The teaching of history in the Netherlands
 

The Dutch history canon: a never-ending debate?!

By Drs. H.K.J. (Huub) Kurstjens, test developer for history and politics at CITO (Institute for Test Development), Arnhem (The Netherlands)[1]

This article was first published in an Italian magazine.

The well-known Dutch historian Pieter Geyl (1887-1966) argued at one time that history was ‘a never-ending debate’. The same thing can be said about the ongoing reform in Dutch history education. Traditionally a university degree guaranteed the expertise of history teachers and henceforth the level of history teaching. Half a century ago there was hardly any disagreement about the historical curriculum, if at all. Professional historians took an ‘implicit  canon’ for granted: they largely agreed upon the contents of the curriculum with variations for each sociopolitical segment of the population.[2] Which developments in society and in history education called for an ‘explicit canon’? 

The fragmentation of history education 

In present-day Dutch history education, the concept of history has become fragmented: the facts have lost their coherence and the main lines have disappeared from view. This is due to rapid social changes, far-reaching globalization, revised notions of history as well as pressures from various emancipatory movements. The political-institutional history of recent decades, presented chronologically from a traditional Eurocentric perspective, masculine and chauvinistic by nature, was no longer satisfactory. Among other things, socio-economic history and the history of changes in mentality were thought to deserve more space. Curricula changed at a rapid pace and exam topics became evermore exotic. Moreover, history education was increasingly used by interest groups and defined by current events. Thus, more attention was demanded for women’s history, environmental history, the history of  the Third World as well as the history of the integration of Europe (which, by the way, was not very successful judging from the Dutch rejection of the European Constitution). Themes were presented in such depth that students knew a great deal of subjects like the burning of witches in the Middle-Ages in Europe, but very little of contemporary general developments, backgrounds and events. Upon completing their secondary education students showed an embarrassing lack of  awareness of historical periods and of the capability of situating events and developments in their historical context. They no longer knew the difference between Charlemagne and Charles V, what they stood for, what their backgrounds were, in which period they lived, or even which of them preceded the other.

At the same time as thematic history teaching was introduced, more attention was demanded for the teaching of historical skills. Mere knowledge would not do; it was to serve a purpose. Historical knowledge combined with historical skills was to be socially relevant and meaningful and also preferably useful in other subjects. Another consideration was that in our secularised and individualised country with its heterogeneous population and with its traditional religious and socio-political barriers removed, the sense of a shared identity was increasingly at risk of disappearing. A common historical frame of reference might help solve the identity crisis from which the nation suffered. In other words, it was time for the teaching of a survey of historical facts. 

The ten historical periods defined by the De Rooy committee 

The De Rooy committee, so called after its president, Amsterdam University professor Piet de Rooy, reporting to the Ministry of Education in 2001, advised dividing history into ten periods conveniently arranged and bounded by neat dates, focussing on the chronological outlines of Western-European history with special emphasis on The Netherlands. The selection of ten periods was meant to be a didactic instrument enabling students to comprehend the past more easily. Each period is distinguishable by an emblematic icon (figure 1) and composed of ‘characteristic aspects’ of its own.

Students are first introduced to this system in primary education (pupils up to 12 years of age), re-acquainting themselves with the periods during the first stage of secondary education (age groups 12 to 14) and once again during the second stage of secondary education (age groups 14 to 17/18). The underlying idea is that repeating a period once more, the description of a period, in combination with an icon, will cause the subject matter to sink in properly. The best way of promoting historical awareness is to use a variety of approaches and skills as well as a frame of reference simultaneously and in mutual relationship.

According to the committee, it will be easier for students to master the frequently difficult and dry subject matter by building on what was learnt at an earlier stage. It is stated specifically, however, that students are not meant to learn isolated facts like dates and personal names by heart. This is not thought useful. Such matters are valuable only if they contribute to the orientation process by helping to clarify general, distinctive aspects of a particular period. Consequently, the committee abstained from including lists of events, persons etc. Moreover, the committee argued, any selection would be indiscriminate and arbitrary. To be sure, the general characteristic features of a period ought to be presented graphically, but without any specific illustrations being supplied. In this way, one student can memorise knowledge of the Reformation by reference to Luther or Calvin and another by reference to Zwingli, Erasmus or other reformers. The illustrations are just steppingstones to be used in learning something general about a particular period, no more and no less. By now, this approach has been accepted by Dutch parliament and the Ministry of  Education and turned into an act for primary education and the first stage of secondary education. For the second stage of secondary education this approach is to result in reformed centrally organized final examinations within a few years from now. 

