Content uploaded by Hessel Nieuwelink
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Hessel Nieuwelink on Dec 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch
schools: A bumpy road
Isolde de Groota, Remmert Daasb, Hessel Nieuwelinkc
aUniversity of Humanistic Studies, Utrecht, Netherlands; bUniversity of
Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands; cAmsterdam University of Applied
Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Keywords: citizenship education; education policy; primary education;
secondary education, tertiary vocational education; the Netherlands
Highlights
− Constitutional freedom of education affects democratic citizenship education
policy.
− Citizenship education legislation in 2006 and 2007 placed little demands on
schools.
− Legislation introduced in 2021 has further specified what is expected from
schools.
− Studies of citizenship education in practice are largely critical of the extent
to which schools teach about, through and for democracy.
Purpose: This paper discusses developments in citizenship education policy and
practice in the Netherlands, and outlines key challenges as faced by the different
stakeholders involved.
Design/methodology/approach: Our discussion is based on existing research
and policy documents in the Netherlands. The authors, from three Dutch
universities, are experts in the field of research on citizenship education.
Findings: Promoting citizenship education in primary, secondary and vocational
tertiary education in the Netherlands has been challenging, particularly in light
of the constitutional freedom of education in the Netherlands. Five issues are
discussed in this regard: the contents of CE legislation, the normative character
of legal requirements, integration of CE legislation in national curriculum aims,
clarifying expectations from schools in teaching CE, and teacher education and
professionalization.
JSSE
Journal of
Social
Science
Education
2022, Vol. 21(4)
Edited by:
Tilman Grammes,
Reinhold Hedtke,
Jan Löfström
Open Access
Corresponding author: Isolde de Groot, Department of Education at the University of Humanistic
Studies, Kromme Nieuwegracht 29, PO Box 797, 3500 AT Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail:
i.degroot@uvh.nl
Suggested citation: De Groot. I., Daas, R., & Nieuwelink, H. (2022). Education for democratic
citizenship in Dutch schools: A bumpy road. In: Journal of Social Science Education 21(4).
https://doi.org/10.11576/jsse-5381
Declaration of conflicts of interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Country Report
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
2
1 INTRODUCTION
Like in many European countries, citizenship education (CE hereafter) in the Netherlands
is mandatory for all schools in primary and secondary education and in tertiary vocational
education (Eurydice, 2017). Legislation mandating CE in primary and secondary education
was introduced in 2005 (and shortly thereafter for tertiary vocational education), and
further specified in 2021. However, evaluations of CE have been critical of both legislation
(Onderwijsraad, 2012) and its implementation (Inspectorate of Education, 2016).
In this country study, we discuss developments in CE policy and practices in primary
and secondary education and tertiary vocational education. In doing so, we draw specific
attention to the broader educational context in which CE developments have taken place.
We also provide insight into the work of scholars who have contributed to academic and
public discussions on CE in the Netherlands in the last decades and recent doctoral theses.
Given the broad range of possibly relevant theses, we limit our scope to studies that have
looked into how CE is implemented in the Netherlands and not so much on studies with
other foci, such as the effectiveness of specific CE practices, students’ views on citizenship
and the like.
Main questions addressed are: 1) what strengths and weaknesses of the 2005 and 2021
CE legislations does research on Dutch CE identify? 2) What do we know about CE practices
in the Netherlands from studies conducted in the last fifteen years? And 3) What are the
foci and findings of recent PhD studies on CE in the Netherlands? Our country study does
not provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of the literature, as we did not
conduct a full review study. Instead, our aim is to provide readers outside the Netherlands
with an understanding of the intricacies of CE in the Netherlands.
To position our discussion of developments in Dutch CE policies and practices, we first
explain some of the characteristics of the Dutch education system. We then explain our
use of the key concepts of democracy, citizenship and citizenship education, and the
normative underpinnings of our discussion. In section two a brief account of the Dutch
societal and educational context is provided. Here, we specifically highlight Dutch
legislation on the rights and responsibilities of Dutch schools (article 23 of the Dutch
constitution), which has had a big influence on CE, and continues to do so today. The third
section of this article sketches the historical background of CE legislation in the
Netherlands. In sections four to six we answer the main questions. Sections four and five
discuss developments in CE policy in primary education, secondary education, and
tertiary vocational education, and highlight five issues that we identify based on the work
of Dutch CE scholars. The sixth section presents insights into CE practices in Dutch schools
from recent PhD research. In section seven, we return to the title of this article in
describing how moving forward with CE has been like driving a bumpy road for
stakeholders in different ways. We also provide suggestions for future research, in line
with the theoretical and normative underpinnings of our discussion.
Democracy is a key concept when considering CE. Characteristic for democracy as a
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
3
‘fact’ and a norm, as defined in the Universal declaration of Human Rights of 1948, is that
citizens in democracies have the right to take part in the government; elect their
representatives in free voting procedures, and that they have equal right and access to
public service (Van der Zweerde, 2011). While the ideal democracy does not exist, and
while ideas about what constitutes an (ideal) democracy will always evolve, democratic
theorists have established several substantial and procedural criteria to assess the quality
of democracies, e.g., freedom, participation, representation, and responsiveness (Dahl,
1989; Diamond & Morlino, 2005; Beetham et al., 2008).
Both democratic theorists and democratic education experts have argued that
democracy cannot sustain itself without commitment of its citizens in a way that aligns
with key democratic principles like equality, freedom, and solidarity (e.g., Dewey, 1917;
Parker, 2003; Thayer Bacon, 2013). Since one does not develop democratic citizenship
naturally, we argue, together with other CE scholars, that CE in liberal democratic societies
should also prepare students for contributing to the vitalization of the pluralist and
democratic character of these societies (e.g., Biesta, 2011; Parker, 2003; De Winter, 2011;
Veugelers, 2007). This means that schools need to teach students about, through and for
democracy and democratic citizenship. Teaching about democracy and democratic
citizenship implies that schools provide students with insight into democratic procedures
and democratic deficits, covering democratic issues in all sectors of life (questions of, for
example, inclusion and exclusion, majority rule and minority interests). Teaching through
democracy means that schools offer opportunities for students to engage in existing
democratic practices (e.g., democratic deliberation and other democratic decision-making
processes) within school and in the (local) societal context. And teaching for democracy
means that schools also offer opportunities to (learn about avenues to) promote social and
political transformation. Our position aligns with several elements of a political approach
of CE: that democratic CE should not only socialize students into the current social order,
but also provide students with opportunities to question the socio-political order, place
themselves into the world and learn to deal with their freedom in a grown-up manner
(Biesta, 2007, 2021; Dewey, 1917; Veugelers, 2007). To further situate our discussion of
Dutch CE education, we now turn to the larger societal and educational context.
2 SOCIETAL AND EDUCATIONAL CONTEXTS
The Netherlands have long been characterized as a consensus democracy in which
minorities had to find a majority to be able to govern the country. Because no single
political party was ever in the possession of a parliamentary majority, elites were forced
to form coalitions and find compromises. Parties, and social organisations in the broader
sense, were aware that they needed support from other parties or groups, also in the long
run (Lijphart, 1969, 2008). In the last two decades, Dutch political culture has changed. Due
to a variety of reasons, parties are less focused on finding consensus and compromise and
ruling parties take decisions, also on far-reaching policies, with small majorities (Andeweg
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
4
& Thomassen, 2011). In addition, since the turn of the millennium, Dutch politics is
characterized by the rise of radical right-wing populist parties, which have been very
influential in political debate and policies in the Netherlands in the first decades of the 21st
century (De Jonge, 2021).
In the Netherlands, the government is responsible for maintaining the education
system, and schools are largely autonomous in providing education. Attending school is
mandatory from the age of 5 to 16, or until the age of 18 if the person does not have a
diploma. Children can start primary education when they are 4 years old. Secondary
education starts at the age of approximately 12, when children are selected for one of six
different education tracks, ranging from pre-vocational to pre-university education. After
secondary education, the vast majority of students attend a form of tertiary education:
vocational education (mbo), higher vocational education (university of applied science;
hbo) or academic education (universities). About 40% of the labour force has a degree in
tertiary vocational education, and 40% has degree in higher vocational education or
university (Maslowski, 2020). Legislation on CE for secondary education applies equally to
all tracks. Of tertiary education, only vocational education has legislation on CE.
A key factor in shaping the Dutch educational landscape is article 23 of the constitution,
titled Public and private education.
1
The article dates back some 200 years – having
undergone several changes in the meantime – and provides three types of freedom to
schools: freedom of establishment (“vrijheid van stichting”), freedom of conviction
(“vrijheid van richting”), and freedom of organization of teaching (“vrijheid van
inrichting”). The article originally enabled the different and largely separate religious
groups present in the Netherlands to establish and run their own schools, within the
parameters of the constitution and Dutch educational legislation. Since 1917 these
privately run schools are entitled to equal funding to public schools. Most students attend
publicly funded schools: less than one percent of students attend privately funded schools.
Most schools are therefore publicly funded and privately managed, or publicly funded and
publicly managed schools. Education legislation places equal demands on all publicly
funded schools, whether they are publicly or privately managed.
Today, about seventy percent of Dutch students in primary and secondary education
attend privately managed public schools: schools that are based on religious or ideological
principles (DUO, 2022a, 2022b). In primary education, thirty percent of students attend
publicly managed schools, thirty-three percent of students attend Roman-Catholic schools,
twenty-eight percent of students attend Protestant schools, and ten percent attend other
privately managed public schools (e.g., non-religious denomination, Reformed, Muslim).
In secondary education, twenty-seven percent of students attend publicly managed
schools, twenty-three percent of students attend Roman-Catholic schools, twenty-one
percent of students attend Protestant schools, and twenty-eight percent attend other
privately managed public schools (e.g., non-religious denomination, combination of
denominations).
Article 23 ascribes privately managed schools the freedom to choose their teaching aids
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
5
and to appoint teachers as they see fit. However, other legislation and policy have
expanded schools’ freedom, and schools in the Netherlands have nearly the greatest level
of autonomy in planning curriculum and assessment among all OECD countries (OECD,
2010). Schools have full responsibility for organising teaching personnel and materials;
for resource allocation; and for the construction and use of facilities (OECD, 2012). A
common – though not entirely accurate – summary is that government is responsible for
what is taught, and schools are responsible for how it is taught (Commissie Parlementair
Onderzoek Onderwijsvernieuwingen, 2008; Ledoux et al., 2014). The Dutch curriculum
thus consists of the curriculum goals, or ‘core objectives’ (Dijkstra & de la Motte, 2014) set
by the government for all (eligible) exam subjects, but schools are free to choose their
methods for attaining these. The quality of education in schools is monitored by the
Inspectorate of Education.
