This article was downloaded by: [University of Edinburgh]On: 08 May 2012, At: 14:07Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and CarePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Culture and the KindergartenCurriculum in the NetherlandsM.E. den Elt a , J.J. van Kuyk a & G.W. Meijnen ba Ministry of Welfare, P.O. 5406, 2280 HK Rijwijk, Hollandb SCO–Kohnstamm Institute, Grote Bickerstraat 72, 1013 KSAmsterdam, Holland

Available online: 09 Jul 2006

To cite this article: M.E. den Elt, J.J. van Kuyk & G.W. Meijnen (1996): Culture and theKindergarten Curriculum in the Netherlands, Early Child Development and Care, 123:1, 15-30

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0300443961230102

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. Theaccuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independentlyverified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out ofthe use of this material.

Early Child Development and Care, 1996, Vol. 123, pp. 15-30Reprints available directly from the publisherPhotocopying permitted by license only

© 1996 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association)Amsterdam B.V. Published in The Netherlands underlicense by Gordon and Breach Science Publishers SA

Printed in Malaysia

Culture and the KindergartenCurriculum in the Netherlands

M.E. den ELT1, J.J. van KUYK1 and G.W. MEIJNEN2

1 Ministry of Welfare, P.O. 5406, 2280 HK Rijwijk, Holland2 SCO - Kohnstamm Institute, Grote Bickerstraat 72,1013 KS Amsterdam, Holland

(Received 20 April 1996)

Nursery school education blossomed in the twentieth century under the influence ofthe Fröbel and Montessori methods. The education provided in kindergartens hasbeen strongly child-centered and preparation for primary school did not really enterinto the picture. A gulf opened up between nursery and primary schools which the1985 Primary Education Act aimed to close, by combining the two types of schoolin a single primary school for 4-12 year-olds. The integration brought about a greatdeal of unrest. Pre-school education was a new development which came on to thescene in the nineteen sixties. Recently the Ministries of Welfare and Education haveadopted a joint policy conducting experiments with a curriculum for 3-6 year-olds. Theproblems presented by immigrant children is a central issue here. The starting point isan acceptance of cultural diversity, education of the individual within a common bindingframework.

Key words: Culture, kindergarten curriculum, Netherlands

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

The present state of the Netherlands came into being around the beginning of thenineteenth century, after the French, led by Napoleon, were driven out. Earlier therehad been periods of different geographical arrangements, subjugation by foreignpowers, and periods of great blossoming (the 'Golden Age').

Up to 1800: Church initiatives

The earliest information about schooling for young children in the Netherlandsdates from the thirteenth century. In 1240, an institution giving religious instructionto young children was set up in one of the medium-sized towns. Instructions weregiven by Roman Catholic nuns who embodied the dominant ideology of the time.The purpose of this education was to raise children in a moral Christian way of life.Scant attention was paid to their needs and development as children. Methods which

15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

16 M.E. deuEUetal.

appear to have been used — such as repetition of prayers, psalms and the like —were the same as those used for older children (De Clercq, 1980).

The Reformation in the first half of the sixteenth century resulted in diecrumbling of the authority of the Roman catholic church, and establishment ofthe first Protestant schools, where children were indoctrinated with the principlesof Protestantism. From the age of five the children also learned the alphabetand spelling. School buildings were often in poor condition, hygiene left muchto be desired, the children were not allowed to show any form of initiative atall, discipline was very strict, and 50 or more children were assigned to each[religious] instructress. Furthermore, the intellectual level of die teachers was usuallyvery low.

In the seventeendi and eighteenth centuries diere was a great deal of interestin the ideas of certain prominent educationalists in die Netherlands. Comenius(1592-1670) encountered a great deal of interest here, so much so that he setdedand eventually died in the Nedierlands. The writings of Rousseau (1712-1778) alsofound an audience. However, these ideas had littie influence on how young childrenwere actually educated in practice (De Clercq, 1980).

1800-1900: The struggle for identity

The 19di century was a crucial time for die Nedierlands in politics. The countrybecame a parliamentary democracy with a king as head of state. Given die dominanceof Protestantism, a discussion arose about whedier public education, subsidizedby die government, should be Protestant in nature. By die end of die centurythe batde surrounding die school funding controversy was more or less over. Asolution was found in a formula whereby die government was required to makeadequate provision for publicly funded education which was ideologically neutral.Denominational schools, provided diey met a number of criteria, were also fullyfunded by die government.

