Zoontjens, P. J.J. and Glenn, C. L. (2012). The Netherlands. In C. L. Glenn & J. De Groof (Eds.), Balancing freedom, autonomy and accountability in education: Volume 2 (333-362). Tilburg, NL: Wolf Legal Publishers. Overview The Dutch can justly claim to have the most pluralistic school system in the world. Freedom of education is guaranteed in three forms: non-governmental groups have the right

• to establish schools (vrijheid van oprichting);

• to give these schools a distinctive religious or philosophical character (vrijheid van richting); and

• to organize schools as they wish, included the choice of materials and teachers (vrijheid van inrichting).

These freedoms were won during the course of a 70-year struggle of Protestant and Catholic “little people” against the dominance of an urban elite that sought to use popular schooling to impose its understanding of enlightenment and liberal religion.1 In the process, a wide range of institutions organized along denominational lines

THE NETHERLANDS by Paul J.J. Zoontjens and Charles L. Glenn

2

became a characteristic of the Dutch system of “pillarization” (verzuiling). In 1848, when the advocates of freedom of education, motivated by religious principles, obtained the support of the liberals - who based their stance on liberal democratic grounds - this freedom was embedded in the Constitution. This signaled the end of the first phase of the struggle surrounding the ‘Educational Question’ (‘Schoolstrijd’). From that point onward, the Dutch educational system recognised not just state schools but also privately run schools, though it did not subsidize the latter. This formal freedom was hard to put into practice, however, because of the financial implications, which became more serious as the standards for schools rose decade by decade. The cost of schools continued to be borne almost entirely by local authorities and by parents until 1878. The second phase of the struggle surrounding the ‘Educational Question’--aimed at the material freedom to operate non-government schools–broke out when a new generation of Liberals, more committed to government intervention and less to freedom, and explicitly hostile to confessional schools,2 enacted education legislation providing that the state would pay 30 percent of the cost of public schools and increasing that cost considerably with new requirements. The legislation was opposed by supporters of confessional education, since it would make their schools much more expensive to operate. The Liberals had overreached. This threat against the schools that many of them had labored to establish aroused the orthodox common people and created a movement that, in a decade, reversed the political fortunes of the Liberals and brought state support for confessional schools. A massive petition drive and the establishment of a national organization and, the next year, the first real political party in the Netherlands, mobilized orthodox Protestants, and Catholics were equally active. By 1888 the confessional parties gained a majority in Parliament. The School Law of 1889 provided the same 30 percent state subsidy to confessional schools as to local government schools. The third phase of the struggle, lasting from 1889 to 1920, was aimed at full financial equalization of state and independent education. With the revision of the Constitution in 1917, reflecting an alliance on this front between the religious (Protestant and Catholic) parties and the Socialists, religious and philosophical pluralism in schooling was recognised. This ‘Pacification’ reflected consensus on constitutional guarantees of the existence and development of public education on one hand and of the equal financial treatment of funded non-government schools on the other hand. With an exception in 2006, Article 23, guaranteeing educational freedom, has not been revised substantially. In the Primary Education Act of 1920, the government’s specific responsibility not only for state schools but also for non-government schools was detailed.

3

By the terms of the Constitution and the successive education laws, groups of citizens are free to start new primary and secondary schools if they bring together a minimum number of pupils and can guarantee a sufficient quality of teaching. Schools are also free to decide how attainment targets will be reached and are autonomous in all teaching matters (within the bounds of the law). Municipal authorities or school boards govern schools. With respect to the expected goals of schooling and a written national examination based upon them at the end of secondary schooling, the Dutch system is quite centralized, but considerable autonomy is granted to non-government as well as public schools to develop distinctive approaches – whether religious or pedagogical – to meeting these goals. The educational system of governmentally funded education is therefore simultaneously unified and divided. It is unified in the way it is as a whole subordinated to national goals and governed by the same laws. Unlike in France or Germany, there is no separate legislation applying only to subsidized non- government schools. A reason could perhaps be that in the Dutch legal system partly subsidized schools do not exist in the field of primary and secondary education. Schools that offer official education are fully funded or not funded, there is nothing in between. Thus from the governmental point of view there is no reason to make a detailed distinction between public and non-government education. Another reason could be that public as well as non-government education enjoy pedagogical autonomy, the latter via the already mentioned freedom of organisation (vrijheid van inrichting) and the first through the unwritten constitutional principle that the state does not interfere in pedagogical matters.3 For that reason, the legal rules concerning the national curriculum are distant and of a relatively global kind, which makes it easier to formulate them substantially uniformly for both branches of the national education system. The responsibilities of the (funded) non-government schools include decisions with regard to curriculum, choice of teaching materials, establishment of the school plan, timetable (lessons per compulsory or optional subject), appointment and dismissal of head teachers, teachers and non-teaching staff, admission and expulsion of pupils, use of school buildings, school hours and management of financial resources and arrangements for their administration.

4

The structure of schooling Duality The basic structure of the Dutch education system is as follows. Primary education is given to children 4 to 12 years old. At the age of 12, children enter secondary education. Pupils are divided into three streams: one that prepares for secondary vocational education (VMBO) and two that prepare for higher education, called HAVO (senior general secondary) and VWO (pre-university). The pre-vocational stream is divided into three sub-streams of which two are practice-oriented and one consists of junior general secondary education (MAVO), especially preparing for the higher years of secondary vocational education. In upper secondary school, students either work towards final examinations in VMBO (one year), HAVO (two years) or VWO (three years). They may then enter senior secondary vocational schools (MBO, two to four years), participate in an apprenticeship system (one to four years), or attend higher education. Pupils with limited cognitive capacities, of whom it is clear that they cannot pass one of the mentioned streams successfully, may have access to the so called Practice School. This is a regular form of secondary education which prepares children for the lower segments of the labour market. Access is dependent on a test and, moreover, a recommendation of the school staff. Postma describes the Dutch educational system as being characterized by the liberal viewpoint that “as much room as possible should be created for the free interplay of social forces.” As expressed in a government document twenty years ago,

It goes without saying that central government has a particular responsibility toward public-authority education, and that it keeps a special eye on the freedom of private education. Private education must be left with wide margins in order to be able to realise its own aims. Naturally, central government should be concerned about the standards of education… central government has the task of promoting the development of education or creating the necessary conditions for that to happen within the nationally formulated policy framework.4

In general, this liberal viewpoint is accepted by all political movements, although between Liberals, Social-democrats and Christian-Democrats the appreciation of the state role within this context can differ.5 This viewpoint links to more recent conceptions of education as fundamentally a function of the civil society rather than of the state, to be supported and regulated but not provided by the government, except to fill in the gaps left by civil society provision.

