OECD Review of Digital Education Policy in the Netherlands

Assessment and recommendations

This chapter summarises the main findings and key recommendations of the OECD Review of Digital Education Policy in the Netherlands. Following the structure of the report, it provides a brief overview of the education system’s context before summarising the strengths and challenges identified in each of the report’s five substantive chapters. The chapter closes with a selection of key policy recommendations addressing the challenges identified by the OECD review team. For a complete overview of the strengths and challenges identified by the OECD review team and the corresponding recommendations, readers are encouraged to refer to the report’s main substantive chapters. The review was undertaken by a team of OECD Secretariat staff and external experts. The findings draw on information provided in a background report prepared by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science; interviews conducted with officials of ministries and central agencies, representatives of stakeholders, local authorities and social partners, as well as school leaders, teachers, parents and students during a review visit in June 2024; and the subsequent analysis of data and documents by the OECD review team.

Context

The Dutch school system is characterised by a high degree of pedagogical diversity and institutional autonomy, including for the use of digital resources

The Dutch school system is characterised by a high degree of pedagogical autonomy and the “freedom of education” guarantees constitutional equality between public and private schools. The principle gives any natural or legal person the right to set up a school and to determine the content, methods and (religious, didactic or ideological) principles on which its teaching is based. The Dutch education system therefore has a large and pedagogically diverse sector of government-dependent private schools. The per-student funding system, combined with parents’ free school choice, has historically created a high degree of competition among schools. Each school is governed by a school board, which oversees its schools’ operations, is accountable for their educational quality and employs teachers and other school staff.

The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, OCW) bears the overall responsibility for the education system and for ensuring its quality. This includes establishing the education system’s legal framework, structure and funding mechanisms. Even though schools are autonomous in determining the content and methods of their teaching, central authorities set binding quality standards and learning goals for both public and private schools, including a set of core objectives (kerndoelen) that students are expected to meet at the end of primary and lower secondary education. The role of the Ministry and central agencies in the Dutch education system is frequently described as establishing objectives (“the what”) through policies, learning goals or quality standards, while leaving it to the school sector to decide how to pursue them (“the how”). A large and diversified intermediary structure of public and private initiatives and support organisations provides schools with expertise and guidance on digital education.

Students’ performance has been declining and socio-economic gaps at the secondary level are wide in international comparison

While historically a high-performing education system, the performance of Dutch students in international assessments has been declining over the past decades. Dutch students in Grade 4 of primary education performed above the OECD average in mathematics but below the average in reading and science in the most recent waves of the TIMSS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study) and PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study) assessments. At the secondary level, 15-year-old students’ average performance in the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has been lower than in any previous assessment for reading, mathematics and science. This drop reinforced a longer-term downward trajectory, particularly in reading and science, where results had been declining at least since 2012. While students continue to perform above the OECD average in mathematics (493 vs. 480 points), their performance now stands at the OECD average in science (488 points) and below the OECD average in reading (459 vs. 482 points). The gap between high-performing and low-performing students in the Netherlands is among the widest of all OECD countries and socio-economic differences in performance are large and increasing in all three PISA domains.

The Netherlands is a highly digitalised society and schools are well-equipped with digital resources

The Netherlands is a highly digitalised society and has been faster than most OECD countries to adopt widespread internet usage. Dutch adults demonstrated strong digital proficiency in the OECD’s first PIAAC Survey of Adult Skills in 2011-12. Only 7% of women and 6% of men reported having no computer experience or failed the ICT core test (compared to 15% and 16% across OECD countries respectively). The latest cycle of PIAAC 2023 confirmed Dutch adults’ strong proficiency in literacy, numeracy and adaptive problem solving, scoring well above the OECD average in all three domains. The Netherlands is also one the OECD countries furthest ahead in the digital transformation of the workplace with one of the highest shares of workers intensively using ICTs on the job (and predominantly performing non-routine tasks), based on the latest available estimates. The widespread availability of digital devices extends to Dutch schools whose principals reported high levels of satisfaction with the digital resources at their disposal. In PISA 2022, only 7.6% of 15-year-old students attended schools whose principal reported a lack of digital resources (compared with 23.9% across OECD countries), with no statistically significant differences between advantaged and disadvantaged schools. Likewise, only 7.5% were in schools whose principal reported that their digital resources were inadequate or of poor quality (significantly below the OECD average of 24.6%).

The majority of students start using digital resources for school at the primary level, though the use of digital resources in secondary schools is moderate

As is the case across OECD countries, digital resources have become an important aspect of school education in the Netherlands. In 2021, a little more than half of fourth-grade primary school students (57%) reported spending “30 minutes or less per school day” using digital resources to find and read information for school in PIRLS (close to the international average of 52%). 23% reported using digital devices more than 30 minutes per day for this purpose and 20% reported not using them at all. The use of digital resources for learning is more widespread at the secondary level but remains moderate in international comparison. On average in PISA 2022, 15-year-old students in the Netherlands reported using digital resources at school for 3.2 hours per day (2.1 hours for learning and 1.1 hours for leisure). This is close to the OECD averages of 2.0 hours for learning and 1.1 hours for leisure, and significantly below countries such as Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Iceland, where students use digital resources for learning at school for 3 hours or more each day.

Although Dutch students feel confident in using technology for remote learning, many students’ digital skills remain below a basic level

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many Dutch students used digital technology for remote instruction while schools were closed and they expressed a high level of confidence in their ability to do so in PISA 2022. More than two thirds of 15-year-old students (69%) reported that they feel confident or very confident about using a learning-management system or school learning platform (OECD average: 74%) and 75% reported the same for finding learning resources online on their own (OECD average: 73%). Nevertheless, the direct assessment of Dutch students’ digital literacy as part of the 2023 International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) showed mixed results. 57% of students in Grade 8 (typically around the age of 14) scored below Level 2 in computer and information literacy (CIL), which is considered the minimum level needed to participate effectively in a digital society. Although these weak results were close to the average of participating countries (51%), they highlight that many students in Grade 8 are not equipped to effectively process and assess the reliability of digital information. Likewise, students scored significantly below the international average in computational thinking (CT) skills, which involves such abilities as tackling complex problems by breaking them down into smaller sub-problems that a person or computer can resolve, as well as algorithmic thinking and other cognitive process at the heart of computer programming.

An ongoing curriculum reform revises students’ learning objectives and aims to strengthen their basic skills, including digital literacy

Schools in the Netherlands enjoy a high level of autonomy in determining their teaching content and methods and there is no national curriculum in the conventional sense. Instead, teaching in Dutch schools is guided by a national curriculum framework that provides a basis for the development of curricula at the school level. The framework includes core objectives (kerndoelen), two reference frameworks (referentiekader) for Dutch language and mathematics/arithmetic, as well as examination programmes (examenprogramma) for upper secondary education. The core objectives developed by the Institute for Curriculum Development (Stichting Leerplan Ontwikkeling, SLO) specify broad learning goals that students are expected to reach at the end of primary and lower secondary education. Schools are expected to develop their curricula with these core objectives in mind and are held to account for ensuring their students’ success in meeting the targets. Established in 1993 and last revised in 2006, the core objectives are currently subject to a large-scale curriculum reform, which will see the introduction of core objectives for four basic skills, which will encompass the new learning areas citizenship (burgerschap) and digital literacy (digitale geletterdheid) alongside core objectives in Dutch language and mathematics/arithmetic.

