Gifted Education in the Netherlands

Abstract

In the summer of 2011, the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture, and Science presented
a letter to the Cabinet, containing the policy objectives for the education of talented,
gifted, and highly gifted students. In action plans for primary, secondary, and higher
education, in addition to the development of teacher skills, specific measures were
announced, which should lead to better education and opportunities for developing
the potential of these students. This article gives an overview of the current state of
affairs in the Netherlands regarding the Dutch educational system and the education
of talented, highly gifted, and outstanding students including which talents are valued
and what beliefs people have about gifted individuals. The Minister’s objectives for
future directions in this regard, as described in the action plans, are also discussed.

Full text

http://jeg.sagepub.com/
Gifted
Journal for the Education of the
http://jeg.sagepub.com/content/36/1/133
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0162353212471622
January 2013
2013 36: 133 originally published online 11Journal for the Education of the Gifted
Greet C. De Boer, Alexander E. M. G. Minnaert and Gert Kamphof
Gifted Education in the Netherlands
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Children)
The Official Publication of the Association for the Gifted (a division of the Council for Excep tional
can be found at:Journal for the Education of the GiftedAdditional services and information for
http://jeg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://jeg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
http://jeg.sagepub.com/content/36/1/133.refs.htmlCitations:
What is This?
- Jan 11, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Jan 30, 2013Version of Record >>
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Journal for the Education of the Gifted
36(1) 133 –150
© The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0162353212471622
jeg.sagepub.com
471622JEG36110.1177/0162353212471622Journ
al for the Education of the GiftedDe Boer et al.
1
University of Groningen, Netherlands
2
CPS Educational Development and Consulting, Amersfoort, Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Greet C. De Boer, CPS Educational Development and Consulting, P.O. Box 1592, Amersfoort, 3800 BN,
Netherlands.
Email: g.deboer@cps.nl
Gifted Education in
the Netherlands
Greet C. De Boer
1, 2
, Alexander E. M. G. Minnaert
1
,
and Gert Kamphof
2
Abstract
In the summer of 2011, the Dutch Minister of Education, Culture, and Science presented
a letter to the Cabinet, containing the policy objectives for the education of talented,
gifted, and highly gifted students. In action plans for primary, secondary, and higher
education, in addition to the development of teacher skills, specific measures were
announced, which should lead to better education and opportunities for developing
the potential of these students. This article gives an overview of the current state of
affairs in the Netherlands regarding the Dutch educational system and the education
of talented, highly gifted, and outstanding students including which talents are valued
and what beliefs people have about gifted individuals. The Minister’s objectives for
future directions in this regard, as described in the action plans, are also discussed.
Keywords
policies, gifted and talented students, talent development, gifted programs, teacher
training, school programs, educational system, teacher effectiveness
In 2009, when the results of an international study of reading, mathematics, and sci-
ence achievement were published, academic outcomes for Dutch students were rela-
tively good (Programme for International Student Assessment [PISA], 2009). This
was somewhat surprising because of the recent discussion in the Netherlands about the
zesjescultuur, or the culture of C’s, and a slight decline in the examination results for
the subjects Dutch, English, and Mathematics. Nevertheless, in Europe, only students
in Finland obtained better results. Globally, however, it should be noted that other
countries are improving, especially Asian countries.
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

134 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
Rankings of PISA results do not provide any information about the quality of edu-
cation for gifted students. The Netherlands merits its current position mainly due to the
good education of a “broad middle group.” The extremes—the very “weak,” less able,
or struggling students, on one hand, and the gifted, highly advanced, or excellent stu-
dents, on the other hand—do not fare as well (Department of Education, Culture, and
Science, 2011b). This fits with what is often said about the Dutch national character:
“don’t stick out” and “good is good enough.”
The Dutch culture is negatively criticized as a culture of C’s, in which there is no
place for top universities, pioneering research, or leading companies such as Apple,
and as a rather egalitarian country where there is no place for those who stand out. This
image—especially in recent years—is now a topic of debate. Excellence should be
appreciated, in students, teachers, or schools, and possibly lead to characterizing a
school as an “excellent school” (Department of Education, Culture, and Science,
2011a). Currently there are different kinds of services for gifted students, such as
“schools with gifted profiles” (found in primary and secondary education), schools
with the so-called “Leonardo profile” (school-within-a-school), enrichment classes,
and pull-out classes. The impetus for all this is the potential economic benefits of
gifted education. This is a worldwide trend and the Netherlands is no exception
(Standaert, 2008). For the Netherlands to maintain its prosperity, leadership in the
development and application of knowledge must be sustained. With this in mind, there
is increasingly less room for mediocrity in education.
It is a fact that education in the Netherlands is traditionally less focused on gifted or
profoundly gifted and talented students. The common belief is that these students will
learn anyway and do not need any additional aid or guidance. And if the learning out-
comes are disappointing, the alleged giftedness of the student is questioned. Below,
five typical characteristics of Dutch education that may underlie this are described.
First, in the Netherlands, starting at age 3, children may attend preschool education
before going to primary school at 4 years of age. During primary education, pupils are
in mixed-ability classes, and most teachers are able to direct differentiated instruction,
individualized learning and teaching, and are skilled in grouping practices. This, how-
ever, does not mean that when teaching in more homogeneous settings, teachers dif-
ferentiate instruction for gifted learners.
Primary education comprises eight grades, and after the eighth grade, children go
on to different forms of secondary education. The Netherlands has a very stratified
educational system. Few other countries divide pupils into different types of schools
as early as in the Netherlands. Teachers in secondary schools, therefore, hardly dif-
ferentiate their teaching, because classes are relatively homogeneous.
Simply as a result of population density, it is possible for school types to exist in
relatively close proximity. The Netherlands still has a segregated educational sys-
tem that allows different religious affiliations to maintain similar schools. In
addition to regular education, there are also schools for students with special
education needs due to learning and/or behavioral problems, both in primary as
well as in secondary education.
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

