This chapter examines the governance of school education in the Netherlands, with a particular focus on the system-level governance of digital education. It outlines the overall governance context and the specific features that shape digital education, including its constitutional foundations and regulatory frameworks. The chapter reviews the distribution of roles and responsibilities among key actors of the digital education ecosystem and describes how strategic guidance, policy steering, monitoring and evaluation are organised at the national level. It highlights the strengths of the current governance model, identifies challenges related to co-ordination, coherence and strategic direction, and concludes with policy recommendations designed to address them.
OECD Review of Digital Education Policy in the Netherlands
Abstract
The governance of school education in the Netherlands
Constitutional provisions governing school education and school autonomy
As discussed in Chapter 1, the Dutch school system grants a high degree of autonomy to school boards, schools and teachers and has a large publicly funded private sector (Nusche et al., 2014[1]). All public and private schools meeting the requirements established for their respective sectors – primary education (primair onderwijs, PO) or secondary education (voortgezet onderwijs, VO) – receive a per-student lump-sum allocation from the Ministry of Education (OCW), with adjustments for specific characteristics of their student intake (see Chapter 3). This arrangement is rooted in the “freedom of education” principle, which underpins the Dutch education system (Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK), 2023[2]). The principle provides any natural or legal person with 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 freedom of education has been enshrined as a constitutional right since 1848 and, since 1917, has provided government-dependent private schools (bijzondere scholen) with a right to receive government funding on the same basis as public schools. Since the 1917 constitutional reform, and the subsequent 1920 Primary Education Act, the Dutch school system has thus combined public schools (openbare scholen) governed by the public authorities, open to any student and with a neutral character with government-dependent private schools (bijzondere scholen), governed by private institutions, often based on religious or ideological principles, with the freedom to select their teaching materials, teachers, and students, yet funded by the state on equal terms as public schools (Braster, 2013[3]). Secondary schools function under similar terms but are based on ordinary legislation rather than constitutional provisions (Bijsterveld, 2013[4]). In accordance with the freedom of education principle, schools in the Netherlands have the second-highest index of autonomy over their curriculum in the PISA 2022 survey (see Figure 2.1).
Based on principals' reports
Note: Statistically significant differences between public and private schools are shown in a darker tone. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the index of school responsibility for curriculum for public schools. *Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see Reader’s Guide of OECD (2023[5]), Annexes A2 and A4).
1: Data for Belgium represent only the French-speaking and German-speaking Communities.
Source: Adapted from OECD (2023[5]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en, Figure II.6.3 (https://stat.link/6nwqli).
These constitutional provisions have important implications for the governance of the Dutch education system in general and digital education specifically. Most importantly, they shape the governance mechanisms available to central authorities in steering the education system. The principle of freedom of education guarantees the autonomy of both public and private schools, particularly with regard to pedagogical approaches, the selection of learning materials, and the appointment of teaching staff – areas explicitly protected under constitutional provisions. While the Ministry of Education is constitutionally responsible for ensuring the quality of education, it does so primarily by setting the legal and quality frameworks within which autonomous schools operate. Its role also includes enforcing standards where necessary and engaging in co-ordination with schools, municipalities, and intermediary bodies. Strategic direction is commonly pursued through negotiations, dialogue and consensus-building, supported by incentives and advisory mechanisms. In practice, this involves a network of important agencies tasked with supporting schools in the implementation of policies and in their day-to-day operations.
The constitutional framework also influences the speed and process of education reforms and policy implementation. The freedom of education principle entitles private entities to establish and operate schools with public funding, provided that they comply with conditions and quality requirements that are expected “to be set by law”. Consequently, influencing schools’ activities or using core school funding to steer the education system generally requires legislative action. This requires not only political consensus but also a lengthy legislative process that typically spans three to four years. While the duration of the legislative process itself is comparable to that of other EU member states, the Dutch legislative process is extended by inclusive stakeholder consultations and interministerial co-ordination (Voermans and ten Napel, 2012[6]). In addition, the long-standing practice of piloting and evaluating reforms prior to enacting legislation further contributes to this timeline. Unless a sufficiently broad consensus exists for schools to adopt reforms voluntarily, formal legal change, and thus extended lead times, are necessary to ensure compliance and system-wide implementation.
Legislation and regulatory frameworks governing specific aspects of school education
As foreseen by the Constitution, specific aspects concerning the provision of school education in the Netherlands are set by law. Acts approved in Parliament provide the legal framework for the operations of schools, the conditions of access to public funding, and the quality standards enforced by central authorities. Additional regulations and statutory instruments, such as general administrative orders and ministerial orders, are binding to schools once published in the Staatsblad or Staatscourant (Government Gazette). Government authorities also govern education through guidelines or circulars (Dutch Government, 2025[7]). These statutory instruments are used for administrative details and minor subject matters unless stated otherwise in the law (Voermans and ten Napel, 2012[6]). Some of the most important legislation governing specific levels and aspects of school education are briefly described in the following.
The delivery of primary education in mainstream primary schools and special education needs (SEN) schools is governed by the 1998 Primary Education Act (Wet op het Primair Onderwijs, WPO) (OCW, 1998[8]) and the 1982 Expertise Centres Act (Wet op de Expertise Centra, WEC) (OCW, 1982[9]) respectively. They describe the learning objectives of primary education and prescribe certain structural features of school education, including the subject areas to be taught, internal quality assurance requirements and learning targets, the four-year school plan (schoolplan) that school leaders need to prepare, funding, information to parents and students to be included in the school brochure, and the applicable complaints procedure. They also lay down rules governing the roles of staff, parents and students in primary schools (Eurydice, 2024[10]). The delivery of secondary education in mainstream and special secondary education schools is governed by the 2020 Secondary Education Act (Wet op het Voortgezet Onderwijs, WVO) (OCW, 2020[11])) and the 1982 (Secondary) Special Education: Expertise Centres Act (Wet op de Expertise Centra, WEC) (OCW, 1982[9]) respectively.
Other legal acts govern specific aspects of primary and secondary education, often spanning different levels and types of education or amending existing acts (Eurydice, 2024[10]). A number of laws, for example, aim to ensure universal access to education opportunities, irrespective of personal circumstances. These include the 1969 Compulsory Education Act (Leerplichtwet) (OCW, 1969[12]), which defines the mandatory age of education, the 2001 Education Contribution and School Costs Compensation Act (Wet Tegemoetkoming Onderwijsbijdrage en Schoolkosten, WTOS) (OCW, 2001[13]), which governs the eligibility of socio-economically disadvantaged students for grants in secondary and adult education, and the 2014 Tailored Education Act (Wet Passend Onderwijs) (OCW, 2014[14]), which governs special education needs (SEN) education and introduces a ‘duty of care’ for all schools to arrange for an appropriate education setting for children who need extra assistance.
Several laws govern quality assurance mechanisms in the Dutch school system. The 2002 Education Supervision Act (Wet op het Onderwijstoezicht, WOT) (OCW, 2002[15]), for example, regulates the tasks, responsibilities and powers of the Inspectorate to oversee professional and independent school evaluations and to monitor whether schools fulfil their responsibilities for internal quality assurance. It also grants the Inspectorate the statutory duty to monitor compliance with laws and regulations and to promote and monitor the quality of education at the system level. The 2010 Dutch Language and Mathematics Reference Benchmarks Act (Wet Referentieniveaus Nederlandse taal en Rekenen, WRR) (OCW, 2010[16]), amends the Primary and Secondary Education Acts by laying down reference levels for the knowledge and skills students are expected to have acquired in language and numeracy at different stages of their education journey. The Act also provides a general framework for the organisation of the curriculum by schools and teachers at different levels of education. The 2010 Good Education and Good Governance Act (Wet Goed Onderwijs, Goed Bestuur) (OCW, 2010[17]) outlines minimum quality requirements for all schools and enables the government to cut off funding to individual primary or secondary schools if the level of education they provide remains consistently poor following a warning from the Inspectorate to the school board.