Strengths and challenges

Digital education is recognised as a key priority, but lacks a strategic longer-term vision with a clear action plan, outlining targets, timeframes and responsibilities

The Netherlands recognises the important role of digitalisation and the promotion of digital skills for its long-term economic development, as reflected in the country’s New Dutch Digitalisation Strategy, the Digital Economy Strategy and the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education. Education will be instrumental in realising the country’s ambitions by providing future generations with the skills they need to thrive in a digital economy and society. This emphasis is reflected in a number of significant policy initiatives, including the addition of digital literacy to the curriculum’s core objectives, the development of a Digital Literacy Expertise Centre, and the Basic Skills Master Plan, whose subsidy scheme has supported digital education and digital literacy in many schools. Significant financial investment in digital education, including in digital devices during the pandemic as well as a series of ambitious projects funded by the National Growth Fund, underline the status of digital education as a strategic priority. Nevertheless, the development of digital education policy in the Netherlands is impeded by the lack of an up-to-date strategy that articulates a clear vision for the sector and an action plan to achieve it. While the 2019 Digitalisation Agenda constituted an important milestone at the time, it fails to link strategic goals to specific initiatives, assign clear responsibilities to advance them and provide measurable and time-bound targets to monitor progress. This has made it difficult to co-ordinate the contributions of the different actors and stakeholders involved and to rally them around a clear set of priorities to enhance the quality and equity of digital education.

The development of digital education policy is based on a strong commitment to co-creation, but lacks central steering and co-ordination in some areas

An important strength of digital education in the Netherlands is the commitment to co-creation and the involvement of key stakeholders in policy development and central digital education initiatives. Many of the sector’s recent advancements have been developed in close collaboration between OCW, the sector organisations representing school boards in primary and secondary education (PO-Raad and VO-raad), specialised agencies, including Kennisnet and SLO, as well as stakeholder groups, industry representatives and researchers. This commitment to co-creation and willingness of highly committed stakeholders to co-operate has been critical to build consensus and advance shared priorities in an autonomous education system marked by a high degree of complexity. Nevertheless, the approach comes with challenges, including significant co-ordination demands, transaction costs and a lack of clarity around responsibilities and accountability. The emphasis on decentralised governance and sector-leadership has also led to perceived inconsistencies in OCW’s approach to central steering and co-ordination. The digital transformation has confronted the school sector with new challenges that may require greater central support or intervention to safeguard the quality and equity of education. This notably concerns issues such as digital security and privacy in schools as well as quality assurance in the market for education materials and EdTech. OCW’s limited role in central steering and in co-ordinating relevant actors also limits the system’s ability to generate synergies and to ensure the alignment of important initiatives at the heart of the digital education ecosystem.

The monitoring and evaluation of digital education is hindered by limited strategic guidance and co-ordination of data collections

The Netherlands has a strong culture of evaluation and assessment, and multiple data collections generate relevant information on the state of digital education. Nevertheless, the monitoring and evaluation of digital education is insufficiently co-ordinated, suffers from data limitations and is weakly linked to strategic priorities. Monitoring the implementation of policy initiatives and reforms is critical to keep track of progress, ensure accountability and adapt initiatives at all levels of the education system. Yet, while monitoring, evaluation and assessment are a well-developed component of the Dutch education system in general, systematic evaluation is more limited when it comes to digital education. Although NGF-funded projects on digital education are supported by strong monitoring and evaluation provisions, the central Digitalisation Agenda does not include measurable targets, implementation timeframes or performance indicators. The lack of an evaluation framework that links strategic goals for digital education to specific indicators limits the potential to evaluate progress at the central or school level. The fragmented responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation of digital education contribute to this challenge, as does the lack of a shared understanding of key concepts (such as the quality of digital education and materials or digitally skilled teachers) that could guide monitoring and evaluation efforts. The limited mandate of the inspectorate, whose framework does not yet include schools’ ability to promote students’ digital literacy or comply with technical standards concerning information security and privacy further limits the available evidence on schools’ progress towards central goals for digital education.

Digital devices are widely available in schools, but a reliance on parental contributions and inconsistent support for disadvantaged families risk exacerbating digital divides

With the widespread availability of digital devices in schools, broadband connections and strong digital proficiency among the adult population, the Netherlands’ digital infrastructure provides a strong basis for the effective use of digital education technology. Dutch schools have invested significantly in their digital infrastructure over the past few years and targeted central investment during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a further expansion of the availability of digital devices. Results from the PISA 2022 survey indicate that principals of 15-year-olds are, on the whole, satisfied with the availability of digital resources in their schools. There is also little evidence of systematic socio-economic differences in the quality of digital resources in schools, with the exception of schools with a high concentration of immigrant students, whose leaders are more likely to report having inadequate or poor-quality digital resources. Nevertheless, socio-economic gaps in the access to digital resources persist. Many secondary schools operate Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policies and – since they are not classified as essential learning materials under the Free Textbooks Act – rely on parental purchases or contributions to fund digital devices for students. While schools are legally required to offer “a good alternative” and unrestricted participation to students whose families do not pay the voluntary contributions, investigations suggest that many parents remain insufficiently informed that contributions are voluntary or that there are alternatives for those unable to pay. As a result, some parents feel pressured to purchase devices and there is a risk of inequities in students’ access to high-quality devices.

A greater emphasis on co-operation has improved schools’ position in the market for digital resources, though it remains less developed at the primary level

The autonomy of Dutch schools to select and purchase digital education resources gives them a significant degree of liberty to tailor the digital devices, learning materials and software they use to fit their pedagogical approach. In doing so, they can draw on a diversified network of private intermediaries and product or service providers. At the same time, this decentralised approach to the selection and procurement of digital resources has raised concerns about inefficiencies due to diseconomies of scale and the limited market power of schools vis-a-vis an increasingly consolidated set of providers. To address this challenge, the Ministry and stakeholder organisations have taken important steps to promote the voluntary co-operation between schools, notably through SIVON, an association of school boards that supports the joint procurement of digital education resources. A growing number of school boards have joined the initiative, which created significant economies of scale and strengthened their bargaining power in the market for digital education materials. However, the growth of the SIVON’s membership has slowed since late 2021 and remains skewed towards larger school boards. Participation is also significantly lower among small school boards and schools at the primary level, where SIVON covered only about a third of all school boards at the end of 2024 (compared to over 70% of secondary school boards).

Targeted funding has been mobilised to support digital education, but support has been time-bound, fragmented and not systematically aligned with education priorities

Advancing the digital transformation of education in Dutch schools requires significant investment to ensure that teachers and students benefit from a secure and high-quality digital education infrastructure and are well-prepared to make effective use of digital technologies for teaching and learning. To fulfil this objective, central authorities have mobilised significant resources in recent years, notably through the National Growth Fund (Nationaal Groeifonds, NGF), which supports the National Education Lab AI (Nationaal Onderwijslab AI, NOLAI), Impulse Open Learning Materials (IOL), Edu-V and the National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers (Nationale Aanpak Professionalisering van Leraren, NAPL). The decentralised governance of education funding and the significant autonomy that Dutch schools enjoy in allocating their resources limits central authorities’ ability to steer spending choices and the level of investment in digital education at the school level. Nevertheless, OCW has responded flexibly to emerging needs by targeting additional resources to support policy priorities related to digital education with targeted subsidies and initiatives. This has enabled the system to rapidly mobilise resources, for example through the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy, which aims to improve students’ basic skills, including in digital literacy. Likewise, funding from the National Education Programme (NPO) has helped some schools to strengthen their use of digital education technology following the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the positive impact of these supplementary resources, there are several drawbacks to a reliance on this “non-systematic” funding, which raise concerns about its effectiveness and sustainability. Resources provided to schools outside their main lump sum are time-bound, which creates uncertainty and makes it difficult for schools to develop a sustained, strategic approach to important issues like the promotion of students’ digital literacy or capacity building for digital education. There are also concerns that a reliance on subsidies creates inequities due to uneven take-up, given that schools need to actively apply for them.