5

However, in recent years this has been seriously debated by members of new liberal and populist groups, especially with respect to Islamic schools that originated from the beginning of the nineties of the last century: Here, in general terms, the argument is essentially the same as in the more specific critique on Islamic schools: the secular state has conceded too much to religious particularism. These critics have been most vocal on the issue of state funding of private religious schools, arguing that it should be entirely abolished. They are less clear, and less unified, with regard to the second component of Article 23, namely freedom of education: should only state funding of educational institutions with a specific religious content and identity be prohibited, or should this measure be extended to also prohibiting the existence of any private religious schools whatsoever within Dutch society (a standpoint potentially in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights)?6 Equal funding The Dutch educational system is an open system. It consists of schools that are funded or not funded by government. The latter, known as private schools or institutions, can offer “official” education when they meet the requirements of the Compulsory Education Act (primary education) or when they (secondary education) or their educational programmes (secondary vocational and higher education) have been officially recognized by governmental decision. Except for a very few private schools, all schools in the Netherlands in primary and secondary education (including some international schools) are fully funded by the central government on the basis of complex formulas taking into account enrollment and other factors. Funded schools include public schools on the one hand and non-government schools on the other hand. Non-government schools need to be distinguished from truly private schools, because of their public funding. To be eligible for funding, a new school must have a minimum number of pupils when it opens. Since it may be decisive for the survival of a school to be funded by the government, it is imperative that the school comply with all legal requirements in terms of staff, curriculum, organisation and management. Most schools can only exist if they receive money from public sources. In this respect, the actual realisation of the right to establish a new school has been severely limited during the past decades because the national school system seems to be saturated. Over the last twelve years only some dozens of new schools have opened their doors in primary education, while in secondary education it was only a matter of expansion of existing schools with new

6

divisions.7 In real terms, then, the freedom to establish a school that is eligible for public funding is limited. Public schools are in general owned and operated by municipalities, while non-government schools may be owned and operated by an association or a foundation. Some of the latter operate a single school; others, many schools. The right to operate and to select a non-government school has been based upon the concept of richting, corresponding to religious or philosophical worldview, even though it is not necessary that a school be controlled by a religious organization or community; typically, schools with a religious character are controlled by an association of the same character, not by an ecclesiastical institution. Elementary enrollment is divided roughly in evenly three ways among Catholic, public, and Protestant schools, with under 10 percent attending an assortment of other non- government schools with philosophical or religious distinctiveness. The main religious and philosophical types that are represented in primary education are:

Catholic, Protestant, four varieties of more conservative Protestant, ‘General’ or ‘Neutral’ Non-Governmental, Anthroposophic (Steiner), Orthodox Jewish, Liberal Jewish, Evangelical, Hindu and Muslim.

The list does not count the distinctions among pedagogical types, which may also serve as the basis for parent choice: Montessori, Dalton, Freinet, and so forth. But it seems likely that legislators (according to the Dutch Constitution: government and Parliament in co-operation) will within some time give these pedagogical choices equal rights with those based upon religious preference; the National Education Council recommends this strongly in its report about the current meaning of article 23 of the Constitution (April 2012) which provoked positive reactions by government and Parliament. The Council finds that the legal rule that new established schools must be of a certain “richting” (worldview) should be abandoned. Widening of ‘worldview’ to include distinctive pedagogical views is in conformity with its meaning in 1917, when it as a term for the first time showed up in the Constitution. Furthermore, it can be argued that a distinctive pedagogy itself rests upon a concept of the world and of the good life, and should be protected under the Constitution and also section 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, First Protocol, which requires the State to “respect the right of parents to ensure . . . education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.”8 At the secondary level there are also religious varieties, and in addition a variety of pedagogical alternatives in the education at public and non-government schools. The structure of general secondary education is quite complex, since (as noted above)

7

there are various types with different levels and goals, known as vwo, havo, vmbo and practice school. The legal framework Article 23 of the Constitution (last amended in 2006) provides:

• Education shall be the constant concern of the Government.

• All persons shall be free to provide education, without prejudice to the authorities’ right of supervision and, with regard to legally-designated forms of education, its right to examine the competence and moral integrity of teachers, to be regulated by law.

• Education provided by public subsidies shall be regulated by law, paying due respect to each person’s religion or belief.

• The authorities shall ensure that public primary education is provided in a sufficient number of public schools in every municipality. Deviations from this provision may be permitted under rules to be established by law on condition that there is opportunity to receive the said form of education, whether or not in a public school.

• The standards required of schools financed either in part or in full from public funds shall be regulated by law, with due regard, in the case of non-government schools, to the freedom to provide education according to religious or other belief.

• The requirements for primary education shall be such that the standards both of non-government schools fully financed from public funds and of public schools are fully guaranteed. The relevant provisions shall respect in particular the freedom of non-government schools to choose their teaching aids and to appoint teachers as they see fit.

• Non-government primary schools that satisfy the conditions laid down by law shall be financed from public funds according to the same standards as public schools. The conditions under which non-government secondary education and pre-university education shall receive contributions from public funds shall be laid down by law.

8

• The Government shall submit annual reports on the state of education to Parliament.

Explanatory notes Several aspects of these provisions should be noted. The liberal Constitution of 1848 guaranteed the right to provide education (section 2), and a subsequent law of 1857 removed the requirement of prior approval by the authorities. It was not until 1889, however, that partial public funding was provided to non-government schools, and not until 1917-1920 that equal support for non-government schools was secured in the Constitution and laws (section 7). Educational freedom was guaranteed, but it remained out of the reach of most parents until 1920. The continuing responsibility of the Dutch government for education (section 1) and its “right to examine the competence and moral integrity of teachers, to be regulated by law” (section 2), must be exercised in a manner that does not limit the freedom to establish schools that reflect a religious or philosophical perspective. Section 3 prescribes the neutrality of public education: “paying due respect to each person’s religion or belief”. An immediate consequence is that public school should be generally accessible on the grounds of religion or philosophical conviction (Art. 46 WPO, 42 WVO). The Dutch meaning of neutrality should be regarded as ‘active’ neutrality, elaborated in legislation by stating that in public education “attention must be paid to the variety of religious and philosophical values and opinions in Dutch society” (Art. 46 WPO, 42 WVO). In primary education, parents have the right to ask for religious or philosophical lessons in public schools, and the school board must provide it. These lessons must be offered by a religious church or philosophical organization that is independent from the public school, and are funded by government (Art. 50 WPO). According to case law of the Equal Treatment Commission, the principle of active neutrality prevents the prohibition of the wearing of an Islamic headscarf by teachers in public schools (see for instance CGB 9 February 1999, Judgment 1999-18). It is also general opinion that the wearing of Islamic headscarves by pupils cannot be prohibited, unless the prohibition is in the functional interest of quality education.9 Section 4 ensures that neutral public schooling is available everywhere in the country. This is a rejection of the position held by some advocates of non- government schooling, that government provision should only fill in where private efforts have not provided sufficiently. Section 4 has been amended in 2006 to enable so called ‘co-

9

operative schools’ (‘samenwerkingsscholen’, see below). In sections 5 and 6, stress is given on the freedom of the responsible board (bevoegd gezag) of non-government schools to give education a distinctive character. Freedom of worldview as expressed in curriculum and teaching and freedom of organisation are thus essential components of the freedom of education. The texts make clear that the standards of quality defined in law and regulations inevitably affect the organisational aspects of the school and should not infringe on its freedom of worldview (richting). In general, it is assumed that freedom of worldview and freedom of organization, together with the right to establish an educational institution, constitute the three essential elements of the fundamental right to education. This subdivision is not, as claimed in certain literature and in educational politics, the result of an interpretation at a later date. During the entire period during which the struggle for freedom of education took place, the concepts in question were seen, in the context of educational liberty, as separately essential and as interrelated. The standards must be regulated by law “with due regard, in the case of non- government schools, to the freedom to provide education according to religious or other belief.” This forces government to be light-handed in enforcing standards on non-government schools. In practice, standards must be clearly necessary and not interfere with the expression of the worldview of the school, while setting standards equal to those for public schools. This has not prevented government from interfering more and more deeply in the educational process. According to the National Education Council (Onderwijsraad) a modern interpretation of section 5 implies the power of government to insist on the quality of education in schools. The legal core objectives (kerndoelen) established in 1993 for primary, the lower part of secondary, and all categories of special education are not considered unconstitutional. Later initiatives, such as the introduction of a more intensive supervision by the education inspectorate in 2002, later extended by new powers and instruments, and the legal focus since 2010 on quality requirements concerning the outcomes of schooling measured by test results at the end of primary and secondary education, can also meet constitutional standards.10 The constitutional guarantee of equal funding for public and non-government schools is according to general opinion restricted to education during the compulsory period, which actually covers basic education and the first four years of secondary education. The principle has been extended to the upper level of secondary schools, as suggested in section 7. In fact, the principle of equal funding has been further extended to secondary vocational education and higher education, but since the Constitution is silent on this point, it is solely dependent on legislation.11