De Boer et al. 135
In secondary education, several mainstream school types can be distinguished:
schools that provide practical skills teaching for students with special education needs,
three levels of secondary vocational education, higher general education, and preuni-
versity education. At age 12, students are selected for one of the mainstream school
types and this high degree of selection and stratification distinguishes the Netherlands
educational system from other systems internationally. For many students, the possi-
bility of higher education is removed relatively early (Scheerens, Luyten, & van
Raven, 2011).
Second, Dutch teachers are well educated and well trained, but gifted individuals
seldom aspire to become teachers due to the status of the profession. University grad-
uates with top grades or a PhD are rare in schools, and in the past few years they have
even become increasingly rarer. In other words, there is a group of gifted students
who are smarter than their teachers. Because the student differs in terms of intelli-
gence, thinking, and metacognitive skills, this can lead to misunderstandings and lack
of recognition on the part of the teacher (Department of Education, Culture, and
Science, 2011d).
Third, school inspections and the publication of inspection results in the media are
more for the purpose of preventing a school from becoming a weak school than on the
school becoming an excellent school. Students are often criticized for perpetuating the
culture of C’s. To a large extent the same goes for schools. Ensuring a satisfactory
result is the common goal, but where a nine (an A) may be feasible, a seven or six
(a C) is often seen as sufficient.
Fourth, schools in the Netherlands are mainly “special education” (bijzonder
onderwijs)—not to be confused with special needs education—so-called because of
their religious affiliation. Special education authority is exercised not by govern-
ment but by independent boards. More than 70% of primary and secondary educa-
tion is special education, while less than 30% is categorized as public. This is where
the affiliation—whether religious or educational—plays an important role.
Distinctions between schools are partly along these lines, in addition to schools dis-
tinguishing themselves by the attention that is paid to culture, sports, educational
climate, modern facilities, and so on. In other words, there is a wide range of schools,
even without going into the levels or mainstream types. Schools are very reluctant to
distinguish themselves in terms of quality or in terms of targeting gifted students.
When more transparent evaluations of schools in the media began in 2000, it was
revealed that all the high-scoring schools barely addressed this target group. There
seems to be a kind of modesty involved here, as if it’s something that just happens
to the school and is not the result of a conscious strategy (Salimi & Ghonoodi,
2012).
Finally, there are many opinions about what comprises good education for gifted
students, how to identify and understand these students, and what education and
counseling approaches are most effective. The different views have prevented prog-
ress in gifted education. When schools decided to focus on gifted students, educators
do not know what approaches, methods, or instruments should be used.
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

136 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
As already indicated, there has been a turning point in the Netherlands; interest in
excellence is increasing. It has also become apparent that if the Netherlands’ (Europe’s)
economic lead, with its associated prosperity, is to be maintained, then this will come
about by the fostering of top talent. The subsequent plans of action and policy propos-
als put forward by the Department of Education, Culture, and Science (2011a, 2011b,
2011c) are recent, as is the introduction of Schools with a Gifted Profile and Schools
with a Leonardo Concept (school-within-a-school). A few years ago, the designation
of excellent teachers and schools was unthinkable.
Policy Development in Gifted and Talented Education
Quality education is consistent with and responds to the potential of pupils, particu-
larly the cognitive levels and the potentials of pupils. Other elements also play a role,
such as learning style, motivation, talent in areas other than cognitive ability, as well
as the possible limitations a student has to deal with. The goal of the current govern-
ment is to encourage excellent performance from all students and the educational
system as a whole. In the action plan and strategic agenda of the Minister and the State
Secretary of the Department of Education, various measures have been announced
which should contribute to such an ambitious learning culture (Van Bijsterveldt-
Vliegenthart & Zijlstra, 2011). Specific measures have been reported concerning a
policy focus on the top 20% in primary education, the top 20% in preuniversity sec-
ondary education, and the 10% of students in higher education and university who
participate in excellence programs (Table 1; Segers & Hoogeveen, 2012). Before the
specific measures in these action plans are examined more closely, an overview of
policy measures during the years that have preceded this and how these measures
were translated into the assignment of projects to many institutions focusing on edu-
cational development will be presented.
In the years prior to the establishment of these policies, much had occurred in the
Netherlands with regard to the education of gifted and highly gifted students. The
Netherlands, like many other countries, has a long history of organizing extracurricular
instruction for students with learning disabilities. However, when it comes to students
who need differentiated instruction, often only weak performers are considered. For a
long time, little attention has been paid to gifted and highly gifted students who can han-
dle more than the standard curriculum, and who also require differentiated instruction. A
little over 10 years ago, there was growing dissatisfaction among parents and parental
organizations about the large number of gifted children who stayed home from school
(absenteeism), which became a critical reason for the government to examine the effects
of education on feelings of well-being and the learning results of gifted students.
In 2000, the Department of Education, Culture, and Science established a National
High Ability Information Center. The purpose of this center was to provide the govern-
ment with information about developments and issues in primary and secondary edu-
cation regarding appropriate education for highly gifted students. This was caused, as
mentioned above, by criticism from parents of gifted children as to how schools
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