Important steps have been taken to ensure security and privacy in schools’ digital education infrastructure

Along with new opportunities for teaching and learning, the use of digital education technologies in schools brings risks and the challenge to ensure digital security and the protection of sensitive data. There is a widespread recognition of this challenge in the Netherlands and, since 2019, important steps have been taken to ensure security and privacy in schools’ digital education infrastructure. A central component of this effort is the Digital Safe Education (Digitaal Veilig Onderwijs, DVO) programme, which supports schools in ensuring a digitally secure learning environment. Since 2023, DVO has developed a Standards Framework for Information Security and Privacy for Education (Normenkader informatiebeveiliging en privacy [IBP] voor het onderwijs), which school boards and schools will be expected to comply with by the end of 2027. The DVO standards for schools are complemented by a number of additional efforts, including the Edu-V system of agreements (afsprakenstelsel), which issues quality labels for providers of digital education resources that comply with standards concerning – among other things - the secure and standardised exchange of data. Under the umbrella of the DVO, Kennisnet and SIVON, are also setting up a Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) for primary and secondary education, which will advise school boards on resolving and quickly recovering from cybersecurity incidents and monitor and disseminate information about threats. Another important element in strengthening schools’ digital security is SIVON’s Safe Internet (Veilig Internet) service, which allows schools to procure a fast internet connection including a professionally managed Cloud firewall designed to protect them from DDoS and other cyber-attacks. Taken together, these elements mark significant steps to ensure that Dutch schools are well protected against privacy and information security risks.

Consolidation in the market for digital education materials and new product structures risk limiting flexibility and teachers’ professional agency

The Ministry of Education is committed to protecting schools’ constitutional right to freely choose learning materials that are aligned with their educational projects, enabled by a dynamic market of diverse providers, as well as a strong infrastructure of open educational resources (OER). The market for education materials in the Netherlands is highly concentrated and dominated by a small number of publishing houses and distributors. The increasing use of digital education materials as well as the advent of new licensing models (LiFo) have transformed the education materials market in recent years, diminishing the role of distributors, particularly at the secondary level, and prompting publishers to expand horizontally, for example by acquiring digital learning platforms. New licensing models have also attracted criticism for their limited flexibility and for making it harder for schools to switch providers or combine learning materials from different sources. Although the increasing emphasis on co-operation and joint procurement have strengthened the position of schools and school boards in relation to a highly consolidated supply side, these developments have raised concerns about further concentration in the market. Furthermore, the increasing cost of education materials has placed pressure on schools’ budgets and their ability to access high-quality learning materials.

There are efforts to strengthen the domestic EdTech sector, but barriers to entry are high and international players limit the ability to enforce local standards

Strengthening the domestic EdTech sector is a priority for the Dutch authorities and the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education emphasises co-operation between the education sector and the business community as an important means to realise its ambitions for digital education. The domestic EdTech sector is seen as playing a vital role in ensuring a diverse offer of digital resources that are culturally and linguistically relevant, aligned with the Dutch education system’s values and legal framework, and that responds to the heterogeneity of pedagogical approaches and needs protected by the freedom of education. The commitment to this vision has been demonstrated by public support for initiatives like NOLAI, which actively foster co-creation processes between the EdTech sector, academic research and education practitioners, as well as by support for collaboration within the EdTech sector through initiatives such as Dutch EdTech. The development of technical standards for interoperability and the free transfer of data through the Edu-V initiative can help to maintain a flexible and diverse offer and lower barriers to entry in the EdTech market. Nevertheless, the increasingly consolidated market for EdTech and education materials as well as its unique structure present a challenge for new market entrants. Given the highly fragmented demand-side and the absence of a central marketplace, large providers face a competitive advantage as they can build on established relationships with schools, distributors and private education consultancies, and provide digital infrastructure and bundled services at scale. The absence of widely recognised quality criteria or processes for testing technologies in the field also makes it difficult for emerging EdTech companies to gain trust and demonstrate their products’ effectiveness. Although the Netherlands has had significant success in negotiating agreements around privacy and data security with international tech companies in the past, the internationalisation of the market is making it increasingly difficult to enforce standards related to privacy, data security and interoperability at the national level.

Schools and teachers face difficulties navigating the market for digital learning materials and software

Schools and teachers in the Netherlands face challenges in identifying digital resources and EdTech products that are adapted to their needs and in judging their efficacy based on reliable evaluations. Educators rely on informal networks and word of mouth, educational conferences or contacts with private providers and education consultancies to discover new digital education tools. While schools’ freedom to choose learning materials and software that are adapted to their needs is widely supported and constitutionally protected, the lack of transparent information can limit their ability to exercise this freedom and make informed pedagogical decisions in practice. Notably, there is no central, trusted platform providing teachers and schools with a comprehensive overview of learning software or systematic information on their quality and effectiveness. Existing public repositories, such as Kennisnet’s FORA Software Catalogue and Edurep (a metadata repository designed to help schools search for education materials), are not widely known or designed to facilitate teachers’ search for different types of resources and a professional exchange on their use. Private platforms, on the other hand, tend to be restricted to paying customers or provide access to a limited range of products. Furthermore, school boards, school leaders and teachers vary in their capacity to navigate the EdTech market, which can exacerbate inequities in their ability to access and make effective use of high-quality digital resources. Yet, some efforts have been undertaken to respond to these concerns and strengthen schools’ capacity to select learning materials, including digital resources, that are adapted to their needs.

There is no systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of digital education resources, though momentum to develop quality standards is growing

The lack of a systematic approach to evaluating the effectiveness of digital learning resources in the Netherlands poses a significant challenge for efforts to enhance their quality and promote innovation. An important factor holding back a more systematic approach to the evaluation of digital education resources is the lack of an agreed definition of effectiveness or quality criteria for EdTech and digital education materials. Furthermore, schools are not equipped to strategically trial or evaluate the quality of digital resources, which means that they risk being tested in classrooms with insufficient safeguards. EdTech developers, on the other hand, face difficulties when trying to test their products in a safe and regulated environment. The absence of clear responsibilities for assessing the impact of digital tools in schools compounds this challenge. Although there have been important efforts to monitor the digitalisation of education in the Netherlands, e.g. through the MYRA survey, there is no designated authority or agency responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of digital education resources and their impact on student learning. Momentum is building among stakeholder groups as well as industry representatives to develop standards for the substantive quality of education materials. Different models are currently considered, including the development of non-binding quality labels or certifications aimed at fostering a culture of quality awareness among educators and providers alike. This emerging consensus speaks to the strong value that stakeholders from across the Dutch education system place on the quality of learning materials and should be built on.