Since its introduction in 1798, predecessors of the article in the Dutch constitution that
we now refer to as article 23, have been the subject of scholarly and public debate. We
briefly discuss three societal and scholarly discussions here that exemplify these debates.
One discussion concerns the scope of what constitutes a valid conviction: what is
considered a legitimate ground for founding a (private) school? A recent development
concerning the freedom of education is the introduction of the law More room for new
schools (“Meer ruimte voor nieuwe scholen”) in 2021. As a consequence of this law, schools
can now also be founded on educational beliefs, where previously they were required to
be based on religious or ideological beliefs represented in Dutch society. Debate on the
More room for new schools-law also feeds into the second discussion, namely on the
effects of freedom of education (and more specifically, school choice) on segregation.
School segregation in the Netherlands is primarily explained by residential segregation,
and further increased by school choice (Boterman, 2019). More room for new schools
stands to increase segregation through schools, because schools may be targeting
particular subgroups within the population (Waslander, 2018). A third debate concerns
the extent to which freedom of education should facilitate expression of minority
viewpoints. This debate is also present in media coverage of an Orthodox Reformist school
that demanded from parents to sign a statement rejecting homosexuality (or rather, that
marriage is believed to be a union between a man and a woman), or an Orthodox Muslim
school allegedly not promoting students’ support for democratic values. In 2021 NRC
Handelsblad, a Dutch newspaper, uncovered how several large publishers have been
receptive to pressure from Reformist school organisations to rid teaching materials of
pictures and writings that – according to these organisations – do not align with their
values, like fantasy figures and rainbow families.
2
Article 23 thus not only impacts policy regarding CE in the Netherlands. It also
influences the citizenship experiences of teachers and students within schools. The
implications of the freedom of education are fundamental to understanding policy and
practice of CE in the Netherlands, and the challenges policy makers and schools are faced
with.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
6
3 DUTCH CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION POLICY FROM 1950 TO 2000
Schools by definition have a socializing function, and CE therefore has always had a place
in Dutch schools via explicit subjects (e.g., history, social sciences and religious education),
extracurricular activities and/or the school culture (e.g., Geboers et al., 2013; Veugelers,
2007). Policy instruments directed at the formation of citizens have varied over time. The
focus of educational legislation in the Netherlands has often been on social cohesion and
the formation of national identity (De Jong, 2014). Following secularisation processes in
the Dutch society in the post-war period, government started to emphasize the role of
schools in fostering students’ autonomy, rather than socialising students into a particular
religious or political community. Regarding implementation, in both nineteenth century
and the post-war period the main focus was on implementing distinct school subjects in
secondary education: History, Geography and State studies (“Staatwetenschap”) in the
nineteenth century and Civics
3
(“Maatschappijleer”) in the post-war period (De Jong, 2014;
Olgers et al., 2014; Wilschut, 2013). In the eighties, subsequent governments further
adopted a technical-instrumental approach to education, with an emphasis on knowledge
and skills suitable for standardized testing. Standardizing the curriculum, it was thought,
would promote equal opportunities for all students (Van der Hoek, 2012; Veugelers 2007).
In this context, Civics became a more knowledge-oriented school subject in secondary
education with formal goals and students were able to choose it as a subject for their final
exam. While this benefited the status of Civics as a distinct subject in the curriculum, the
content of the subject was formalised, which had implications for the freedom teachers
had to freely choose the topics they covered in class, and for attention to values in (civic)
education (Veugelers, 2007). With limited time demarcated for Civics in the curriculum,
opportunities for engagement in democratic participatory and educational activities have
also been limited in many Dutch schools (e.g., Veugelers et al., 2017; De Groot & Eidhof,
2019).
The situation in tertiary vocational education was distinct from that in primary and
secondary education. In the mid-1990s, a plethora of up to 500 educational institutions
offering vocational education and training were combined into the current schools:
around 70 schools, often hosting over 10,000 students each in a range of courses
(Bronneman-Helmers, 2011). For decades, hardly any discussion took place regarding
desirable (citizenship) education innovations in tertiary vocational education. Until 2007,
some vocational education sectors offered a subject similar to Civics with considerable
status; in others this subject was absent (Olgers et al., 2014). There were no formal
curriculum aims or guidelines for Civics courses in tertiary education, however, and
teachers did not need a degree in CE (related) subjects.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
7
4 FORMAL CE LEGISLATION (2006 & 2007)
Discussions about CE in primary and secondary education resurged in the 1990s when in
1993 the minister of education established the Platform for the Pedagogical Task of
Education (“Platform Pedagogische Opdracht van het Onderwijs”). In 1995 this platform
published a final report stating more attention should be spent on developing democratic
citizenship, stating: “Universal values, which form the basis for a democratic and humane
society and are considered a common cultural asset, should be given a prominent place in
school codes and curricula to be designed” (Platform Pedagogische Opdracht van het
Onderwijs, 1995, p. 27). However, although the attention for CE grew, progress towards
any kind of legislation was slow, and the report did not significantly impact policy or
practice.
This changed at the turn of the century when concerns over diminishing social cohesion
gained traction. Political and public debate typically focused on lack of social cohesion,
concerns about the norms, values, and deviant behaviour of certain groups of citizens,
and the perceived necessity of integration of minorities. These concerns and subsequent
advisory reports by the Education Council and the Scientific Council for Government
Policy (Onderwijsraad, 2003; WRR, 2003) eventually led to the introduction of the 2006 CE
law: Active citizenship and social integration (“Actief burgerschap en sociale integratie”).
This law mandated schools to a) assume that students grow up in a pluralistic society; b)
promote active citizenship and social integration; and c) ensure that p upils have
knowledge of and become acquainted with the different backgrounds and cultures of their
peers. In 2007 tertiary vocational education adopted a competency-based learning
approach. Part of this educational innovation was the implementation of new guidelines
for CE. In educational sectors where Civics was part of the curriculum, this subject was
replaced by a more generic requirement to teach students about four dimensions of CE:
political, societal, economic and, what the policy makers claimed to be, healthy citizenship
(Nieuwelink, 2019).
CE scholars in the Netherlands were pleased with the introduction of CE legislation in
the Netherlands, as it affirmed the responsibility of schools (and society at large) to help
prepare students for their role in sustaining and promoting vibrant liberal democracies.
In line with the concerns highlighted in the advisory reports, diminishing social cohesion
became a key aim of CE. Initial CE legislations were viewed critically though. In the
following we highlight five, interrelated critiques.
A first critique concerns the vagueness of CE regulations (Bron & Thijs, 2011;
Inspectorate of Education 2016; Ledoux et al., 2014; Munniksma et al., 2017; Nieuwelink
2019; Veugelers et al., 2017). With reference to freedom of education legislation, the 2006
CE law required primary and secondary education schools to develop their own
understanding of what active citizenship and social cohesion entail, and to translate these
into citizenship practices that reside with the school religious and educational values. For
many teachers and school management, citizenship was a relative new concept that they
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
8
found hard to understand. Consequently, they often perceived citizenship as an additional
task, on top of related activities (Inspectorate of Education, 2016). Conversely, schools built
CE portfolios with activities that are related, but not necessarily envisioned as key
component of CE, such as anti-bullying and self-esteem training programs and career
orientation programs. In tertiary vocational education this became even more the case
with the introduction of the 2007 CE regulations. Education in two of the four dimensions
formulated, ‘healthy citizenship’ and ‘economic citizenship’ came to focus primarily on
self-reliance (‘zelfredzaamheid’ in Dutch) which many CE scholars consider related to, but
not part of citizenship (Nieuwelink, 2021).
These critiques of vagueness not only concern the content of initial CE regulations, but
also the non-bindingness of these regulations. Both in the 2006 law for primary and
secondary education and the 2007 regulations for tertiary vocational education only
required minimal commitment from schools (Den Boer & Leest, 2021; Nieuwelink, 2019).
Schools would meet the requirements if they organized a one-day service-learning
experience, in addition to the regular civics and history classes. Schools would even meet
the requirement when they promote anti-democratic attitudes. Indeed, a judge ruling in
2020 on alleged anti-democratic teaching in a Muslim school stated that the school would
only be in violation if the school in no way paid any attention to CE ( Laemers, 2021). The
2007 tertiary vocational education regulation did not contain learning standards for
students. Instead, schools were only obliged to make an effort (“inspanningsverplichting”)
to prepare students for participation in the Dutch society.
Secondly, scholars were critical about the framing of this CE law as ‘neutral’. While
Dutch governments have claimed that schools were free to shape CE in accordance with
their own ideological convictions, many scholars have argued that the government should
also be clear about limitations to this freedom, and shared guiding principles. That in a
democratic country, for example, the government should also specifically target young
citizens’ willingness and capacity to maintain and strengthen the democratic and pluralist
character of the Dutch society (e.g., De Winter, 2011; Veugelers, 2007). Building on the
work of experts on education politics (e.g., Apple, 2008), others stressed that education is
never neutral, and that because of this, it is important to be explicit and reflexive about
the political choices made. Based on a qualitive inquiry of Dutch students’ narratives about
democracy and their democratic citizenship education, De Groot & Veugelers (2015)
argued that by focusing on teaching about democracy as a political system and
accomplishment, rather than also teaching for and through democracy as a political
system and a way of life, the government de facto instils a thin type of democratic
engagement. It promotes an understanding of democracy as a political system “where
every citizen has an equal say, rather than as a continuously evolving set of practices and
procedures which is constantly shaped and challenged by economic and environmental
developments as well as existing and emerging normative frameworks” (e.g., De Groot &
Veugelers, 2015, p. 31-32). And it promotes compliant participation in current civic and
political practices, rather than participation in activities that challenge power imbalances
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
9
in existing democratic practices and procedures.