10

Overview of legislation These constitutional provisions have been supplemented by several comprehensive laws, as well as by a great many regulations issued by the Ministry of Education and Science. On 1 August 1998 a new Primary Education Act (WPO) went into effect, replacing the former Primary Education Act (WBO, enacted in 1984) and the Special Education Interim Act; the latter is also replaced by the Expertise Centres Act which regulates the new system of personal budgets for children with special needs. Concerning regular and special education a new reform is upcoming by the submission of (the draft of) the Adaptive Education Act (Wet passend onderwijs) in Parliament. This act lays a legal duty of care upon a school board in primary and secondary education to admit “to education” every pupil that is put forward to one of its schools. This duty of care implies the obligation to admit every pupil with special needs to the school of choice or, if it is not possible given the capacities of the school with regard to the nature of the child’s special needs, to a another school of this school board or to a school of another school board. To execute this duty of care properly, school boards and schools will be forced to co-operate in regional administrative units that will have the task to offer an educational pallet covering all possible educational needs of children in the region. One of the goals of the Adaptive Education Act will be to diminish the call for special education in the fields of behavioral problems and educational and learning difficulties. It is to be expected that the new act will be effective in 2013 or 2014. The Secondary Education Act (WVO; 1963) is a framework law that is the basis of several executive decrees. One could say that, since the days that it was first defined as an independent sector, the role and position of general secondary education have been strongly debated in the Netherlands. From 1863 onward up to 1945, all ministers of Education had tried to shape and reshape this sector until the 1963 Act. During the 1990s, far reaching changes took place through a series of laws concerning lower secondary education and its last years and preparatory vocational education. However, the effects of these centrally-steered changes turned out to be so negative that Parliament formed an investigative committee which reported in 2008 that national government had played its role of guaranteeing quality education unsatisfactorily.12 The Compulsory Education Act (Leerplichtwet 1969) established the requirement to attend a school. The requirements start at the age of 5 and end with 16. For pupils who have not a minimal qualification at the age of 16, compulsory education lasts to 18. There limited exceptions to compulsory education, of which mental and/or physical disability

11

and individual objections against the worldview of all schools in the vicinity of home are the most important. The Recognized Educational Institutions Act (WEO: 1985) specifies terms and conditions for the recognition of schools and other educational institutions. Freedom to establish non-governmental schools While virtually all non-government schools are publicly funded, the requirement of adequate quality is not tied to the funding alone. Non-government schools must employ teachers who meet the standards for public schools, and they must provide instruction that is equivalent to, though not necessarily identical with, that provided in public schools. If the founders of a non-government school seek public subsidy, they must meet legal requirements that go beyond the minimal requirements for an unsubsidized but state recognized school. The school must be of general usefulness, as measured by the number of pupils whose parents have asked for the alternative form of education that it will provide. The Elementary Education Law set specific numerical standards, to prevent arbitrary judgments by public officials. This principle of legality is still ruling in the current acts on primary and secondary education. Since the 1990s, the numerical standards have been raised as an economy measure. Beside these standards, proposed schools are considered in the context of overall need and demand. A requirement for founding is also whether the worldview of the new school corresponds with a significant sector in Dutch society; recently the national educational council has urged striking out this requirement. In 2011 a new law was enacted which permits establishment of an integrated cooperative structure between a public and a non-government school, the so- called “samenwerkingsschool”. Homeschooling The Compulsory Education Act forbids home schooling. At the local level, the Municipal Executive Council checks whether pupils subject to compulsory education are attending schools in their municipalities and have primary responsibility for executing this Act, both for public and for nongovernmental education. The act requires each municipality to have at least one compulsory education officer.

12

Parents who withhold their children from official school education are liable to punishment. In this respect, the Netherlands is – alone with the German Länder— deviant from most of the other European countries, where home schooling is recognized as a regular means to organize education. However, the law allows an exception from the mandatory schooling requirement in cases in which the conscience of the parents cannot be satisfied with the available schools in the neighbourhood and there are not enough parents locally with the same concerns to justify starting a new school. On a yearly basis some 200 children enjoy home schooling because of this legal exception.13 School choice not limited by family income Which faith or philosophy they adhere to becomes very important when parents and students have to decide on a school. Even though there are many different types of schools in most areas, sometimes no school of the desired character, philosophy or denomination is available where they live. The system of educational laws provides various solutions for this problem, including transport for a pupil to the nearest suitable non-government school of preference (Art. 4 Primary Education Act). In addition, the Compulsory Education Act of 1969 includes a stipulation that exemption from compulsory education may be granted if there is a conscientious objection against all non-government schools in the neighbourhood. Recently, the Supreme Court has also recognized objections in this respect towards public schools (Art. 5, subsection b; [Hoge Raad] 17 April 2012, LJN: BV9201). Furthermore, when there is a desire to choose public education, but a public school does not exist in the direct vicinity, a pupil may select a non- government school which is obligated to admit the pupil and to treat the pupil as if he or she has entered a public school, so that the pupil cannot be required to receive religious or philosophical education (Art. 58 Primary Education Act; Art. 48 General Secondary Education Act). Primary and secondary education is free. Parents only pay a small, voluntary, annual parent contribution, in public and non-government schools. For pupils in primary and secondary school, all books are free; a school may ask parents to contribute toward the cost of certain activities, such as school trips and excursions, but these contributions must be voluntary. Pupils in secondary vocational education who are 18 or above have to pay a school fee. Students in higher education must pay tuition fees annually. Equal funding of public and non-government schools is based on the provisions in the Constitution and education laws. In principle, central government funding of primary and secondary education, both public and special, should be sufficient. If the local authority spends an additional amount for staff and material upkeep for the benefit of its own public schools, then it must match these for the local non-government schools as well.

13

From this requirement of full funding by the State, it follows that compulsory education is free. Requiring supplemental contributions for participating in compulsory education is therefore ruled out by the Constitution. State funding of compulsory education can be regarded as a special form of grant-aid, which, as Article 23 of the Constitution stipulates, is subject to more and different requirements than ‘normal’ grants:14

1. The State is obliged to fund schools that meet the statutory requirements: 2. The key issues of the conditions with regard to funding should be included in

formal legislation; 3. Funding should be adequate and sufficient; 4. Funding should be provided for an unlimited period; 5. Funding should be implemented on equal terms.

The legal framework for funding of schools represents a considerable part of the administrative norms of the Dutch education system. Still, a number of education institutions are situated outside the publicly-funded system, diverse as the latter is. There are purely private schools and training centers, chiefly concentrated in vocationally-oriented training and adult education, the so-called ‘particulier onderwijs’.15 There are three categories for the composition of funding for elementary schools: facilities, operations and staff. Secondary schools are funded in five categories. Funding takes place in the form of block grants, of which the calculation per school is based in law. The responsibility for accommodation and maintenance of public and non-government schools lies with local authorities, which determine for themselves which schools qualify for facilities funding and the amount, taking into account the legal framework. Funding for staffing and operations is provided to public and private establishments according to identical criteria. The system of block grant funding, already prevailing in secondary vocational education and higher education since the early 1990s, was introduced in 1996 for general secondary education. In 2006 it was extended to primary education. Primary schools and schools for primary and secondary special education receive funding to cover:

14

Staffing costs

The staff in elementary and secondary schools is funded on the basis of a block grant, with the amount determined on the basis of national average staff expenses, corrected to a certain extent on the basis of the age structure of the staff. The school’s board (bevoegd gezag) is in principle free when it comes to spending the amounts for staff and operations, and can decide to spend a greater portion of the lump sum on staff, at the expense of the amount for operations. Schools whose special character requires additional staff not covered by the public subsidy may in some cases request voluntary payments from parents.