In socio-economic terms die nineteenth century was characterized by the rise ofindustry. Factory work in die big towns and very low wages condemned both parents,as well as die older children, to long working days. As a consequence, many youngchildren were left to their lot. The middle classes became concerned about the fateof die large number of children from working class families who were receiving dieminimum of care, litde food, and no education. The early 'infant' schools ceased tobe purely institutions for religious instruction and acquired more of the characterof charitable institutions, an offshoot of die poor relief.

The bourgeoisie took the view that improving education could help combatpoverty, tiiereby reducing die breeding ground for revolutionary tendencies andrising crime among die working classes (Dodde, 1983). From 1806, all 'infant'schools were subject to visits from inspectors and it was expected that die teachersbe able to read and write. This measure had litde effect tiiough, because there wereno sanctions. From 1820, die situation took a turn for die better. Under die auspicesof die Society for Public Welfare, an organization of 'die great and die good' whichaimed to contribute to improving die lot of the people, 'nursery schools' were set

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

KINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM IN THE NETHERLANDS 17

up where children were fed and clothed, and where the ideas of Pestalozzi were putinto practice.

From 1840 there began to be schools for children from higher social strata too,'middle class nursery schools' came to exist alongside 'nursery schools for the poor'.Nevertheless, in 1860, only about 25% of the total population of nursery-school-agechildren attended a nursery school, the same percentage as forty years earlier(Dodde, 1983).

In the second half of the nineteenth century, just as in an earlier stageof educational thinking in the Netherlands, ideas were borrowed from foreigneducationalists. While earlier it had been Comenius and Rousseau, in the secondhalf of the nineteenth century it was Froebel. However, his ideas, unlike thoseof his predecessors, were put into practice. Around the year 1900, about 50% ofkindergarten children attended school, mainly using Froebel's method, possibly withthe addition of some of Herbart's ideas. Froebel's methodology became so dominantthat people no longer spoke of nursery schools but of Froebel schools. The schoolscame to be named after the method which was most in use.

1900 to 1985: Nursery education blossoms

The influence of educationalists from abroad was by no means confined to Froebel'sbody of ideas. In 1912 Maria Montessori was invited to give a lecture in theNetherlands. Her ideas were very well received and the first Montessori class openedin The Hague in 1914. This was followed, in 1917, by the establishment of the DutchMontessori Association. A training course on Montessori teaching came next in 1918.The enthusiasm with which her ideas were adopted even led Maria Montessori tosettle in the Netherlands for a while.

The rapid growth in Montessori kindergartens was sustained in the main by thehigher social classes. Through larger financial contributions from the parents, theseschools came to stand out as being advantaged in terms of equipment, approach, andprofessional qualifications of teachers, compared with the Froebel schools. The factthat the Froebel and Montessori schools differed so greatly in material conditionswas the reason why the discussion about which was the best method went on solong, since like was not being compared with like (Verbeeten, 1937). Moreover,there were numerous hybrid forms. Before the outbreak of the second World War in1940 there were a great variety of schools therefore: (1) orthodox and more liberalFroebel schools, (2) orthodox and more liberal Montessori schools, and (3) nurseryschools applying no particular methodology in the absence of qualified staff. Duringthe economic depressions of the 1930s many public schools which had been fundedby the municipalities were closed.

After the end of the second World War in 1945, the reconstruction of educationin the Netherlands began in earnest. However, the education of children underthe age of six was not given the highest priority. It was 1956 before an act waspassed on nursery education, which required that all schools, both public schoolsand denominational schools, provided they met certain quality standards, would befunded by the national government in future. Thus funding arrangements became

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

18 M.E. denELTefa/.

identical to those which had been made in 1920 for other schools. A unique situationwhich is scarcely to be found anywhere else in the world: if a group of parents wantto set up a kindergarten in accordance widi their own ideas, provided the schoolmeets the quality standards laid down by the authorities, then the school will be fullyfunded by the national government. In the nineteen seventies discussions beganabout the change over from kindergarten to primary school.

Under various influences, including the English Nursery Schools Association andthe increasingly popular ideas of Dewey and Decroly in the Netherlands (Nijkamp,1974), play and free expression had come, more and more, to take a central place inkindergartens. Education in kindergartens became more and more child-centered,allowing children a great deal of scope to exercise their own initiative with emphasison development through play. As the kindergarten's role in preparing children forprimary school began to shrink, the gulf between nursery and primary educationwidened considerably. Numerous attempts have been made to improve the transitionprocess. Some primary school organized their first year as a 'learning through play'class. In the end though, the Netherlands opted for a rigorous solution in 1985:the integration of nursery and primary education into a single type of school — theprimary school for four to twelve year-olds. While statutory compulsory educationbegins at five, over 95% of four-year-olds go to school.