Many teachers embrace the purposeful integration of digital education technology but schools’ capacity to promote the effective use of digital resources varies

During interviews conducted with teachers, school leaders and other education stakeholders, the OECD review team formed the impression that Dutch educators, on the whole, have a nuanced attitude towards the use of digital education technology and emphasise its purposeful integration. While the MYRA survey and the Inspectorate’s Peil.Digital Literacy survey underlined teachers’ belief that ICT use can positively impact students’ learning and performance, results from TALIS 2024 indicate that only 60% of lower secondary teachers thought the use of digital resources and tools helps students to improve their academic performance. This assessment might reflect an adjustment of teachers’ expectations and points to their awareness of the challenges associated with the effective integration of digital technology. While the self-reported data suggest that Dutch teachers and school leaders are confident in using and teaching with ICT on average, it provides policy makers with limited information on Dutch teachers’ actual digital competency, as well as the significant variation that likely persists in schools’ and teachers’ capacity to promote the effective use of digital resources.

Significant investment in teachers’ professional learning presents an opportunity to strengthen their capacity in priority areas, including digital education

Teachers are not required to engage in continuing professional learning (CPL) and while they are entitled to 16 hours of CPL per year, many face barriers that prevent them from taking up this opportunity. In TALIS 2024, 59% of Dutch teachers reported that conflicts with their work schedule presented a barrier to their participation in professional learning – a problem likely exacerbated by teacher shortages. Dutch teachers’ access to CPL also strongly depends on the opportunities provided by their school boards and there is no agreed upon competency framework that could guide their professional development on digital education. Despite these challenges, significant investment provides an opportunity to promote teachers’ engagement in professional learning and to systematically strengthen their capacity in priority areas, including digital education. The National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers (NAPL) will make up to EUR 160 million from the National Growth Fund available for teachers’ professional learning over a 10-year period. The project’s ambitions include the creation of a training register and development paths for teachers, as well as regional co-creation labs and a digital knowledge sharing platform. Plans also include the development of quality standards, which present an important step to strengthen the focus on quality and effectiveness in professional learning. This work could make it easier for Dutch teachers to identify high-quality CPL opportunities that fit their needs, schedule and professional development goals.

The lack of an established professional organisation limits teachers’ ability to shape the future of their profession in light of technological changes

The development and increased use of intelligent technologies in education will change the role of education professionals. AI may help to reduce teachers’ administrative burden, assist them in routine tasks and support their work in areas from assessment to lesson preparation and learning analytics. One of the most promising potential uses of advanced technologies is their ability to personalise learning, e.g. by tailoring students’ learning paths to their needs and performance, by providing targeted feedback and by enabling more independent learning. This may empower teachers to provide more in-depth and individualised support to students who need it most. Using such technologies effectively requires teachers to understand their pedagogical integration, to interpret the data they generate and to identify errors or biases they may introduce. As the use of intelligent technologies becomes more common, the “human role” of the teacher – e.g. in building relationships and monitoring students’ well-being – will remain irreplaceable. Exploring how digitalisation is reshaping what it means to be a teacher, as well as the skills, competencies and profiles it will require, should fall to teachers themselves. While teachers’ opinions are frequently consulted at all levels of the Dutch education system, the absence of an organisation focussed on the development of the profession means that their involvement is often ad hoc and their professional voice is fragmented. First steps towards rebuilding such a professional organisation with support from major unions and OCW, including the development of a professional profile for teachers (Beroepsbeeld Leraar), are promising. A new professional body could empower teachers to elevate the status of their profession and shape their future roles as they continue to evolve with technological change.

The market for education consultancies responds to diverse needs arising from the digital transformation of schools but lacks quality assurance mechanisms

School improvement support in the Netherlands is largely privatised and schools benefit from a highly dynamic market of education consultancies (adviesbureaus) that respond flexibly to their needs. Kennisnet has ceased to provide direct support to individual schools and instead focussed its activities on supporting the entire school sector in 2015. Since then, central authorities’ role in providing, steering and monitoring the support available to schools has further diminished, which has led to some challenges for the sector. Some schools and school boards have long-standing relationships with education consultancies that provide them with targeted support in line with their pedagogical approach, ranging from teacher training, to learning software and the implementation of new regulations. Given the fragmentation of the market, however, schools have limited oversight over the services on offer and the OECD review team formed the impression that most schools tend to stick to providers they know, rather than comparing competing offers. Despite first steps towards the sector’s self-regulation, the quality of private advisory services remains largely unregulated, raising concerns about whether they provide the best value for public funding. There is also a risk that more isolated schools and those in greatest need of support can or do not access the services they need to improve their use of digital technology. Although Kennisnet and other organisations offer some direct support, for example to i-coaches, the ministry and inspectorate do not currently have a legal mandate or effective mechanism to regulate or evaluate the quality of the support schools receive from private providers.

The curriculum reform is an important step to improve digital education and literacy, but limited co-ordination risks reducing synergies in its implementation

The ongoing revision of the national curriculum framework is widely supported and aligned with the country’s ambition to strengthen students’ basic skills, including their digital literacy. The reform introduces statutory core objectives for digital literacy, which were developed by SLO drawing on the experience of stakeholders across the education system. This inclusive approach has been critical to ensure the buy-in in a highly autonomous school system. The curriculum’s implementation will have far-reaching consequences for educational practice and requires strong co-ordination and a whole-of-system approach to succeed. This means involving and co-ordinating a wide range of actors, including central agencies like SLO, Kennisnet and the inspectorate, teacher training institutions, stakeholder groups, schools and teachers, as well as private publishing companies and education consultancies. Each of them will play a vital role in the implementation of the new curriculum and they will need to align their efforts on matters ranging from initial teacher preparation to quality assurance. However, limited central steering and the absence of a clear road map guiding the curriculum reform process has reduced the potential for synergies between key actors and initiatives. This includes, for example, preparing providers of initial teacher education as well as private education consultancies to offer schools and teachers with targeted support to implement the new core objectives as well as ensuring that the revised curriculum framework can inform other initiatives, such as the NAPL or the development of open educational resources as part of the IOL project. During the OECD review visit, stakeholders have therefore expressed a need for OCW to take a stronger role in setting goals and strategic directions to guide their collaboration in the context of the curriculum reform.

While important capacity building initiatives are underway, additional efforts are needed to ensure that all schools are prepared to implement the digital literacy core objectives

While the design and content of school curricula is important, their success depends on schools’ and teachers’ capacity to implement curriculum changes in practice. This is particularly important for new learning areas, such as digital literacy, that teachers are less experienced with. Recognising the need to strengthen their capacity in this area, several central actors, including Kennisnet, SLO and the inspectorate, have taken steps to prepare school leaders and teachers for the implementation of the new curriculum framework. This includes the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy (Subsidie Verbetering Basisvaardigheden), which many schools have used to invest in their capacity for digital education. Likewise, the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre (Expertisepunt digitale geletterdheid), established in 2023, aims to connect different actors involved in digital literacy education (including regular subject teachers, i-coaches and developers of learning materials) to provide them with information about digital literacy and effective educational practices in this evolving learning area. Nevertheless, while some teachers and schools are already preparing for the introduction of the new core objectives, others are less advanced. Until the new core objectives will be adopted as a statutory part of the national curriculum framework, the inspectorate has limited scope to monitor and encourage schools’ preparation to teach digital literacy. This makes it difficult to assess whether schools are adequately prepared for upcoming reforms and to direct targeted support where it is needed the most.