Operations

The level of funding of material upkeep (operations) – including energy and water use; school and educational tools; administration, management and control – is determined by the policy that it should “meet the reasonable needs of a school” which finds itself in normal circumstances. Operating costs, including facility maintenance determined on the basis of standard costs. are allocated as a block grant together with staff costs.

Facilities

Funding accommodation in both primary and secondary education is the responsibility of the local authorities. Only the main requirements are laid down in the national laws, while the specific regulations can be found in local authority by-laws, in such a way that it is possible to meet “the reasonable demands that education places on accommodation of schools in the area.” Preventive maintenance of school buildings in primary education falls under the regulation for material upkeep. Although the local authority is the competent body for funding accommodation, it may agree with a school board to transfer responsibility for accommodation to the latter. In that case, the municipality gives an annual budget to the school board, while the legal rules concerning accommodation do not apply. Instead, conditions in the contract by which the local authority has agreed to the transfer determine the relationship. In 2011, transfer has been realized in 13% of the municipalities, mainly for general secondary education.16

15

Other

Publicly funded schools are entitled to keep any revenue earned from activities contracted with third parties. Members of school staff may also perform activities on a contractual basis within their regular terms of employment. Thus, for example, they could offer supplemental music or language tutoring outside of school hours to pupils whose parents pay a fee. Schools are also entitled to receive revenues from sponsoring, under the restrictions of a policy agreement of 2009 that de minister of Education made with relevant organizations in the field. According to this agreement sponsoring by commercial parties should • Be targeted to a healthy lifestyle of pupils; • Be motivated by societal concern; • Not interfere with the mental and physical development of pupils; and • Not interfere with the core activities of the school.17

School distinctiveness protected by law and policy Any conditions attached to funding non-government schools must “respect in particular the freedom of private schools to choose their teaching aids [materials] and to appoint teachers as they see fit” (section 6 of article 23 of the Constitution). In exchange for the full financial support that they receive from government, privately-run schools in the Netherlands are restricted by many requirements laid down in statutes and regulations, but government is required to take the distinctive character of the school into account in enforcing these requirements. The instrument for reconciling these competing demands, at the elementary level, is the school plan, in which the administration and board of a school set out in extensive detail how all of the government requirements will be met, and how the distinctive mission of the school will find expression. While the constitutional protections for the distinctive character of a non- government school were clearly concerned with denominational distinctions, there was from the beginning (1917) a recognition that other forms of distinctiveness would be protected. There was discussion of the possibility of anarchist, humanist, or socialist non-government schools, though in fact the great majority of schools founded were either Catholic or Protestant.

16

There has been a significant shift in recent years to stressing pedagogical distinctiveness. No doubt this has been caused by the growing secularization of Dutch society and the weakening of its traditional “pillars,” but it also shows the effect of demands by increasingly-sophisticated parents for a range of distinctive approaches to education. In 2012, the National Educational Council (Onderwijsraad) recommended widening – as a matter of interpretation, not constitutional amendment – the meaning of the term “richting” (worldview):

In the first years after the amendment of the Consititution in 1917 the term “richting” had a larger meaning than nowadays is practiced in legislation and case law. Government behaved neutrally in principle toward opinions of parents concerning the education of their children and how they wanted to see it reflected in their school choice. In that approach education by parents and school learning were closely interrelated. The fact that legislation and case law have led during the years to a meaning of richting restricted to religion and philosophy has not been the result of deliberate choice, but was the result of societal pillarization and budgetary reasons. Now the moment has come to set out a new course and to bring the situation in accordance with the first years after 1917. “Richting” needs to be understood as an open term that enables the individual to choose from conviction for the (pedagogical) foundation of the school, without interference from government. In the context of the widened understanding of richting, non-government schools may express in their education a fundamental orientation which is derived from a religious, philosophical or pedagogical conviction.18

Another step in this development is that most public schools are now managed by foundations, thus acquiring to a degree the independent status of non- government schools. “A foundation is a legal person in private law; it is not, therefore, subject to public law and need not be democratically elected.”19 In effect, they are something like American charter schools.

Another development has been the shift over the last twenty years of more decision-making authority to the school level, in line with the international trend toward school-based management, combined with a heightened specification of educational objectives by the central government. Therefore, schools have become much more autonomous in decision-making in the field of management, school organization and spending. At the same time the quality requirements, attainment targets, and interference by school inspectorate have been tightened. “The final goal of education is determined by central government, widening the powers of the schools is only a means to this end.”20 The parallels with England and other countries are obvious.

17

Distinctive character The board (bevoegd gezag) responsible for a single school or for a group of schools has the responsibility of defining and interpreting its distinctive character (identiteit). Under a law, lastly adopted in 2006, each individual school must also have a “participation council,” with a right of consent about the school’s educational goals or plan and with a right of consent of the representation of the parents in it about any changes in the school’s distinctive character (Art. 10 and 13 Participation in Education Act, WMS). Obviously, the last matter can raise difficult questions about the continuity of a school’s identity, But as such, it seems desirable and necessary to count with the practice of “colour-fading” of a school in a situation in which less than 37% of the Dutch population (percentage determined in 1995) is member of a church and 14% attends services regularly, while only one third of the schools in primary and secondary education are neutral/public and the vast majority of non-government schools operate from a religious worldview.21 There is constant discussion in non-government school circles in the Netherlands, about how to protect and express the distinctive character of the school in the face of government, financial, and cultural pressures. “Identity” is seen as a key factor in school quality, and there is even a debate over the extent to which it is legitimate for individual public schools to develop a distinctive profile so as to compete more effectively with non-government schools.22 The history of the two primary alternatives to public schools has led to their standing in somewhat different relations to their formal identities. The sponsoring authorities for Catholic schools were always church authorities, and as a result the identity of the schools was for many years not in question. Even in this case, there were signs of a “loss of nerve” as early as the 1960s. The sociologist (and later Socialist Minister of Education) Van Kemenade famously found that many teachers in Catholic schools did not share the high regard of the parents for Catholic education as such; only one in five of the teachers reported deliberate efforts to stress the religious and ethical dimensions of the material taught.23 Nevertheless, the bishops have in general been able to insist upon the formal Catholic character of these schools, while turning over the management of the system to the laity. Protestant schools, by contrast, are sponsored, not by the churches, but by associations of parents and others. As a result, they have differed greatly in their faithfulness to their religious character, some working at it assiduously while others pay it little attention. As long ago as 1933 the government concluded that the right of conscience to choose a school required that several varieties of Protestant schools be recognized and funded, even if in