The periods censured

The recommendations published by the De Rooy Committee met with quite some censure. The division into ten periods might benefit the teaching method, but received a great deal of scholarly objection. Many historians judged it to be outright arbitrary, even unacceptable. If this protest could be disregarded with a view to the supposed benefit to students trying to master the subject matter, particularly since other divisions into periods continued to be used as well, the distinguishing features were another matter entirely. Were they really typical of the period under review, were they consistent and of the same order? Would this division allow treating longitudinal developments? And was it really true to say that it did not matter which specific illustration was used to characterize a period? Did Columbus and Luther not illustrate the period of discoverers and reformers (1500-1600) better than Olivier van Noort or Johannes Hus? And did the emphasis on Western-European history not occasion eurocentrism with the added risk of stereotyping: ‘history written by white males’, which was to reinforce the national identity into the bargain? How, for example, were Turkish and Moroccan children to identify with such a distant history and world view that was clearly not theirs? 

The canon as proposed by the Van Oostrom Committee

What was missing in particular became apparent from a report published in January 2005 by the Education Council, the most important advisory body to the Ministry of Education. It stated that too little attention had been paid to a ‘canon’ that expressed the Dutch identity. According to the Education Council essential elements in this respect are ‘those valuable components of our culture and history that we wish to pass on to later generations by means of education. The canon is of importance to the whole of society, not just to an elite group’.[3] Such a canon might underpin education’s socializing task, especially considering the existing integration problems. With so many children of foreign descent, the Council argued, one had better see to it that Dutch culture and history were tranferred properly. These recommendations were, of course, not to be dissociated from the social unrest resulting from two prominent Dutchmen being murdered, the politician Pim Fortuyn in May 2002 and the film director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The Duch nation was at risk of polarising at a fast rate: social tensions were running high.

The Minister of Education at the time was convinced that ‘if young people in the Netherlands at least share the core of the canon, this will further integration and good citizenship’[4]. With broad political and social approval, the Minister decided to set up a committee which was to look into the contents of the Dutch canon and to develop a point of view on how to put it into educational practice. The Minister’s decision was also prompted by his conviction that young people today lacked a proper knowledge of Dutch history and culture. Not only had factual knowledge decreased, what was also found lacking more often than not was a knowledge of chronology. This was due to a large number of factors: on the one hand various developments within the historical field itself, on the other hand a shortage of good, properly qualified teachers, who, moreover, were faced with more and more reduced opportunities to practise their profession as they saw good.

The Van Oostrom Committee – so called after its president Prof. Dr. F.P. van Oostrom of Utrecht University, devoted the time from June 2005 to September 2006 to writing its report and developing the ‘Dutch canon’. When the definitive report was presented, it was made clear from the outset that the canon and the Dutch identity were not indistinguishable. ‘The canon may reflect the collective memory of a nation, but never its identity. (...) In today’s international, multicultural world the concept of ‘national identity’ is a treacherous, even dangerous notion. (...) What matters here, is that this is the canon of a country where we live together. In that sense, the canon may very well contribute to good citizenship. Knowledge and understanding of how this country has developed, of the valuable things it has produced, what principles it has defended or rejected, constitute a useful and elevating educational objective and supply society with a frame of reference that will enhance mutual communication as well as the way the Dutch go about their affairs in the world. In other words, the canon of Boulahrouz and Beatrix.[5] (...) What we are primarily concerned with is the canon’s value in itself, not as the supposed solution of a particular problem, but as the gilt-edged elementary knowledge of Dutch cultural history which is of such importance in later years that transferring it to students at school does not need any specific justification.’[6] This implies an important difference between the two committees: whereas for the De Rooy Committee historical awareness is the key issue, for the Van Oostrom Committee it is ‘canonical’ knowledge. 