De Boer et al. 137
responded to the pedagogical and didactic needs of their children. There were many
problems with gifted education in schools, because the overall impression at that time
was that these children did not need any extra educational adaptations. The focus was
on pupils who were identified as having learning or behavioral problems. On the other
hand, several initiatives were undertaken in schools to better align education for gifted
students. The schools did this entirely on their own initiative and based on their own
understanding and knowledge, often derived from experiences in countries abroad
such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, as a result of the
critical questions posed by parents, it became increasingly clear that the egalitarian
Dutch culture, as reflected in its educational system, had ensured that educational
institutions were not capable of planning for the development or encouragement of the
talents of individual students.
One of the first activities of the Information Center was a strengths and weaknesses
analysis of gifted primary and secondary education (De Boer & Hulsbeek, 2001). The
aim of this analysis was to find out how schools had or had not adapted their curricu-
lum to the needs of gifted students. The results of this analysis revealed many prob-
lems. First, there was insufficient recognition or acknowledgment that gifted students
had additional educational and instructional needs. For example, schools and teachers
made statements such as “we do not have gifted students in our school,” “gifted stu-
dents need our attention less urgently,” “gifted students already have many possibili-
ties because of their intelligence,” or “they do not need extra attention.” Second, there
was a lack of vision and policies in schools regarding gifted education. Thus, teachers
Table 1. Summary of Policy Measurements for an Ambitious Learning Culture.
Primary education Appropriate education for 15% to 20 % best-performing students,
including gifted students
Consolidation of support
Science focal points
Network of teacher training institutes
Network of school counseling institutes
Secondary education More attention for excellent and highly gifted students
Appropriate education for the 20% best-performing students,
including gifted students
Continuous learning from primary to higher education
A podium for performance for excellent and highly gifted
students
More schools with specific programs
Teacher expertise Professionalization of teachers with an emphasis on
differentiation and dealing with differences
More teachers educated on master level
Research Establishment of a research agenda to improve the education of
the gifted
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

138 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
did not have the proper attitudes, knowledge, or skills to motivate, teach, or supervise
gifted students. Schools described, for example, how education and care were orga-
nized, and in what way attention was paid to differences between students’ needs,
including learning disabilities, but this was not done for gifted students. Third, the
schools that had gifted education initiatives showed a wide variation in the teaching
and supervising of gifted students, thus making it difficult to make unequivocal state-
ments about what works. Several schools had made adjustments for gifted students
entirely based on their own strengths and in their own ways. However, because there
were hardly any guidelines as to how to do this, choices were made as the school saw
fit. In some instances, enrichment classes were started, while at other schools, addi-
tional curricula were developed for the more able students. There was no consensus
that could be detected in terms of structure, and quality varied widely. Fourth, there
was insufficient material for different levels of student ability and insufficient resources
available to meet the learning needs of gifted students. Schools and teachers created
their own additional materials, but most of the time, these materials did not suit gifted
learners sufficiently; this was due to the lack of guidelines for the creation of such
materials. In the meantime, gifted students did not receive differentiated instruction;
the regular curricula were followed.
These findings and the activities of different groups organized by the High Ability
Information Center, such as networks and conferences for schools, teachers, special-
ists within the schools, scientific researchers, and parental organizations, offered
opportunities to exchange experiences and share knowledge, and to inform policy
makers about what further developments were needed. It also became clear which
areas needed more attention, such as school policy development, teacher professional
development, and guidelines for the creation of enrichment materials. In relation to
these identified gaps in knowledge, several projects were carried out with funding
from the government.
Most of the projects were focused on school development and the development of
extracurricular materials (e.g., SLO, an institute for curriculum development), com-
bined with the training of teachers in the process of curriculum compacting and enrich-
ment (e.g., Perdix Foundation, an academic teacher training institute at Utrecht
University). To assess the impact of different teaching approaches, a number of scien-
tific studies were initiated including comparisons of the learning results of students
who were identified as gifted or regular students (Guldemond, Bosker, Kuyper, & Van
der Werf, 2003), the effects of acceleration (Hoogeveen, Van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2003,
2005), educational adjustments for gifted students based on international research
(Hoogeveen, Van Hell, Mooij, & Verhoeven, 2004), surveys of training opportunities
for teachers (Frietman, Groen, & De Boer, 2003), and studies of cooperative relation-
ships between schools and universities in organizing extracurricular programs for
gifted students (Backbier & De Boer, 2002). Some of the school projects funded by the
government at that time were setting up an appropriate support structure for gifted
students with an official care requirement (Bosch-Steijns & De Boer, 2005); recogniz-
ing, supporting, and motivating underachieving gifted students in secondary education
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