18

close proximity.24 One of the results of the lack of institutional anchor is that Protestant school boards that wish to retain the religious character of their school must work at that quite deliberately, with the result that, arguably, there are more really distinctive Protestant than Catholic schools.25 In 1981 the government agreed to approve an Orthodox Jewish school as an alternative to an existing liberal Jewish school, and waived the requirement of a minimum number of pupils. There was for some years opposition to approval of Muslim or Hindu schools, on the grounds that these might serve to further isolate immigrant minority children. Once the right to establish and receive public subsidies for such schools was acknowledged in the 1990s, the number increased to about 44 Muslim schools in primary education and 1 in secondary education, and 5 Hindu schools in 2012. The numbers are hardly representative for the actual size of the religious communities. The Muslim schools enroll about 10,000 pupils while there are almost a million Muslims in The Netherlands. Hindu schools serve about 1,100 pupils, while the total Hindu population is estimated around 100,000.26 To be sure, these numbers reflect a present need, but one could not say that the “new” religious communities are using the path of pillarization for integration in Dutch society. In fact, most of the members of these communities choose public schools or Protestant or Catholic non-government schools. Muslim schools have had to go through serious criticism during the last years. Three issues were leading.27 First, there was fear during the nineties and the first years of this century that they would form a threat for Western values, the rule of law and State security, but these concerns were largely alleviated after reassuring investigations on this point by the Dutch Intelligence Service and the School Inspectorate. Second, there were complaints that the rise of new Muslim schools could lead to bad and “black” schools, where members of groups of an alien ethnic background who do not control the Dutch language properly are desegregated from other groups in society. These kinds of worries have led to several political initiatives to discourage the founding of new schools, without discriminating against Muslims. The most serious contribution to this debate has been given by the National Educational Council, which recently recommended to tie initial government approval of subsidizing new schools to conditions to guarantee quality education and the integrity of the school organization within the context of the democratic legal order.28 Third, there were some incidents with respect to administrative failure and the spending of public funding by school boards in a manner contrary to the law. A discussion about the administrative integrity of Islamic schools rose. The adaption of a new law in 2010 which enables the minister to interfere on the administrative level in public or non-government schools in cases of severe mismanagement (Art. 163b WPO, 103g WVO), brought a solution for the time being.

19

New Muslim schools have not been founded during recent years and several have been closed by the withdrawal of public funding because of an insufficient number of pupils or lack of quality education. Since the Constitution and laws give parents the right to insist upon education consistent with their own convictions – whether through establishment of a new school, or through transportation to a school at some distance – the issue has arisen whether this right is sometimes asserted for reasons that have less to do with convictions than with avoidance of the local school for whatever reason. Is this in some cases more a consumer freedom than a freedom of conscience? In a number of cases with regard to compulsory education the judiciary has consistently found that government is not capable of judging the sincerity of the request and must take it at face value.29 The increased secularization of Dutch society has led to some calls for the abandonment or sharp reduction of the place of denominational schools, especially in view of the declining enrollments which forced a very significant reduction in the number of schools. In many Catholic and Protestant schools the Christian character has come to play a minor role and parent choice is more based on the general image of the school and its distance from home than on religious identity. This is a matter of great concern to denominational leaders and over the past thirty years there have been many efforts, some fairly successful, to explore the distinctive identity or ‘signature’ of religious schools.30 Surveys have found, however, that many parents who are themselves not believers wish to send their children to a school with a religious character. One of the reasons might be that they have a reputation as more flexible and child-centered than public schools, and better at teaching about values.31 Since the 1960s, this trend of secularization has been accompanied by a growing emphasis by large groups of immigrants to live along religious rules of a non-Western/Christian background and to practice their religion in an institutionalized form.32 The last development has led to the already mentioned criticism towards Muslim schools and – especially within conservative circles – to pleas for a secular society, implying that the educational system should only consist of public institutions (see for instance Cliteur). But neither secularization nor immigration have led lead to serious debate about the current dual character of the system. On the contrary, as the recent report of the Onderwijsraad and its reception in Dutch society and politics show, there appears to be a broad political consensus to maintain the present system largely intact. At the same time, there is a growing interest in schools with a distinctive pedagogy. Recent legislation facilitates the cooperation between public and non- government education in one school: the “samenwerkingsschool” (Wet op de samenwerkingsscholen, Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees 2011, 287). The “samenwerkingsschool” is a school of government and private enterprise simultaneously, offering neutral and religious or

20

philosophical education (to different groups) at the same time. It blurs the distinction between ‘public’ and ‘non-public,’ much as has occurred with ‘charter schools’ in the United States and ‘grant-maintained schools’ in England. The “samenwerkingsschool” is not meant as a regular possibility, for which the founders of new schools freely can choose. It is intended to be an exception, in cases in which a public and non-government school are forced by circumstances (for instance the reduction of pupils as a consequence of demographic shrinkage) to cooperate in one new institution (Huisman 2002 and 2010). Beside cooperation in one school, public and private schools can be placed a single board (“samenwerkingsbestuur”). Decisions about admitting pupils Freedom of organisation implies discretion – within limits of the law – regarding education itself, as discussed earlier, but also regarding organisation, governance, and management. Case law offers clear examples of limitations to the right of parents to obtain independent education for their children in accordance with their own philosopical and educational convictions. Although they possess the right to learn, they have no automatic right of admission to a non-government school or to a public school of their choice. Every board is to a certain extent free to select pupils. Five domains of selection can be distinguished in this respect: (1) selection on the basis of learning level, (2) on the basis of worldview, (3) with respect to children with special educational needs, (4) with respect to children with severe behavioral problems, and (5) on the basis of organisational school policy.33

1. Dependant on the test results of every pupil at the end of primary education, the board of governors in general secondary education may refuse admission for VMBO-MAVO, HAVO or VWO to those who have not reached the acquired level. The law even allows school boards in this respect to limit access for pre university education to only pupils with exceptional high marks or very good results. According to case law of the Equal Treatment Commission and the Judicial Section of the State Council (the highest administrative law judge) the obligation for schools to admit a pupil stops at the moment when it is objectively clear that the pupil is not capable to reach the educational goals, that is to reach a diploma (ABRS 16 mei 2007, LJN: BA 5240) or that the pupil is not capable to adjust to the pedagogical-didactical principles of education (CGB Judgment 2011-144). The latter judgment leaves room for criticism, since it is principally not so much the child that should adjust to the educational approach, but the way around: school should adjust its education to the needs of the child.34

21

2. While government must accept the sincerity of a parent’s choice for a particular religious or philosophical schooling, this obligation does not extend to publicly-subsidized non-government schools. In the Maimonides judgment, the Supreme Court found that a non-government school may select pupils on the basis of worldview when two requirements are met (Hoge Raad, 22 januari 1988, AB 1988, 96 m.n. FHvdB): first, the worldview must be laid down in the description of the statutory objective on which the school is based; and second, the alleged decision must be part of a consistent policy that follows from the statutory worldview. As a consequence of this judicial decision the General Law on Equal Treatment (Algemene wet gelijke behandeling), article 7, section 2, stipulates that such selection decisions must rest upon clearly-stated criteria adopted by the board of the school, and cannot be exercised in an arbitrary way. Racial discrimination is forbidden. The denominational requirements ought to be linked specifically to the realization of the mission of the educational institution. Especially the second requirement seems hard to fulfill by most schools. There are not many areas in this dense populated, urbanized country, where schools operate in religious or philosphical homogeneous surroundings, making it possible for them economically to survive with only children of the same worldview.35 Therefore, it is estimated that only a small minority of the non-government schools (some 5%) is able to select pupils on the basis of worldview. Like public education, the vast majority of non- government schools is generally accessible.

3. Traditionally, children with a physical or mental handicap, and with learning difficulties and behavioral problems, had to rely on special education in separate schools. But over the last decades, government has tried to change this situation. Several measures have been taken to induce mainstream schools to be more accessible for children with special needs, of which the most important is “leerlinggebonden financiering”. Parents of a child who on medical or psychological grounds is fit for a special school can instead apply for admission to a mainstream school. The board of the mainstream must consider this application and may only refuse entrance if it succeeds in showing on reasonable grounds that the school cannot meet the requirements necessary to redress the specific nature of the child’s needs, with respect not only to the existing possibilities of the school but also after implementation of reasonable physical, financial and/or educational adjustments. Since 2006, this duty can be tested by the Equal Treatment Commission applying the Act on equal treatment on the basis of handicap and chronic disease. In a series of judgments this Commission has made interesting case law on this subject.36 When a pupil with special needs is allowed to enter the mainstream school, there is a publicly funded personal

22

budget with which the school can meet the pupil’s needs on the basis of a plan about which the school and the parents have reached agreement. The system of “leerlinggebonden financiering” will soon be abandoned because it appears to be too expensive for government. Instead, the new plans about “Passend Onderwijs” (Adaptive Education) will lead to new legislation in 2012-13.