CHANGES SINCE THE 1985 PRIMARY EDUCATION ACT

The integration of the former kindergartens and primary schools was a large-scaleoperation. The restructuring also led to major changes in the content of education.It was a break from the tradition of Froebel and Montessori education, or its mixedforms. Many kindergarten teachers went higher levels of education and teachersfrom higher levels took their place in groups 1 and 2 — the nursery classes. Manyteachers using traditional teaching methods disappeared. While up to that time,the heads of the kindergartens had been female nursery school teachers, after thechanges 90% of the heads were former [male] heads of primary schools. In manycases there was a loss of nursery school knowledge and experience.

This radical solution, which created a need for integration, inevitably led tolively discussions and a struggle for identity. The dispute did not center aroundreligious convictions but around differences in the characteristics of schools. Nurseryeducation had to be preserved as something distinct, not swallowed up by the farlarger and more powerful primary education in the new primary schools.

The integration of kindergartens and primary schools subsequently led tovehement discussions about the nature and purpose of nursery education. Fearswere expressed that the achievements built up over a century would be quicklylost. These achievements were child-centered kindergartens in which the individualdevelopment of each child was followed. Children had been able to be engagedin different activities at the same time and the kindergartens had been schools forplaying and living. Some questioned whether these were aspirations rather thanachievements. Others questioned whether it was possible to integrate in terms of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

KINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM IN THE NETHERLANDS 19

content. There were those who proposed separating the two school types again. Atthe same time, this "struggle" led to new initiatives which arose out of the tensionbetween two visions of education which traditionally had been opposed to eachother.

Traditional views of education

Traditionally there have been two opposing views of education. Kindergarten edu-cation was development-orientated while the primary schools, from the outset, werecurriculum-orientated (Van Parreren, 1985). Development-orientated educationtakes the child as its starting point, "Vom Kinde aus". It assumes that the child will takea certain amount of initiative him/herself, that s/he is motivated and eager to learnand can be his/her "own teacher", getting a grasp of the world around him/herthrough his/her own cognitive abilities. There is no predetermined curriculumwhich has to be realized within a set period of time, but a rich environment andpositive emotional climate is created based on the needs and desires of the child,in which the child is able to develop. The emphasis is on development of thepersonality and there is a strong pedagogical approach to the education. The child'sdevelopment is monitored by observation, but the teachers are very cautious aboutexpecting results.

The basic starting point of the curriculum-orientated approach is the curriculum.The school or teacher sets the developmental and learning objectives in advance,which have to be achieved methodically within a certain time. The teacher, themediator between the child and the learning materials, plans and structures thelessons over time and takes an active guiding role in the achievement of the learningobjectives. The objectives, which are mostly chosen on the grounds of their socialrelevance, are pursued through teaching and tested to assess the value of theeducation.

New visions

The new visions have been developed or adopted to a large extent by nationalinstitutes which have subsequently gone on to implement them in educationalpractice. There are two national development institutes: the National Institute forEducational Measurement (Cito) which develops tests, and the National Institutefor Curriculum Development (SLO). Their tasks include the development of testsand curricula for teaching young children. In addition, there are three nationalpedagogical centers which have the same founding principles as the majority ofschools: the Catholic Center for Education (CCE), die Protestant Study Centerfor Education (PSCE) and the Public Center for Education (PCE), which is notbound to a particular denomination. The task of these centers is to implement newdevelopments in education. These centers are not in any way neutral in how theycarry out this task. The PCE, for example, has developed its own vision and die CCEhas adopted a vision from the Dutch-speaking area of Belgium. The diird center hasnot opted for a particular vision, but focuses on implementing a particular policy

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

20 M.E. denELTefa/.

priority area: the young child with developmental problems and the relationshipwith special education.

The Netherlands also has a network of regional and local school support serviceswhich help schools to introduce new ideas and with support and guidance to childrenwith learning and behavioral problems. In addition, initial training and in-servicetraining is provided in centers all over the country. In recent years relationshipshave been forged between the support services and training courses. The nationaldevelopment institutes and centers for education direct the implementation side oftheir work in the main through the support services and training courses. However,these institutes and centers do also have their own marketing mechanisms whichsupply products developed in the centers directly to schools. Educational publishersof play and development material and of curricula and methodologies have anequally strong influence upon actual developments in schools. We will now go on todiscuss how new visions have come into being and are being implemented in Dutchprimary schools.

New visions of education

As has been stated, in the period following the integration of nursery education intothe primary schools a new development got underway. It was clear that traditionalkindergarten education could not survive. Too much knowledge and skill hadebbed away. The important issue being contested was whether the power of primaryschools would bring about curriculum-based education in the nursery years, orwhether the struggle for a distinct identity would preserve earlier achievementsso that development-orientated education could stay. We will now look at theeducational concepts developed and adopted during this period of conflict betweendevelopment- and curriculum-orientated education. We will also indicate which ofthe national institutes for development and innovation were involved.