Although schools in the Netherlands enjoy far-reaching pedagogical autonomy, several aspects of their operations are centrally prescribed by law. The 2006 School Participation Act (Wet Medezeggenschap op Scholen, WMS) (OCW, 2006[18]), for example governs the participation of staff, parents and students in representative advisory bodies of government-dependent private primary and secondary schools and their right to be informed on school matters. In 2021, a law clarified the Legal Requirements for Civics Education (Wettelijke Opdracht Burgerschap) in primary and secondary education, requiring schools 1) to teach respect for and knowledge of the fundamental human rights and freedoms outlined in the Constitution and to act in accordance with these basic values at school, 2) to develop social and societal competencies to participate in a pluralistic society and 3) to teach about and respect differences in society relating to religion, belief, political persuasion, origin, gender, disability or sexual orientation (OCW, 2021[19]).
Key actors, roles and responsibilities in the digital education system
The following sections provide a brief overview of the key actors involved at different levels of the Dutch digital education ecosystem as well as their main roles and responsibilities related to digital education in schools.
The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science and its central steering role
The Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschappen, henceforth OCW or education ministry) is the central authority responsible for the overall quality of education in the Netherlands and for developing education policy, including standards, examinations and funding mechanisms (OCW, 2024[20]). Within OCW, two teams oversee digital education initiatives: One focussing on digital infrastructure (incl. privacy, cybersecurity and standards), and the other focussing on matters related to teaching and learning (incl. learning materials, AI, teachers’ skills, digital literacy, and the mobile phone ban and access to devices).
OCW plays a formal role in steering and funding digital education initiatives and maintains regular dialogue with the boards of key programmes and agencies such as Kennisnet, Digitaal Veilig Onderwijs (DVO), and Growth Fund-supported projects like the National Education Lab AI (NOLAI), Edu-V and IOL (described further below). It also oversees the EUR 5.8 billion National Education Programme (NPO), a temporary investment programme to address the educational consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic (National Education Programme, 2025[21]) and leads the Basic Skills Master Plan,1 which provides EUR 1.5 billion of structural investments to promote basic skills (Dutch, mathematics, citizenship and digital skills) through the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy (Subsidie Verbetering basisvaardigheden) and a network of Education Co-ordinators (onderwijscoördinator) (Dijkgraaf and Wiersma, 2022[22]) (see Chapters 1, 3 and 6).
OCW employs a range of direct and indirect mechanisms to steer the education system. It can enact binding legislation for schools, which can then be enforced through the inspection process. Recent examples of this approach include the addition of digital skills and citizenship to the new curriculum’s core objectives and plans to adopt the Standards Framework for Information Security and Privacy for Education (Normenkader informatiebeveiliging en privacy [IBP] voor het onderwijs) into law by 2027. Another approach are statutory instruments, such as ministerial orders, guidelines or circulars, which are typically used for administrative or regulatory matters (Voermans and ten Napel, 2012[6]). Recent examples include guidelines on EDU-V quality labels and Kennisnet’s Programme of Requirements for education materials (see Chapter 4).
OCW also engages in more indirect steering of school education through targeted funding earmarked for specific purposes, for example through the National Education Programme and the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy. However, because such funding is intended to address temporary and limited funding needs, it has a limited scope as a steering mechanism (see Chapter 3). An additional lever is funding for intermediate agencies (e.g. Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development [SLO], Kennisnet and the Inspectorate) and organisations (such as SIVON, the PO-Raad and VO-raad or Dutch EdTech) to support schools or implement specific initiatives on OCW’s behalf.
Further indirect steering mechanisms include the provision of guidance, incentives and support. OCW has promoted the dissemination and use of evidence on the effective use of digital resources (through Kennisnet and SLO’s Digital Literacy Expertise Centre and NRO’s Kennisrotunde), peer learning networks (e.g. of i-coaches and ICT co-ordinators), and school improvement advice through education co-ordinators (see Chapters 4 and 6). OCW also stimulates co-creation and pilot projects to foster innovation, for example by supporting NOLAI, Impulse Open Learning Materials, NAPL training programmes, and municipal CERT pilots (see Chapters 4, 5 and 6).
While OCW’s governance of the education system has traditionally emphasised indirect steering, and stakeholder’s self-organisation, guidelines and support from intermediary agencies, this approach is increasingly viewed as insufficient to address some of the complex challenges associated with digital education. This is particularly the case where safeguarding public interests (e.g. equality of opportunity, system efficiency, digital security and privacy) may exceed the capacity of individual school boards (Ministry of Justice and Security, 2022[23]; Onderwijsraad, 2023[24]). In response, there have been calls for more central steering and a recalibration of responsibilities between OCW and other actors in the education system (Paul, 2024[25]). OCW has adopted towards more directive forms of steering, employing targeted subsidies, regulatory measures, and legislation, as well as strengthened oversight through the Inspectorate. This shift, while addressing key governance gaps, has also raised concerns among some stakeholders who view it as potential risk to school autonomy and the constitutional principle of freedom of education (Broer, van der Walt and Wolhuter, 2023[26]).
Other ministries involved in digital education
The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, EZK) aims to promote the Netherlands as an internationally competitive country of enterprise and sustainability. This includes the promotion of digital innovation (e.g. through the National Growth Fund), support for EdTech start-ups and the regulation of the digital marketplace (OCW, 2024[20]). EZK is responsible for the Digital Economy Strategy (Strategie Digitale Economie, DES) (EZK, 2022[27]), described further below. Under its second pillar (promoting digital innovation and skills), EZK led the development of the Green and Digital Jobs Action Plan in collaboration with OCW and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (henceforth SZW) (Adriaansens et al., 2023[28]). The Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, SZW) is responsible for labour market policy and digital workforce development (SZW, 2025[29]). Together with EZK and OCW, SZW contributed to the development of the Green and Digital Jobs Action Plan (EZK, 2023[30]).
The Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations (Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, BZK) is responsible for policy, regulations and legislation related to the promotion of equal opportunities. BZK oversees the Digital Inclusion Action Plan (BZK, 2025[31]) and promotes initiatives related to fostering digital inclusion (OCW, 2024[20]). The Digital Inclusion Action Plan involves multiple initiatives aimed at improving digital access among the wider population. They include the All Digital (Allemaal Digitaal) project, which distributes used laptops to those in need (Allemaal Digitaal, 2025[32]), as well as the Social Internet Package (Sociaal Internet Pakket), which subsidises internet access for those who cannot afford it in pilot municipalities (see Chapter 3). BZK has also worked with OCW on the development of the Basic Skills Master Plan (Masterplan Basisvaardigheden) and pushed for digital literacy to be included in the basic skills framework of the new curriculum reform.
Central agencies and organisations
Kennisnet
Kennisnet is a foundation that was created 23 years ago “to bring internet into the classroom” with a focus on primary, secondary and vocational (MBO) education. It receives EUR 13.5 million annually from OCW to support schools in the professional use of ICT in education. It does this in three complementary ways: 1) sharing expertise and guidance with schools and their boards, 2) offering ICT services for administrative processes related to the national infrastructure for digital education,2 and 3) strengthening the ICT school infrastructure3 (see Chapters 1, 4 and 6) (Kennisnet, 2025[33]). The activities that Kennisnet pursues under this broad mandate include the development of the national digital infrastructure, practical guidance on various aspects of digitalisation in schools, fostering collaboration through networks of e-coaches and ICT-co-ordinators as well as monitoring education with the MYRA survey. The diversity of these initiatives and Kennisnet’s mandate has evolved over time, owing to the digital transformation of schools and budget cuts announced in 2011 (see Chapter 3).
Kennisnet also implements the Digital Safe Education (Digitaal Veilig Onderwijs, DVO) programme in collaboration with OCW, SIVON, PO-Raad and VO-raad. In collaboration with SIVON and SURF (its higher education equivalent), Kennisnet also manages the Safe Internet (Veilig Internet) service, which provides schools with a fast and secure internet connection combined with a cloud-based firewall to prevent external threats and cyber-attacks (SIVON, 2025[34]). Together with SLO, Kennisnet also oversees the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre (Expertisepunt Digitale Geletterdheid) (EPDG, 2025[35]). Kennisnet is overseen by a supervisory board with representatives from the sector councils, civil society and an independent chair.
The Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO)
The Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (Stichting Leerplan Ontwikkeling, SLO), was established in 1975 as an independent national expertise centre responsible for the curriculum since OCW cannot interfere on curriculum issues. SLO’s mission is to work with the education sector on the development of a well-considered curriculum, bringing its knowledge of social developments and scientific insights (SLO, 2025[36]). SLO is an independent non-profit foundation receiving funding from OCW. A board is responsible for SLO’s daily management and continuity, while a Supervisory Board made up of civil society members ensures its adequate governance. In addition, an Advisory Board made up of five independent experts advises the management on the work of SLO and its position in education or more broadly in society.
The Inspectorate of Education
OCW is constitutionally responsible for ensuring the quality of education throughout the country, but school boards are responsible for quality assurance processes within their school(s). The independent Inspectorate of Education conducts inspections on behalf of OCW, assessing quality at both school and system levels and encouraging continuous improvement (Inspectorate of Education, 2025[37]) (see Chapter 6 for more details). Inspections are guided by a framework, which the inspectorate is in the process of revising in anticipation of the addition of digital literacy to the new curriculum’s core objectives (kerndoelen) (see Chapter 6).4 The Inspectorate also engages in data collections relevant for system-level monitoring through its digital Performance Monitor and the Peil.Digital Literacy survey (see further below).
The Inspectorate has a management board and holds structured formal consultations involving a broad range of stakeholders on a quarterly basis (so-called “rings”). The ring consultations are primarily designed to discuss the Inspectorate’s proposed inspection frameworks to ensure that “they are not only in line with legislation, but also with widely prevailing views about educational quality and the role of the Inspectorate in its assessment, taking into account the freedom of education” (Education Inspectorate, 2025[38]). Ring 1 is led by an independent Chair and consists of representatives of the Inspectorate, the PO-Raad and VO‑raad, unions, parents and students.5 Ring 2 is also led by an independent Chair and consists of representatives of the Inspectorate, organisations of schools for specific disciplines, for public education and organisations that focus on government-dependent private education, as well as an association for parents of students with special education needs.6
The Board of Tests and Examinations
The Board of Tests and Examinations (College voor Toetsen en Examens, CvTE) is an autonomous administrative authority with a mandate to oversee the design of national tests and examinations for primary and secondary education, to ensure their quality and their proper administration. In primary education, schools have an obligation to follow students’ performance throughout primary education and to administer final tests at the end of grade 8, with free choice between seven different tests approved by CvTE. (With the 2025-26 school year, their number was reduced to six (Dutch Government, 2025[39])). Secondary schools do not have a choice between different tests and all administer CvTE’s exams, which differ across different pre-vocational secondary education (VMBO) programmes, senior general secondary education (HAVO) and pre-university education (VWO). CvTE has commissioned Cito to develop and deliver the secondary exams based on CvTE’s instructions and quality standards.
Stakeholder organisations
Because of its highly decentralised organisation, the Dutch education system is organised around many stakeholder organisations whose role is to represent their constituencies and advocate on their behalf in interactions with OCW, the Inspectorate, and different education initiatives. The main stakeholder organisations are described in Chapter 1. Among them, the Primary and Secondary Education Councils (PO-Raad and VO-raad) play a key role in the governance of education, representing the interests of school boards in primary and secondary education, advocating and negotiating on their behalf. The PO-Raad and VO-raad represent their respective school boards in a range of fora and education initiatives (see Table 2.1). Private organisations and their representatives also play an important role in the Dutch digital education system. In the context of digital education, important actors are the publishers and distributors of (digital) education materials, Big Tech and EdTech companies (see Chapter 4), as well as the large group of private support, education consultancies and training companies.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on interviews and information provided by the organisations/initiatives.
National Growth Fund initiatives
A number of key initiatives concerning digital education in the Netherlands are funded through the National Growth Fund (Nationaal Groeifonds, NGF). It funds projects that contribute to durable economic growth, with a focus on knowledge development as well as research, development and innovation. The NGF is a joint initiative of EZK and the Ministry of Finance, which manage it on behalf of the government, involving other ministries for projects under their portfolio. The assessment of project proposals is undertaken by an independent advisory committee that includes representatives from other ministries (EZK, 2025[40]). Among the 51 projects funded through the NGF’s first three rounds, several are relevant to the digital education ecosystem, for a total of EUR 2.3 billion. OCW is involved in steering several NGF projects, which are described in more detail in Chapter 3. These include NOLAI, which supports the development of responsible AI-driven learning innovations (also see Chapters 1 and 4), Edu-V, which promotes interoperability in the digital educational resources chain and the Impulse Open Learning Materials (Impuls Open Leermateriaal, IOL) programme, which stimulates the development and use of open educational resources (OER) (OCW, 2024[20]). The National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers (Nationale Aanpak Professionalisering van Leraren, NAPL) is a NGF-funded project that was proposed and is run by OCW with the goal of enhancing the attractiveness of the profession through concerted efforts on teachers’ continuing professional learning (CPL) and the development of structured CPL programmes (see Chapter 5). For a more detailed description of the NGF projects, see Chapter 3.
SIVON
SIVON (Coöperatie Samen Innoveren/Inkopen/ICT voor Onderwijs Nederland) is a membership-based co-operative of school boards, which was established in 2018 to support schools with the joint procurement, purchase and contracting of digital resources. It started with the purchase of internet security services, but has since extended its offer to learning materials, digital devices, privacy and security measures (OCW, 2024[20]). A growing number of primary and secondary school boards have joined SIVON, which now covers 90% of secondary students and around 50% of primary students, giving participants a stronger bargaining power when procuring learning materials and digital services (see Chapters 3). SIVON works closely and shares premises with Kennisnet and is governed by a Members' Council whose 32 participants represent all members, with a set number of seats for school boards of different sizes and education sectors. In addition, a board of six individuals guides the further development of the Co-operative and an independent Supervisory Board oversees the policy of the board (SIVON, 2025[41]). Despite initial plans for a progressive integration of SIVON and Kennisnet, the two organisations remained organisationally independent at the time of the OECD review visit, with Kennisnet functioning as a sector-wide organisation and SIVON as a membership organisation (SIVON, 2024[42]). (Since then, the State Secretary has announced that SIVON would become an organisation with two identities, serving its members on the one hand and, with additional public funding, carrying out activities for the benefit of the entire sector (Paul, 2024[43])).
The Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (NRO)
The Netherlands Initiative for Education Research (Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek, NRO) is an independent research brokerage organisation, which funds education research and disseminates it to practitioners. Its mission is to strengthen education quality with knowledge from research, through the dissemination of research insights. To do so, NRO 1) co-ordinates and funds educational research, 2) makes scientific knowledge accessible and usable through the Knowledge Roundabout (Kennisrotonde) and 3) builds a national data infrastructure for education: the National Cohort Study Education (Nationaal Cohortonderzoek Onderwijs) (NRO, 2025[44]). The Knowledge Roundabout has been developed by NRO as part of its knowledge dissemination activities and consists of a platform where teachers and school leaders are provided with scientifically based answers to the questions they raise. Since its inception, over 800 answers have been published, of which over 100 focus on digital issues (NRO, 2025[45]).
Central strategies concerning digitalisation and digital education
A clear strategic vision provides the foundation for successful policy development and implementation and most OECD countries have developed strategic documents to the development of digital education policy. In 2024, 33 of the 37 jurisdictions that participated in the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age reported having a central strategy that covers digitalisation, and the remaining four were in the process of developing one. The Netherlands – like half of the responding jurisdictions – covers issues related to digital education in both an education-specific digital strategy (the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education), as part of a broader digitalisation strategy (the Dutch Digitalisation Strategy) and several other cross-sectoral strategic documents and agendas that relate to digital education and skills (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, p. 12[46]) (see Table 2.2 below).
The Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education
The main strategic document specifically designed to guide digital education policy in the Netherlands is the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education (OCW, 2019[47]). The Digitalisation Agenda was announced as part of the Dutch Digitalisation Strategy 2.0 and developed and launched by OCW in 2019, in collaboration with EZK, PO-Raad, VO-raad and Kennisnet. This Digitalisation Agenda for Education provides specific strategic objectives for the primary and secondary education. It sets out five key themes with related ambitions and activities, but only in broad terms rather than through specific projects: 1) Innovation through collaboration (school boards, school leaders and teachers); 2) Digital literacy; 3) Digital learning resources that work for the user; 4) a safe and reliable infrastructure; and 5) Ethically responsible application of digitalisation in education, including the use of AI (OCW, 2024[20]).
The Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education covers a broad range of policy issues at the heart of digital education. Some themes, such as standard-setting and quality assurance, technical support or the interoperability of digital resources, are not explicitly addressed. Nevertheless, the Digitalisation Agenda’s thematic coverage is broadly aligned with that of other school systems’ digital education strategies (see Figure 2.2). Some issues are only mentioned, for instance the effective use of digital technologies for teaching and assessment, as well as emerging technologies such as of AI. Other policy areas are linked to specific initiatives, for example the adaptation of curricula to foster students’ digital skills, students’ well-being and safety in digital environments, digital education infrastructure (incl. access to fast and reliable Internet, digital devices and software for schools), teachers’ capacity to integrate them and EdTech (stimulating innovation in the EdTech sector) (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, p. 44[46]). Some of the topics not mentioned or not linked to concrete initiatives in the Digitalisation Agenda are issues for which school boards and teachers have the sole responsibility (e.g. the use of digital resources for teaching) or for which the government can only intervene through legislation (e.g. standard-setting and quality assurance) (OCW, 2019[47]). Since the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education was launched in 2019, its ambitions and activities have evolved. Updates on strategic directions took place by way of letters to Parliament outlining updated or new priorities and detailing specific initiatives for implementation (see below).
Number of jurisdictions whose digital education strategies address different thematic areas in the following ways
Note: Responses that apply to the Netherlands are marked in bold. Data based on the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age. Number of jurisdictions with available data = 32. Responses refer to central-level strategies dedicated to digital education or, if no such strategy exists, broader central-level strategies covering digital education. Countries with missing data or without relevant central-level strategies were excluded.
Source: Adapted from Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025[46]), “Policies for the digital transformation of school education: Evidence from the Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 328, https://doi.org/10.1787/464dab4d-en, Figure 1.2 and Annex Table 1.2.
Cross-sectoral strategies on digitalisation
In addition to the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education, digital education is an important issue addressed by the cross-sectoral Dutch Digitalisation Strategy (DDS). The Dutch Digitalisation Strategy (DDS) 2.0 was the main cross-sectoral strategy relevant to digital education at the time of the OECD review visit (EZK, 2021[48]). It highlighted the government’s three ambitions for the Netherlands to become Europe’s digital leader, to be inclusive in the process of digitalising the economy and society, and to build the digital economy, government and society around trust. The DDS 2.0 included appendixes providing a stocktake on achievements since the launch of the first DDS in 2018 (EZK, 2019[49]) as well as an overview of financial resources for the digital economy and the outcomes of the 2019 Netherlands Digital Conference which fed into the development of the DDS 2.0. The DDS 2.0 was organised around six priorities for the coming years on 1) Artificial Intelligence (AI); 2) Applying data to resolve social issues and stimulate economic growth; 3) Digital inclusion and skills; 4) Digital government; 5) Connectivity and 6) Digital resilience. It referred to a few initiatives in education, but not exhaustively nor with details on specific goals, timeframes, responsibilities and budgets (EZK, 2021[48]).
Since the OECD review visit, an update of the DDS 2.0, referred to as the New Dutch Digitalisation Strategy (Nederlandse Digitaliseringsstrategie, NDS), was released in July 2025 (Dutch government, 2025[50]). Some of the DDS 2.0 priorities remain valid but they have evolved considering new challenges facing the Dutch society in a rapidly changing technological and geopolitical environment, with emphasis on strategic autonomy and the need to have a single government approach across all public agencies at central and sub-central levels. The six new priorities now include: 1) Deploying sovereign cloud technology; 2) Sharing and using data responsibly; 3) Capitalising on the opportunities offered by AI; 4) Prioritising citizens and businesses; 5) Strengthening the government's digital resilience; and 6) Developing the digital expertise of civil servants. In contrast to the DDS 2.0, the NDS does not include an update on progress achieved in recent years, nor references to specific education initiatives, time-bound goals, dedicated budgets or responsible organisations. However, the NDS foresees new structures for cross-sectoral, cross-agency and cross-government co-ordination, including a consultation of different national and sub-national government agencies and public service providers, the establishment of an NDS Council with (external) digitalisation experts to drive the NDS implementation, and the development of an implementation programme with leading and monitoring roles.
Other strategic documents relevant to digital education policy
The NDS is one of the three pillars underpinning the foundations of the government's overarching digitalisation policy. The other two pillars are the Digital Economy Strategy (EZK, 2022[27]) and the Dutch Cybersecurity Strategy 2022-28 (Nederlandse Cyber Security Strategie, NLCS) (Ministry of Justice and Security, 2022[23]). They are complemented by additional cross-sector strategic documents on Green and Digital Jobs Action Plan as well as the Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda, described below.
The Digital Economy Strategy (Strategie Digitale Economie, DES) sets out ambitions for the Netherlands to be Europe’s digital frontrunner. To realise this ambition, it is organised around five pillars expected to reinforce each other: 1) Accelerating the digitalisation of small and medium-sized enterprises; 2) Stimulating digital innovation and skills; 3) Regulating well-functioning digital markets and services; 4) Expanding the reliable and strong digital infrastructure and 5) Strengthening cybersecurity. Some elements of the DES are central for digital education, for example the focus on improving digital basic skills, the focus on public-private investments in technology R&D to reach European strategic autonomy vis a vis other economic powers through the NGF and NOLAI programmes, and the aspiration to develop solid rules of the game in tech markets and to enforce them through supervision (EZK, 2022[27]).
The Dutch Cybersecurity Strategy 2022-28 is also organised around five pillars: 1) Better understanding of the threat; 2) More cybersecurity specialists; 3) Government and sectors partially taking responsibility from end-users; 4) Improved oversight and the necessary legislation and regulations; and 5) Clear information through a national cyber authority. The NLCS emphasises the importance of strengthening cybersecurity in all aspects of life and stresses the establishment of additional norms for the healthcare and education sectors, alongside government provision of tools to help organisations to comply (Ministry of Justice and Security, 2022[23]).
The Green and Digital Jobs Action Plan, which seeks to develop 1 million digitally skilled professionals for the Dutch labour market by 2030. This strategic document was developed by EZK, OCW and SZW. It focusses on four pillars: 1) Increasing the intake in S&T education; 2) Maintaining and increasing the intake in the exact sciences job market; 3) Labour productivity growth; and 4) Strengthening governance and combating fragmentation (Adriaansens et al., 2023[28]). This action plan stands out for providing references to specific actions and assigning responsibilities and dedicated budgets for its implementation.
The Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda (BZK, 2024[51]), initially developed in 2022 and updated in 2024, outlines the government’s strategy to ensure that the digitalisation process is values-driven and people-centric so that digital technology continues to work for the society. The Agenda is organised around five tracks, based on the understanding that 1) Everyone should be able to participate in the digital age; 2) Everyone should be able to maintain trust in digitalisation; 3) Everyone should have control over their digital life; 4) The digital government must adhere to a values-driven and transparent methodology to set a good example; and 5) Digitalisation shall pay attention to all parts of the Kingdom and the Digital Society in the Dutch Caribbean should be strengthened. The Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda also outlines 17 priorities within those tracks and the focus areas for the coming year, alongside goals and indicators to monitor progress and to assess their successful achievement.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
Recent updates to strategic directions in digital education
The Dutch government provides regular updates to Parliament, communicating its priorities, policy initiatives, and new strategic directions. The OCW’s recent letters to Parliament provide an insight into the evolving strategic objectives, policy initiatives and responsibilities related to digital education in the Netherlands. Most notably, the July 2023 letter on “Attentive Digitalisation in Primary Education: Quality for Every Student with Humanity as a Compass” outlined 4 strategic pillars to guide OCW’s work in order to ensure that 1) teachers are given space to learn and innovate, and can limit the use of technology when necessary; 2) teachers are confident in their (digital and didactic) skills; 3) teachers have access to good quality and affordable (digital) learning materials and tools; and 4) teachers have a safe, reliable and future-proof digital infrastructure (Dijkgraaf, 2023[52]). Initiatives associated with the pursuit of these objectives included the launch of NOLAI, the inclusion of digital skills in the Basic Skills Master Plan, the establishment of the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre, research on quality frameworks for learning materials and fostering co-operative tendering and procurement with SIVON.