The canon: appearance, essence and contents

Appearance

The canon has been presented visually on a chart, as a poster, as well as on the canon website.[7] The canon as presented consists of a series of 50 ‘windows’, arranged chronologically on a time line (figure 2).

(figure 2) 

The main function of the chart is that of a teaching aid: imprinting the canon’s images (and their sequence in time) and exciting the students’ curiosity and imagination. The chart is meant to remain hanging on the classroom wall, clearly visible at all times, to serve as point of reference for lessons that pertain to the canon. The canon consists of four layers: first, and consecutively, one of the 50 windows is presented together with an accompanying short Story explaining the significance to be attached to this particular component of the canon. Next, the possibilities for educational extension are enumerated, the Branches so called (these are suggestions for themes that can be adopted to extend a view from the window or studied in depth). To these branches two more subdivisions have been added: The present and the past and Inside the treasury. The former contains suggestions for comparing past and present, the latter for filling up the treasury (a box of educational objects) with elements that make the past ‘tangible’. Finally, there are the References. They supply further information about a subject (among which suggestions for excursions, for relevant literature and websites).

essence

The committee has opted for a cross-curricular canon. This implies the possibility of establishing connections between subjects such as Dutch, geography, history and culture and the arts. The canon would have to be presented twice in the course of a school career: once in the upper stage of primary education (age groups 8-12) and one more time in the first stage of secondary education (age groups12-14/15). The positive effect of revision and recognition would, as students grow older, have to be combined with treatment in depth and enrichment of the 50 windows. For primary education this means: treatment in a concrete and narrative fashion with the use of icons that give students something to hold on to, clear beacons in time (no pumping dates into heads, however!), appealing, inviting (a canon that is ‘alive’) and close to home (with narratives about The Netherlands, but also with opportunities to link up with the local canon). For secondary education one could think of enlarging, expanding and enriching materials, studying these in depth, establishing more interrelations, paying more attention to abstract subjects and processes, to political and economic history, the foreign cultural canon, to art suitable for ‘more mature youths’ and to individual characters and groups. 

contents 

The subjects included in the canon passed a strict selection. As a result, the subjects can be given their due, and at the same time undue proliferation is prevented. The most important challenge is not so much whether or not the subjects are treated (they occur in most textbooks anyhow), but how they are treated. They should function as stepping-stones for a lifetime of learning and experiencing things. With this approach thematic teaching has returned, with a difference: the themes are now part of a national framework. 

The canon censured and defended 

Hardly had the Van Oostrom Committee published its report when the canon, too, met, not only with approval, but with a great deal of criticism, especially from academics and teachers. In summary the negative comments were these:

• After the social polarisation in recent years, the canon is used to promote social cohesion.
• The interpretation of the past is narrowed down to one perspective. This will result, not in a history that is alive, but one that is petrified.
• The narrative behind the 50 windows is a piece of fiction; it is ‘invented tradition’ of 2000 years of Dutch history.
• The canon has been imposed from above by the authorities. This is a form of indoctrination and state pedagogics.
• The canon is one of the ‘19th century nation-state of the liberal, academically educated bourgeoisie from a protestant background: holland-centred, middle-class, urban, estheticizing and moralizing’[8].
• The canon uses a (too) narrow perspective; hardly any attention is paid to international developments.
• From a teaching strategy point of view, the canon is defective, as it includes too many different and unbalanced approaches.
• The canon lacks a basic thread linking up the parts.
• The selection of the 50 windows is arbitrary and has not been justified, nor has it been elaborated in a balanced way. 
  