Experience-orientated education

The concept of experience-orientated education was developed at the Universityof Leuven in Belgium (Laevers, 1992). This concept is intended for a wide agerange from i\ to 6 years. It places a strong emphasis on the young child's freeinitiative. The program is founded on children's instinct to explore and theirdeep-rooted need to come to grips with the world. This vision is strongly gearedto die child's own initiative, self-directed learning, and overall development. It is ahighly development-orientated vision.

Experience-orientated education is founded on a bias toward learning throughexperience. Teachers must have die capacity to understand what a situation meansto a child; useful forms of intervention will flow from this understanding. Thisfoundation leads to diree principles for practice: (1) enlarging the young child'sfreedom of initiative; (2) enriching die environment by equipping the class well or bybringing in new materials; and (3) creating experience-based dialogue between childand teacher. The aim is to promote learning methods whereby children are offered a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

KINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM IN THE NETHERLANDS 21

helping hand to work through emotional problems which hinder their development,and encouraging the creative processes to further their cognitive development.

This educational vision has found fertile ground in the education of youngchildren in the Netherlands. The strong emphasis on the youngest age groups(25 - 6 years), the emphasis on exploration, play, and the child's free initiative gave apowerful impulse to nursery education in the Netherlands which wanted to preservepast achievements and was urgently seeking alternatives to curriculum-based primaryeducation. This vision was adopted by one of the national centers for education, theCCE, and implemented widely. This vision filled a need which arose when the bottomfell out of traditional nursery education. It satisfied the drive to find a distinct identityin which the earlier achievements of the kindergartens were clearly recognizable.

Basic development

The basic development initiative came from one of the other national centers foreducation, the PCE (Janssen-Vos, 1992). In order to stand up to the far more powerfulprimary education that had begun to assert its didactics, new theoretical principleswere drawn up for nursery classes in the new primary schools for 4-12 year olds,principles borrowed from theories or visions from other countries. These principleswere as follows: (1) education based on the developmental and educational theoryof the Russian psychologist, L.S. Vygotsky; (2) experience-orientated education asdescribed above; and (3) situation-based education with regard to the relationshipbetween school and the children's home circumstances. This position has its originsin the German "Kritische Schule". The teacher's role in this vision lies in theselection of educational activities and guidance offered to the children as they takepart in these activities. The basic principles behind educational activities are theinvolvement of the children and their investment with meaning. The children'sinitiatives are respected and supported and the area of proximal developmentprovides the starting point for developmental and learning processes.

Basic development encompasses three areas: (1) the individual psychologicalconditions for development: freedom from emotional handicaps, self-confidenceand curiosity; (2) broad development: a versatile repertoire of operations thatis necessary for the development of a multi-faceted personality; and (3) specificknowledge and skills in the areas of motor development, observation and sorting,learning to represent things schematically and to handle symbols. Basic developmentis achieved through offering a rich variety of activities, where play, constructiveactivities, role play and learning are possible. The teacher selects the activities andhelps the child to gain the maximum benefit from them. Basic development is astrongly development-orientated concept, in which the child's own initiative playsan important role, as was also the case with experience-orientated education which isincorporated into this concept. However, stimulation of development as understoodby Vygotsky and goal-directed activities toward preparation for learning to read andcount also have a place in this concept.

This eclectic model has much of importance in common with the traditionalmethods of kindergarten education, but it also has a number of innovative elements.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

22 M.E.denELTefa/.

It has been enthusiastically implemented by the PCE and has found broad acceptancein education, not least because the staff of this institute have presented themselvesas defenders of die separate identity of nursery education. This has led to successfulimplementation through training courses and school support services.

Integrated model

A third vision of education has been developed by Cito (vanKuyk, 1992,1994b).Thisinstitute, which develops tests and examination material, confined itself initially tothe development of diagnostic tests to counterbalance the existing school-readinessenquiries at the end of kindergarten. The purpose of diagnostic tests was todetect children widi retarded development during the kindergarten years. As anatural extension to diis, programs came into being offering preventative helpin ordinary kindergartens, in order to give pupils a good start when they wenton to primary school. With a view to improving the education process a pupilmonitoring system for young children was developed, whose purpose was to followthe development of each individual pupil and of the group. As a natural consequenceof this a total vision gradually came into being, which was not only intended forchildren with learning difficulties, diey are explicitly included, but for all children.In diis concept, development-orientated education forms the starting point, butcurriculum-orientated elements are needed to offer structured help to childrenwidi learning difficulties (Karweit, 1994). Development- and curriculum-orientatededucation are integrated in diis model.