The revised curriculum framework provides teachers with additional guidance and could foster a more active engagement with digital literacy learning goals

Although Dutch schools need to align their curricula with the statutory core objectives of the national curriculum framework, teachers’ active engagement with the objectives has been limited so far. Last revised in 2006, the core objectives offer limited support when designing school-based curricula and, given their broad nature and exclusive applicability to the end of primary and lower secondary education, most teachers rely on materials produced by private publishers for guidance when designing their lesson plans instead. These observations are consistent with PISA 2022 data, which highlights that Dutch teachers rely extensively on third-party materials when developing their teaching programmes. For many teachers, the products of major education publishers constitute a valuable source of inspiration and guidance when designing learning programmes and lessons. Nevertheless, an over-reliance on established learning materials can limit teachers’ active, critical and creative engagement with central learning goals and their ability to tailor their instruction to students’ specific needs in line with their schools’ pedagogical orientation. The new core objectives and examination programmes are designed to promote a more active engagement with statutory learning goals by offering additional guidance and support for teachers and schools to develop their own curricula. The continuous learning strands (doorlopende leerlijnen) and content lines (inhoudslijnen), which provide non-binding suggestions for how the core objectives could be articulated across levels of education, promise to give teachers more support in their role as designers of learning. Nevertheless, strengthening teachers' agency and their active engagement with learning goals will take time and require a broader cultural shift, based on the active involvement of the teaching profession.

Policy recommendations

Update and strengthen the strategic vision for digital education to effectively guide improvements in the digital policy ecosystem

The Netherlands should develop an updated and strengthened strategic vision for digital education that can effectively guide policy development in line with the broader Dutch Digitalisation Strategy. While the existing Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education outlines general aspirations, it lacks clearly articulated strategic goals for the medium and long term, as well as a roadmap detailing how these goals will be realised, which limits its effectiveness as a tool for policy development. To ensure its effective implementation, the updated strategy should include clearly defined goals, time-bound targets, assigned responsibilities, designated budgets and measurable indicators for monitoring and evaluation. This would provide greater clarity, foster accountability and strengthen the coherence of the digital education policy ecosystem. Such clarity is also essential to support the alignment between system-level ambitions and school-level practices and to identify shared goals and potential synergies during the strategy’s implementation. Effective communication and stakeholder engagement are also critical to foster a shared understanding about the roles and responsibilities of different actors in relation to strategic objectives. The development of a new strategy should be inclusive to build a shared understanding and sense of ownership among a broad range of stakeholders, including teacher unions, student and business representatives, sub-central authorities and relevant ministries.

Clarify the role of central steering in digital education and balance guidance, quality assurance and pedagogical autonomy more effectively

In light of the complex and decentralised governance of the Dutch education system, a key challenge is to clarify the role of central steering in digital education. In deciding where greater central involvement would be desirable, the most important consideration should be the public interest and ensuring a value-driven digitalisation process. Greater central steering may also be warranted in areas where the limited size or capacity of individual schools or school boards impedes their ability to exercise their autonomy effectively. The digital transformation has exposed limitations in the current division of responsibilities, revealing a need for more proactive central co-ordination and steering on issues such as digital security, privacy, market regulation and interoperability. These issues often require specialised legal or technical expertise that is not available to all schools or school boards and they can therefore sometimes be more efficiently managed at a higher level. Central steering in these domains does not preclude school autonomy but can support schools in fulfilling their responsibilities. The implementation of new Standards Framework for Information Security and Privacy for Education (Normenkader informatiebeveiliging en privacy [IBP] voor het onderwijs) exemplifies how central authorities can set enforceable standards while allowing schools to retain control over their implementation, supported by intermediary bodies such as the PO-Raad, VO-raad, SIVON and Kennisnet.

OCW should also assume a more proactive role in co-ordinating the diverse initiatives and actors involved in digital education. Stakeholders have expressed concerns regarding fragmented efforts, unclear responsibilities and missed opportunities for synergies. Stronger co-ordination is needed across a range of policy areas, including curriculum reform, teachers’ professional learning, quality assurance of digital learning materials and digital safety. Mechanisms such as regular multi-stakeholder meetings or thematic steering committees could strengthen collaboration and coherence if guided by a clear roadmap, which could be laid out in a renewed strategic vision for digital education, (discussed above). To address the slow pace of the legislative process, OCW should consider strategies to accelerate reforms, such as promoting voluntary multi-stakeholder agreements in consensus areas or using more agile regulatory instruments in close consultation with the sector organisations. Lastly, OCW should review and, if necessary, revise the mandates of key agencies to enhance their alignment with strategic objectives and reduce duplication and fragmentation. The consolidation of initiatives or integration under shared governance structures should be considered where appropriate, to create synergies and provide clearer support structures for schools. This may include the further integration of agencies such as SIVON and Kennisnet, or greater co-ordination among the Expertise Centres supporting schools’ implementation of the basic skills, including digital literacy.

Develop a framework for the system-level monitoring and evaluation of digital education that is aligned with strategic priorities and leverages existing data

The Netherlands should develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework for digital education that is aligned with the strategic vision for digitalisation and supports evidence-informed decision making. Current M&E activities are fragmented and lack a systematic connection to strategic goals, which limits the capacity of stakeholders to assess their progress towards agreed objectives, identify implementation challenges and ensure accountability. A coherent and well-structured M&E framework is essential to monitor the quality and equity of digital education, digital security and privacy in schools, the implementation of new core objectives for digital literacy, and teachers’ digital capacity. The starting point for such a framework should be a strategic vision for digital education that includes measurable, time-bound targets and related indicators. The framework should be designed based on wide stakeholder consultation to determine the strategic objectives to be monitored, the frequency of data collections and the distribution of responsibilities.

The system-level monitoring of digital education should build on existing data sources wherever possible to ensure efficiency and minimise the reporting burden on schools. These include data collected by the inspectorate, the PO-Raad and VO-raad. These data sources could be complemented to include indicators related to digital education, such as schools’ cybersecurity provisions or the implementation of digital learning strategies. Where gaps remain, targeted surveys or other data sources, such as the evidence generated by the DVO programme, could be mobilised. System-level evaluations should not only aim to measure the use of digital technologies but the quality of their pedagogical integration and their impact on a range of student outcomes, including their cognitive skills, digital literacy and well-being. The impact of digital education policies should draw on a range of methods and integrate established evaluation processes, such as those established as part of the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy and by NOLAI. These efforts should support continuous learning and improvement across the system, ensuring that digital education contributes meaningfully to educational quality and equity.

Further strengthen school leaders’ and school boards’ capacity to strategically manage their investment in digital education resources

School leaders are central to the successful digital transformation of education in the Netherlands. However, not all are equally equipped to make strategic decisions in the context of newly emerging technologies, a transforming learning materials market, and limited evidence on effective digital practices. Strengthening school leaders’ and school boards’ capacity to invest effectively in digital education and support their teachers’ effective use of technology is essential to avoid widening disparities between schools. The professional profiles for school leaders already recognise the importance of resource management. To remain fit for purpose, these profiles should explicitly address the development and implementation of a pedagogical vision for digital education in their schools. This should be supported by a coherent offer of professional learning, including targeted courses such as those already developed on the new DVO standards. Opportunities for voluntary peer learning on efficient investment in digital technology should be expanded for school leaders serving under different school boards, e.g. by matching school leaders using financial and digital usage data. School boards play a critical role in supporting school leaders. Their capacity varies significantly, particularly in areas such as ICT support, procurement and data privacy compliance. The accreditation process for board members under development is a positive step toward ensuring that all schools benefit from effective and informed oversight that is responsive to schools’ diverse needs. The expansion of the accreditation process should also provide opportunities for peer learning across boards.