The canon was defended on these grounds:

• The proposal has refocused the discussion on the subject matter to be taught; the relation between knowledge and skills had become skewed at the cost of (factual) knowledge.
• More attention to educational content returns the subject into the hands of teachers.
• The canon reinforces the position of the social sciences in primary as well as secondary education. About 60% of all students in Dutch secondary education find themselves in pre-vocational education where the social sciences in general and the subject of history in particular have been increasingly subsumed within area curricula in such a way as to become indistinguishable; otherwise they have suffered a reduction in teaching periods or have been abolished altogether.
• The canon is certainly not a dictate, but rather an impulse meant to inspire teachers.
• The canon is not static, as it will be regularly updated.
• The assignment to develop a Dutch canon was commissioned by the authorities, but a logical consequence would be the development of an international canon.
• The canon does not merely pertain to the subject of history. Its significance is that it identifies the minimum amount of historical, cultural, economical, and geographical baggage that each civilian needs to carry with him to get around in The Netherlands, Europe and the rest of the world.
• The idea of the canon does not violate the right of schools to determine their curricula themselves; one need not fear state pedagogics.
  Immigrant children too will benefit from the canon: ‘those who have burnt their boats to build a new existence in another country, benefit from a thorough knowledge of their host country’[9].
• Learning the canon gives the population something to hold on to, which is nothing to be ashamed of. 
  

The current state of affairs 

From the publication of ‘The Dutch Canon’ and the comments it received it is clear that historical knowledge needs to be paid more attention to in schools and teacher training institutes. The proposal received a lot of coverage in the national press and in spite of the negative criticism mentioned above, it was welcomed with great enthousiasm by large sections of society. The following factors aroused this enthousiasm:

• The recognition by both students and teachers of the loss of the cultural and historic heritage;

• The approach by narrative and visual means;

• The large number of feasible opportunities for ‘excursions’.

The report on the canon advocates raising the quality of teacher training courses and raising the level of knowledge and instructional skills of teachers. The publication of the canon may well contribute to solving the problem of the erosion of subject knowledge.

The canon itself, however, occasions another problem. The curricula for primary as well as secondary education were required to include the ‘ten historical periods’ as laid down quite recently by the De Rooy Committee. These ten historical periods aim to define, as does the canon, a core of historical knowledge. The former defines it in terms of ‘characteristic aspects’ of  the periods. These amount to 49 features such as ‘the industrial revolution’ or ‘imperialism’ for the 19^th century, and ‘the years of crisis’ or ‘the Cold War’ for the 20^th century. The attainment targets[10] use these general characteristics and do not specify any facts. Selecting specific facts can be left to schools and teachers, the committee argued. They are free to select either Dutch or non-Dutch illustrations.

The outline of ten periods does not specify which historical facts students ought to know, whereas the ‘ Dutch Canon’ does lay down specific facts. These could serve to illustrate the general characteristics of the ten historical periods of the De Rooy Committee. No problem then, one might think. However, the 50 canon windows do not match the 49 features in De Rooy. For some features there are various illustrations, for others there are none at all. Moreover, some items in the canon cannot be subsumed under any of the distinctive features.

According to critics, the canon is nothing more than a rambling series of facts with hardly any coherence in time. Indeed, that is what the canon poster shows: a long, winding time line without any marked periods. This will not help develop historical and chronological awareness, a key objective in the ten periods of De Rooy. For this reason, the canon poster was critized severely by educationalists (also because the time line takes alternate turns from left to right and right to left). Then, the feature of the 50 windows does not merely suggest content; it also suggests a teaching method: take these 50 windows as starting-points, they constitute a principle for a methodical arrangement. The ten periods of De Rooy suggest, however: start from the periods and their features, and find illustrations for them – e.g. in the canon. As a result, the actual practice of teaching history is at risk of having to cope with the tangle of two different systematic principles and methods. The uncertainty this creates for schools, training institutes and educational publishers is already quite apparent. Using the canon as sole principle is no solution, as it deals exclusively with The Netherlands. It would not do for the final examinations in secondary education to limit the subject matter to Dutch history. The ten periods do offer the opportunity to include international history.

Concluding remark

At the moment of writing, the possibility of merging the specific illustrations of the canon and the ten periods is being considered; it is hoped that the two approaches will reinforce each other and produce a synergetic effect. It might give rise to a comprehensive and coherent national history curriculum. Another possibility is to use the specific illustrations in the canon as starting-points in primary education and the more abstract features of the ten periods in secondary education. Whether or not the canon and the periods can really be merged or attuned in this way remains to be seen. At the time of going to press, this was not yet known. 