Likewise, scholars have pointed to implicit messages conveyed in the key conceptions
selected and reflected public discourse: how a focus on integration instils a false image of
newcomers as not adhering to democratic values and ignores the fact that that addressing
democratic deficits and social inequalities requires a shared effort (ibid.). How a focus on
national values is misleading in that the key values referred to (e.g., freedom of speech)
are important values for people across the world. And how a focus on the Dutch society is
misleading in that many issues (e.g., global warming) can only be faced when addressed
also at an international level (e.g., De Groot & Veugelers, 2015; Veugelers et al., 2019).
With regard to the normative dimension of CE, scholars have also criticised the
socialization focus of CE requirements in tertiary vocational education. Van der Ploeg and
Guerin (2021), for example, have argued that it is undesirable to require from tertiary
vocational education institutes that they foster not only knowledge and skills, but also
attitudes and behaviour. Especially when the aspired behaviour is to abide by general
rules and procedures, to function adequately, and to be accepting. With other scholars,
they argue that CE should focus on critical thinking rather than compliance (e.g., De Groot
& Veugelers, 2015; De Groot & Eidhof, 2019; Nieuwelink et al., 2019; Ten Dam & Volman,
2003).
A third critique concerned the (lack of) embeddedness of the CE law in the national
curriculum. While the Dutch curriculum agency (SLO) explained how existing curriculum
goals reside (in part) with this original CE law (Bron et al., 2009), CE legislation did not lead
to a revision of the national curriculum goals. This means that, until today, there is no
formal relation between the legal framework for CE and the national curriculum on school
subjects related to CE. Also, the limited demarcated time in the curriculum for Civics was,
and still is, considered a constraining factor in organizing democratic learning
experiences in schools (e.g., Nieuwelink, 2019). With De Groot & Lo, (2020) we here define
democratic learning experiences as experiences with participatory and educational
activities that are explicitly framed as democratic and activities that involve practicing
democratic skills (e.g., joint decision making; classroom deliberation or dialogue and
student mediation). Also, in tertiary vocational education the embeddedness in the
curriculum was considered problematic, as there were no requirements to implement
school subjects related to CE.
Fourthly, it remained unclear who was responsible for organising CE in primary and
secondary education as well as in tertiary vocational education schools. While teachers
and teacher organizations of citizenship related subjects such as Civics and History were
expected to cover aspects of CE, no additional time was allocated in the curriculum for
this. The formal responsibility of the school board was limited to a) defining in the school
mission how the school aims to promote citizenship development, and b) to explain how
CE is organized in the school (Nieuwelink, 2019; Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der
Nederlanden, 2005).
A fifth critique concerns the lack of guidance provided to teachers and schools in
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
10
implementing CE. Initial regulations were implemented without an accompanying
supporting structure. Yet, citizenship was a new concept for most teachers, and they were
unsure how to integrate CE in their education. In teacher training programs in the 00s
there was hardly any focus on CE, except for Civics (Education Council, 2012; Nieuwelink
& Oostdam, 2021). This gradually changed during the 2010s. In many institutes for teacher
training, awareness of the importance of CE and subsequent teacher education increased.
Consequently, in an increasing number of teacher training programs for school subjects,
teachers are prepared for CE. A recent study revealed that current programs
predominantly focus on the social dimension of citizenship (e.g., diversity, solidarity,
social cohesion). Substantial attention to the political dimension of citizenship (e.g.,
political institutions, democracy, rule of law) is only provided in the teacher training
programs of History and Civics (Nieuwelink & Oostdam, 2021). While it is arguably the
case that CE requires much knowledge and skills from teachers, one in four teachers in
Civics has no teaching degree on the subject, and the subject is thereby champion in the
relative number of unqualified teachers (Oberon, 2022). Moreover, there are no specific
teacher requirements for CE teachers in tertiary vocational education. Consequently,
many CE teachers in these institutes do not have any professional background in
citizenship. Teaching CE is often assigned to teachers within the teaching team who
happen to be available (Nieuwelink, 2019). These circumstances are also reflected in
concerns over necessary further professionalization of teachers, particularly because the
contents and approaches to teaching citizenship often differ between teachers (Elfering et
al., 2016).
These critiques about the quality of CE policy, the available policy instruments, and the
(lacking) implementation of CE in practice paved the way for expansion of legislation.
5 EXPANSION OF CE LEGISLATION (2021)
In August 2021, the law ‘Clarification of the citizenship assignment for schools in primary
and secondary education’ took effect. In the following, we briefly describe its development
process. Next, we discuss the revised CE law in light of the five critiques as outlined in the
previous section.
The revision of the law started in 2017, with a number of consultation rounds with
mixed groups of teachers, school leaders, Ngo-experts and scholars. In tandem with this
revision process, the government also launched a larger process of rethinking the entire
school curriculum (Platform Onderwijs2032, 2016). Public and political debates during the
revision process concerned, amongst others, the extent to which the government is
entitled to promote aspects of personal development in the context of CE, civic and/or
democratic attitudes, and a democratic school culture in light of freedom of education
legislation (Education Council, 2018, 2021; Raad van State, 2019). In line with Freedom of
education legislation and the contested nature of citizenship, governments have
traditionally been wary of ‘state pedagogy’: to (also) educate students in line with a certain
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
11
conception of good citizenship. Many scholars on the other hand have claimed that the
government cannot avoid prioritizing certain values (like freedom, equality, and
solidarity), and that it is important to be explicit about what this means for schools (De
Groot & Veugelers, 2015; Dijkstra et al., 2018; Education Council, 2021).
The 2021 law aims to further specify what is expected from primary and secondary
schools in terms of CE (Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, 2021). Schools are
required to promote active citizenship and social cohesion in a goal-oriented and coherent
manner, that focuses on a) teaching respect for and knowledge of democracy and the rule
of law; b) developing the social and societal competences that enable pupils to be part of
and contribute to pluralistic, democratic Dutch society; and c) imparting knowledge about
and respect for differences in religion, belief, political opinion, origin, gender, disability
or sexual orientation as well as the value that persons should be treated equally in equal
cases. Schools should encourage a culture that is in line with these values, which
stimulates students to behave in line with these, and where students and personnel feel
safe regardless of their differences. For tertiary vocational education new CE regulations
are currently prepared. It is expected that these regulations will provide more binding
requirements, and that theoretical underpinnings of the CE law will be strengthened.
The new law has addressed several concerns about the vagueness of CE legislation (first
critique). It now centres democratic principles, the Dutch constitution and human rights
legislation as guiding principles for CE practices in all schools, and highlights how schools
are not allowed to teach values and norms that violate these principles. According to the
Education Council (2021), the government now has enough legal instruments to monitor
and guard the quality of CE practices in the Netherlands with the installation of the new
law. Yet, the Council also recommends the government to more actively confront
discriminatory and anti-democratic practices in schools and encourages the government
to further specify the content and aims of CE.
With regard to the normative dimension of CE legislation (second critique) the 2021 law
forefronts cohesion rather than integration, thus departing from a discourse that
implicitly portrays people with a migrant background as (eternal) outsiders. While the
focus on democracy as a shared normative framework for citizenship is widely supported
among education scholars and educational organizations, some scholars and educational
institutes have expressed concerns about the negative discourse on orthodox religious
schools (e.g., Bertram-Troost, 2022). They sense that these schools are viewed with distrust
and are considered potentially harmful, suggesting these schools may not adequately
prepare students for living and working together in the Dutch pluralist democratic society.
In response, they highlight how orthodox schools play an important role in envisioning
how religion and democracy can go hand-in-hand, and how they are a valuable
component of the pluralist educational landscape.
With regard to embeddedness (third critique) little has changed. The 2021 CE law does
not explicate the relationship between the new guidelines and the curriculum for primary
and secondary education. In the explanatory memorandum the government explains that
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
12
the position of CE will be further clarified in the ongoing revision of the national
curriculum aims. This revision, called ‘curriculum.nu’, was initiated by several
educational organisations (e.g., VO-raad, PO-Raad, CNV Onderwijs).
4
A complicating factor
is that the CE goals as developed by curriculum.nu are formulated both in a separate CE
domain and within several course specific domains, such as Civics and Language. From
the outset of curriculum.nu it was not clarified how these sets of goals should relate to
each other. In the Spring of 2022, however, the government has invited the Dutch
curriculum agency (SLO) to integrate the goals set for CE in the curriculum.nu-trajectory
and the goals of the new CE law in the curricular goals for Civics.
While obligations for schools have been expanded (fourth critique), the 2021 legislation
remains rather vague on the actions expected from schools. Commenting a draft version
of the new law, the Educational Council (2018) expressed doubts about the extent to which
the new law would clarify what is expected from schools. And indeed, while the new law
provides more requirements for organizing democratic learning experiences in schools,
e.g., by demanding that schools promote a democratic culture in schools, and organize
discussion, it remains unspecified what types of discussions, and other types of
participative and educational activities should be offered at a minimum. In theory, this
means that schools can abide by the new law without teaching controversial issues (De
Groot et al., 2022).
With the implementation of the new CE law, the government has announced the
installation of a support structure for teachers and schools (fifth critique) and facilitated
deliberations with different stakeholders about the desirable organization of this support
structure for primary and secondary education (e.g. Ledoux & Vaessen, 2021). Regulations
for teacher qualification in tertiary vocational education have not yet changed, which may
hinder the opportunities of subsequent teacher units to offer high quality CE. Moreover,
we would recommend future tertiary vocational education legislation to incorporate
teacher professionalization requirements in terms of conceptualizing democratic
citizenship and attending to the qualification, socialization, and subjectification
dimension of democratic CE.
More generally, scholars have also pointed to limitations of attention to culturally
responsive teaching, intercultural competences, and newcomer education in Dutch
teacher training (Gaikhorst et al., 2020; Severiens et al., 2013). Newly initiated projects aim
to address these limitations, e.g., via the examination of teacher competences and
development and evaluation of theoretical frameworks, analytic tools and research
informed teacher education programmes in urban education and culturally responsive
education for regular students and newcomer students (e.g., Gaikhorst et al., 2020; De
Groot et al., 2019; 2023; Susam, 2015).
Increased attention to educational inequality has also led to studies into social justice-
oriented teacher education, which also attend to how power, marginalisation and
inequalities in society impact teaching and teacher education (De Groot et al, 2023;
Leijgraaf, 2019; Hosseini et al., 2021). Based on a literature review on existing approaches
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
13
to promoting educational equality, Hosseini et al. (2021) argue that more research is
needed to translate insight from international literature on social justice education to the
Dutch or Flemish context. These developments in teacher training (research) may help
strengthen Dutch teachers’ ability to teach through and for democracy and human rights.