De Boer et al. 139
(Groensmit & Van Mameren-Schoehuizen, 2005; Van Mameren-Schoehuizen,
Groensmit, & Jansen, 2006); the funding of a school project on the development of
structural school policy for gifted students with special needs, and the description of
examples of best practices in schools for primary and secondary education.
All these activities were applied within the framework of the educational policy
called “dealing with differences” and “personalized learning.” The core of the focus of
this policy, however, was not just on cognitive or academic giftedness and talent but
also on how education can be better aligned with all the talents of students. And
because it became obvious that the education was not sufficiently in line with the
needs of academic giftedness, questions were asked about developing and supporting
all kinds of talent. So in addition to projects for educational improvements for gifted
students, several activities and projects on talent development began. There were vary-
ing opinions as to how the talent of pupils could be better developed in education
(Onderwijsraad, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007; Van Eijl, Wientjes, Wolfensberger, & Pilot,
2005). Talents such as music, dance, sports, arts, language, poetry, and so on, were
seen as just as important as cognitive talent or giftedness (www.talentenkracht.nl;
Bakker, Kat, Rovers, Van Schilt-Mol, & Van Vijfeijken, 2009; Sligte, Bulterman-Bos,
& Huizinga, 2009). Several universities, a large number of primary and secondary
schools, teacher training institutes, and parents associations were involved in these
projects. Talent in this context has been defined as a gift, as a natural ability that needs
to be developed, and the development of this talent depends on a strong supportive
environment. Every child has talent and can be outstanding in certain areas.
So-called “science focal points” (cooperation relationships between universities
and at least 20 primary education schools) have existed since 2010 (www.orionpro-
gramma.nl) to bring scientific research into the daily practice of the school. These
science focus points have an important function in the early recognition of talents in
young children.
The government encouraged schools to “choose sides,” and be profiled as schools
with an eye for the talents of students. Along these same lines, schools could also be
profiled on the academic giftedness of students. In this context, from 2004 until 2009,
the Department of Education, Culture, and Science initiated and funded a CPS project
called “Schools With a Gifted Profile in Secondary Education.” The aim of this proj-
ect was to set up a national network of schools that tailored their education and coun-
seling to the needs of gifted students (De Boer, 2010). This project has been extended
until 2013.
With all the information that became available from these projects, some under-
standing arose as to how to align school curriculum and teaching with gifted students.
Although it became clear that several schools showed good results and were effective,
the overall results produced no consistent information about what works in schools
(Mooij, Hoogeveen, Driessen, Van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2007). School policy and the
expertise of teachers, as well as early identification of giftedness, were identified as
important indicators of effectiveness. An appraisal of the education of gifted students
in primary schools by the Inspectorate of Education (2010) found that although schools
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

140 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
were now paying attention to the needs of gifted students, implementation was still
inconsistent. Much depended on the enthusiasm and involvement of only a few teach-
ers within a school.
Educational Adjustments for Gifted
Students and Teacher Training
The importance of the implementation of a curriculum that suits the capabilities of
gifted students is now recognized by most schools. Studies have shown that many
schools are aware of the presence of gifted students within their student population
and strive for a curriculum that matches the capabilities of these students. Furthermore,
it can be concluded that there is a group of schools that stand out as pioneers in adapt-
ing their education to gifted students. Since 2009, appropriate education for gifted and
outstanding students has become an important issue on the political agenda. Until
2009, considerations of what education was appropriate for gifted students had only
been an educational issue. The educational policies of “dealing with differences” and
“personalized learning” along with pressure from parents mandated a differentiated
focus for these students. For example, the government has promoted a focus on out-
standing students in broad-based, heterogeneous schools, and that focus has ulti-
mately benefitted all students. In this regard, the Department of Education has given
preference to an inclusive approach over a segregated approach. In 2009, an explicit
economic dimension was added. Domestic economic crisis and the rise of countries
on other continents increased the vulnerability of the Netherlands and urged the devel-
opment of the gifted and the talented. Schools/administrators have been and are
strongly encouraged, and even required, to pay more attention to talent. How this
should be done in an educational setting, and with what care and support, remains at
the discretion of the school. It is a challenge for which public funds have been made
available, providing an incentive for various projects. This may explain why, on one
hand, a government-funded evaluation study has been carried out focused on schools
with a gifted profile, to assess the effect of an integrated approach for gifted educating
on school policy, teacher expertise, feelings of well-being, and the learning results of
gifted students (De Boer, 2010; De Boer & Minnaert, 2011), while, on the other hand,
individual initiatives and private schools continue to be tolerated, and the so-called
Leonardo Concept (school-within-a-school and segregated concept) has been moni-
tored for its effects on the learning results of pupils by the Radboud University
Nijmegen. Furthermore, the Department of Education has emphasized the importance
of best practices by including descriptions and examples on the website of the
National High Ability Information Center.
The question now arises as to what schools should do, and which provisions and
modifications for teaching highly gifted students should be used in education. Because
there are no clear guidelines, there is a large variation in educational provisions.
Arrangements that primary schools use for the education of the gifted include
(Inspectorate of Education, 2010):
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

De Boer et al. 141
a. differentiation in their classroom, and/or skipping a grade (40%);
b. partially continuing with their education in an enrichment group within their
own school (possibly combined with point [a]; 19%);
c. partially continuing with their education in an enrichment group at another
school or in a pull-out class (possibly combined with [a] and [b]; 13%);
d. continuing with their entire education in a special group/class (Leonardo/
school-within-a-school concept; 2%); or
e. other (the school makes no reference to gifted students or does not offer a
customized solution; 25%).
In secondary education, about 20% to 25% of the schools have policies concerning
the issue of high ability (Van Eijl et al., 2005). Within the various activities that schools
use to provide appropriate education for gifted students, we can distinguish the follow-
ing trends:
a. the revolving door enrichment model of Renzulli;
b. a preuniversity enrichment program in addition to the regular preuniversity
program;
c. individual learning pathways through renewal education such as Dalton,
1
or
by accelerated completion of the educational program;
d. science-oriented preuniversity education (Technasium), bilingual education,
preuniversity colleges, and so-called junior colleges (partnership between an
university and several secondary schools); and
e. mixed forms based on elements from a, b, c, and d.
Choices that schools make in organizing educational modifications for gifted stu-
dents are dependent on the opportunities that schools have to develop and implement
an integrated supply. In primary education, some 60% of the schools chose a more
segregated approach. There is little scientific research on the effects and quality of the
above-mentioned educational interventions; thus, there is no reliable data available on
this issue. In both primary and secondary education, difficulties with the integration of
gifted education are related to issues such as vision and policy development, team
involvement, teacher expertise, development of additional teaching materials, use of
modern technologies, classroom management, costs, and knowledge about what
works. An evaluation study on enrichment and pull-out classes (Veltkamp, De Vrije, &
De With, 2011) shows that the offer is mainly directed at the cognitive level, that is,
how students are selected. Only a small number of schools explicitly define the orga-
nization, the goals, and the evaluation of the enrichment or pull-out classes in their
school policies. It further appears that gifted students are offered the challenge pro-
gram only for part of the week, and that there is limited coordination between the
challenge program in the enrichment pull-out class, and the program of education in
the regular classroom.
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