Summary: 
Due to several causes the concept of history has become fragmented in Dutch history education in the last decades. At the same time more attention was demanded for the teaching of historical skills. Historical knowledge combined with historical skills was to be socially relevant and meaningful. Moreover the sense of a shared identity was increasingly at risk of disappearing and a common historical frame of reference might help solve the identity crisis from which the Netherlands suffer. Two different committees have tried to restructure history education, one based on global, national and international historical characteristic aspects, the other one based on more specific illustrations with a national historical, cultural and geografical content. These two different systematic principles and methods can reinforce each other and produce a synergetic effect. It might give rise to a comprehensive and coherent national history curriculum.

(June 7, 2007) 

Literature and websites:

- ‘Verleden, heden en toekomst’; the report of the Committee of historical and social education (under the chairmanship of Prof. Dr. P. de Rooy), Enschede 2001.

- IVGD (Netherlands Institute for Teaching and Learning History); (for the Dutch version, see: http://www.ivgd.nl/indexnl.htm; for the English one, see: http://www.ivgd.nl/indexen.htm). Some quotations at the end of this article have been taken from a letter of advice from IVGD, referring to a report of the canon-committee of april 2007: ‘Canon en geschiedenisonderwijs - het probleem en de oplossing'.

- De stand van educatief Nederland; the report of the Education Council (The Hague 2005).

- entoen.nu, de canon van Nederland; the report of the committee of development of the Dutch canon (under the chairmanship of Prof. Dr. F. P. van Oostrom), The Hague 2006; (For the Dutch version, see: www.entoen.nu; for the English one, see: http://www.entoen.nu/default.aspx?lan=e).

- M. Grever, E. Jonker, K. Ribbens en S. Stuurman; Controversies around the canon, Assen 2006.

- Kleio, magazine of the association of History teachers in the Netherlands (several issues in the period of 2001-2007); website, in Dutch only: http://www.vgnkleio.nl/

- Cito, Institute for Test Development; Cito is one of the world’s leading testing and assessment companies. Measuring and monitoring human potential has been its core competence since 1968; (for the Dutch version, see: http://www.citogroep.nl/index.htm; for the English one, see: http://www.citogroep.nl/com_index.htm).

Summary:

Due to several causes the concept of history has become fragmented in Dutch history education in the last decades. At the same time more attention was demanded for the teaching of historical skills. Historical knowledge combined with historical skills was to be socially relevant and meaningful. Moreover the sense of a shared identity was increasingly at risk of disappearing and a common historical frame of reference might help solve the identity crisis from which the Netherlands suffer. Two different committees have tried to restructure history education, one based on global, national and international historical characteristic aspects, the other one based on more specific illustrations with a national historical, cultural and geografical content. These two different systematic principles and methods can reinforce each other and produce a synergetic effect. It might give rise to a comprehensive and coherent national history curriculum.

An addendum to this article is available!

Curriculum Vitae: 

Mr Kurstjens (1956) studied History and Geography at the teacher training institute of Nijmegen and History at the Radboud University of Nijmegen. He has been a teacher of history and geography for almost twenty years at different schools for secondary education. During that period he coordinated a lot of educational reforms in the schools he was teaching. For more than ten years he was an author of several school history textbooks. He has been chief editor of a regional magazine of history and geography and member of the Dutch National Board of the Association of History Teachers (VGN) for which he wrote several articles in their magazine Kleio. 

In 1993 he started working at CITO (Institute for Test Development in the Netherlands). His main task is developing school-leaving examinations in History, primarily for vocational education. As a consultant he represented CITO abroad, attending courses and giving workshops, also for Euroclio (the European Association of History Teachers) in several countries. At present he is also involved in developing innovative computer based testing for History, among others the canon-project. 

In his free time, Mr. Kurstjens is member of the board of the Comitato Dante Alighieri of Nijmegen and webmaster of the website www.Dantenijmegen.nl.