The April 2024 letter to Parliament “in response to the State of Education 2024 report” called for enhanced co-operation and stronger central steering on priority issues, such as teacher and school leader shortages, the implementation of the new curriculum, and spending resources on proven interventions. The letter also announces a recalibration of schools management and discusses the desirability of 1) central education authorities taking a more involved approach in which the government is no longer confined to making extra financial resources available for education, but actually endeavours to help schools to realise better education; 2) the formulation of a long-term approach and goals for priority policy areas; 3) providing additional structural resources for structural tasks; 4) enhancing the professionalisation of all education actors in schools and their boards; and 5) fostering collaboration between schools as a norm (Dijkgraaf and Paul, 2024[53]).
Monitoring and evaluation of digital education
The Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education lacks clear time frames, measurable targets or performance indicators and systematic evaluation provisions to track progress or assess policy outcomes (see Table 2.2) (OCW, 2019[47]). This stands in contrast to a majority of international education systems covered by the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age, which included time-bound goals, designated responsibilities for implementation and indicators to measure the strategy’s outcomes in their digital education strategies (Figure 2.3). Nevertheless, the Netherlands has a number of monitoring and evaluation mechanisms relevant to digital education, which are described below.
Number of jurisdictions whose digital education strategies are linked to the following instruments
Note: Data based on the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age. Number of jurisdictions with available data = 31. Central-level strategies specifically dedicated to digital education or, if no such strategy exists, broader central-level strategies covering digital education. Countries without relevant central-level strategy were excluded.
Source: Adapted from Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025[46]), “Policies for the digital transformation of school education: Evidence from the Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 328, https://doi.org/10.1787/464dab4d-en, Figure 1.3 and Annex Table 1.3.
National and international surveys
The Netherlands participates in a range of international surveys that can inform specific aspects of digital education. These include the European Survey of Schools: ICT in Education (ESSIE) on access to digital infrastructure in schools, the ICILS survey, which measures students’ digital literacy and digital learning contexts, the OECD TALIS survey offering data on learning environments based on teachers’ and school leaders’ reports, as well as data from TIMSS, PIRLS and PISA on students’ performance and the learning environments in their schools. These sample-based surveys can provide useful system-level information on the state of digital education maturity in various countries, potential shortages or challenges, as well as student outcomes for the surveys assessing student performance, including how they compare with other education systems. Their instruments are, however, not designed to generate school-level representative data, for example to compare schools with each other.
The international surveys are complemented by several national ones. The MYRA Monitor on Digitalisation in (primary and secondary) Education is a survey overseen by Kennisnet, in collaboration with PO-Raad and VO-raad (Karssen et al., 2023[54]; Karssen et al., 2023[55]). The survey’s first round was implemented by the Kohnstamm Instituut to school board administrators, school leaders, teachers and ICT co-ordinators. It is designed to provide insights into the state of digitalisation in Dutch schools, mapping how ICT is used, how education professionals experience digitalisation and what opportunities for improvement there are. All school boards in the Netherlands were invited to participate, but the voluntary nature of the survey resulted in a very low response rate in the first round (e.g. 8% for primary teachers), raising concerns about the representativeness of its data. A second improved and shortened round was launched in March 2025, this time administered by Kennisnet. The Inspectorate’s Peil.Digital Literacy survey provides another system-level data source and a nationally representative picture of students’ digital literacy in the final year of primary education and digital literacy education in primary schools (Inspectorate of Education, 2024[56]).
The LAKS Monitor is a satisfaction survey for secondary education students produced by the National Action Committee for School Students (Landelijk Aktie Komitee Scholieren, LAKS) in 2022 with more than 51 000 student respondents. Besides questions about general education and regular school subjects, the survey asks questions about topics such as teachers, ICT use, the learning atmosphere and safety at school. Starting in 2024, the LAKS Monitor has been available to secondary schools on an annual basis, with a view to help student councils to identify areas for improvement at their schools and to enter into a dialogue with their school on plans to address them (LAKS, 2024[57]). Although voluntary and not developed with the scientific rigour of other surveys, it has the advantage of a much broader coverage of schools. In addition, the DIGCOM survey is a research project undertaken by the University of Amsterdam with a grant from BZK, aiming at measuring the digital competencies of the entire Dutch population aged 10 and above, with a focus on digital knowledge and skills (de Vries, Piotrowski and de Vreese, 2022[58]).
School-level data collections
School-level administrative data have the potential to provide public authorities with valuable information on the use of digital education resources and the quality of digital education in schools. In the Netherlands, several sources are useful in this respect, insofar as virtually all schools participate in these data collections. The Inspectorate’s digital Performance Monitor (Prestatiemonitor) of schools and their boards presents data that the Inspectorate collects as part of its inspection visits. These data feed into the performance monitor, which provides various measures of school quality, including student outcomes, in a digital format (Inspectorate of Education, 2025[37]). OCW has access to these data, which can therefore be used to monitor the school system. However, their scope is restricted by legislation to the thematic issues covered by school inspections. OCW has also developed a Financial Statement Dashboard (Dashboard Jaarrekeninggegevens), which provides information on financial data at the school board level (OCW, 2024[59]).
The Vensters platform for school data is run by PO-Raad and VO-raad in collaboration with Kennisnet and allows school boards to share information about their school – for example through the “Schools on the Map” (Mijn Scholen op de kaart) website. The school-level information is pre-populated with administrative data provided by DUO, the Inspectorate of Education and the Platform for Practical Education. There are also additional survey-based modules that schools can add, including satisfaction surveys from teachers, parents and students. Participation in Venster is voluntary yet near universal, making it an important source of data. However, as of yet, there are no modules covering digital education for primary or secondary schools (Vensters, 2025[60]).
Evaluations of system-wide initiatives and programmes
The Netherlands does not have a systematic approach to the evaluation of projects and programmes related to digital education or framework of central-level indicators monitored in the context of its Digitalisation Agenda. Recent projects and initiatives funded by the National Growth Fund programme tend to have built-in evaluation processes that feed into the NGF advisory committee accountability reports, albeit with varying levels of rigour and different research designs. Other digital education initiatives lack systematic analysis of their outcomes, impact or reach. Among the NGF-supported projects, NOLAI has not been tasked to evaluate existing software/solutions, but the NOLAI co-creation projects all have a built-in validation process at the end, using data that schools have (incl. national assessment data) to assess the effectiveness of the developed AI technologies on student outcomes. However, since all NOLAI projects are still in the concept-development phase, the validation and evaluation stages have not started yet. Likewise, the Impulse Open Learning Materials programme does some research into the effective use of OER, but not on general teaching methods/quality, which is done by Kennisnet through the MYRA survey. The Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy also has a built-in monitoring and evaluation process involving student surveys, the analysis of CITO test results and a scientific oversight committee.
Digital education is recognised as a key priority by the ministry and government
As a country with the ambition to be a frontrunner in the digital transition in Europe and to keep up with world leaders on AI, the Netherlands has placed digitalisation and the promotion of digital skills at the heart of its long-term strategic economic development, as reflected in the New Dutch Digitalisation Strategy (Dutch government, 2025[50]) and Digital Economy Strategy (EZK, 2022[27]). Education will be instrumental in realising this ambition, by training future generations of workers with the skills needed to thrive in a digital economy and society. In this context, digital education is also recognised as a key priority within the Green and Digital Jobs Action Plan, which seeks to provide the Dutch labour market with 1 million digitally skilled professionals by 2030 (Adriaansens et al., 2023[28]) but also within OCW (OCW, 2019[47]).
This emphasis is reflected in a number of significant policy initiatives, starting with the planned addition of digital literacy to the curriculum’s core objectives (OCW, 2022[61]; SLO, 2024[62]) and the Basic Skills Master Plan, whose subsidy scheme has supported many school interventions in digital education and digital literacy (Dijkgraaf and Wiersma, 2022[22]; OCW, 2024[63]). Capacity-building support for the implementation of new core objective on digital literacy has already started, including the development of a Digital Literacy Expertise Centre, which was established by OCW and is run jointly by Kennisnet and SLO to support teachers in the context of the upcoming curriculum reform (Dijkgraaf, 2023[52]; Kennisnet, 2023[64]) (see Chapter 6).