A final, additional critique that we want to attend to here concerns the viability of
liberal democratic education in the school system (see also: Culp et al., 2022). Michael
Merry (2018), for example, is sceptical about the political reform and progress that can be
obtained via liberal democratic education in the Netherlands and elsewhere via “coercive,
state-directed, curriculum-based citizenship education” (2018, p. 4). He finds it rather
peculiar that CE studies and policies are predominantly developed by academic and
political elites, while they aim to address voids in citizenship development of deviant
groups that they themselves have identified. As long as liberal democratic theories and
practices do not take account of these power issues, he argues, it is unlikely that CE will
promote a democratic outlook, and truly prepare (disadvantaged) young citizens to
“question authority, critique and resist concentrated power, and even engage in civil
disobedience.” While scholars have written about limitations of liberal democratic
education theory and the politics of curriculum development for a long time (e.g., Apple,
2008), discussions about the current and desirable role of political and educational elites
and desirable alternative or complementary trajectories have gained traction with
increased attention to whiteness studies and decolonial education (De Groot et al., 2023;
Hosseini et al., 2021; Merry, 2018).
6 CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION PRACTICES IN SCHOOLS
After outlining concerns about CE legislation in the Netherlands, it may come as no
surprise that the tone of research into CE practices in the Netherlands is also quite critical.
While in theory, schools can stimulate the citizenship development of their pupils and
students, a number of studies have shown that in many Dutch schools CE practices are
rather fragmented, and do not live up to societal expectations (Inspectorate of Education,
2016; Slijkhuis et al., 2021; Veugelers et al., 2017).
Since the late 00s and especially the 10s the number of studies on CE has surged. Many
studies focus on (the development of) student citizenship itself (e.g., De Groot, 2013; Daas
et al., 2016; Slijkhuis et al., 2021; Slijkhuis, 2021; Thijs et al., 2019; Wanders, 2019). Other
studies focus on the effectiveness of CE (e.g., Coopmans et al., 2020; Dijkstra et al., 2015).
In this section we focus on research that describes practices of citizenship in primary
education, secondary education, or tertiary vocational education. The number of studies
investigating CE in tertiary vocational education is still relatively limited compared to
those in primary and secondary education.
In line with the questions formulated in the introduction section, sections 6.1 and 6.2
will highlight CE-studies conducted in the Netherlands in the past 15 years (question 2)
and summarize some of their main findings. In particular, we will list foci and key findings
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
14
from recent PhD studies (question 3), to provide an understanding of recent directions in
CE-research in the Netherlands. Ongoing projects are not included in this overview. For a
more thematic overview of research and education projects in CE see for example Eidhof
(2019), Nieuwelink et al. (2016a) and Ten Dam et al. (2016).
6.1 Primary education
While there are no national standards to assess students’ citizenship competences in
primary education, the central testing agency for education (Cito) undertook a study in
2009 and 2011 which was followed up on in 2019/2020. In 2009 a group of experts were
asked to formulate standards for minimal, sufficient, and advanced proficiency for three
domains of citizenship knowledge for students at the end of primary school. In the
empirical part of the study, students scored far below the expected levels of proficiency.
While 70 to 75 percent of students were expected to score at the proficiency level that was
set, only 25 to 41 percent of the students did (Wagenaar et al., 2011).
A study of sixth graders’ citizenship attitudes and skills concluded the image was fairly
positive, with students generally supporting hearing each other’s opinion and acting
socially responsible (Kuhlemeier et al., 2012). Results from a recent national study (using
some of the same instruments) were largely similar (Slijkhuis et al., 2021). The level of
students’ knowledge slightly decreased since 2009, the inequality in student knowledge is
substantial and student have rather positive attitudes towards citizenship. In schools the
curricula, programs and activities seem to be rather fragmented: schools offer CE
primarily through the activities related to school culture and school climate, and not so
much via curricular activities (Slijkhuis et al., 2021). Differences between schools in terms
of both student outcomes and CE are typically small (Dijkstra et al., 2015; Slijkhuis et al.,
2021).
A study by the Inspectorate of Education (2016) into the state of CE and service learning
in primary and secondary education concluded that there is broad support from schools
for teaching citizenship. However, it also concluded that there appears to be little structure
and cohesion to curricula offered by schools, and that programs offered in school could
be labelled as patchwork. CE in primary education generally focused on promoting social
and emotional development. Topics such as democracy and diversity generally received
little attention.
Scholars have also examined The Peaceable School (“Vreedzame school”), a prominent
CE initiative in the Netherlands. This program was developed in 2006-2007, and aims at
promoting social competence and democratic citizenship, with particular attention to
peaceful resolution of conflict between students, by students themselves (Pauw, 2013;
Verhoeven, 2012). The program introduces students into several types of democratic
practices, e.g., resolving conflicts, classroom meetings, a student council and student
mediation. More generally, existing CE educational programs in primary education
predominantly focus on developing students’ social competences, which aligns with
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
15
attention to ‘living together’ in CE policy (cf. Slijkhuis et al., 2021).
In his dissertation Jeroen Van Waveren (2021) built on Gert Biesta’s (2011) work on the
three functions of education and Chantal Mouffe’s (2005) agonistic democracy theory to
examine primary school teachers’ conceptions of subjectification (personal formation)
and agonism (valuing conflict as indispensable for democracy). His findings suggest that
in primary education there is only limited attention for the political and pedagogical
dimensions of CE. For many teachers CE is complex, and teachers find it difficult to
develop programs that do justice to the rich nature of the subject (Van Waveren, 2021).
The study shows the need for teacher professionalisation in this area, a result that aligns
with findings from another study which examined the development of CE programs in
primary and secondary education (Willemse et al., 2015.
Rob Bartels contributed to democratic education practices in primary education in his
dissertation. Bartels (2013) examined how Philosophy for Children (P4C) contributes to the
development of three types of democratic skills and attitudes in four primary schools. He
found that P4C contributed to the students’ ability and willingness to participate in
dialogue, and the ability to deal with differences. Attention for critical thinking and
judiciousness, however, would need to be strengthened at the formal, the interpreted and
the operationalised curriculum level in these schools, for P4C to also contribute to this
component of critical democratic development.
6.2 Secondary education
Substantially more studies have focused on CE in secondary education than in other
sectors. Prominent in setting the research agenda is the International Civic and Citizenship
Education Study (ICCS) in which the Netherlands participated in 2009, 2016 and 2022. The
2016 study showed principals most often consider CE to be taught in subjects related to
social sciences (or, to a lesser extent, all subjects taught at school), and as the result of
school experience as a whole. Compared to other countries, Dutch students indicate
learning little about citizenship at school, and show less inclination to participate in civic
activities at school (Munniksma et al., 2017). Studies of CE stress the importance of an open
climate for discussion (cf. Geboers et al., 2013), on which Dutch students scored among the
lowest of 24 countries participating in ICCS 2016.
There are no absolute standards to which to compare students’ citizenship
competences, so interpretation is done relative within or between groups. Dutch students
scored below the international average in ICCS 2009, and above average in ICCS 2016
(Maslowski et al., 2012; Munniksma et al., 2017). However, these results are still considered
problematic in the 2016 report, noting that Dutch students score lower than students in
comparable countries. The report and follow up analyses by its authors stress the impact
of inequalities in citizenship competences among students (Dijkstra et al., 2021). In the
case of citizenship knowledge, these are strongly linked to the educational track students
attend, which in the Dutch secondary education can be split in up to seven levels. Students
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
16
in vocational tracks score lower than those in general tracks, and these differences have
increased since 2009. The ICCS 2016 national report also shows how students from a higher
socioeconomic background score significantly higher on seven out of eight scales that are
presented (Munniksma et al., 2017).
Besides the large scale ICCS studies, there is a large amount of research on CE in
secondary education, studying a wide range of themes (e.g., desirable content and
methods for education related to cultural, religious, and sexual diversity, slavery,
controversial issues, terrorism, sustainability and (neo)colonialism). Some studies in the
Netherlands focus on the practices and preferences of teachers regarding CE. Wiel
Veugelers has extensively studied the goals that teachers in the Netherlands emphasize in
relation to CE: discipline, critical thinking and autonomy, and social commitment
(Veugelers, 2007). Teachers found these goals to be important but not to the same extent.
A small majority of teachers aimed to foster both critical thinking and autonomy, and
social commitment. Teachers indicated that there is a gap between the importance they
attach to the goals and the extent to which students attain these goals (Leenders et al.,
2008).
Findings from research into teacher self-efficacy are rather mixed. In a survey study
among teachers in Amsterdam, most teachers reported that they feel efficacious in
relation to CE. A majority of the teachers feel that they are capable of discussing topics
related to citizenship (democracy, diversity, etc.) and that they are able to use different
pedagogical-didactic strategies. Relatively, teachers in Civics and History felt most
efficacious of all teachers. However, the study also showed that participants only
occasionally give attention to topics of CE. Again, this was mostly the case for teachers in
Civics and History (Nieuwelink, 2018). Studies which examined teacher self-efficacy
and/or agency related to a specific aspects of Civics education identified a couple of (self -
reported) gaps in teacher preparation, which we will present in the following
Several studies focused on the extent to which students are able to experience diversity
and democracy in the school context. For her PhD research, Willemijn Rinnooy Kan
observed CE practices in schools (Rinnooy Kan et al., 2021). She found that students
experience limited possibilities to learn to deal with differences. In schools there is limited
reflection on being different and differences are primarily understood as individual
characteristics and not so much as group characteristics. Insofar dealing with differences
was related to CE, teachers operationalised diversity as ethnic or cultural diversity. Other
types of diversity received little attention. In her PhD research, Işil Sincer (2021) studied
the effects of diversity of student composition on a range of aspects pertaining to
citizenship competences. She found both positive, negative, and non-effects of school
composition on relevant outcomes. Students’ sense of belonging was generally lower in
more diverse schools. Similar to other studies, differences between students’ citizenship
competences are more strongly explained by individual students’ characteristics than
school characteristics, and effects of schools differ between outcomes and studies. Though
schools are still found to have an effect on students’ citizenship competences, the relation
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
17
between school composition and outcomes in the area of citizenship is found to be
complex, dynamic and multidimensional.