4. The school board has the right to expel pupils when their bad behaviour causes serious problems for the school and for persons in the school. Case law shows that expulsion can be justified by one time incidents, when the pupil’s behaviour leads to immediate and great threat or danger for school order and for the safety of persons, or by a series of incidents, when the pupil repeats misbehaviour despite several warnings and there is an objective interest of school order involved.

5. The board can develop a policy of selecting pupils in two ways. First, it can

decide to fix the capacity of the school by admitting a maximum number of pupils in a certain year. Second, a board with more than one school under its authority can divide the geographical area in which these schools are located in sections and can decide that parents in a certain spatial section may send their children to the school that is indicated for that section. This freedom of selection on the basis of school policy, recognized by case law, belongs to boards of public as well as non-government schools. However, the board of a public school is not allowed to select on the basis of school policy if there is no alternative public school in the neighbourhood to which parents can send their children without selection.

In the last decades, education law has had to cope with a growing separation of pupils in what are known as ‘white’ and ‘black’ schools. Educational segregation is seen as a consequence of residential segregation and individual school choice. Immigrants live in the “bad districts” of the big cities (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht). They choose in most cases for a school in their neigbourhood, while many white Dutch middle class people choose for nice quality schools in the outskirts of the cities. Efforts to de-segregate and to ensure that immigrant children are not concentrated in “black schools” have appeared to be legally complicated and have had only modest success.37 For furthering de-segregation in education, school boards and municipalities need to make agreements at the local level. For central government the fight against black schools is not a priority anymore. Instead, it focuses on quality education in every school (De Volkskrant, 7th Februari 2011: “Cabinet accepts black schools”).

23

Decisions about staff The Constitution requires the government to “respect in particular the freedom of non-government schools to (..) appoint teachers as they see fit” (article 23.6). In fact, also public schools have this freedom of appointment. Teachers in public and non-government schools alike must have the necessary academic qualifications, as well as a certificate of good character. Public funding is provided for teacher training institutions operated by the denominational and pedagogically-distinct educational systems. Although teachers in all public and non-government schools are paid directly by the central government, and their working conditions are identical, those in public schools are public employees. Teachers in non-government schools, by contrast, are employees of the private foundations or associations that sponsor, own, and direct the schools. This affects the procedures that they must follow in any disputes with their employers.38 It can also have a decisive effect upon what is expected of the teacher, even in the context of nationwide working conditions. The goal of a particular school, if it is clearly stated in the school’s mission statement (or, in the case of a public school, in the national legislation) creates requirements for the teacher which are specific to a particular position. Postma points out that a teacher in a Montessori school does not have the right to teach by another method, nor can a teacher in a school with a religious character fail to take that into account. The model contract for Protestant schools, for example, states that the teacher is expected to carry out his or her functions in a way consistent with the goals of Protestant schools; the applicant is given a copy of these to consider before signing the contract. Similarly, the contract for Catholic schools states that the teacher will, in carrying out his or her responsibilities, work loyally for the fulfillment of the goals of the school, including those reflecting a distinctive worldview. A teacher in a public school can, in the name of the neutrality of public education, be required to refrain from starting class with a prayer.39 It is the board of a school which has the authority to interpret the significance of its mission statement, even against a majority of the parents with children in the school. On the other hand, every subsidized school must have a formal system for consultation with parents and staff and, at the secondary level, pupils. There are definite limits, however, upon the freedom of a school board to require that a teacher

24

uphold the mission of the school. For example, a teacher at a conservative Protestant school who had a baby out of wedlock could not be fired for that reason.40 Neither was this the case with a homosexual teacher at a conservative Protestant school who left his wife, decided to live together with another man and made his circumstances public to the media (Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court the Hague) 2 november 2011, LJN: BU3104). Article 5 of the General Law on Equal Treatment (1994) makes an exception for non-government schools to set conditions for employment related to the (religious or philosophical) mission of the school, but then partly takes this back by stating that different treatment cannot be based exclusively on political membership, race, sex, nationality, hetero- or homosexual orientation, or whether one is married or not. Still is relevant what Akkermans stated in 2011: “many people expected (on the basis of the Algemene wet gelijke behandeling) a lot of cases concerning the hiring and firing of teachers by the boards of denominational schools. The reality proved to be different. Most cases by or against teachers of denominational schools have been about equal payment, salary problems, legal position et cetera, not related with sexual orientation.”41 Notwithstanding these observations, political initiatives have come up to erase the exception of Article 5. At the end of 2010 several parties in Parliament (among which the liberals and socialists) submitted a draft law on this point, stating that publicly-funded non- government schools have no right to discriminate against homosexual teachers. However, one could have serious doubts about the necessity and rightfulness of this measure. The problem of the exception for non-government schools on the one hand and the right of the individual teacher on the other hand is a problem of colliding fundamental rights: freedom of education versus equal treatment, that have to be weighed in any separate case. Therefore, a general rule favouring only the position of the individual teacher is not in conformity with the constitutional system.42 Accountability for school quality General issues In primary education, the Dutch Institute for Testing and Evaluation (CITO) constructs national progress and admission tests for mathematics and language. Schools are still free to use them, but government is preparing legislation to make it obligatory. Secondary schools use the results of any of these tests, in combination with the advice of the primary schoolteacher and the wishes of the parents to decide

25

about the admission of the pupil. At the end of general secondary education, obligatory national tests form the first part of the final exams and tests that are given by the schools form the second part.. Since the Constitution provides that non-government schools will be funded by the same standards as public schools; this has been taken to mean that non- government schools should be funded fully under the condition that they provide a level of education corresponding to but not identical with that in public schools. The Constitution gives legislators the competence to impose quality standards in education. During the last decades government policy of educational quality in public and non-government schools has gained top priority. The measures that followed show a gradual shift from input towards output requirements. In 1993, Parliament established a series of national outcome standards, so-called core goals (kerndoelen), for which schools are to be held accountable. The Act on Educational Supervision of 2002 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees gave School, 302) gave the Inspectorate new powers to judge school education on the basis of legal standards (laid down in statutory regulations) and so called policy standards. The latter are standards developed by Inspectorate itself. The violation of policy standards by schools cannot lead to statutory sanctions, which is different with respect to the legal standards. Nevertheless, the judgments of School Inspectorate about how the school performs along the scale of legal or policy standards are always public knowledge, because they have to be published (naming and shaming). A last relevant development is the coming into force of the Act of 2010 (Bulletin of Acts, Orders and Decrees, 80) with regard to the legal obligation for schools to reach minimum learning results in the areas of language and mathematics. According to this Act, schools that have serious and long-lasting shortcomings in terms of learning results will be confronted with a stopping of funding (non-government education) or a closing down (public education). There is a considerable tension between these requirements and the freedom to organize teaching as the school wishes. In principle, the shift towards output standards in legislation is not in violation of the Constitution. These standards need, however, to be as objective and absolute as possible in order to guarantee equality and legal certainty to the schools in their relationship with government.43 Inspectors visit schools periodically, observe instruction, make recommendations and maintain the law. They give advice to the minister in cases where there is a violation of standards. The minister can act with an administrative law sanction when a legal standard has been violated. Beside the traditional ones, such as stopping of funding