Create a targeted funding mechanism for school improvement priorities, including digital education, and associated accountability mechanisms

Subsidies have been an important means for the government to support schools in addressing key priorities and channel additional resources to areas of greatest need, including the improvement of digital education. However, the reliance on time-bound subsidies has created challenges related to sustainability, equity and co-ordination. Targeted funding of limited duration has made it difficult for schools to implement sustainable strategies for school improvement, placed an administrative burden on schools, and inconsistently aligned with education priorities. Plans for the development of a new earmarked funding mechanism should address these challenges. It should provide automatic support to all eligible schools, linked to central priorities and accompanied by accountability mechanisms, while offering flexibility for schools to tailor the funds to their pedagogical context. Schools receiving the funds should develop implementation plans that are integrated with their school planning cycles and self-evaluations. These plans could outline how funds are used to address specific priorities, including digital literacy, the implementation of digital security standards or teacher’s digital preparedness. A menu of evidence-based practices, regularly updated, could guide schools without imposing prescriptive measures. Digital education could be included as a mandatory area of activity, given its cross-cutting importance for the system’s quality, equity and resilience. Support mechanisms should be reinforced to ensure value for money and the effective implementation of the funding. School boards, participation councils and the Inspectorate should be involved in planning, oversight and the provision of targeted support. The funding model should allow for differentiated allocations based on schools’ needs, be aligned with the regular school year, and include mechanisms to consolidate existing subsidies where appropriate. This approach would enable long-term planning, a more equitable access to resources, and stronger alignment between funding, national priorities and school-level activities.

Ensure that the rules on parental contributions are observed and support the equitable access to digital devices

Access to digital devices has become essential for students in Dutch schools, particularly at the secondary level. Most schools rely on parents to provide these devices. Despite legal provisions designed to ensure that parental contributions are voluntary, many parents report feeling obligated to purchase devices and are not adequately informed of alternatives. This ambiguity, combined with the lack of designated funding, places a disproportionate burden on disadvantaged schools and families. To address this, OCW should strengthen the enforcement of existing rules on parental contributions. Schools must clearly communicate that contributions for digital devices are voluntary and that non-payment will not affect students’ access to learning. The inspectorate should monitor compliance, support schools in reducing reliance on parental payments and sanction practices that violate these rules. The implication of providing students with a “good alternative” should be made more explicit, which – in secondary education – would almost certainly entail offering digital devices to students for both school and home use. Schools should be resourced accordingly. Reimbursing schools based on unmet parental contributions, either through direct funding or in kind via SIVON, would reduce incentives to apply pressure on families. At the same time, experts should periodically review whether digital devices qualify as essential learning materials under the Free Textbooks Act. If this classification is confirmed, given their increasingly central role for students’ learning activities, schools’ core funding would need to be increased sufficiently to enable the provision of digital resources without having to rely on parental contributions.

Enable SIVON to provide procurement support to the entire sector and advance the implementation of sector-wide technical standards

Joint procurement through SIVON has enabled participating schools to reduce costs, ease their administrative burden and strengthen their bargaining position in an increasingly consolidated market for education materials. SIVON’s collaboration with Kennisnet on initiatives such as the Safe Internet offer, the DVO privacy and security standards, and Edu-V agreements on data exchange has further enhanced the quality and security of schools’ digital infrastructure. However, SIVON’s core services are limited to its memberships and smaller school boards remain underrepresented among its users. To fully realise the potential of collective procurement and to support the implementation of sector-wide technical standards, SIVON should be repositioned as a provider of services for the entire sector. This should be facilitated by a closer integration with Kennisnet, building on their existing collaboration and recent plans for a strategic reorientation of SIVON. A rigorous evaluation of the financial and operational benefits of SIVON’s services would strengthen the case for universal provision. Closer alignment between SIVON’s procurement activities and the implementation of standards developed by DVO and Edu-V would also encourage compliance by suppliers and promote quality and interoperability in the digital education ecosystem.

Strengthen the provision of technical expertise to support the implementation of information security and privacy standards

Ensuring that all school boards comply with the DVO’s IBP Standards Framework by 2027 is a critical step in the digital transformation of Dutch education. However, compliance remains limited and many schools lack the technical and legal expertise needed to meet the standards. Given the complexity and sector-wide nature of this challenge, there is a strong case for the central provision of support to guarantee equitable access to high-quality expertise. Currently, neither Kennisnet nor DVO can provide direct advice to schools. Establishing and resourcing an expertise centre at the national or regional level would help schools in assessing risks and defining priorities to improve their information security and privacy provisions. This approach is likely to be more cost-effective than relying on private providers and could reduce the risk and cost of data breaches. Alternatively, it should be studied whether cybersecurity specialists could be contracted through centrally managed framework agreements by SIVON. Expanding SIVON’s service portfolio to cover other identified gaps, for example in the provision of IT maintenance or security support, would also make its offer more attractive to small school boards that do not currently have the capacity to provide these services at scale. Strengthening this provision is essential to meet the 2027 target and to ensure a secure digital education environment.

Create a national framework for the evaluation of digital education resources with clear governance structures and improved access to information

Strong quality assurance mechanisms are essential to ensure that the digital education resources used in schools are effective, safe and ethically sound and that teachers can make informed, evidence-based decisions on their use. While schools and teachers should retain the freedom to choose education materials in line with their needs, the technical complexity and rapid evolution of EdTech require a system-wide approach to quality assurance, built on clear quality criteria, robust evaluation mechanisms and clearly defined responsibilities. A central co-ordinating body should be established to oversee the development of an evaluation framework for digital resources based on pedagogical, technical and ethical standards. This body would be responsible for developing quality standards and monitoring processes, and for ensuring their alignment with national education goals. It should work in close collaboration with central authorities, school boards, teachers, developers of education materials and independent evaluators. Kennisnet is well positioned to assume a leadership role in this process, but fulfilling this function would require additional resources and organisational restructuring to ensure it can deliver systematic, rigorous and independent evaluation services. School boards should also play a key role in supporting the development of the evaluation framework and relaying feedback on the needs of schools, teachers and learners, as well as the practical utility of digital education resources.

Quality standards for digital education resources should be co-designed with teachers and other key stakeholders to assess materials in a way that is pedagogically neutral and applicable to all schools. Standards should address not only technical criteria but also educational efficacy, effectiveness, accessibility and ethical considerations (especially for tools involving AI). The framework should provide methodological guidance and sufficient flexibility to cover a range of products and to integrate multiple types of evidence generated across different evaluation settings, e.g. in the form of evidence portfolios. This would also strengthen the feedback loop between schools, researchers and developers, and offer EdTech providers a clear path for innovative solutions to be rigorously tested and aligned with education objectives. To disseminate evaluation results, the Netherlands should consider creating a neutral, central platform or catalogue that is designed to help teachers and schools find digital education resources that are suited to their needs. This catalogue could be integrated with the Reference Architecture for Primary and Secondary Education (Funderend Onderwijs Referentie Architectuur, FORA), Wikiwijs and SIVON’s procurement frameworks, offering product listings, quality labels, licensing information and links to evaluations. Developed in collaboration with stakeholders, such a platform could increase transparency, support schools in navigating a fragmented market and promote equity by expanding access to high-quality, affordable digital education resources.