Other studies have examined student opportunities to engage in democratic
participatory and educational experiences in Dutch schools. For his PhD research
Nieuwelink (2016) investigated student possibilities with democratic decision-making,
discussions, and the stimulation of political engagement in pre-academic educational
track and pre-vocational educational track. In both grade eight and grade ten, students felt
to a large extent that they have limited experiences with discussing social and political
issues, with decision-making processes and with being stimulated to become socially or
politically engaged (Nieuwelink et al., 2016b). In an interview study Nieuwelink also
compared student experiences in a pre-vocational track (which is considered to be of
‘lower’ status) and student experiences in a pre-academic track. Especially in grade ten,
students in the pre-academic track reported having more experiences with democracy
(e.g., discussions and stimulation to be engaged), compared to their peers in the pre-
vocational track. For example, while the pre-academic students reported to have
extensively discussed the parliamentary elections that took place some months before the
interviews, the pre-vocational student reported that they hadn’t discussed the elections in
the classroom at all. His study therefore indicates that schools in the Netherlands risk
reproducing existing social inequalities (Nieuwelink et al., 2019).
Scholars have also studied discussions of controversial issues in the classroom. They
developed tools for discussing controversial issues and examined teacher experiences and
teacher strategies in this regard (Kruit et al., 2020; Wansink et al., 2019). A recent study
into the role of history education in dealing with controversial issues in the class also
revealed how history teachers in the Netherlands (and elsewhere) show awareness of the
“relationship between the sensitivity of the history of immigration and that of Islam and
the relationship between pupil diversity and self-silencing on these issues” (Savenije &
Goldberg, 2019, p. 39). Teachers do discuss sensitive topics in the class and take into
account the feelings of their students. In their study into the way teachers organise
discussions in the classroom, also about controversial issues, Schuitema and colleagues
(2018) have shown that although teachers engage in discussions with their students, they
find it hard to shape discussions in such a way that students explicitly interact with each
other and that controversies can be dealt with in their full extent.
De Groot and colleagues conducted two studies about the possibilities for students to
gain experiences with elections processes through mock elections in the school contexts
(De Groot, 2018; De Groot & Eidhof, 2019; De Groot & Lo, 2022). Both projects explored (self-
reported) teachers’ current aims and educational practices and the discrepancies with
teacher ideals. Analysis of survey data on teacher aims and activities organized revealed
that teachers paid limited attention to critical, value-related aims and aims directed at
strengthening a democratic school culture in mock election-related education in 2017. Half
of participating schools offered less than one hour of mock election-related educational
activities (De Groot & Eidhof, 2019). The survey study also revealed how one fourth of the
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
18
participating teachers who organized student participation in the context of mock
elections preceding the 2017 national elections, criticized lack of attention to relevant
teacher competences in (post)initial training (De Groot & Lo, 2022). In light of these
findings and large discrepancies in students invited and involved in decision making, the
authors argued for more attention to developing relevant teacher competences for
deliberation amongst educational partners about the political participatory experiences
that they want to offer in schools.
Student voice and student collaboration has been another topic in CE-research. Jeroen
Bron’s (2018) PhD research examined the value and contribution of involving students in
curriculum development in relation to developing democratic qualities and improving
curriculum relevance. He developed and evaluated a curriculum negotiation intervention
in five lower pre-vocational education schools in which students had the opportunity to
express their views, were heard, formulated questions, and made decisions that affected
them. Based on case studies in five schools, in which he examined returned student
prompt sheets, teacher interviews prior to and after using the curriculum negotiation
method, classroom observations and a student questionnaire, he concluded that the
approach increased student participation through students communicating, collaborating,
and negotiating. Criticizing the dominant socialisation approach in citizenship education,
Laurence Guérin (2018) developed and justified an alternative participatory approach to
citizenship education in her PhD research, based on the democratic principle of group
problem solving.
Furthermore, Lozano Parra’s dissertation (2022) examined the meaning of democracy
and its conceptualisation in Dutch secondary education. Building on the work of John
Dewey and Hanna Arendt he also examined what a school as a playground to practice
democracy looks like if conflict is envisioned as an inherent part of human relations, and
he came to distinguish five ways in which teachers can handle friction when teaching
sensitive topics.
Scholars have also examined the implications of COVID-lockdowns and related
emergency distance education on CE in Dutch schools. During the first lockdown, spring
2020, Nieuwelink, et al. (2022) surveyed around 170 teachers in secondary and tertiary
vocational education about the possibilities to provide CE through (emergency) distance
education. They found that teachers were very critical about the possibilities to do so. They
felt unable to guarantee a safe classroom climate, they stated that classroom discussions
cannot be offered via a laptop, and they noted that most students adopted a consumer-
stance during class – which made it nearly impossible to activate them in class.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
19
6.3 Tertiary vocational education
In both 2016 and 2021 the state-of-art of CE in tertiary vocational education was evaluated
in order to see whether the current policy would suffice (Den Boer & Leest, 2021). In 2016
the researchers had concluded that more investment in CE was needed. Five years later
the researchers concluded that, despite substantial efforts from teachers, institutions, and
policy makers to improve CE in tertiary vocational education, the quality of CE still varied
widely. The researchers also identified the non-binding framework with regards to CE as
an important reason for the meagre results in CE practice. This conclusion echoes the
criticism on policy decisions from the onset of the implementation of CE in tertiary
vocational education in 2007. While policy makers in the early 20s were reluctant to
introduce more binding policies for CE, the policy climate seems to have changed in the
past years. As of yet however, there is little to no binding legislation for the provision of
CE in tertiary vocational education.
A survey among 2500 students by Holman et al. (2021) showed students’ citizenship
attitudes and skills on average to be fairly positive. Despite tertiary vocational education
being split into a range of vocations and sectors, the study notably showed little
differences based on students’ vocational track or background characteristics. Although
the study did not measure students’ experiences with CE, this result appears to suggest
that the contents of CE do not substantially differ between schools and sectors. A more
critical interpretation would suggest that CE in tertiary vocational education does not
significantly influence students’ citizenship development. This latter interpretation is
supported by research of the Inspectorate of Education (2016), concluding the curriculum
for CE in practice shows little cohesion.
After interviewing 20 students in tertiary vocational education about their attitudes
towards and application of democratic principles, Vaessen et al. (2022) found that
participating students were generally able to apply these principles flexibly. Students
adjusted their answers to hypothetical dilemmas as the conditions were altered. Notably,
after the interview, most students commented that they had rarely considered these kinds
of issues both in class and generally. They indicated that they had enjoyed thinking about
these kinds of questions but doing so was new to them.
7 CONCLUSION & FUTURE DIRECTIONS
In this country study, we have discussed developments in CE policy and practice in the
Netherlands. Following a brief introduction of the societal and educational context,
section four described five critiques on the 2006 legislation as discussed in the work of
Dutch CE scholars: 1) critiques concerning limitations of the content of CE legislation in
primary, secondary and vocational tertiary education, 2) the normative character of legal
requirements, 3) lack of alignment of legislation with the learning standards, 4) unclear
allocation of responsibility for effectuating CE legislation, and 5) the quality of (post-)
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
20
initial teacher education.
Our discussion of developments and limitations also highlights how the challenges in
promoting CE in the Netherlands can be understood within the context of the
constitutional freedom of schools to organise education in line with particular ideological
convictions and pedagogical positions. In the 2006 CE legislation (2007 for tertiary
education), democracy was largely absent as a normative framework, and teachers were
expected to foster active participation and social integration in line with the normative
underpinnings of their own school (board). Political wariness of state pedagogy appeared
to be the main cause of refraining from setting clear expectations from schools, meaning
any minimal effort legally sufficed.
The critiques on the 2006 legislation as outlined in this paper have led to a stronger
focus in policy on the school as a training ground for citizenship and democracy and,
therefore, to more balanced, and integrative, attention to teaching about, through and for
democracy. The expansion of legislation in 2021 mandates schools to create opportunities
for all students to engage in democratic experiences and practice social and citizenship
competences, to promote support for democratic values, and to create a democratic
culture. The legal expectations for schools are more clearly defined, among which is the
expectation that schools organize teaching citizenship in a more systematic and robust
manner. The 2021 legislation addresses several of the issues affecting earlier legislation
and can thus be expected to promote CE-practices in school. However, much of the success
of CE policy can be seen to depend on the extent to which other theoretical, normative,
and organizational issues are addressed.
Overall, our discussion of scholarly literature on (democratic) CE demonstrates how
moving forward with CE has been like driving a bumpy road for stakeholders in different
ways. Proponents of democratic CE have struggled with and the vagueness of CE policies
and lack of provisions. Proponents of the autonomy of schools to offer CE in line with their
own religious or political convictions on the other hand, have struggled with the increase
in government demands and control. And other parties (e.g., the Dutch government) have
been struggling to navigate, and accommodate stakeholders with competing interests and
positions.
Following our discussion, we want to highlight two larger issues that, in our view, need
further attention in the upcoming years from scholars, policy makers, school leaders,
teachers and (teacher) training institutes. Moreover, we delineate desirable courses of
action and suggestions for future research in line with our theoretical and normative
position in this country report, which is that all schools should balance education about,
for and through democracy in their CE, both within specific subjects and in an integrative
manner (e.g., by promoting a ‘democratic school culture’), and in line with a political
approach: also providing opportunities to question the current socio-political order in
schools and society (Biesta, 2011).
The first issue follows from our discussion of Dutch CE research and concerns
insufficient provisions to organise high quality CE in primary, secondary and tertiary
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
21
vocational education. Our discussion of developments in Dutch CE revealed a need to
address in particular the problematic aspects of the theoretical and normative
underpinnings of the 2021 citizenship legislation, the integration of CE legislation in
curriculum standards, and the quality of teacher training.
With regard to the theoretical and normative underpinnings of CE we argue that,
following a political approach of CE, it is important for the Dutch government and other
stakeholders to further deliberate and specify key conceptions and aims of CE, and specify
what is considered (un)desirable and (il)legitimate, in this regard. This also requires
acknowledgement of the extent to which the contents and (desired) outcomes of CE are
contested. In light of the constitutional freedom of education, this evidently also involves
a continued evaluation of the balance between schools’ obligations and freedoms, and by
extension the government’s obligation to uphold both social and civil rights.