The integrated model is represented diagrammatically below:

ji!

intentional learning

/

/

/

incidental learning

specific learning objective

/ direction of \/ learning processes \

/ (learning materials) \

stimulation of development \(development material)

creating situations for play and exploration(play materials)

broad development

direction by teacher

\

\

\

independence

1

f

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

KINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM IN THE NETHERLANDS 23

Broad development is the starting point; sufficient situations are providedin which children can learn incidentally and independently through play andexploration. Appropriate material is used to stimulate development, and wherenecessary, learning processes are structured and directed by the teacher with a clearlearning intention and goal.

The integrated model should offer a solution for as many children as possiblein ordinary schools. The guiding rule is: development-orientated where possible (ifchildren have the capacity to direct their own learning) and curriculum-orientatedwhere necessary (if the child is not able to direct his/her own learning). Theintegrated model has met with some initial opposition. It seemed to have toomany traits of curriculum-based education, and therefore failed to fulfil the strongneed for a separate identity, despite the fact that it is founded on developmentalaspects. The use of tests served to reinforce this judgement. This resistancehas decreased considerably, as is witnessed by the recent introduction of thepupil monitoring system for young children in a large number of schools in theNetherlands.

Other initiatives

The gulf between the two views we have discussed, which played such an importantpart in the debate surrounding the integration of kindergartens and primary schools,has narrowed recently. In addition, the Dutch government has put into operation apolicy to improve the relationship between ordinary schools and special schools,and to stem the growth of special schools. This is known as the "Weer samennaar school" (Back to school together) policy. Prevention in the form of timelydetection of problems and early provision of help to young children form part ofthat policy.

PSCE, one of the national centers for education, supports, as we have stated, thispolicy as a matter of priority and is also implementing Cito's education concept.The SLO, the national institute for curriculum development, has stayed out of thepicture up to now. It has not associated itself with a particular concept of education,but has come down strongly on the side of development-orientated education.The SLO takes for granted a variety of competencies which can be developed ina rich environment. The SLO provides a model curriculum for schools; in the formof a description of practice situations on which schools can orientate themselves(Jongerius & Beernink, 1993). The schools inspectorate, concerned about the qualityof nursery education, has also been issuing advice, "standards for good practice", inaddition to its evaluative research findings. In this advice, development-orientatededucation forms the core while curriculum-orientated education is recommendedwhere that is necessary for children's development.

Evaluation and perspectives

If we take a look at a number of evaluations of primary education carried out by theDutch schools inspectorate, two matters strike one most. Bringing kindergartens and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

24 M.E. denELTefa/.

primary schools under one roof and under one governing body has not resultedin the disappearance of the dividing line within schools between the content ofeducation for four to six year-olds and for six-plussers. Only a few schools havemanaged to create an unbroken learning path for individual pupils. The majorityof schools start all pupils on the same program for initial reading, writing andarithmetic. Furthermore, they all start at the same time, that is at the beginningof the third school year. In classes 1 and 2 there are not many "corners" forpreparatory reading, writing and number teaching, and likewise few corners whichinvite experimentation. Directed learning does take place in these years but mainlythrough the provision of activities. Few direct instructions are given. Moreover, thereis little question of an approach whereby the children's development is systematicallymapped out in order to be able to work toward a plan.

These were the conclusions of the Committee for the Evaluation of PrimarySchools which produced a report on the quality of primary education in 1994,commissioned by the Ministry for Education and Science. Inspectors, who evaluatedclassroom situations in terms of "good practice", concluded that there needed to bemore play and exploration situations and better stimulation of development. Theseare precisely the two basic elements of development-orientated education. It seemssafe to conclude that the great variety that has been a characteristic feature of Dutchnursery education since the beginning of the century will continue in the periodfollowing integration. Remnants of traditional Froebel and Montessori educationare still to be found, the traditional play and development materials are still beingused in many schools. In addition new visions and programs are being implementedwhich, as was also the case in the past, are often founded on ideas from abroad. Thisis not to say that many schools are implementing visions in their pure forms. It looksas if diversity will continue into the next century, but with greater attention beingpaid than has been up to now to integration of content when it comes to key taskssuch as the teaching of reading and number.

NEW POLICY IN PRESCHOOL EDUCATION

Although pre-school education is a fairly new phenomenon in the Netherlands, andup to now has not come under the Ministry of Education but the Ministry of Welfare,we will outline a number of policy initiatives which are closely connected with thefurther development of education for young children, where the two ministries arejoindy involved in new policy initiatives.