Significant financial investments in digital education underline its status as a strategic priority. This has included projects funded by the National Growth Fund, administered by EZK, which supports digital education over the next decade through projects including NOLAI, the EDU-V programme, the Impulse Open Learning Materials (IOL) and the National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers (NAPL) (see Chapter 3). In addition, OCW has made significant investments to provide digital devices to students during the pandemic (EZK, 2022[27]), the National Education Programme (NPO) (EUR 5.8 billion) to support basic education after the COVID-19 pandemic and EUR 1 billion for the Basic Skills Master Plan (see Chapter 3), much of which has supported interventions related to digital education.
The importance of digital education to OCW is also reflected in the fact that its letters to Parliament provide regular updates on the state of digital education and have announced a number of related priorities and initiatives in recent years (see above). These covered issues ranging from digital security and privacy (Dijkgraaf and Wiersma, 2022[65]), limiting potential adverse effects of digitalisation, such as increasing distractions and risks associated with AI (Dijkgraaf, 2023[52]); the promotion of students’ digital literacy, and greater co-operation between schools (Dijkgraaf and Paul, 2024[53]).
There is co-ordination and collaboration on digital education across key ministries
Strategies and policies for digital education cannot be conducted in isolation from policies outside of the education realm. Countries need connected, multi-dimensional policies to address the challenges and make the most of digital opportunities. Policies for digital education therefore need to be aligned with other policy areas that matter for both the extent to which countries seize the general benefits of the digital transformation, and for enabling a successful digital education. A multi-sectoral policy effort is crucial for supporting access to and innovation in digital education infrastructure and for building capacity for digital education. This entails co-ordination with innovation, economic, labour market and social policies (OECD, 2023[66]).
In this respect, another strength of the Dutch digital education ecosystem lies in the strong degree of interministerial co-ordination and collaboration in this strategic area. There seems to be effective collaboration between various sectors and levels of government when it comes to vision-setting and jointly identifying challenges and the strategic ambitions and priorities to address them. The multi-stakeholders 2019 Netherlands Digital Conference which fed into the development of the DDS 2.0 provides an illustration of this effective collaboration across ministries (EZK, 2021[48]). This is also evidenced in the fact that the different strategies and agendas portray similar challenges to be addressed at national level.
The country’s ambition to remain a worldwide digital economy frontrunner provides for a high-quality digital infrastructure that education actors benefit from. But the country also benefits from a clear division of roles and a synergetic approach between various Ministries involved in digital education, as evidenced by the updated 2024 Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda, which clearly outlines roles and responsibilities of different ministries and agencies for the five tracks and the objectives underpinning each of them (BZK, 2024[51]).
BZK, the Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations, plays a key role in ensuring that everyone has the same opportunities and plays an equal part in society, both online and offline. In relation to this digital accessibility mission, it oversees the Digital Inclusion Action Plan and works with private entities on the All Digital programme and with municipalities on the Social Internet Package. It also includes capacity-building components, such as a phone helpline (Digi-helpline), as well as the development of digital literacy basic skills. In line with this last mission, BZK collaborates with OCW on the development, implementation and steering of the Basic Skills Masterplan.
EZK, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, also works on the digital education ecosystem, mostly on stimulating digital innovation and supporting edtech start-ups develop tools and solutions better suited to the needs of educators. This is done through the National Growth Fund, with emphasis on innovations on AI solutions (NOLAI), the development of open digital education resources (Impulse Open Learning Materials), advances in data ownership, data exchange and interoperability protocols designed to foster competition and breakthroughs in EdTech markets (Edu-V programme), as well as capacity building of teachers (NAPL programme for the professionalisation of teachers). While the funding of the NGF is administered and distributed through EZK and the Ministry of Finance (as fundmanagers) on behalf of the Dutch government, the steering of the education-focussed projects is shared with, and in practice mostly delegated to, OCW.
EZK also works on ensuring that the Netherlands ambitious Digital Economy Strategy can be achieved, ensuring in particular that the Netherlands has a sufficient supply of digitally skilled workers to staff the digital economy sector (Adriaansens et al., 2023[28]). This will require adequate preparation of future workers, as well as upskilling of the current workforce. In this endeavour, EZK collaborates not only with OCW, but also with SZW, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, on the development of the Green and Digital Jobs Action Plan for which EZK has the leading role (Adriaansens et al., 2023[28]). EZK also supports the education sector in addressing shortages of ICT teachers, through the Co-Teach Informatica initiative, which brings professionals with digital expertise into upper secondary HAVO/VWO schools to co-teach informatics and IT lessons under the guidance of a certified teacher (Co-Teach Informatica, 2025[67]).
OCW also collaborates with EZK on negotiations for and implementation of supranational legislations, such as the EU AI Act. During its visit, the OECD review team met with representatives from EZK and BZK and formed the impression that the roles of each Ministry were clearly delineated, with OCW working in an effective way with other ministries on areas of overlapping responsibility. Nevertheless, interministerial collaboration is often informal, with few structured mechanisms, for instance regular meetings or established interministerial committees, and ad hoc meetings and calls seemed to be the most common approach for interministerial policy co-ordination and collaboration.
Co-creation is an established principle in the development of digital education policies
Another strength of the policy development process in the Netherlands is the widespread use of co-creation with key stakeholders for the main digital education policy initiatives. Key digital education initiatives are often co-developed by OCW, in collaboration with specialised agencies and arms-length organisations, with a broad involvement of stakeholders, industry and researchers. These co-creation approaches are well adapted to the governance of complex education systems. With a growing number of actors involved in education policy and strong advocacy from them to promote their vision, policymaking processes have evolved from top-down approaches towards more horizontal interactions involving negotiation and co-creation (Burns and Köster, 2016[68]). Co-creation approaches can also help with policy implementation. Successful policies often involve co-creation processes that integrate diverse perspectives and ensure that policies are both practical and aligned with the needs of educators, learners, and policymakers (Viennet and Pont, 2017[69]).
In the Netherlands, this combination of co-creation and pilots in which schools and teachers are involved in the development and testing of new concepts, projects or products is widely used. This approach to policy and product development, which brings together diverse stakeholders from schools, research and the business sector, is widely praised by stakeholders and has the potential to generate widely accepted outcomes. Several recent initiatives in digital education aspired to this model, involving a broad range of stakeholders in their design and development.
Notably, OCW relied on a co-creation approach for the development of the new curriculum core objectives, having learnt its lesson from an earlier attempted curriculum revision, which was widely perceived as too top-down within schools. The co-creation approach used for the current curriculum reform involved a range of stakeholders – textbook publishers, test developers, civil society as well as pilot schools and teachers in relevant subject areas to ensure that the new curriculum objectives make sense, are accepted, and their implementation is feasible. Concrete guidance on their implementation is also being piloted by SLO and by the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre with respect to the core objectives on digital literacy.
Projects supported by the NGF provide the most systematic and elaborate examples of co-creation. The Edu-V programme, for example, schools, publishers and digital learning tool providers collaborated to establish agreements on secure and efficient data exchange. For the NOLAI programme, co-creation is also central, bringing together educators, researchers and businesses to develop AI-driven prototypes tailored to needs articulated by teachers. A commitment to co-creation is also evident in the NAPL programme, for which 11 of the 29 new education regions will set up co-creation labs tasked to develop CPL programmes, involving teacher training institutions, PO-Raad and VO-raad, as well as a range of teacher unions and professional associations.
The Dutch digital education ecosystem also has a strong culture of consultations and the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders in decision-making at all levels of the system and in the governance of key initiatives. This frequently involves the consultation of the PO-Raad and VO-raad (see Table 2.1), teacher unions and other stakeholder groups, researchers as well as relevant private sector actors (representatives of publishers, distributors and test developers). This commitment to co-creation and stakeholder leadership comes with challenges, including significant co-ordination demands, transaction costs and a slower reform process (as discussed below). However, it is testament to a willingness to co-operate among highly committed stakeholders and has been an effective means to advance and build consensus around major projects advancing shared priorities.