Integration of (parts of) CE legislation into the core objectives for Civics and related
subjects also requires clarifying the responsibilities of different stakeholders in meeting
these standards. Who is to promote and maintain the quality of education for democracy
in a school when CE is offered primarily in an integrated manner? And which staff
members will be in charge of organizing ‘shared authority, shared responsibility and
shared identity’ (Thayer-Bacon, 2013) in the school, and equipped to do so? Here too, the
large degree of school autonomy in deciding how the curriculum is delivered, means that
these decisions have to be made at the school level. Within the current legislative
framework, teaching about citizenship may be clarified via learning aims, but teaching
through and for democracy will be directed at the school boards, as these are responsible
and accountable for maintaining school quality. As a result, central planning of these
responsibilities within schools is unfeasible under current legal provisions.
This brings us to the quality of (post-initial) teacher training programs for democratic
education. Teaching about, through and for democracy places high demands on teachers
(e.g., De Groot & Veugelers, 2015; De Groot & Lo, 2022). Teachers must have in-depth
insight into the issues at stake (such as questions about welfare state, globalisation,
democracy, war and peace, pluralism and so forth) and have the pedagogical knowledge
and skills to discuss these topics with students in an appropriate manner. The importance
of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for a range of students’ learning outcomes is
well documented (Ulferts, 2019). Moreover, teachers need to be able to organise
democratic deliberation and political advocacy projects in a pedagogically sound manner,
if we agree with Levinson and Fay (2019) that preparing students for democratic discord
also requires offering students opportunities to practice subsequent skills in their daily
(school) lives.
The second issue moves beyond the insights discussed in this article and concerns
epistemic limitations of existing CE research. Scholars in the Netherlands (e.g., Merry,
2018) and internationally (e.g., Levinson, 2012) have stressed how, in order to promote
more equitable CE practices, it is important to also attend to the epistemic and political
dimension of mapping citizenship development and education in qualitative and
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
22
quantitative research. Whose perspectives are not included in the design of measurements
instruments? And what does this mean for the validity of assessing citizenship
competences? Do pre-vocational students obtain lower scores on citizenship knowledge in
survey research compared to their peers in pre-university education, for example,
because they have less democratic knowledge? Or because they draw on other funds of
knowledge? Likewise, with regard to citizenship participation, Levinson has argued that
while it is important to keep measuring student engagement in traditional political
participatory practices, we should be cautious about using such measurements to draw
conclusions about the citizenship development of marginalized student groups. Truly
addressing civic and educational inequalities requires from researchers and teachers that
they also seek to acknowledge, value, support, and map different knowledge funds, and
attend to novel, online and alternative forms of informal political participation like
political expression through spoken word. Moreover, it requires from researchers that
they gain awareness of how existing hegemonies may impact their own work (Levinson,
2012; Merry, 2018).
Debates on democratic citizenship and democratic CE in the Netherlands are much
more central in public and political debate now than they were 20 years ago (Veugelers et
al., 2017). Research on CE has also mapped and discussed many facets of CE, including
many of the underlying (false or just) assumptions to policy and legislation, e.g., what aims
are explicitly or implicitly promoted as part of CE, and what impact schools can reasonably
be expected to have on students’ citizenship development. Future CE research in the
Netherlands can help to clarify strengths and limitations of existing CE, particularly in
primary education and tertiary vocational education. It can also help to build
complementary CE programs in the Netherlands, and thus contribute to balancing
teaching about, for and through democracy across education levels in Dutch schools. Much
of these developments depend on a multitude of parties involved, particularly in a system
where government intervention is continuously balanced against freedom of schools.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
23
REFERENCES
Andeweg, R., & Thomassen, J. (2011). Van afspiegelen naar afrekenen? [From
representativeness to accountability?]. Leiden, The Netherlands: Leiden University
Press.
Apple, M. W. (2008). Can schooling contribute to a more just society? Education,
Citizenship and Social Justice, 3(3), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1746197908095134.
Bartels, R. (2013). Democratie leren door filosoferen: Denken, dialoog en verschil in de
basisschool [Learning democracy via P4C]. Dissertation. Utrecht, The Netherlands:
University of Humanistic Studies.
Beetham D., & International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
(2008). Assessing the quality of democracy: a practical guide. Stockholm, Sweden:
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).
Bertram-Troost, G. (2022). Menswording in een laag-vertrouwensamenleving: Kansen en
uitdagingen voor onderwijs [Personal formation in a low trust society]. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Biesta, G. (2007). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political
conception of democratic education. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 740-769.
Biesta, G. (2011). Learning democracy in school and society: Education, lifelong learning,
and the politics of citizenship. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Biesta G. (2020). Risking ourselves in education: Qualification socialization and
subjectification revisited. Educational Theory, 89–104.
https://doi.org/10.1111/edth.12411.
Boterman, W. R. (2019). The role of geography in school segregation in the free parental
choice context of Dutch cities. Urban Studies, 56(15), 3074–3094.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019832201.
Bron, J. G. (2018). Student voice in curriculum development. Explorations of curriculum
negotiation in secondary education classrooms. Dissertation. Utrecht, The Netherlands:
University of Humanistic Studies.
Bron, J., Veugelers, W., & Van Vliet, E. (2009). Leerplanverkenning actief burgerschap:
Handreiking voor schoolontwikkeling [Curriculum development for active citizenship].
Enschede, The Netherlands: SLO.
Bron, J., & Thijs, A. (2011). Leaving it to the schools: Citizenship, diversity and human
rights education in the Netherlands. Educational Research, 53(2), 123–136.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.572361.
Bronneman-Helmers, R. (2011). Overheid en onderwijsbestel. Beleidsvorming rond het
Nederlandse onderwijsstelsel (1990-2010) [Educational policy in the Netherlands]. Den
Haag, , The Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Commissie Parlementair Onderzoek Onderwijsvernieuwingen. (2008). Tijd voor
onderwijs [Time for education]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Sdu Uitgevers.
Coopmans, M., Ten Dam, G., Dijkstra, A. B., & Van der Veen, I. (2020). Towards a
comprehensive school effectiveness model of citizenship education: An empirical
analysis of secondary schools in the Netherlands. Social Sciences, 9(9).
https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci9090157.
Culp, C. , Drerup, J., De Groot, I, Schinkel, A. & Yacek, D. (Eds.) (31 Mar. 2022). Liberal
Democratic Education: A Paradigm in Crisis. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill/Mentis.
https://doi.org/10.30965/9783969752548
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
24
Daas, R., Ten Dam, G., & Dijkstra, A. B. (2016). Contemplating modes of assessing
citizenship competences. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 51, 88–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.10.003.
Dahl R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
De Groot, I. (2013). Adolescents Democratic Engagement: A Qualitative Study into the Lived
Citizenship of Adolescents in the Dutch Democratic Pluralist Society. Dissertation.
Utrecht, The Netherlands: University of Humanistic Studies.
De Groot, I. & Veugelers, W. (2015). Why we need to question the democratic engagement
that adolescents in Europe develop. Journal of Social Sciences Education, 14(4), 27-38.
https://doi:10.4119/UNIBI/jsse-v14-4-i4-1426
De Groot, I. (2017). Mock Elections in Civic Education: A Space for Critical Democratic
Citizenship Development. Journal of Social Sciences Education, 16(3), 84-96.
https://doi:10.4119/UNIBI/jsse-v14-4-i4-1426
De Groot, I. (2018). Political Simulations: An Opportunity for Meaningful Democratic
Participation in Schools. Democracy and Education, 26(2), Article 3. Retrieved from
https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol26/iss2/3
De Groot, I., & Eidhof, B. (2019). Mock elections as a way to cultivate democratic
development and a democratic school culture. London Review of Education, 17(3): 362–
382. https://doi.org/10.18546/LRE.17.3.11
De Groot, I., Van den Berg, B., Leijgraaf, M., & Ten Kate, L. (2019). Bonding in Newcomer
Education: An Empirical Exploration. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and
Educational Research, 18(5), 89-110. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.18.5.7
De Groot, I., & Lo, J. (2020). The democratic school experiences framework: A tool for the
design and self-assessment of democratic experiences in formal education. Education,
Citizenship and Social Justice. https://doi:10.1177/1746197920971810
De Groot, I., & Lo, J. (2022). Cultivating student participation in the context of mock
elections in schools: Practices and constraints in secondary education in the
Netherlands. Journal of Social Sciences Education, 21(1), 33-54.
https://doi.org/10.11576/jsse-3430
De Groot, I, Weening, Y., & O’Brien, S. (2022). Feeling Exposed in Online Class: Student
and teacher safety in the online Civics classroom. Available
at: https://www.justiceinschools.org/feeling-exposed-online-class
De Groot, I., Leijgraaf, M., & van Dalen, A. (2023). Towards culturally responsive and
bonding-oriented teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103953.
https://doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103953
De Jong, W. (2014). Van wie is de burger? Omstreden democratie in Nederland 1945-1985
[Contested democracy in the Netherlands]. Dissertation. Nijmegen, The Netherlands:
Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
De Jonge, L. (2021). The success and failure of right-wing populist parties in the Benelux
countries. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
De Winter, M. (2011). Verbeter de wereld, begin bij de opvoeding: Vanachter de voordeur
naar democratie en verbinding [Towards democracy and social cohesion]. Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: SWP.
Den Boer, P., & Leest, B. (2021). Evaluatie burgerschapsagenda mbo 2017-2021. Nijmegen,
The Netherlands: KBA Nijmegen.
Diamond, L. J., & Morlino, L. (2005). Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
25
Dijkstra, A. B., & De la Motte, P. I. (2014). Social outcomes of education: The assessment of
social outcomes and school improvement through school inspections. Amsterdam, The
Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Dijkstra, A. B., Geijsel, F., Ledoux, G., Van der Veen, I., & Ten Dam, G. (2015). Effects of
school quality, school citizenship policy, and student body composition on the
acquisition of citizenship competences in the final year of primary education. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 26(4), 524–553.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.969282.
Dijkstra, A. B., Ten Dam, G., & Munniksma, A. (2021). Inequality in citizenship
competences. Citizenship education and policy in the Netherlands. In B. Malak-
Minkiewicz & J. Torney-Purta (Eds.). Influences of the IEA civic and citizenship
education studies (pp. 135-146). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71102-3.