Social developments

Government policy reacts to social change. Since the 1970s there have been a numberof policy developments which have occurred in response to changes in society. Thesedevelopments are to do with a growing emphasis on policy which is concerned withyoung children.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

KINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM IN THE NETHERLANDS 25

Emancipation process

There has been a growing emancipation, especially of better educated women. Thesewomen are increasingly entering the labor market. Many of these women are alsoyoung mothers who need day-care for their young children while diey are at work.For this reason the government has enabled local authorities to establish day-carecenters on a large scale. Day-care provision is concentrated on programs for 0-4year-olds and sometimes — but not often — for 4-12 year-olds.

Smaller families

Since the 1960s there has been an on-going development which has relatively littleto do with the participation of women in die world of work. Because the number ofchildren per family/household was declining, a need arose for play opportunitiesand playmates for children. To meet this need for play and social contact, manyplaygroups for children aged 2 to 4 years were set up. The playgroups were sometimesseparate from the day-care provision for working mothers, but they were one elementof the local authority's services for children. The playgroups were not, and are not, analternative to day-care for working mothers. The children are only occupied for a fewhours per week in the playgroups. The two services are serving different purposes anda different public. Day-care is primarily intended for working parents, who pay for thecare according to their means. Furthermore, day-care has increasingly become anissue of employment conditions. Playgroups, on the other hand, have not expandedmuch. There has been no further clarification of die function of playgroups and theyare still run for the most part by volunteers, well-meaning mothers and/or poorlypaid play leaders.

Increasing immigration

Because of rising levels of immigration, a great deal of attention has been given,since 1990, to stimulating the development of young immigrant children withinthe framework of minorities policy. The basic principle behind welfare policyis to strengthen the educational position of young immigrant children throughintegration programs (notjust dirough casual activities). The focus for interventionis die family or — to use a term which does better justice to the actual situation— the primary domestic unit or household. The aim is to draw immigrantfamilies out of their isolation and, by strengthening the household, to placeimmigrant children in a stronger position at school. It goes without saying thatprograms which aim to bring about a link between family, school and surroundingenvironment are (must be) imbued widi the level of knowledge, values, norms andcharacteristics of the various families/households, of the schools and of the broadercommunity.

Programs are only effective if account is taken of die characteristics of dietarget groups and if die best available resources are used. Recendy a policy has

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

26 M.E. denELTefa/.

been developed to determine what opportunities might be offered in playgroupsto promote the development of young immigrant children and to prepare thesechildren for school through play. This policy is founded on the conviction thatdisadvantage among children can be combatted most effectively at a young age.The work being done in playgroups provides potential opportunities to stimulatechildren in a purposeful way in order to prepare them for formal education.

Points of departure fora new policy

A considerable amount of research has been carried out in the Netherlands intothe education of disadvantaged children. These studies have included immigrantchildren. It has been demonstrated that, despite extra efforts on the part of schools,many immigrant children continue to do less well than the average child in theNetherlands. A recent study concluded that if parents/caregivers prepare their childfor school and give the child the necessary support by, for example, participating inpre-school activities such as playgroup, the child can do better at school, especiallyin the area of language skills.

This is a very hopeful conclusion for welfare policy: participating in pre-schoolactivities and parental/caregivers' behavior which is supportive of education canhave a positive effect upon the educational achievements of children. While it is truethat the fact that pre-school intervention pays off may be new to the Netherlands,it was known from a study by Weikart and Schweinhart (1991) that good qualitycare for children in the pre-school years produces good returns for society in thelong-term. An important factor here is giving structure to the child: the structure ofplanning-doing-reviewing. Structure is not only important for children, but also forthe parents/caregivers. Parents need tips and more opportunities to interact withtheir children. The parents'/caregivers' need for order and structure in bringingup and guiding their children is provided for in the programs which have beendeveloped.

A new challenge: Cooperation between welfare and education

In 1993 the recommendations of the Kemenade Committee were published. Thisgovernment committee appointed to make recommendations about reorientatingeducational priorities. The pre-school period was highlighted in these recom-mendations as an important area for special attention for future policy. Thefamily-orientated approach in the form of home-based programs had already foundsome acceptance in the Netherlands (e.g., Lombard, 1994). The case was made for acenter-based approach to prepare children for primary school. This approach wouldhave to be carried out in the playgroups. About 50% of children aged 2-4 years attendsome form of playgroup away from their home, in their local neighborhood, for afew hours per week.