142 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
Yet it seems a difficult mission for most teachers to shape the education of the
gifted in an integrated way or to coordinate the various learning activities. Sometimes
this can be explained by the previously stated belief that gifted students will learn
anyway, but in most cases, teachers lack the knowledge and understanding of how to
differentiate and align their curriculum to the pedagogical and didactic needs of gifted
students (De Boer & Minnaert, 2011; Segers & Hoogeveen, 2012; Van der Grift,
2010). Only very recently in some teacher training programs for primary education has
attention been paid to the education of the gifted (Fontys Hogeschool, n.d.). Most
teachers in both primary and secondary education can only acquire specific knowledge
about teaching gifted students through in-service training courses.
The choice of courses in teaching gifted students is broad. This ranges from
in-service training programs at the bachelor’s and master’s level, such as “Specialist
in Gifted Education” by the Center for the Study of Giftedness (CBO) of Radboud
University Nijmegen, and accredited by the European Council of High Ability
(ECHA), to seminars organized by individual trainers and private practitioners, who
have no specific qualifications or education in this field. There is insufficient research
about the quality and effectiveness of the various courses. There are no specific
requirements for private agencies that offer courses and there are no defined compe-
tencies and skills that teachers have to comply with to teach gifted students.
The Netherlands has professional standards for teachers (SBL: Association for
the Professional Quality of Teachers, 2012). Teachers’ competencies are described
through the four roles a teacher fulfills. The following teachers’ competencies are
distinguished: interpersonal competencies such as good leadership and creating a
cooperative atmosphere, pedagogical competencies such as offering a safe learning
and working environment, knowledge of the subject matter and methodological
competencies such as helping students to acquire the necessary cultural knowledge
that every citizen needs to function as a full member of Dutch society, and organiza-
tional competencies such as making sure that students can work in an orderly and
task-oriented environment. To some degree, these standards are specified for par-
ticular groups of students such as students with special needs caused by learning
disabilities, but they are not specified for gifted students. Research on what makes
teachers effective (Van der Grift, 2010) indicates that less than 60% of teachers in
secondary education and about two thirds of the teachers in primary education suc-
ceed in optimally aligning their lessons to students, by means of task variation and
within-class differentiation. In this research, gifted education was not evaluated and
although this study provided information about effective teacher interventions such
as provide adequate opportunity for learning, a safe and stimulating learning envi-
ronment, and teaching students how to learn something and to think on a higher
level, these data are not related to effective teacher behavior, characteristics, and
competencies with regard to gifted students. As mentioned earlier, there is little sci-
entific research in this specific field.
An exploratory study on how teachers interact with outstanding students in regu-
lar classrooms has revealed that teachers, as a part of the learning environment of
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

De Boer et al. 143
students, play an important role in motivating pupils and facilitating excellent per-
formance (Van Veen & Van der Lans, 2011).
Within the evaluation study on schools with a gifted profile (De Boer &
Minnaert, 2011), teacher characteristics and competencies related to the educa-
tion of gifted students were examined. In 2011, the evaluation study on schools
with a gifted profile began. This study will continue until the end of 2013 (De
Boer & Minnaert, 2011). The plea was made to examine teacher characteristics
and competencies related to the education of gifted students. The aim of this
study in terms of teacher behavior is to gain insight into the effect that the gifted
profile for schools and chosen interventions has on the expertise of teachers and
their professional behavior in relation to the education, the instruction, and the
guiding of gifted students. The findings of this study will be published after the
completion of the study in 2013.
The lack of scientific research on teacher characteristics, attitudes, and compe-
tencies related to gifted education may be the reasons why teachers are reluctant
to participate in courses, because there are no standards for the teaching of gifted
students. In-service providers have the freedom to design courses as they see fit,
which means these courses may not reflect best practices for gifted education.
Educators have difficulty deciding which courses are the most suitable.
Therefore, the actual development of a professional culture of gifted and tal-
ented education is stagnating to a certain extent, and there are too many different
approaches for it to be possible to arrive at firm conclusions as to what works.
Governmental Objectives for Future Directions
With the policy objectives announced in 2011 (Department of Education,
Culture, and Science, 2011a, 2011b, 2011c) on how to develop an ambitious
learning culture in primary and secondary education, along with the focus on the
expertise of teachers, suggestions have been provided to strengthen education for
excellent and highly gifted students. In these action plans, the government seems
to be setting the direction in several domains by means of a number of mandatory
rulings.
Some of the primary education objectives outlined are as follows:
a. more appropriate education in schools for the 15% to 20% best-perform-
ing students, including gifted students;
b. consolidation of the support offered by accredited training institutes,
science focal points, and networks of teacher training institutions and
school counseling services;
c. enhancing research and knowledge functions (where CBO assumes the
director’s role);
d. further professionalization of teachers in terms of working in an output-
based manner (Department of Education, Culture, and Science, 2011c);
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