Dijkstra, A. B., Ten Dam, G., & Waslander, S. (2018). Sturing van burgerschapsvorming
door de overheid? Tussen staatspedagogiek en persoonlijkheidspedagogiek
[Governance of citizenship education? Between state pedagogy and personality
pedagogy]. Pedagogische Studiën, 95(5/6), 315–328.
DUO. (2022a). Leerlingen per onderwijssoort, cluster en leeftijd [Students by education
sector, cluster and age]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: MOCW.
https://duo.nl/open_onderwijsdata/primair-onderwijs/aantal-leerlingen/leerlingen-
onderwijssoort-cluster-leeftijd.jsp.
DUO. (2022b). Leerlingen per bestuur en denominatie [Students per board and
denomination]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: MOCW.
https://duo.nl/open_onderwijsdata/voortgezet-onderwijs/aantal-leerlingen/aantal-
leerlingen.jsp.
Elfering, S., Den Boer, P., & Tholen, R. (2016). Loopbaan en burgerschapsonderwijs in het
mbo [CE in tertiary vocational education]. Eindrapport. Nijmegen, The Netherlands:
KBA Nijmegen & ResearchNed.
Eurydice. (2017). Citizenship education at school in Europe – 2017. Publications Office of
the European Union. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2797/536166.
Geboers, E., Geijsel, F., Admiraal, W., & Ten Dam, G. (2013). Review of the effects of
citizenship education. Educational Research Review, 9, 158–173.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.02.001
Geijsel, F., Ledoux, G., Reumerman, R., & Ten Dam, G. (2012). Citizenship in young
people’s daily lives: Differences in citizenship competences of adolescents in the
Netherlands. Journal of Youth Studies, 15(6), 711–729.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2012.671932.
Gaikhorst, L., Post, J., März, V., & Soeterik, I. (2020). Teacher preparation for urban
teaching: A multiple case study of three primary teacher education programmes.
European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 301–317.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2019.1695772.
Guérin, L. J. F. (2018). Group problem solving as citizenship education. Mainstream idea of
participation revisited. Dissertation. Groningen, The Netherlands: Saxion Progressive
Education University Press.
Holman, C. G. W., Dijkstra, A. B., & Daas, R. (2021). Meting van burgerschapscompetenties
van jongeren in het middelbaar beroepsonderwijs [Measurement of citizenship
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
26
competences of young people in tertiary vocational education]. Pedagogische Studiën,
98(4), 303–319.
Hosseini, N., Leijgraaf, M., Gaikhorst, L., & Volman, M. (2021). Kansengelijkheid in het
onderwijs: een social justice perspectief voor de lerarenopleiding [Educational
inquality: a social justice perspective for teacher education]. Tijdschrift voor
Lerarenopleiders, 42(4), 15–25.
Inspectorate of Education. (2016). Burgerschap in school. Een beschrijving van
burgerschapsonderwijs en de maatschappelijke stage [Citizenship education in Dutch
schools]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Ministerie van OCW.
Kruit, P., Knezic, D., Nieuwelink, H., Schuitema, J. (2020). Gesprekssjabloon voor
controversiele onderwerpen in de klas [Conversation template for controversial topics
in the classroom]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Hogeschool van Amsterdam.
Available at: https://www.hva.nl/binaries/content/assets/subsites/urban-
education/projecten/urban-education_controversiele-onderwerpen_interactief-
gesprekssjabloon_2020.pdf?1576055522246
Laemers, M. (2021). Het Cornelius Haga Lyceum in gevecht met de overheid The clash
between the Haga Lyceam and the government]. Tijdschrift voor Religie, Recht en
Beleid, 2021(2), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.5553/TvRRB/187977842021012002003.
Ledoux, G., & Vaessen, A. (2021). Advies ondersteuningsstructuur burgerschapsonderwijs.
In het kader van de aangescherpte wettelijke burgerschapsopdracht in het funderend
onderwijs [Advisory report on the support structure for citizenship education. In light of
the clarification of the statutory citizenship assignment in primary and secondary
education]. Amsterdam, Nederland: Kohnstamm Instituut.
Ledoux, G., Van Eck, E., Heemskerk, I., Veen, A., Sligte, H, Dikkers, L., & Bollen, I. (2014).
Impact van de Commissie Dijsselbloem op onderwijsbeleid. Studie voor de
Onderwijsraad. Amsterdam, Nederland: Kohnstamm Instituut.
Leenders, H., Veugelers, W., & De Kat, E. (2008). Teachers' views on citizenship education
in secondary education in The Netherlands. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(2),
155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640802063106.
Leijgraaf M. (2019). On earlier positivistic approaches versus current social justice
orientations. In M. Peters (eds.), Encyclopedia of teacher education. Singapore, Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1179-6_81-1.
Lijphart, A. (1969). Consociational democracy. World politics, 21(2), 207-225.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2009820
Lijphart, A. (2008). Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek
[Developments in Dutch politics]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University
Press.
Levinson, M. (2012). No citizen left behind. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.
Levinson, M., & Fay, J. (2019). Democracy in discord in schools: Cases and commentaries in
educational ethics. Cambridge Mass: Harvard Education Press.
Lozano Parra, S. (2022). The School as a Playground for Educational Friction
Understanding Democracy in Dutch Secondary Education. Dissertation. Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Utrecht University
Maslowski, R. (2020). Onderwijs. In Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. De sociale staat van
Nederland 2020. Den Haag, The Netherlands: SCP.
https://digitaal.scp.nl/ssn2020/onderwijs/.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
27
Maslowski, R., Werf, M.P.C. van der, Oonk, G.H.G., Naayer, H.M., & Isac, M.M. (2012).
Burgerschapscompetenties van leerlingen in de onderbouw van het voortgezet
onderwijs. Eindrapport van de International Civic and Citizenship Education Study
(ICCS) in Nederland. Groningen, The Netherlands: GION, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Merry, M. S. (2018). Citizenship, structural inequality and the political elite. On Education,
1(1). https://doi.org/10.17899/on_ed.2018.1.1.
Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London, UK: Routledge
Munniksma, A., Dijkstra, A. B., Van der Veen, I., Ledoux, G., Van de Werfhorst, H., & Ten
Dam, G. (2017). Burgerschap in het voortgezet onderwijs: Nederland in vergelijkend
perspectief [Citizenship education in the Netherlands]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Amsterdam University Press.
Nieuwelink, H. (2016). Becoming a Democratic Citizen. A Study Among Adolescents in
Different Educational Tracks. Dissertation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Universiteit
van Amsterdam.
Nieuwelink, H., Boogaard, M., Dijkstra, A. B., Kuiper, E., & Ledoux, G. (2016a). Onderwijs
in burgerschap: wat scholen kunnen doen: lessen uit wetenschap en praktijk.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kohnstamm Instituut.
Nieuwelink, H., Dekker, P., Geijsel, F., & Ten Dam, G. (2016b). Adolescents’ Experiences
with Democracy and Collective Decision-making in Everyday Life. In P. Thijssen, J.
Siongers, J. Van Laer, J. Haers, & S. Mels (Eds.), Political Engagement of the Young in
Europe. Youth in the Crucible (pp. 174-198). London, UK: Routledge.
Nieuwelink, H. (2018). Hoe ziet het burgerschapsonderwijs in Amsterdam eruit?: een
onderzoek naar de opvattingen van leraren [Examining teacher positions on citizenship
education in Amsterdam]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Hogeschool van Amsterdam.
Nieuwelink, H. (2019). Burgerschap in het onderwijs en bij maatschappijleer. In: Rob van
den Born (red.), Handboek vakdidactiek maatschappijleer [Handbook Social Studies].
Den Haag, The Netherlands: ProDemos.
Nieuwelink, H., Dekker, P., & Ten Dam, G. (2019). Compensating or reproducing?
Students from different educational tracks and the role of school in experiencing
democratic citizenship. Cambridge Journal of Education, 49(3), 275-292.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2018.1529738
Nieuwelink, H. (2021). Burgerschap en sociaal-emotioneel leren: De overeenkomsten en
verschillen [Citizenship and social-emotional learning compared]. Burgerschap op de
Basisschool. Utrecht, The Netherlands: PO-Raad en Stichting School & Veiligheid.
Nieuwelink, H., & Oostdam, R. (2021). Time for citizenship in teacher training. Journal of
Social Science Education, 20(3), 130-146. https://doi.org/10.11576/jsse-4030
Nieuwelink, H., Daas, R., & Teegelbeckers, J. Y. (2022). Burgerschapsonderwijs via het
beeldscherm: Ervaringen van leraren met het geven van burgerschapsonderwijs op
afstand tijdens de eerste COVID-19-lockdown [Teacher experiences with online CE].
Pedagogische Studiën, 99, 36-59.
Oberon. (2022). Stappen in LOB en burgerschap Professionalisering en
kwaliteitsverbetering LOB en burgerschapsonderwijs mbo [Professionalisation and
quality development in Citizenship in tertiary vocational education]. Utrecht, The
Netherlands: Oberon.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: What makes a school successful? – resources, policies and
practices (volume iv). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264091559-en.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
28
OECD. (2012). A brief history of public and private involvement in schools in the
Netherlands. In Public and private schools: How management and funding relate to
their socio-economic profile (pp. 59-61). Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264175006-12-en.
Olgers, T., van Otterdijk, R., Ruijs, G., de Kievid J., & Meijs, L. (2014). Handboek
vakdidactiek maatschappijleer [Handbook Social Studies]. Den Haag, The Netherlands:
Landelijk Expertisecentrum Mens- en Maatschappijvakken & ProDemos.
Onderwijsraad [Education Council]. (2003). Onderwijs en burgerschap [Education and
citizenship]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
Onderwijsraad [Education Council]. (2012). Verder met burgerschap in het onderwijs
[Moving forward with citizenship]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
Onderwijsraad [Education Council]. (2018). Advies Wetsvoorstel verduidelijking
burgerschapsopdracht in het funderend onderwijs [Advisory report clarification Dutch
Citizenship education legislation]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
Onderwijsraad [Education Council]. (2021). Grenzen stellen, ruimte laten: Artikel 23
Grondwet in het licht van de democratische rechtsstaat [Article 23 and the democratic
rule of law. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Onderwijsraad.