Toddlers from immigrant communities make relatively little use of playgroupfacilities compared with indigenous toddlers. This is why the Ministry of Welfare,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

KINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM IN THE NETHERLANDS 27

supported by the Ministry of Education, asked the Meijnen Committee to makefurther recommendations. The task of this committee, which was set up by theMinisters of Welfare and Education, was to investigate which programs at home andabroad would be suitable and available for promoting the development of youngchildren outside the home, and, at the same time, for linking the programs ofplaygroup and school so that (immigrant) children attending playgroups wouldbe better prepared for school. The point of departure for this commission wasthe fact that research has shown that 40% of intellectual disadvantage among18 year-olds, was already present at the age of six. Because there were alreadyenough programs for use in the home situation, the emphasis here was oncenter-based programs which could be used in playgroups. The Committeeeventually selected two programs which fulfilled the requirements: the HighScope Program (Weikart, 1987; Weikart & Schweinhart, 1991) and a new programfrom Cito (van Kuyk, 1992; 1994) which uses the tutoring strategy taken fromthe Success for All Program (Slavin, et al, 1994). Both programs have a soundacademic base and offer a foundation for a curriculum for 3—6 year-olds. TheMeijnen Committee proposed that an experiment should be set up with bothprograms.

Policy proposals

In the meantime the two Ministries, Welfare and Education, issued a response tothe recommendations. It has been decided to start a small number of experimentswith each program. A condition for this is that there must be good cooperationbetween the playgroup and local primary schools, so that a three-year curriculumreally can be set up and offered to children, prior to and in the first year of primaryeducation. There is to be an evaluative study of the experiments. In order to laya good foundation for the experimental programs, a succession of locations havebeen designated. They are places which cannot participate in the experiment forfinancial reasons, but where an instrument has been put in place to measure thequality of the pre-school care on offer, and to improve that care at local level wherepossible. This includes the use of the "Effective Early Learning Research Project"(Pascal, Bertram & Ramsden, 1994) of the Worcester College of Higher Educationin the United Kingdom. The intention is to let a number of new locations participatein the experiment in succession each year.

This joint plan of the Ministries of Welfare and Education breaks down the"old" dividing line between education and welfare. For the first time the Ministryof Education has recognized and acknowledged the importance of high qualitypre-school care prior to and in conjunction with educational provision. What isalso new is that the Ministry of Education has joined in the program-based approach,which has been typical of the Welfare Ministry. Programs have been developed whichgive shape to the link between preschool care and education and so policy has beenmade for children who are not yet in the education system. The Ministry of Educationis now accepting an indirect responsibility for children who have not yet reachedcompulsory school age.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

28 M.E. denELTefa/.

The contribution of parents/caregivers to the policy

This joint operation by the Departments of Education and Welfare raises questionsabout the responsibility for the upbringing of young children. In general, theresponsibility for bringing up young children lay, and still lies, mainly with theparents. At this juncture parents have a great need of knowledge about bringingup their children. The provision of support and assistance to parents is a matter forthe Ministry of Welfare, which delegates its responsibilities and practical tasks in thisarea to the local authorities. The national government has a duty to monitor thequality of care for toddlers and older children. This Ministry of Welfare interpretsits responsibilities with regard to childrearing, as stemming from the authority andresponsibility of the parents/caregivers to prepare their child for school.

Cultural diversity

In developing a policy for young immigrant children, the concept of culture is acentral concept. This has to do with the values which parents and professionals inplaygroups and schools attach to stimulating the development of young children.These values may be expressed in a variety of ways. Thus, as we have said, there arediverse views of the young child upon admission to primary school. Also schoolsconvey their expectations to parents about the latter's contribution to upbringing.However by the concept of culture one also thinks of the different backgrounds,places of origin, and the influence of the socio-economic position of the immigrantparents or caregivers. And one must not forget that within the diverse immigrantgroups are different expectations about the role of education and its contributionto social mobility.

There is often a lack of knowledge about the education system in the Netherlands,and parents/caregivers lack knowledge about how children develop throughouttheir youth and what they as "first educators" can do to promote the developmentof their own children. The demand from immigrant parents for alternative forms ofbehavior which are functional in childrearing in the Netherlands is great. The visionof education and upbringing within immigrant communities does not necessarilycorrespond to actual childrearing practice in those groups. For these parents, certainforms of behavior in and around the school which are determined by Dutch culture,are an area which often remains hidden from them. School staff, those providingday-care services and those providing parental support services need to demonstrateprofessional sensitivity to the cultural diversity among parents and caregivers.

