The teaching of history in the Netherlands
 

The debate on the Dutch history curriculum polarizes 

On October 30th 2008, twenty-three historians sent a public letter to the Dutch Parliament stating their opposition against the imposition of a Dutch canon in history education. The Dutch government intends to make a canon compulsory in the attainment targets for history for primary and lower secondary schools. Fairly soon, the Dutch parliament will have to decide whether or not the proposal of the Dutch government for imposing the Dutch canon on pupils from 8-14 years of age will be adopted. The twenty-three historians firmly protest against this proposal. It has never happened before, they say, that the Dutch government has interfered in such a detailed way in the freedom of schools to compose their own curriculum. Not only is the choice of the 50 items debatable (according to the historian Piet de Rooy it is ‘a bag of 50 potatoes, a random selection’), it is also based on a not well-thought out didactical concept. There are four considerations of rejections given to the Members of Parliament to think about:

1)      Originally, the canon was not only meant for history, but also for other subjects such as Geography, Dutch and Arts. Nevertheless, the government proposes to add the canon to the core objectives of the ten historical periods, already indicated as a frame of reference in the history curriculum of primary and secondary education in 2005 and 2006. By doing this the government suggests that the canon is a history canon more than a cultural canon. This also means that the program of history to be taught is overloaded and unbalanced.

2)      The canon doesn’t fit or at least is not compatible with the already implemented structure that is compulsory for history education, based on the ten historical periods. This incongruity has been noticed by teachers and is already manifest in schools, textbooks and refresher courses.

3)      The canon is not based on a consistent didactical basis. Sometimes the choice of a canon item is based on considerations of content, sometimes on didactical considerations. Therefore the status of the canon as a basis of an educational program is weak. This is an inevitable result of the interference of the government in the content of the history curriculum on a too detailed level and leads to compromises nobody in the end will be satisfied with. In a free and democratic country like the Netherlands, the government shouldn’t interfere on a too detailed level with the choices concerning content. Therefore it would be better to choose only one legally prescribed guideline: the ten historical periods and the characteristic aspects.

4)      Since 2005 and 2006 the ten historical periods have been implemented in the Dutch schools. Another change to come will be considered by schools as too much and an undesirable interference of the government.

The public letter is signed mainly by historians and teacher trainers working at universities. What unites the signers is not the unanimity on the  premises around the ten historical periods and the characteristic aspects (amongst them are some persons who firmly oppose this approach), but the opposition against the canon as a regulation principle that is based on a prescription with too much detail.

There were two important comments on this public letter. First there was a comment from the canon-committee. There statement is that the canon is very useful and helpful to pupils specially on the level of primary education and vocational education, because it is detailed. It is not prescribed how the 50 items will be taught, but that they will be taught. These items are not only meant for history, but also for other subjects. Together they form the story of the Netherlands. This approach of exceeding the subjects is regarded as a strong concept, meant to oppose the compartmentalization in the heads of pupils by didacticians. The canon is not designed as a history curriculum: the canon is more than history and history is more than the canon. The ten historical periods are designed as a useful tool for pupils to get a grip on chronology. The canon is complementary to the ten historical periods. Prescribed knowledge is useful and helpful in understanding history. This approach is firmly confirmed by teachers in primary and vocational education. It is also confirmed by a parliamentary committee that examined the school system in the Netherlands: the government should not be involved in how to teach but should prescribe what to teach. Of course it is not proper to implement two approaches so quickly after each other, but 1) it definitely filled a gap in history education, 2) it revitalised the interest in history not only amongst pupils but amongst the Dutch population in general and 3) several official governmental and parliament committees complimented the approach of the canon. The conclusion of the canon-committee is therefore: regard the canon not as a problem, but as a chance.

The second comment came from the Dutch history teachers organisation (VGN). The Dutch government gave two committees two different tasks which resulted in two different and sometimes contrary pieces of advice: one supposes general knowledge without mentioning facts and knowledge, the other with a prescription on a detailed level. In actual practice, the VGN says, teachers need more grip on the characteristic aspects. This can be preserved by the canon-items, although they are very much focused on Dutch history. For pupils in primary education, this is not really a problem, because when they go to secondary education, history will be more European and World history. Besides that, it is a guarantee that history will be educated in primary education, where it is up to the schools to fill in the characteristic aspects of the ten historical periods as they like. Together with the development of a lot of historical materials, the increased attention for the content of history is purely a profit and an incentive for history education in primary education. For pupils aged 12-14, the first two years of secondary education, are more problematic. It will be difficult to implement the canon in a combined subject like ‘orientation of the world’. The approach is mostly not chronological but thematical. Implementing the canon will not solve this problem. Besides that, in the few hours a week teaching time, it is not possible to teach the ten historical periods and the 50 canon items and the approaches of other subjects in one. What will remain of history skills and knowledge after the age of 14 when more than half of the Dutch pupils will not be taught in history again? Therefore, the history teachers organisation pleads for emphasising in the law the ten historical periods and, wherever possible, to fill in the characteristic aspects with canon items.

The conclusion up till now is as follows. There is much diversity of opinion on the legal framework of the history curriculum. On the one hand it is positive: it leads to much more attention for history as a subject in the Dutch educational system. On the other hand it divides the world of historians and history teachers. There is agreement that there should be more and also more structured history education, but the question remains of how and what. To get things straight: should the Dutch government prescribe only the characteristics of national-socialism or should they also prescribe who Hitler was? If they describe some facts and knowledge, schools have to pay attention to this, otherwise they can do whatever they like. For the position and the content of history as a subject in primary and vocational education, a more precise description would be a blessing. What remains is the question whether or not the choices that have been made, as well as the didactical approach and the content, should be imposed by the government and so, will this lead to better history education as a whole. As I started my previous article: ‘the Dutch history is a never ending debate’. 

Huub Kurstjens

11-11-2008