Parker, W. (2003). Teaching democracy: Unity and diversity in public life. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Parker, W. (2012). Democracy, diversity, and schooling. In J.A. Banks (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of diversity in education. Califormia: Sage.
Pauw, L. (2013). Onderwijs en burgerschap: Wat vermag de basisschool? Onderzoek naar
De Vreedzame School [Education and citizenship: What’s in the power of the elementary
school? An evaluation of The Peaceable School]. Dissertation. Utrecht, The Netherlands:
Utrecht University.
Platform Onderwijs2032. (2016). Ons onderwijs 2032: Eindadvies [Advisory report
Education 2032]. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Platform Onderwijs2032.
Platform Pedagogische Opdracht van het Onderwijs. (1995). De school van je leven.
Eindrapport [The school of your life. Final report]. Enschede, The Netherlands: SLO.
Raad van State [The Council of State]. (2019). Voorstel van wet tot wijziging van een aantal
onderwijswetten in verband met verduidelijking van de burgerschapsopdracht aan
scholen in het funderend onderwijs [Proposal adjustment CE related educational
legislations]. W05.19.0014/I. Den Haag, The Netherlands: Raad van State.
Rinnooy Kan, W., W. F., März, V., Volman, M., & Dijkstra, A. B. (2021). Learning from,
through and about differences: A multiple case study on schools as practice grounds
for citizenship. Social Sciences, 10(6), 200. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10060200.
Savenije, G. M., & Goldberg, T. (2019). Silences in a climate of voicing: Teachers’
perceptions of societal and self-silencing regarding sensitive historical issues.
Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 27(1), 39–64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2019.1566162.
Schuitema, J., Radstake, H., van de Pol, J., & Veugelers, W. (2018). Guiding classroom
discussions for democratic citizenship education. Educational Studies, 44(4), 377–407.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2017.1373629.
Severiens, S., Wolff, R., & Van Herpen, S. (2013). Teaching for diversity: A literature
overview and an analysis of the curriculum of a teacher training college. European
Journal of Teacher Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.845166.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
29
Sincer, I. (2021). Diverse schools, diverse citizens? Teaching and learning citizenship in
schools with varying student populations. Dissertation. Rotterdam, The Netherlands:
Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Susam, H. (2015). Cultureel sensitief leraarschap: Ontwikkeling van beroepskwaliteiten van
aanstaande leraren voor pluriforme scholen [developing cultural competences of
teacher students]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: VU University Press.
Slijkhuis, E. G. J. (2021) Fostering active citizenship in young adulthood: The predictive
value of citizenship competences, socialization experiences and academic performance
in adolescence. Dissertation. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.169304125.
Slijkhuis, E., Van der Veen, I., Walet, L., Ritzema, E., De Boer, H., Kuijpers, R., Naayer, H.,
Hemker, B., Stronkhorst, E., Lampe, T., & Dijkstra, A.B. (2021). Burgerschap in het
basisonderwijs. Technisch rapport Peil. Burgerschap 2020 [Citizenship education in
primary schools]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. (2005). Wet van 9 december 2005,
houdende opneming in de Wet op het primair onderwijs, de Wet op de expertisecentra en
de Wet op het voortgezet onderwijs van de verplichting voor scholen om bij te dragen
aan de integratie van leerlingen in de Nederlandse samenleving [CE law]. Den Haag, The
Netherlands: Staatsblad 2005, 678.
Staatsblad van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. (2021). Wet van 23 juni 2021 tot wijziging
van een aantal onderwijswetten in verband met verduidelijking van de
burgerschapsopdracht aan scholen in het funderend onderwijs [CE law]. Den Haag, The
Netherlands: Staatsblad 2021, 320.
Ten Dam, G., Dijkstra, A. B., & Janmaat, J. G. (2016). De maatschappelijke opdracht van de
school: Burgerschapsonderwijs in ontwikkeling. In B. Eidhof, M. Van Houtte, & M.
Vermeulen (Eds.), Sociologen over onderwijs: Inzichten, praktijken en kritieken (pp. 259-
280). Arnhem, The Netherlands: Garant.
Ten Dam, G., & Volman, M. (2003). A life jacket or an art of living: Inequality in social
competence education. Curriculum Inquiry, 33(2), 117–137.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-873X.00254.
Thayer-Bacon, B. J. (2013). Democracies always in the making. Lanham, Maryland:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Thijs, P., Kranendonk, M., Mulder, L., Wanders, F., Ten Dam, G., Van der Meer, T., & Van
de Werfhorst, H. (2019). Democratische kernwaarden in het voortgezet onderwijs.
[Democratic core values in secondary education]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Universiteit van Amsterdam.
Ulferts, H. (2019). The relevance of general pedagogical knowledge for successful teaching:
Systematic review and meta-analysis of the international evidence from primary to
tertiary education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/ede8feb6-en
Vaessen, A., Daas, R., & Nieuwelink, H. (2022). All things considered: The views of
adolescents in vocational education on competing democratic values. Citizenship,
Social and Economics Education, 21(1), 3–21.
https://doi.org/10.1177/20471734211050290.
Van Waveren, J. (2020). Burgerschapsonderwijs en de leerkracht binnen het speelveld van
pedagogiek en politiek [The political and pedagogical in CE]. Dissertation. Utrecht, The
Netherlands: University of Humanistic Studies.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
30
Van der Hoek, B. (2012). De maatschappelijke taak van het onderwijs. In A. Wilschut &
Landelijk Expertisecentrum Mens- en Maatschappijvakken (Ed.),
Burgerschapsvorming en de maatschappijvakken [CE in Social Studies courses (pp. 7-
32). Amsterdam, Th Netherlands: Ipskamp. Retrieved from:
http://www.expertisecentrum-mmv.nl/wp-
content/uploads/lemm_burgerschapsvorming_2012_webversie.pdf.
Van der Ploeg, P., & Guerin, L. (2021). Burgerschapsonderwijs doet MBO-studenten geen
recht [CE does not do justice to tertiary vocational students]. Retrieved from:
https://onderzoekonderwijs.net/2021/12/16/burgerschapsonderwijs-doet-mbo-
studenten-geen-recht/
Van der Zweerde, E. (2011). ‘Het is ook nooit goed...' Democratie vanuit politiek-
filosofisch perspectief [a political philosophy perspective on democracy]. Inaugural
lecture. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Radboud University Nijmegen.
Verhoeven, S.H. (2012). De school als oefenplaats voor democratie. Een mixed-methods
evaluatieonderzoek naar de werkzaamheid van een schoolbreed programma voor
democratische burgerschapsvorming in de basisschool [Evaluation of a school wide
DCE-program]. Utrecht, The Netherlands Utrecht University.
Veugelers, W. (2007). Creating critical‐democratic citizenship education: Empowering
humanity and democracy in Dutch education. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and
International Education, 37(1), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920601061893.
Wagenaar, H., Van der Schoot, F., & Hemker, B. (2011). Balans actief burgerschap en
sociale integratie: Uitkomsten van de peiling in 2009 [Results CE-study]. Arnhem, The
Netherlands: Cito.
Wanders, F. (2019). The contribution of schools to societal participation of young adults:
The role of teachers, parents, and friends in stimulating societal interest and societal
involvement during adolescence. Dissertation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: University
of Amsterdam.
Wansink, B., Patist, J., Zuiker, I., Savenije, G., & Janssenswillen, P. (2019). Confronting
conflicts: history teachers’ reactions on spontaneous controversial remarks. Teaching
History, 175, 68–75.
Waslander, S. (2018). Meer ruimte voor nieuwe scholen: Waarschuwingen van overzee
[More room for new schools]. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsrecht en
Onderwijsbeleid, 30(4), 2–16.
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid [The Netherlands Scientific Council
for Government Policy] (WRR). (2003). Waarden, normen en de last van het gedrag
[Values, norms and behavioural issues]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam
University Press.
Willemse, T. M., Ten Dam, G., Geijsel, F., van Wessum, L. & Volman, M. (2015). Fostering
teachers' professional development for citizenship education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 49, 118-127 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.008.
Wilschut, A. (2013). De taal van burgerschap [The language of citizenship]. Inaugural
lecture. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Hogeschool van Amsterdam.
JSSE 4/2022 Education for democratic citizenship in Dutch schools
31
ENDNOTES
1
Artikel 23: Het openbaar en bijzonder onderwijs - Nederlandse Grondwet. Available at:
https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/vi5kn3s122s4/artikel_23_het_openbaar_en_bij
zonder
2
NRC Handelsblad. (2021). Dino’s en korte rokjes worden uit de schoolboeken geweerd.
NRC Handelsblad. Geraadpleegd van: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/10/08/dinos-en-
korte-rokjes-worden-uit-de-schoolboeken-geweerd-a4061168.
3
In the Netherlands, Civics (also referred to as Subject of Society or Social Studies) is a
mandatory one-year course, offered in upper secondary education, which teaches
knowledge about society and reasoning skills. Apart from this mandatory course,
students in all educational tracks can choose an elective course social sciences in the
(pre)final year of secondary education. In this article, we use the term Civics to denote
the mandatory subject, and CE to denote the wider range of legislations and practices
organized in/by schools to prepare future generations for their role in society.
4
See also: https://curriculum.nu/
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We like to thank the reviewers and our colleagues from the UHS chair group education for
their valuable feedback on draft versions of this paper
AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES
Isolde de Groot, PhD, is Assistant Professor at the Department of Education, University
of Humanistic studies. Her research interests are in education for democracy and
meaningful education. Current projects investigate teacher disclosure, democratic
experiences in schools, political efficacy of vocational students, civic purpose of higher
education students, and controversial issues discussions.
Remmert Daas, PhD, is Assistant Professor at the University of Amsterdam, in which he
is involved in several studies of students’ citizenship competences in primary education,
secondary education, and tertiary vocational education. He is currently the national
research coordinator for the participation of the Netherlands in the International Civic
and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) 2022.
Hessel Nieuwelink, PhD, is Full Professor of Citizenship Education at the Amsterdam
University of Applied Sciences (AUAS/HvA). His research focusses on adolescent views on
democracy, effective ways of teaching citizenship and democracy, and how teaching
controversial issues can contribute to the development of student democratic
citizenship.