Sensitivity toward cultural diversity is the second area for special attentionupon which the Ministries of Welfare and Education have joindy focused. It isnecessary to communicate with parents/caregivers who originate from an everincreasing number of countries. The skills needed to communicate with immigrantparents/caregivers, to empathize with their problems and to understand themare extremely important. The motto ought to be: Accept each parent as s/he isand take each parent seriously. It is a matter of sensitivity to different levels ofknowledge and different values and opinions and being able to handle any cultural

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

KINDERGARTEN CURRICULUM IN THE NETHERLANDS 29

differences. There is a universal central value which runs right through all cultures:parents/caregivers put the interests of their child first and do their best for them.That which binds parents and children is more important than their differences. Allparents/caregivers can be reached through this.

In immigrant communities use of the first language is increasingly becomingconfined to the home, to communicating with young children and to the immediateenvironment. Dutch is being used more and more as a means of communication:a means of gaining access to services. Bilingualism is a practical solution: the firstlanguage is spoken mainly at home and with the children, outside the home and atschool Dutch is spoken as much as possible. It is in this context that policy will bedeveloped and put into practice in the education and welfare fields in the comingyears in the Netherlands.

References

Clerq, I. de (1980). Beijne-, bewaar-, Froebel-, Kleuterschool. (Beguine schools, early nurseries, Froebel schools,Kindergartens). University of Amsterdam.

Committee for the Evaluation of Primary Education (1994). Onderwijs aan jonge kinderen (Teaching youngchildren). The Hague: Sdu.

Dodde, N.L. (1983). Het Nederlandse onderwijs verandert (Changing education in the Netherlands).Muiderberg: Coutinho.

Janssen-Vos, F. (1992). Basisontwikkeling; het APS project Onderbouw Basisschool (Basic development;the PCE project for The Foundation of the New Primary Schools). I: B. van Oers & F. Janssen-Vos. Visiesop onderwijs aan jonge kinderen (Views on the education of young children). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Jongerius, J. & Beernink, R. (1993). Wat heb je vandaag gedaan op school? (What have you done at schooltoday?). Enschede: SLO.

Karweit N.L. (1994). Effective preschool and kindergarten programs for students at risk. In: B. Spodek(ed.) Handbook of research on the education of young children. New York: MacMillan.

Kuyk, J.J. van (1992). Visie op onderwijs aanjonge kinderen en hulp aan kinderen met achterstanden (Aview on education for young children and help for children with learning difficulties). In: B. van Oers& F. Janssen-Vos (Eds.), Visies op onderwijs aanjonge kinderen (Views on the education of young children).Assen: Van Gorcum.

Kuyk, J.J. van (1994a). From school readiness to early help in kindergartens. Arnhem: Cito.

Kuyk, J.J. van (1994b). Does ordering lay the foundation of acquiring mathematics in young children?In: F. Laevers (Ed.), Defining and assessing quality in early childhood education. Leuven: University Press.

Laevers, F. (1992). Welbevinden en betrokkenheid. Richtsnoeren voor een ervaringsge-richte onder-wijspraktijk (Well-being and involvement: Guidelines for experience-orientated teaching). In: B. vanOers & F. Jans. sen-Vos (Eds.), Visies op onderwijs aan jonge kinderen (Views on the education of youngchildren). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Laevers, F. (Ed.) (1994). Defining and assessing quality in early childhood education. Leuven: University Press.

Lombard, A.D. (1994). Success begins at home: the past, present and future of the Home Instruction Program or

Preschool Youngsters. Guilford: Dushkin.

Nijkamp, W.M. (1974). 100 jaar kleuters. (100 years of kindergarten children). IJmuiden: Vermande &Sons.

Van Parreren, C.F. (1985). Van kleuter tot schoolkind: continuiteit in het leren. (From kindergarten toschoolchild: continuity of learning). Pedagogische Studiën (Pedagogic Studies), 62, 174-183.

Pascal, C , Bertram, A. & Ramsden, F. (1994). Effective early learning proiect; the quality evaluation anddevelopment process. Worcester: Amber.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012

30 M.E. den ELTefa/.

Slavin, R.E., Karweit, N.L. & Wasik, B A (Eds.) (1994). Preventing early school failure; research, policy andpractice. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Verbeeten, M. (1937). Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van het bewaar school onderwijs. (Contribution tothe history of the early nursery schools). 's-Hertogenbosch: Malmberg.

Weikart, D.P. (1987). Curriculum quality in early education. In: S.L. Kagan & E.F. Zigler (Eds) Earlyschooling; the national debate. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Weikart, D.P. & Schweinhart, L.J. (1991). Disadvantaged children and curriculum effects. New directionsfor child development, 53, 57-64.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f E

dinb

urgh

] at

14:

07 0

8 M

ay 2

012