Consider establishing testbeds or sandboxes for EdTech and education materials

To support the development of safe, effective and pedagogically aligned digital education resources, the Netherlands should consider creating structured environments for testing EdTech and education materials prior to their widespread adoption. These “testbeds” or “sandboxes” would provide a space for developers to trial products in real school settings, in collaboration with teachers, school boards and education researchers. Such environments could promote the iterative development of products that are aligned with national goals, Edu-V and DVO standards, and classroom needs, informed by a rigorous monitoring of their impact on student learning, usability and overall educational value. While testbeds offer an effective method to test the application of mature products within existing regulatory environments, sandboxes can help to identify risks and opportunities associated with innovative products that may require regulatory adjustments under controlled conditions. Both approaches can help to bridge the gap between developers of innovative resources and real-world classroom conditions, reducing the risk of implementing unproven tools at scale. The Ministry of Education, or a designated body such as Kennisnet or NOLAI, should co-ordinate and oversee the initiative. Designated schools could trial new products while providing structured feedback to developers. This process would simultaneously build educators’ evaluation capacity, strengthen their digital literacy and foster their trust in emerging tools while supporting evidence-based development and the scaling of promising education technologies.

Ensure a level playing field for smaller and domestic EdTech companies and encourage competition based on education priorities

The Netherlands should take further steps to ensure a competitive and innovation-friendly market for digital education resources. The increasing dominance of large platforms has raised concerns around vendor lock-in, making it more difficult for schools and educators to switch between digital tools or providers. This not only risks restricting educators’ professional autonomy but also limiting the emergence of new, innovative providers. Efforts to ensure interoperability and data sharing agreements through Edu-V have laid the groundwork for fairer competition and should continue to be supported. This could involve supporting the integration of its quality labels into procurement frameworks. The development and implementation of EdTech standards, certification and evaluation processes as well as a careful consideration of incentive structures for small enterprises will be important to support responsible innovation, to reduce barriers to market entry and to align product development with pedagogical priorities. The government should also continue supporting co-creation initiatives involving educators and researchers, as modelled by NOLAI. In parallel, public procurement strategies, including those led by SIVON, should consider the inclusion of criteria that prioritise pedagogical value, innovation and alignment with educational goals. To ensure regulatory compliance and protect public interests, oversight mechanisms should be reinforced to ensure that both domestic and international providers meet national standards for quality, privacy and information security. These efforts would contribute to a more diverse, dynamic and equitable market that reflects national education priorities and supports schools’ ability to choose the digital resources that best serve their pedagogical vision.

Foster a culture of open educational resources that encourages their development and use

Despite a widespread recognition of the importance of open educational resources (OER) and public support for initiatives like IOL and Wikiwijs, the uptake of OER in the Netherlands remains limited. To encourage the development and use of OER, the Netherlands should support teachers in embedding OER in their professional routines, align their development with quality standards, and strengthen the support structures around their use. This includes incorporating the use and development of OER into both initial teacher education and continuing professional learning as well as ensuring that teachers are equipped with the pedagogical and technical skills needed to create, evaluate and share high-quality OER. Existing platforms, such as Wikiwijs and Edurep, should be made more visible, consolidated where possible, and integrated with professional learning programmes. Collaborative professional learning communities should be encouraged to foster peer learning and the co-creation of OER. The Netherlands should cultivate OER as a community of practice to support teachers in evaluating and selecting digital tools, particularly given the challenges posed by the rapidly evolving EdTech landscape. To increase trust in OER, the evidence base on their effectiveness should be strengthened in the context of the evaluation framework for digital education resources discussed above. To support the uptake of OER, incentives such as grants, professional recognition or additional time for collaborative work should be considered for teachers who contribute to the development of OER.

Develop, adopt and disseminate quality standards for continuing professional learning on digital education and embed them in a central catalogue

The National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers (NAPL) presents an important opportunity to strengthen continuing professional learning (CPL) in the Netherlands. To further support teachers in building their capacity for digital education, quality standards developed through the initiative should be used more broadly to guide the design, implementation and selection of CPL activities. Professional learning activities developed through NAPL should emphasise teachers’ ability to integrate technology, pedagogy and subject content (TPACK) as well as to promote students’ digital literacy in line with the goals of the revised curriculum framework. In the longer term, creating structured career paths that incorporate professional learning requirements or build on a competency framework linked to CPL opportunities would help to establish CPL as an integral part of teachers’ professional growth. To facilitate access, a central CPL catalogue should include both public and private offerings and be available online. Teachers could contribute to the catalogue by sharing feedback on their experience, thus helping colleagues to identify effective training tailored to their needs. Embedding quality criteria in the catalogue would also allow CPL providers to demonstrate their alignment with quality standards and enable teachers to find high-quality professional learning opportunities more easily. Over time, the CPL quality criteria could thus be used to guide the development of CPL offers, encourage structured planning at the school level, and build a stronger professional learning culture across the system, reinforcing the role of CPL as a shared responsibility and an essential component of teachers’ professional identity.

Develop professional standards or leverage existing professional frameworks to strengthen teachers’ readiness for digital education

Teachers in the Netherlands vary in their digital literacy and ability to effectively use digital education technology, due to the heterogeneity in their initial teacher education (ITE), their varying engagement in professional learning as well as the great diversity in schools’ pedagogical approaches to digital learning. Yet, precise information about the digital competency of Dutch teachers is limited. Developing professional standards for digital literacy could provide greater coherence and guidance across the system. Such a framework could support ITE and CPL, clarify what teachers should know and be able to do with digital tools, and ensure consistent expectations once digital literacy becomes a cross-curricular priority. The development of professional standards should be led by the profession to foster ownership among teachers. Short of developing central professional standards on digital education, existing frameworks could be leveraged to strengthen teachers’ digital competency, in particular the professional statutes that schools are required to maintain since 2023/24. Ensuring that these statutes reflect schools’ digital vision and the resources, knowledge and skills that teachers require to use digital technology effectively would help to align their professional learning with the new curriculum framework. Strengthening central guidance on the content of professional statutes (especially in relation to digital competency) could help to ensure that schools’ approaches to digital education are supported by targeted professional learning.

Encourage teacher collaboration and knowledge sharing around the development of teaching materials for digital literacy and other subjects

Teacher collaboration on the development of learning materials for digital literacy and other subjects should be further supported across the education system. Although evidence points to the positive effects of professional collaboration, teachers’ opportunities to exchange with their peers remain uneven in the Netherlands. While some larger school boards facilitate professional exchange among their schools, smaller and single-school boards often have more limited means to support such exchange. Similarly, while some ITE programmes and subject associations foster communities of practice, other teachers are at risk of professional isolation. Linking and strengthening existing public platforms, such as Wikiwijs, the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre and the Kennisrotonde, could make them more easily accessible and facilitate discussion, collaboration and the exchange of teaching materials. The intervention map of the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy provides another opportunity for the ministry to encourage schools’ efforts to promote professional exchange and collective work on teaching materials, including OER. Enabling such collaboration could not only reduce teachers’ individual workload and support reflections on high-quality teaching, but also strengthen the implementation of the new core objectives for digital literacy.