26

and closing down, the minister can give an “instruction“ towards the school organisation, which holds the possibility of all kinds of measures to “restore” the unlawful situation, such as the order to replace school managers, the school board or the supervisory board.44 The Primary Education Law (WBO), article 8, lays out the basic principles and objectives upon which elementary education must be based. While there are no national examinations at the conclusion of elementary school, each school must specify, in its “school plan”, how it will address the core goals in ten or more curriculum areas and how the progress of pupils will be assessed and reported. The plan also spells out what instructional materials will be used, the teaching methods used, the means of integrating pupils with special needs, the use of additional resources provided for target groups like immigrant children, and the method of parent involvement. Furthermore, the plan mentions the measures the school (board) will take to maintain and improve the quality of its teachers. Every four years each school must evaluate its school plan and decide on a new one. The focus on output-oriented quality standards during recent years has put emphasis on the task of monitoring by the Inspectorate. There is a growing political intolerance towards “weak” and “very weak” schools. The days of pillarization, in which schools were to a certain extent immune for government interference, are definitely over. The current dominant meaning of freedom of education, conceived as right to education of quality, highlights the position of the individual over that of the supplier of education.45 Beside law enforcement, the Inspectorate has other supervisory responsibilities and tasks towards schools, including administering and encouragement. Administering includes, for example, provision of advice to the Minister, as well as reporting on the overall educational situation on the basis of evaluations. Encouragement takes place through consultation with the competent authorities, with teaching and non-teaching personnel, municipal and county councils, in order to encourage positive developments in education. Since there is no system of national testing at the elementary level, schools are free to promote pupils each year without pressure about their grades. In practice, almost all schools test pupils at the end of basic education, in most cases with a test prepared by a national institute, CITO. They are not required to teach particular material at particular grade levels, but simply to ensure that pupils have mastered the core goals by the end of elementary schooling. If a school’s board believes that one or more of the attainment targets, as formulated by the government, conflicts with its distinctive character, it may propose alternative goals for that aspect of the curriculum. If these

27

are approved by the responsible school inspector as of the same standard as the official attainment targets, they may be implemented.46 The Act of 2010 with regard to minimum learning results in the areas of language and mathematics holds schools accountable for reaching learning results with their pupils at levels corresponding to the national average. Schools that do not meet the national average are designated ‘weak’ or ‘very weak’ and are put under intensified supervision by the Inspectorate with the chance of losing public funding. Needless to say, this encourages a more restricted and competitive school climate in primary education. A further development is the announcement of legislation concerning the introduction of an obligatory national test at the end of primary education. Secondary education is “tracked” in the sense that it is made up of a multiplicity of programs, often accommodated in different schools. Since there is no examination used for determining which pupils should enroll in which secondary programs, much depends upon the test results at the end of basic education and upon recommendations made to parents by the elementary school staff. Normally, the recommendations (“advies”) play a decisive role, in case the test results point in another direction. The advies is not binding upon parents or the pupil. Upper level secondary schools (HAVO/VWO) are reluctant to accept a pupil whose elementary school ‘advies’ does not qualify, so in practice it is difficult for a pupil to enroll in a school above the recommended level.47 Less freedom exists at the secondary than at the elementary level, since the need to prepare pupils for final examinations creates considerable pressure on the schedule. Nevertheless, schools are free to use twenty percent of their instructional time on studies that support their distinctive mission. The final examinations at the end of secondary schooling have important consequences for pupils. They are partially used in the assessment of the quality of secondary schools, as far as the level of learning results in Dutch language and mathematics is concerned. Students’ papers are marked by their teacher and monitored by a teacher from another school. The content of these final examinations is in part determined centrally and in part determined by the school. While this makes it possible for each school to shape its instruction in particular directions, it also requires that the material tested centrally be covered. VWO-students preparing for university must take exams in at least seven subjects. What subjects are obligatory depends on the profile which the pupils choose for the last two years. A constant factor is Dutch and one foreign language. Passing the exam means a general entrance qualification to nearly all studies at Dutch universities. For

28

certain studies, such as medicine, entrance is limited and dependent on the level of results. For the rest, universities could only demand that one or two subjects have been part of the examination for entrance to specific studies. Instruction of minorities In August 1995, there was a brief but intense flare-up over the right to differ from the prevailing orthodoxy about evolution. The government had decided several years before that nationwide examinations in biology would not include Darwin’s theory; schools would be required to teach about it and assess student knowledge by their own tests. Members of the Left-of-Center coalition in power sought to require that the theory of evolution be required on nationwide examinations. Much press commentary, typically, presented this as a choice between science and obscurantism, between “apers” and “Adamers,” referring often to the more backward sections of the United States. “Should we allow innocent children to be taught lies in the framework of misplaced Christian propaganda?” asked those who insisted that evolution was no theory but the essential foundation for all of biology. Theologians should conform their teaching to the discoveries of science. “It would be better,” a sociologist wrote, “to hit a child on the head every day with a wooden hammer than to leave him ignorant of evolution!” Those on the other side argued that the question was whether there was a divine purpose for human life or not, and that public policy should respect the convictions of that part of the population who chose schools where this purpose was considered central. Supporters of educational freedom rallied, and the effort to include evolution in the national examinations failed, but confessional schools are required to teach evolution as a theory. Starting in 1979, activities were developed in the area of intercultural education to respond to the growing presence of the children of immigrants in Dutch schools. Since 1986, learning about growing up in a multicultural society has been established in education legislation for primary and secondary schools. Until 1993, government policy with respect to intercultural education was restricted to defining objectives and tasks.

29

Teaching of values The government oversight of non-government schools that began with the Constitution of 1848, guaranteeing freedom to establish schools, was intended to ensure that they would not promote “theories dangerous to the State.”48 While non-government schools are free to determine their teaching methods and to choose the textbooks that best support their distinctive character, they would be considered to offend against public order if they chose books that called for overthrowing the government or encouraged unlawful behavior.49 The teaching of values is in fact an important aspect of Dutch education. Religious instruction is supplemented by a required course, in elementary schools, on the “spiritual currents” in the world and in Dutch society.

30

Endnotes

1 for an historical account in English, see Glenn 1988 or Glenn 2011. 2 Langedijk, 140. 3 Onderwijsraad 2012, 20. 4 Postma 1994, 281-82. 5 Vermeulen/Zoontjens 2005, 434-436. 6 Kennedy and Valenta, 338 7 Onderwijsraad 2012, 27. 8 Huisman and others 2011; Onderwijsraad 2012, 79. 9 Blok-Commission, 534. 10 Onderwijsraad 2012, 56 et alia. 11 Vermeulen/Zoontjens 2000, 35; Onderwijsraad 2002, 28 12 Dijsselbloem Commission, 138. 13 Sperling, 13 14 see Vermeulen and Zoontjens 2000, 134-41. 15 see Backx. 16 Oberon 2011, 7. 17 Sponsoring-agreement 2009 18 Onderwijsraad 2012, 40 19 Akkermans 1996, 239. 20 Postma 1994, 286.

31

21 Onderwijsraad 2012, 22-26. 22 see Braster. 23 Van Kemenade, 229. 24 Postma 1995, 118. 25 see the discussion in Marwijk Kooy-von Baumhauer. 26 CBS 2011. 27 Dijkstra and Vermeulen 2009. 28 Onderwijsraad 2012, 47-48. 29 Vermeulen 2011 30 Glenn, 1989; Glenn, 2000. 31 Herweijer & Vogels, 82-85. 32 Onderwijsraad 2012, 23. 33 Huisman & Noorlander 2009. 34 Schoonheim/ Zoontjens 2012. 35 Onderwijsraad 2012, 38. 36 see for an overview: Zoontjens 2009. 37 Vermeulen and Zoontjens 2009. 38 Huisman and Vermeulen 2006. 39 Postma 1995, 351-52. 40 Postma 1995, 142.

