
Figure 3.2.1 Progress on national themes, all Schools
Figure 3.2.2 Progress on Tilburg University themes, all Schools