Support teachers in developing a professional organisation to strengthen their voice and ability to shape their professional role in the digital age

The proliferation of intelligent technologies in the classroom is likely to transform the traditional roles of teachers and profoundly affect the way they carry out their work in and outside the classroom. If teachers are to play an active role in shaping this transformation and defining their future roles, they need to be able to deliberate on issues pertaining to the development of the profession and to communicate their professional vision and development needs. The absence of a professional body for teachers has hindered this process to date. For such an organisation to be successful, it should be developed and led by teachers to ensure its independence and its focus on the development of the profession. It could provide teachers with a systematic role in a range of reforms, including the development of professional standards and quality criteria for professional learning on digital education. It could also allow teachers to have a say in important discussions around projects like the NAPL or interventions to be supported by the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy. To be successful, the organisation needs to be beneficial to teachers across subjects and at all stages of their careers, have concrete objectives that advance the profession and allow teachers’ interests to be represented in policy discussions at all levels. OCW could support the involvement of a professional organisation, e.g. in the development of professional standards or quality criteria for professional learning on digital education.

Support school leaders in shaping the digital transformation of their schools and in promoting digital literacy

In the context of the Netherlands’ decentralised education system, empowering school leaders is essential to advance the digital transformation of schools and to strengthen digital literacy. Yet, stakeholders have expressed concerns that school leaders’ formal authority is not aligned with their responsibilities and that their role in shaping policy is often limited. When adequately prepared and supported, school leaders can drive the effective use of digital resources by setting strategic visions, promoting professional learning and fostering a culture of innovation in schools. Without the necessary skills or confidence, however, school leaders will have difficulty ensuring a safe, effective and equitable digital learning environment. To strengthen leadership for digital education, digital competency should be recognised as a core skill for school leaders and integrated into their preparation and professional development. School boards can support this process, but disparities in capacity mean that school leaders of some boards may lack adequate support. Opportunities for peer learning across school boards should be expanded and access to administrative support widened to ensure that all school leaders can exercise pedagogical leadership in digital education. The accreditation of school board members, currently under development, offers another opportunity to ensure that school leaders receive consistent and informed support from their boards and to identify and disseminate effective practices in leading the digital transformation of schools.

Provide a clear road map for the implementation of the new core objectives and co-ordinate actors for a whole-of-system approach

The revision of the national curriculum framework marks a major reform for the Dutch education system and offers an important opportunity to align learning objectives with broader strategic goals for digital education. The planned introduction of digital literacy as a basic skill reflects its growing importance and, if well implemented, can make a significant contribution to the goals of the 2019 Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education. The successful implementation of the curriculum reform will require OCW to ensure adequate preparation and co-ordination across all levels of the system. The Netherlands’ updated strategy for digital education (as discussed above) should therefore provide a central place for the curriculum reform and link its implementation to other elements of its ambitious reform agenda. OCW should take an active role in guiding this process and develop a detailed road map in collaboration with key stakeholders, which should outline the sequence of its implementation, key milestones and the responsibilities of different actors at each point of the process. This co-ordination should ensure central agencies and other key actors, such as providers of teacher education, are involved at critical moments of the process. A holistic approach should also ensure the involvement of a wide range of relevant actors including representatives of the open education resource community, the digital education technology sector and education publishers to facilitate the alignment of teaching resources with the new core objectives. As students' progress in digital literacy will be assessed through school-based assessments, OCW will also need to ensure that Cito and CvTE are well positioned to support schools in their new responsibilities with appropriate assessment tools.

Prepare schools and strengthen their capacity to implement the revised core objectives

To support schools in preparing to implement the revised core objectives for digital literacy, OCW should clarify the remit of various support providers and encourage better co-ordination among them. Central and decentralised sources of support (ranging from SLO and Kennisnet to education consultancies and school boards) offer a broad but fragmented set of services to practitioners. Clarifying their roles and facilitating their co-ordination would help schools and teachers to access relevant expertise more efficiently and avoid duplication. Schools should also be encouraged to familiarise themselves with the new core objectives and begin to strategically plan for their implementation. Engaging with the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre and incorporating digital literacy into school plans can give schools a valuable head start. The PO-Raad and VO-raad, in collaboration with the Expertise Centre, should support these efforts, and the inspectorate should encourage schools to address digital education in their self-evaluation processes. To ensure that schools are well supported, the inspectorate should invest in its capacity to assess digital education practices. Its strategy of “stimulating supervision” (stimulerende toezicht), involving non-compliance-oriented school visits, offers a constructive model to guide schools in integrating digital resources and preparing for the new core objectives. These visits should also inform thematic reports or guidance to support schools further. Finally, the Netherlands should promote the identification and dissemination of innovative and effective practices related to digital literacy that will emerge across the Dutch school system. Both the inspectorate and the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre could play a role in identifying and highlighting these practices to support peer learning across the system.

Promote stakeholders’ active engagement with the revised core objectives and the integration of digital literacy across subjects

Promoting teachers’ professional agency and active engagement with the revised core objectives should be a key goal of the curriculum implementation. Teachers need to feel enabled and confident to work with the new core objectives and to design learning environments that are aligned with their pedagogical vision and students’ needs. The design of the curriculum framework can support this by incorporating interactive elements and linking suggested content items to relevant resources. SLO’s efforts to develop suggestions for content items and making them accessible through the “Curriculum in Focus” platform is an important step in this direction. Central authorities should explore how digital affordances can further stimulate teachers’ creative implementation of the curriculum. For instance, SLO could collaborate with the Impulse Open Learning Materials (IOL) initiative to link open educational resources to relevant curriculum items. Providing SLO with a mandate to develop a more interactive and supportive curriculum could further enhance its role as a catalyst for innovation and teachers’ professional agency. In parallel, the transversal integration of digital literacy across subjects should be supported through clear guidance, careful planning and enhanced support for teacher collaboration to prevent transversal learning goals from being overlooked. School leaders and i-coaches can play an important role in leading these efforts at the school level and their exchange across schools should be promoted, especially among smaller or more isolated institutions, as they adapt their school-based curricula.

Strengthen the capacity to monitor schools’ compliance with technical standards for digital education

The DVO initiative and the development of robust standards for information security and privacy (IBP) in education mark important steps towards improving schools’ digital security. Until the IBP Standards Framework will come into effect in 2027, schools’ progress towards meeting its requirements should be carefully monitored to identify gaps and direct support to schools and school boards that need it. Once in force, schools’ compliance with the standards will need to be continuously monitored. OCW should assign responsibilities for these monitoring processes and provide actors with the time and resources they need to fulfil their roles effectively. If monitoring responsibilities are assigned to the inspectorate, this must be reflected in the revised inspection framework and may require systematic inspections at both the board and school levels. Given the technical nature of the IBP Standards Framework, central authorities may need to strengthen the inspectorate’s technical capacity or facilitate access to specialised expertise. This could involve retaining staff with technical expertise, collaborating with the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) run by Kennisnet and SIVON, or pooling expertise with other sectoral inspectorates. Leading up to the IBP standards’ passage into law, central authorities should prepare schools and school boards and identify priority areas for further support. This may require the provision one-on-one technical support since neither SIVON nor CERT can currently provide proactive advice to schools outside the context of an emergency. A thematic analysis of how digital risks are addressed in a sample of schools by the inspectorate could inform targeted support before the standards are integrated in its regular inspection framework. There may also be scope to expand schools’ requirements for risk reporting to encompass an assessment of digital risks.