32

41 Piet Akkermans, email to C. Glenn, January 21, 2001. 42 Onderwijsraad 2012, 38. 43 Onderwijsraad 2012, 59. 44 Laemers, 116. 45 Onderwijsraad 2012, 57. 46 Van Ham, 360-61. 47 Inspectorate 2005/2006, 89. 48 Postma 1995, 112. 49 Postma 1995, 148.

33

References P.W.C. Akkermans 1996, “Education: A Persistent Constitutional Problem in the Netherlands,” in Education under the new Constitution in South-Africa, edited by Jan De Groof and Elmene Bray, Leuven (Belgium): Acco. H.A.M. Backx 1994, Het particulier onderwijs. Een onderzoek naar de rol en de taak van de wetgever inzake het niet door de overheid bekostigde onderwijs, in het bijzonder het erkend onderwijs, Zwolle: Schoordijk Instituut. J.F.A. Braster 1996, De identiteit van het openbaar onderwijs, Groningen (The Netherlands): Wolters-Noordhoff. Blok Commission 2004, Report Tijdelijke Commissie Onderzoek Integratiebeleid (Temporary Commission Investigating Dutch Integration Policy over 30 years), Kamerstukken II 2003/04, 28 689, nrs. 8-9. CBS (Central Bureau for Statistics) 2011, Jaarboek Onderwijs in cijfers 2011, Den Haag/Heerlen 2011. Paul Cliteur 2004, De neutrale staat, het bijzonder onderwijs en multiculturele samenleving, inaugural address, Universiteit Leiden, www.libertarian.nl . Dijsselbloem Commission 2008, Parliamentary Investigative Commission on Innovations in Education, Tijd voor Onderwijs, Kamerstukken II 2007/08, 31 007, nr. 6. Charles L. Glenn 1988, The Myth of the Common School, Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. --------, Choice of Schools in Six Nations, Washington, DC: US Department of Education, 1989. --------, Educating Immigrant Children, New York: Garland, 1996. --------, The Ambiguous Embrace: Government and Faith-based Schools and Social Agencies, Princeton University Press, 2000. --------, Contrasting Models of State and School, New York and London: Continuum, 2011. Jo van Ham 1996, “The Position of Minorities in Education in the European Union:

34

The Netherlands,” in The Legal Status of Minorities in Education, edited by Jan De Groof and Jan Fiers, Leuven (Belgium): Acco. L. Herweijer & R. Vogels 2004, Ouders over opvoeding en onderwijs, Den Haag: Sociaal Cultureel Planbureau. P.W.A. Huisman 2002, De samenwerkingsschool, conflicterende convergentie, dissertation Nijmegen, Elsevier: Den Haag. --------, De samenwerkingsschool: van sui generis naar res nullius?, School en Wet 2010, nr 1, p. 6-13. P.W.A. Huisman & B.P. Vermeulen 2007, De juridische positie van de leraar in balans, preadvies NVOR (Dutch Association for Education Law), Den Haag. P.W.A. Huisman & C.W. Noorlander 2009, Toelating, schorsing en verwijdering in het primair en voortgezet onderwijs, in: P.W.A. Huisman & P.J.J. Zoontjens (eds.), Selectie bij toegang tot het onderwijs. een juridische studie over toelating en verwijdering van onderwijsdeelnemers per thema en onderwijssector, Deventer: Kluwer, p 107-144. P.W.A. Huisman, M.T.A.B. Laemers, D. Mentink, P.J.J. Zoontjens 2011, Vrijheid van stichting, Den Haag/Amsterdam/Schoonhoven/Tilburg. J.A. van Kemenade, De Katholieken en hun onderwijs, Meppel (The Netherlands): Boom, 1968. J. Kennedy & M. Valenta 2006, Religious pluralism and the Dutch State: reflections on the future of article 23, in: W. van de Donk et alia (eds.), Geloven in het publieke domein, WRR (Scientific Council on Government Policy), Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. M.T.A.B. Laemers 2011, Onderwijs onder toezicht, Jaarboek Onderwijsrecht 2006- 2010, NTOR 2011, The Hague p 113-130. D. Langedijk 1935, De Schoolstrijd, Den Haag: Van Haeringen. L.MarwijkKooy-vonBaumhauer1984,Scholenverschillen:eenverkennendvergelijkend onderzoek naar het intern functioneren van vijventwintig schoolgemeenschappen vwo- havo-mavo, Groningen: Wolters Noordhoff. D. Mentink & B.P. Vermeulen 2011, Artikel 23 Grondwet; de basis van het Nederlandse onderwijsrecht, Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers.

35

Oberon 2011, Onderwijshuisvesting in het voortgezet onderwijs, Utrecht. Onderwijsraad 2002, Vaste grond onder de voeten. Een verkenning inzake artikel 23 Grondwet, Den Haag. --------, Artikel 23 Grondwet in maatschappelijk perspectief. Nieuwe richtingen aan de vrijheid van onderwijs, Den Haag 2012. Andries Postma, “The Principle of Subsidiarity in Dutch Educational Law,” in Subsidiarity and Education Aspects of Comparative Educational Law, edited by Jan De Groof, Leuven (Belgium): Acco, 1994. --------, Handboek van het Nederlandse onderwijsrecht, Zwolle (The Netherlands): W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, 1995. J. Schoonheim & P.J.J. Zoontjens 2012, Handicap en chronische ziekte, in: C.J. Forder (ed.) Gelijke behandeling: oordelen en commentaar 2011, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. J. Sperling 2010, Moet jij niet naar school? Een onderzoek naar de juridische aspecten van thuisonderwijs vanuit Nederlands en rechtsvergelijkend perspectief, dissertation Erasmus University Rotterdam. Convenant sponsoring in het onderwijs (Sponsoring Agreement) 2009, http:// www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten-en-publicaties/convenanten/2009/02/24/ convenant-scholen-voor-primair-en-voortgezet-onderwijs-en-sponsoring.html . B.P. Vermeulen 2011, Leerplichtwet, commentaar, Den Haag: Elsevier 2011. B.P. Vermeulen & A.B. Dijkstra 2009, Islamic schools in the Netherlands, IJELP 2008 (1-2), p 213-244 B.P. Vermeulen & P.J.J. Zoontjens 2000, Het ‘algemeen’ bestuursrecht en het ‘bijzondere’ onderwijsrecht, The Hague: Report VAR. -------- 2005, Artikel 23 Grondwet op de tocht? Naar een debat over betekenis en toekomst van de onderwijsvrijheid, in: H. Backx et alia, Getuigend staatsrecht, Liber amicorum A.K. Koekkoek, Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers. -------- 2009, Toelatingsbeleid ter bestrijding van segregatie, in: P.W.A. Huisman & P.J.J. Zoontjens (eds.), Selectie bij toegang tot het onderwijs. een juridische studie over

36

toelating en verwijdering van onderwijsdeelnemers per thema en onderwijssector, Deventer: Kluwer, p 213-244. P.J.J. Zoontjens 2006, Thuis op school. Over kinderopvang en school en de verhouding tussen opvoeding en onderwijs, in: J.J.M. van de Ven (red.), Onderwijs, opvoeding en opvang, preadvies Nederlandse Vereniging voor Onderwijsrecht 2006, Den Haag 2007, p 9-50. -------- 2009, Toelating en verwijdering van zorgleerlingen, in: P.W.A. Huisman & P.J.J. Zoontjens (eds.), Selectie bij toegang tot het onderwijs. een juridische studie over toelating en verwijdering van onderwijsdeelnemers per thema en onderwijssector, Deventer: Kluwer, p 145-193.