The government uses public-private partnerships effectively to support ambitious goals in digital education
The Netherlands also stands out for its creative and pragmatic use of public-private partnerships (PPP) in digital education. PPPs can play an important role in strengthening the digital infrastructure, bridging digital divides in schools and students access to fast broadband connectivity, and in bridging gaps in students access to connectivity at home and equipment for participation in digital education (Vincent-Lancrin, Cobo Romaní and Reimers, 2022[70]). PPPs can also enable the pooling of resources, expertise, and infrastructure, foster the development of cutting-edge digital products and solutions and enable governments to steer digital innovation in desired directions. By aligning public goals with private sector capabilities, PPPs have been instrumental in creating digital platforms that enhance accessibility and inclusivity in education, bridging gaps for underserved communities and building digital-ready societies and education systems (OECD, 2023[66]).
In the Netherlands, high-speed broadband connectivity is widely available throughout the country and in schools. However, digital inclusion remains an issue for the elderly and socio-economically disadvantaged populations. As part of the Digital Inclusion Action Plan and its social internet Package, the central authorities (through BZK) have partnered with pilot municipalities to support disadvantaged families and students gain Internet access at home and obtain digital devices equipment. Partnerships with the private sector have also supported schools and students’ access to devices through the All Digital programme, or to address teacher shortages through the Co-Teach Informatica Foundation, which brings private sector IT professionals to schools to co-teach ICT with teachers.
The Netherlands has also used PPPs within the framework of the National Growth Fund to support innovation in new education technologies by investing in co-constructed “responsible innovations” that meet public goals of demand-driven terms of references and ethically-grounded innovations through the NOLAI programme. Furthermore, PPPs are used by the EDU-V programme to develop agreements across private providers to advance interoperability, data privacy and security objectives. Finally, the NAPL programme uses PPPs to respond to teachers’ capacity-building needs, although the programme is not restricted to digital capacity-building. In all these areas, the Netherlands has shown pragmatism and creativity in pooling efforts with the private sector to advance the country’s ambitious agenda for digital education and the digital economy. Although few of these PPPs have been formally evaluated so far, the OECD review team formed the impression that they were positively received and seen as promising by most stakeholders,
There is a recognition of the need for more central steering in key areas of digital education
The governance of the Dutch education system has been built around the constitutional principle of freedom of education, and the review team has noted that even though the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning the system has evolved quite significantly and in multiple areas in the past 15-20 years, the government authorities pay close attention to respecting the boundaries of education freedom. This is evidenced in the strong devolved decision-making within the system, and the large degree of autonomy granted to schools and teachers. A network of publicly funded independent agencies (with the status of foundations) or co-operative initiatives has been established over the years to support schools and their boards in exercising and making the most of their autonomy, while ensuring public goals are attained.
However, in recent years there has been an increasing recognition that some issues are too complex or too big to be left for schools to address, especially with regard to digital education. As a result, there is an emerging acknowledgement of the need for more central guidance and direction in some areas, for example on digital security and privacy, the content of teachers CPL for digital education or the quality control of teaching materials. Indeed, these issues are believed to be best handled at the central level, even in a highly decentralised system. In interviews during the review visit, this belief was widely shared, from senior policymakers to stakeholders at all levels of the system.
The recognition of the benefits of more central steering in some areas was particularly evident with regard to digital safety and privacy, but also in relation to the regulation of markets for learning materials and digital resources, as well as around procurement and bargaining power of individual school boards vis a vis Big Tech companies and dominant market providers (see Chapters 3 and 4). In recent years, concerns about declining learning outcomes have extended this line of thought to issues related to quality assurance and the teaching of basic skills.
First steps towards greater central steering of the digital education ecosystem have been taken around safety and privacy, with the Safe Internet service in 2019, and have expanded within the framework of the Digital Safe Education programme in 2022. The Standards Framework for Information Security and Privacy for Education was published in 2023 and revised in June 2024 based on feedback from schools (Kennisnet, 2025[71]). Meanwhile, SIVON conducted data protection impact assessments (DPIAs) and data transfer impact assessments (DTIAs) for the whole sector from 2022, and the CERT was rolled out nationally in 2024 following a pilot phase. Acceptance of stakeholders for these central initiatives has been high, as all concurred during the review visit interviews that addressing these issues requires deep technical and/or legal expertise, which is typically not present in schools nor the smaller school boards.
Moreover, managing digital infrastructure and its risks can require central co-operation for efficiency reasons, since addressing incidents swiftly requires specialised skills that are in high demand. In this context, pooling efforts through central response teams is more efficient to ensure that a critical mass of IT specialists is available to resolve incidents, and to learn from experience. Likewise, managing data privacy issues hinges upon careful contractual negotiations with digital providers, for which central management gives schools and their boards greater collective bargaining power than what could be obtained individually. It also requires advanced technical skills to ensure that technical solutions effectively protect the privacy of students, which is also more efficient to check centrally for each product/solution rather than having schools each conduct similar audits exercises.
The shared recognition of the benefits of central steering is also clear in relation to the regulation of markets for learning materials and digital resources, where school stakeholders have pointed out the rising costs of learning materials (see Chapter 4) and the perceived imbalanced bargaining power of schools and their boards to correct this situation. SIVON was praised as an effective and practical way of addressing these imbalances through collective procurement of digital resources, tools and learning materials. However, the PO-Raad noted persistent difficulties in persuading smaller and special primary schools to join SIVON, as some see few benefits or fear losing autonomy over the selection of products and learning materials. This suggests that more communication efforts around SIVON’s operation and its benefits might be needed to convince smaller primary and private schools to join SIVON.
Concerns about the declining quality of education outcomes have prompted policymakers and the Inspectorate to call for greater steering of educational quality in the past two decades, leading to an expansion of areas of Inspectorate responsibility. The 2002 Education Supervision Act (OCW, 2002[15]) granted the Inspectorate the statutory duty to promote the quality of education and regulated its responsibilities and powers to oversee external evaluations of independent schools. In 2010, the Dutch Language and Mathematics Reference Benchmarks Act (OCW, 2010[16]) defined benchmark reference levels students are expected to have acquired at different stages of their education. The curriculum reform process currently underway aims at further clarifying the learning objectives to be attained by all schools and to add new basic skills on digital literacy and citizenship, starting in 2027 (see Chapter 6).
Stakeholder interviews during the OECD review visit suggested that the clarification of core objectives was welcomed by schools, their boards and teacher unions. Expanding the Inspectorate’s mandate to oversee school quality with regard to the new core objectives for digital literacy did not seem to be too controversial either. Notwithstanding reservations from some stakeholders on central steering concerning citizenship education, greater central steering of issues too technical, too big or too complex for schools to address individually has been generally accepted, as long as the development process has been inclusive. Policies and initiatives developed through co-creation, pilots, consultations and refinements have been endorsed without trouble, in contrast to an earlier top-down attempt on the curriculum reform (see Chapter 6). Stakeholders have also demonstrated a willingness to self-regulate and agree on shared rules and standards beyond legally regulated issues. This was illustrated by the recent agreement between OCW, the PO-Raad and VO-raad, unions as well as parents and student organisations to ban cell phones in secondary education. This suggests that key stakeholders may be open to accepting more central steering, especially around issues of digital security and privacy, market regulation and education quality.
There is a lack of a strategic longer-term vision for digital education policy, backed up by a clear action plan outlining targets, timeframes and responsibilities
A clear strategic vision provides the foundations for successful policy development, serving as an anchor to articulate specific goals for the system and to develop policies aligned with these system goals. It also supports the co-ordination of policies across sectors, actors and levels of government, as well as the development of monitoring and evaluation tools to assess progress towards those goals. A clear strategy document should outline this vision, as well as the goals, policies and activities pursued. This should be combined with an action plan describing the actors involved, targets to be pursued and monitored, as well as the expected timeframes for policy implementation. They can provide clarity to the different actors and stakeholders on the directions pursued, their role in achieving broader system objectives, and how the policies involving or impacting them fit within the broader picture.