144 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
e. more transparency as to how the supply and reinforcement of the de-
mand is articulated; and
f. more effective use of teaching time in all schools and for all pupils.
Some of the secondary education objectives outlined are as follows:
a. more attention to excellent and highly gifted students, that is, the achieve-
ments of 20% of the best-performing students in preuniversity education
needs to further improve;
b. excellent and highly gifted students need an appropriate education;
c. throughout their learning careers in primary, secondary, and higher educa-
tion, excellent and highly gifted students should have their abilities recog-
nized;
d. excellent and highly gifted students should have a podium for their perfor-
mance and should be able to demonstrate that it is worth belonging to the top
tier of learners;
e. more schools with specific programs for excellent students such as bilingual,
Cambridge English, Technasium, and Beta-excellence schools; and
f. professionalization of teachers, with more with master’s degrees, and incen-
tive experiments, both in terms of identifying and dealing with professional
content (the Board of Education recommended requiring teachers to obtain
master’s degrees and that schools use innovative processes to better serve
highly gifted students).
For both primary and secondary education, teacher expertise is an important
theme. In the professionalization of teachers, particular emphasis is given to dif-
ferentiation and dealing with differences, specifically focusing on giftedness,
because it is commonly accepted in the Netherlands that even the cognitively
strongest students need focused attention, support, and challenge to get the best
out of themselves. To monitor these action plans of the government, an organiza-
tion called “School aan Zet” (Schools take Action) was founded by the Department
of Education.
An important issue for the coming years is to establish a research agenda with
topics for scientific research to improve the education of excellent and gifted
students. In the programming study for the preparation of the call for proposals
(Segers & Hoogeveen, 2012), as commissioned by the Department of Education,
four themes were identified for which research proposals could be submitted. For
this research program, excellence is defined as excellence on the cognitive level,
and therefore talent development in, for example, musical or athletic performance
falls beyond the scope of this research. The four themes are as follows:
1. (Potentially) excellent students: definition, identification, and motiva-
tion;
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

De Boer et al. 145
2. Teachers: differentiation, professionalism, and an ambitious school cul-
ture;
3. Programs to promote excellence: what works in education; and
4. System characteristics and policy interventions.
Only accredited universities and research institutions may submit proposals. In
October 2012, eight research proposals of the NWO (NWO, 2012) excellence pro-
gram were granted to be carried out in the period 2012 through 2015. In this respect,
the Department of Education has indicated how it would like to honor the proposals
vis-à-vis the different sectors: primary education, four proposals; secondary educa-
tion, three proposals; and higher education, one proposal. Segers and Hoogeveen
(2012) indicate that a combination from among the themes is preferred. So, not only
“what works” (Theme 2) or “what is the effect” (Theme 3) but also “why, under
which conditions, what are active mechanisms,” and “what it required of teachers and
school management” (Theme 4), and “what is the effect on academic performance
and also on motivation and social emotional development of students” (Theme 1)
should be involved.
The titles of the granted proposals are as follows:
• Developmental trajectories to excellence: Examining the interplay between
students potential ability, background, motivational, emotional, social, and
educational characteristics to explain excellence, University of Amsterdam;
• Does the tide raise all ships? Estimating the impact of an enrichment pro-
gram on the educational achievement of excellent students using two experi-
ments, University of Amsterdam;
• Enhancing the development of motivation, self-regulation, and achieve-
ments for potentially excellent students through an integrated enriched
learning arrangement in mathematics and history education, University of
Amsterdam;
• Excellent cooperative learning behavior in higher education, VU University
Amsterdam;
• Gifted pupils: Who are they, what do they do? Maastricht University;
• Nurturing natural talents: The influence of family, school, and teacher on the
expression of giftedness for educational achievement in primary school. A
twin study, University of Twente;
• Triggering the motivation of the gifted: Effects on cognitive and motiva-
tional differentiation, University of Groningen;
• Advancing successful intelligence development in the upper primary grades,
Radboud University, Nijmegen.
The action plans and the research plans are ambitious; however, if the Netherlands
wants to maintain its position as a knowledgeable nation, then this seems to be a
necessary package of measures for precisely those students who have more than
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

146 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
average cognitive capability to excel. And as research shows (Eyre, 2001), if educa-
tion for the gifted in schools improves, this will have a positive effect on the educa-
tion of all students.
Discussion
In this article, the recent policy of the Department of Education, Culture, and Science
on the realization of an ambitious learning culture to improve education for gifted and
highly gifted students was discussed. It was explained that an economic crisis and
disappointing student outcomes for the potentially very best students in an international
comparative study were the reasons for announcing various measures that concern
primary, secondary, and higher education. Specific attention to the expertise of teachers
in terms of effective teaching and the creation of an ambitious learning environment
for all students has been called for. It was indicated that scientific research concerning
effective teachers has emerged in primary and especially in secondary schools, which
shows that teachers are not sufficiently able to deal with differences among pupils. As
a result, teachers seem insufficiently capable of fully developing the talents of students.
At the level of the school, the teacher, and the provision of training, research pro-
posals have been made to achieve the government objectives. Here, on one hand,
mandates are imposed upon the schools, such as appropriate education for the 15% to
20% best-performing students and, on the other hand, the schools are free to make
their choices in terms of the appropriate funds. The question is whether schools—
given that there is still a great deal of emphasis on students with learning disabilities—
are more willing to invest in the 15% to 20% potentially best-performing students with
the promulgation of these new measures. All pupils should perform better, not just the
gifted and highly gifted students. Questions about schools in terms of the education for
gifted students and the qualities that teachers need to teach them can only be answered
by scientific research.
What seems to be clear at this juncture is that there are insufficient opportunities for
pupils to excel due to the way the Dutch educational system is presently organized.
The fact that teachers have an important role to play is obvious. Two topics in the
proposed research agenda, Issues 2 and 3, focus on teacher expertise and learning
environments that are effective for gifted and excellent students. With the four themes
identified in the research agenda, we can take a huge step forward in realizing the
desired ambitious learning culture where students can excel. In sum, a necessary con-
dition for the success of the government’s proposed improvements for the education of
gifted students is that sufficient attention is paid to the implementation of the findings
that will emerge from the 3-year research project and from the various projects estab-
lished in the schools.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

