KReDO - Finding the right balance through clarity on frameworks and freedom

“The aim of the KReDO project is to establish the most relevant frameworks and the scope for development across FHML. We also want to clarify what support educational innovators and teaching staff can expect.” The aim is not to introduce new rules or restrict freedom, Cruijssen emphasises. “It is about making existing frameworks more explicit. Of course, we are also looking critically at what is already in place, where the bottlenecks are and where things need to be adjusted or clarified.” Plasqui adds: “If you make clear what is possible, you can use that as a starting point for thinking about innovation.”

The steering group selected four themes that apply across FHML: quality assurance in education, educational roles and programme budgets, minors, and assessment. For each theme, a project group consisting of people from educational practice, educational expertise and the support staff is examining the current frameworks and considering what will be needed in the future. “We want people to work together from the outset rather than alongside each other, to avoid an ‘us versus them’ discussion,” says Plasqui.

“The revisions of the bachelor’s programmes in Health Sciences and Medicine demonstrate the potential of KReDO. Both programmes need to develop a range of minors,” says Plasqui. “To avoid uncontrolled growth and overlap, we are establishing a number of frameworks: a minor must be accessible to students from at least two programmes, take place in semester 5 and allow students to select individual courses. We first identify which minor courses already exist. That will show us where there is still room for subjects that are not yet covered.” Cruijssen adds that these frameworks also align seamlessly with current practice in the bachelor’s programmes in Biomedical Sciences and Regenerative Medicine. “This will allow us to offer our students a broad range of choices, while keeping that range manageable and efficient.”

“Programme budgets are another example. The domains differ so much that it can sometimes seem as though different rules apply,” says Plasqui. “But that isn’t the case: the budgets have the same basic structure; it is the roles and forms of education that differ.” Cruijssen adds: “Programme coordinators do make very different use of the flexibility to allocate the budget. Some know exactly how they want to use their budget, while for others this is less clear. This is where practical support, such as training, a webpage or a designated point of contact could make a real difference.”

The word ‘frameworks’ can easily suggest restrictions. “But that is precisely what we are not trying to achieve,” says Plasqui. “Academic freedom is very important. The frameworks are primarily there to provide certainty and guidance about what is and is not possible. There will certainly still be room to develop ideas that fall outside the frameworks. KReDO makes it possible to discuss these at an early stage in the process. With clear guidelines in place, it actually makes it easier to make a well-reasoned exception from time to time.”

By the start of the academic year 2027/28, the frameworks should be available in a clear and accessible overview for course and programme coordinators, directors of education and the support staff. When will KReDO be considered a success? “When staff members are happy,” says Plasqui. “Ultimately, it should contribute to job satisfaction.” Cruijssen adds: “When we apply the frameworks consistently and continue to evaluate whether they are still fit for purpose. And when KReDO remains alive and relevant, so that we can continue to learn from one another.” As far as she is concerned, the name KReDO – coined by René Nijssen – is therefore particularly apt: “It really is a credo: this is how we want to work together to ensure that we can continue to innovate our education in a sustainable and efficient way.”