De Boer et al. 147
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Note
1. The Dalton Plan is an educational plan created by Helen Parkhurst who was a teacher in the
city of Dalton, Massachusetts. The plan was inspired by educational thinkers such as Maria
Montessori and John Dewey (Parkhurst, 1922).
References
Backbier, J., & De Boer, G. C. (2002). Weten is “zelf” doen; Inventariserend onderzoek
naar (mogelijke) adoptierelaties tussen scholen voortgezet onderwijs en universiteiten
ten behoeve van geïnteresseerde en (hoog)begaafde leerlingen [Study of (possible) rela-
tionships between schools and universities on behalf of gifted students]. Amersfoort,
Netherlands: CPS.
Bakker, J., Kat, M., Rovers, M., Van Schilt-Mol, T., & Van Vijfeijken, M. (2009). Uitblinken
op alle niveaus. Een verkenning van “good practices” op het gebied van talentontwikkel-
ing in het voortgezetonderwijs [Excelling at all levels. An exploration of good practices of
talent development in secondary education]. Tilburg, Netherlands: IVA beleidsonderzoek
en advies.
Bosch-Steijns, W., & De Boer, G. C. (2005). Werkdocument Schoolinterne en bovenschoolse
zorg voor hoogbegaafde leerlingen binnen het Samenwerkingsverband 54.01 [Study on
counseling of gifted students within a cooperative partnership of schools in the region of the
city Maastricht]. Maastricht, Netherlands: Eurocollege Maastricht.
De Boer, G. C. (2010). Begaafdheidsprofielscholen in het VO: verslag van het CPS project
2004-2009 [Schools with a gifted profile in secondary education: Final project report 2004-
2009]. Amersfoort, Netherlands: CPS.
De Boer, G. C., & Hulsbeek, M. (2001). Hoogbegaafde leerlingen in het PO en VO; een inven-
tarisatie van knelpunten, Landelijk Informatiepunt Hoogbegaafdheid [Gifted Students in
primary and secondary schools: An analysis of strengths and weaknesses]. Amersfoort,
Netherlands: CPS, SLO.
De Boer, G. C., & Minnaert, A. E. M. G. (2011). Scholen VO profileren zich tot Begaafd-
heidsprofielschool: de ontwikkeling op scholen aan de hand van een zelfbeoordeling [The
development of schools with a gifted profile: A self-evaluation] (Research Report No. BPS
VO 1). Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Department of Education, Culture, and Science [Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Weten-
schap]. (2011a). Actieplan Basis voor Presteren; naar een ambitieuze leercultuur voor alle
leerlingen [Action plan “Basis for performance; to an ambitious learning culture for all
students”]. Den Haag, Netherlands: Ministerie OCW.
Department of Education, Culture, and Science [Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Weten-
schap]. (2011b). Actieplan Beter Presteren; opbrengstgericht en ambitious [Action plan
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

148 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
“Improved performance; results oriented and ambitious”]. Den Haag, Netherlands: Minis-
terie OCW.
Department of Education, Culture, and Science [Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Weten-
schap]. (2011c). Leraar 2020 [Action plan Teacher 2020]. Den Haag, Netherlands: Min-
isterie OCW.
Department of Education, Culture, and Science [Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en
Wetenschap]. (2011d). Werken in het onderwijs [Teaching as a job]. Den Haag, Neth-
erlands: Ministerie OCW.
Eyre, D. (2001). Able children in ordinary schools. London, England: David Fulton.
Fontys Hogeschool. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fontysoso.nl/frontpage/MasterSE-
NAcademicMasterContractonderwijs/Algemeen/Structuur/tabid/1121/Default.aspx
Frietman, R., Groen, P., & De Boer, G. C. (2003). Scholingsaanbod (hoog)begaafdheid
[Inventory of teacher training programs on the education for gifted students]. Amers-
foort, Netherlands: CPS.
Groensmit, M. J. M. E., & Van Mameren-Schoehuizen, G. M. M. (2005). Het POP-project.
Persoonlijk Ontwikkelingsplan [Final report on a counseling program for underachiev-
ing gifted students in secondary schools]. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Stedelijk Gymna-
sium Nijmegen, Thoben Offset.
Guldemond, H., Bosker, R. J., Kuyper, H., & Van der Werf, M. P. C. (2003). Hoogbegaaf-
den in het voortgezet Onderwijs [Gifted Students in secondary education]. Groningen,
Netherlands: GION.
Hoogeveen, L., Van Hell, J. G., Mooij, T., & Verhoeven, L. (2004). Onderwijsaanpass-
ingen voor hoogbegaafde leerlingen. Meta-analyses en overzicht van internationaal
onderzoek [Educational adjustments for gifted students. Meta-analysis and survey of
international research]. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Radboud University, CBO/ITS.
Hoogeveen, L., Van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). De versnellingswenselijkheidslijst
[The list of desired accelerations]. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Radboud University, CBO.
Hoogeveen, L., Van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Teacher attitudes toward aca-
demic acceleration and accelerated students in the Netherlands. Journal for the Educa-
tion of the Gifted, 29, 30-59.
Inspectorate of Education [Inspectie van het onderwijs]. (2010). Het onderwijsaanbod
aan hoogbegaafde leerlingen in het basisonderwijs. Begeleidende beschouwing bij het
onderzoeksrapport van GION [Inventory of education for gifted pupils in primary edu-
cation]. Utrecht, Netherlands: Ministerie OCW.
Mooij, T., Hoogeveen, L., Driessen, G., Van Hell, J., & Verhoeven, L. (2007). Succescon-
dities voor onderwijs aan hoogbegaafde leerlingen. Eindverslag van drie deelonder-
zoeken [Success factors in educating gifted students]. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Radboud
University, CBO/ITS.
NWO (Dutch Organization of Scientific Research). (2012). Excellence in primary, sec-
ondary, and higher education. Retrieved from http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/
NWOP_8YPFLD
Onderwijsraad. (2004). Hoe kan onderwijs meer betekenen voor jongeren [How can edu-
cation mean more to young people]? Den Haag, Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

De Boer et al. 149
Onderwijsraad. (2005). De Helft van Nederland hoogopgeleid [Half the Dutch population
highly educated]. Den Haag, Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
Onderwijsraad. (2006). Versteviging van kennis in het onderwijs [Strengthening knowl-
edge in education]. Den Haag, Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
Onderwijsraad. (2007). Presteren naar vermogen [Performing according to talent]. Den
Haag, Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
Parkhurst, H. (1922). Education on The Dalton Plan. New York, NY: E. P. Dutton.
Retrieved from http://www.archive.org/details/educationontheda028244mbp
Programme for International Student Assessment. (2009). PISA 2009 assessment frame-
work: Key competencies in reading, mathematics and science. Paris, France: OECD.
Salimi, L., & Ghonoodi, A. (2012). The study of functional elements of management
system in smart Schools: World Conference on Learning, Teaching & Administra-
tion—2011. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 140-144.
SBL: Association for the Professional Quality of Teachers. (2012). Available from http://
www.lerarenweb.nl
Scheerens, J., Luyten, H., & van Raven, J. (Eds.). (2011). Perspectives on educational
quality: Illustrative outcomes on primary and secondary schooling in the Netherlands.
New York, NY: Springer.
Segers, E., & Hoogeveen, L. (2012). Programmeringsstudie Excellentieonderzoek in pri-
mair, voortgezet en hoger onderwijs [Programming study on Excellence research in
primary, secondary, and higher education]. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Behavioral Sci-
ence Institute en Centrum voor Begaafdheidsonderzoek.
Sligte, H., Bulterman-Bos, J., & Huizinga, M. (2009). Maatwerk Voor Latente Talenten?
Uitblinken op alle niveaus; Eindrapport [Customizing for latent talents? Excelling at
all levels: Final report]. Amsterdam, Netherlands: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut, Univer-
sity of Amsterdam.
Standaert, R. (2008). Globalisering in het onderwijs [Globalization in education]. Leuven,
Belgium: Acco.
Van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, M., & Zijlstra, H. (2011). Aanbieding Actieplannen Pri-
mair Onderwijs, Voortgezet Onderwijs en Leraren [Offering action plans primary edu-
cation, secondary education, and teachers]. Den Haag, Netherlands. Available from
www.rijksoverheid.nl
Van der Grift, W. J. C. M. (2010). Ontwikkeling in de beroepsvaardigheden van leraren.
Rede uitgesproken bij De officiële aanvaarding van het ambt van hoogleraar in de
onderwijskunde bij de Faculteit Gedrags- en Maatschappijwetenschappen van de
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op dinsdag 23 maart 2010 [Development of educational
skills of teachers. Inaugural speech at the appointment as professor of education at the
Faculty of Behavioral and Social Science at the University of Groningen on Tuesday,
March 23, 2010]. Groningen, Netherlands: University of Groningen.
Van Eijl, P., Wientjes, H., Wolfensberger, M. V. C., & Pilot, A. (2005). Het uitdagen van
talent in onderwijs [Challenging talent in education]. Den Haag, Netherlands: Onder-
wijsraad.
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

150 Journal for the Education of the Gifted 36(1)
Van Mameren-Schoehuizen, G. M. M., Groensmit, M. J. M. E., & Jansen, W. G. H. M.
(2006). Zie je me wel? Motiveren van begaafde leerlingen in het VWO [“Are you pay-
ing attention?” Motivating gifted students in preuniversity schools]. Nijmegen, Neth-
erlands: Stedelijk Gymnasium Nijmegen.
Van Veen, K., & Van der Lans, R. (2011). Omgaan met excellente leerlingen in reguliere klas-
sen [Dealing with excellent students in regular classes]. Tijdschrift voor Lerarenopleiders,
32, 30-35.
Veltkamp, C., De Vrije, G., & De With, T. (2011). Evaluatie plusklassen [Evaluation enrichment
classes]. Research & Development 2011. Amersfoort, Netherlands: CPS.
Author Biographies
Greet C. De Boer, MSc, is part-time researcher at the University of Groningen and Principal
Consultant Giftedness and Talent at CPS Educational Development and Consulting.
Alexander E. M. G. Minnaert is full professor in educational sciences at the University of
Groningen.
Gert Kamphof, MSc, is managing consultant at CPS Educational Development and
Consulting.
at University of Groningen on February 18, 2013jeg.sagepub.comDownloaded from