Central strategies for digitalisation and digital education lack an articulated vision and common understanding of key concepts to connect them
The Netherlands has both a new national cross-sectoral Dutch Digitalisation Strategy (NDS) as well as an education-specific Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025[46]). However, the combination of these two strategies and other strategic documents, such as the Updated Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda 2024 (BZK, 2024[51]), fail to convey to actors in the system an overarching long-term vision for how digital education feeds into broader national goals. This is not to say that such a vision does not exist. But the education-specific Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education is outdated, and while many of the digital education initiatives described earlier in this chapter are aligned with the direction it sets out, the Digitalisation Agenda falls short of providing a clearly articulated, overarching strategic vision that outlines short- and long-term goals for digital education, and how they contribute to system-wide objectives. There is therefore a need for a more articulated strategy that clearly defines goals for digitalisation in education, describes the initiatives supporting these goals and how they fit together, and outlines how education-specific goals feed into the broader whole-of-government strategy.
Another challenge that undermines the coherence of the central strategies guiding digital education policy in the Netherlands is the lack of a common understanding of key concepts related to the digital transformation of education. It was clear during the OECD review visit that central actors and stakeholders lacked shared definitions of key concepts, such as “quality education”, “digitally skilled teachers” or the “public values”, which are expected to underpin the construction of the broader digital ecosystem and digitalisation in the education sector. While many stakeholders during the OECD review visit underlined the importance of safeguarding “public values”, their interpretations of the term varied significantly. This lack of a shared understanding also extends to important initiatives in the digital education sphere. Whereas NOLAI, for example, emphasises security and privacy as central public values, Kennisnet refers to stimulating humanity, justice and autonomy (Kennisnet, 2025[33]).
This lack of a shared understanding is mirrored at the central level where key strategic documents guiding digitalisation each refer to a different set of public values. OCW’s Digitalisation Agenda states that “public values such as self-determination, privacy, inclusiveness and equal digital opportunities have to be properly safeguarded, especially in education” (OCW, 2019[47]). BZK’s 2024 Updated Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda refers to “public values such as human dignity, autonomy and non-discrimination” as “the foundation of a responsible digital transition and should guide the development and use of digital applications” (BZK, 2024[51]). EZK’s Digital Economy Strategy, on the other hand, refers to creating a “level playing field with fair competition, (freedom of) choice, openness, control over data, privacy and security in the digital economy, as well as ethical questions about the use of AI and an unequal distribution of access to data” (EZK, 2022[27]). The lack of a common view across ministries on which public values need to be safeguarded reflects their different portfolios. It is important to note the challenges this can create for the alignment of strategic objectives.
Strategic goals for education and the initiatives supporting them lack clearly assigned responsibilities, time-bound targets and dedicated resources
Another challenge concerning the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education is the absence of a systematic articulation between strategic goals, the initiatives supporting them and the clear assignment of responsibilities to advance them. This is compounded by the lack of specification of measurable and time-bound targets to give those in charge a sense of expected outcomes and timelines, as well as dedicated resources to enable them to deliver on their responsibilities. The Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education (OCW, 2019[47]) does not systematically assign responsibilities for particular goals to specific actors or agencies, nor does it provide measurable targets, timeframes or performance indicators to monitor progress and to evaluate outcomes (see Figure 2.3). This makes it more difficult to co-ordinate the contributions of various actors to the Digitalisation Agenda’s advancement.
Furthermore, the division of responsibilities between actors is blurred in some areas, which makes it difficult to generate synergies in the pursuit of broader system-level goals. For instance, SLO, NRO, Kennisnet, the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre and OCW (through the Basic Skills Masterplan) are all involved in developing basic skills – and especially digital literacy – and building capacity of actors in the system to advance this goal. Yet, the boundaries of their respective roles are occasionally blurred. Stakeholders expressed confusion, for example, over the respective responsibilities of SLO and the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre in building schools’ and teachers’ capacity for the new digital literacy core objectives. It was also not clear to many actors whether the NRO, Kennisnet or the Expertise Centres were responsible for responding to the pedagogical questions of educators. Likewise, Kennisnet and SIVON are both involved in the Digital Safe Education programme, but their respective contributions could be more explicitly outlined in an action plan for the implementation of the Digitalisation Agenda for Education to enable stakeholders in the system to know where to turn for help.
The updated 2024 Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda provides a good example of what such a framing could look like, outlining roles and responsibilities of different ministries and agencies for the five tracks and the objectives underpinning each of them (BZK, 2024[51]). However, there is no equivalent for the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education. What is missing is a similar approach for the education sector, outlining the roles of different agencies and organisations and assigning them clearer responsibilities for taking forward specific initiatives or contributions within initiatives. Digital actors and stakeholders in the education sector are therefore left to guess who is responsible for what with respect to education initiatives and programmes.
As a result of this lack of clarity on assigned responsibilities, the different agencies and actors working on digital education do not always have a clear view of whether a particular issue is under their purview or that of another organisation, nor where the boundaries of their mandate lie, resulting in duplication of work in some areas (see below) and confusion among school stakeholders on where to turn for support or advice on a particular theme.
When it comes to the monitoring of progress, BZK’s 2024 Updated Value-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda describes in detail the social challenges and opportunities to be addressed, the current state of play, the long-term goals pursued and their desired results, but also some target indicators to assess the realisation of these ambitions, and the actions to be pursued to achieve them, with measurable targets for the short and longer term, and assigned actors responsible for taking these actions forward. Table 2.3 illustrates the articulation of goals and indicators with respect to the Priority area “Improving digital skills and knowledge”.
Goals and indicators related to the Priority “Improving digital skills and knowledge” within the Agenda’s Track 1 (“Everyone must be able to participate in the digital age”)
Source: BZK (2024[51]), Updated Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda, https://www.digitaleoverheid.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/01/26234-AZ-Vertaling-WWD-Engels_V2.pdf.
Lastly, the inconsistent provision of designated implementation budgets (with the exception of NGF programmes and some OCW-led initiatives) and accountability mechanisms (e.g. through monitoring and evaluation indicators), combined with the absence of timeframes for implementation further undermines the effective implementation of strategic directions in the Digitalisation Agenda for Education.
Strategic directions lack stability over time
The perception that strategic directions lack stability over time derives from the absence of a longer-term vision backed up by sustainable funding, which results in an over-reliance on fragmented ad hoc initiatives with limited duration (see Chapter 3). This approach has been criticised by the Education Council (Onderwijsraad) in a recent position paper on the relationship between schools, school boards and government: “The government is guilty of a whole series of short-lived, isolated policy interventions focussed on a constantly varying array of themes and priorities, while at the same time failing to ensure cohesion within the system and leaving urgent questions about the system unaddressed” (Onderwijsraad, 2023[24]). Apart from NGF programmes, which tend to follow 9-10-year plans and budgets, most OCW-funded initiatives tend to be more limited in duration, which makes it hard for schools to build lasting relationships with key initiatives and agencies.
The reliance on initiatives of limited duration and with ad hoc funding makes them vulnerable to changes in policy directions, making it difficult for agencies and organisations to achieve their long-term objectives. An example is the shift in Kennisnet’s mandate, which followed a political decision to streamline and narrow its activities due to a reduction in its budget announced in 2011 (van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart and Zijlstra, 2011[72]). This change in Kennisnet’s funding base forced the agency to discontinue its support to individual schools and reinvent itself, without clear directions or strategic objectives at the system level as a guiding compass. This shift from the school to the system level has led to a diffusion of its mandate and expansion in the range of its activities. The agency is engaging in the development of digital security and privacy standards (under the DVO programme), translating research and practice into actionable formats for teachers and schools, monitoring the digital transformation of schools (MYRA survey), developing applications (Wikiwijs) and facilitating peer learning (through networks of e-coaches and ICT co-ordinators). Having clearer directions and objectives could help the agency refocus and prioritise its efforts.
A complex and fragmented digital education ecosystem creates challenges for the effective co-ordination of actors and initiatives
The digital education ecosystem is decentralised, complex and involves many actors and initiatives that need to work in concert
In addition to the absence of a clearly articulated vision for digital education, broadly communicated to schools and stakeholders, with identified players assigned to take forward specific initiatives, digital education in the Netherlands suffers from the complexity of its ecosystem, and the apparent disconnection between different initiatives. Many of the digital education initiatives pursued by the Netherlands are very promising and can be considered good practice by international standards. Yet, the large number of different programmes and initiatives, developed and implemented by different agencies without a consistent approach to stakeholder involvement makes it challenging to achieve efficiency, alignment with system-level goals and co-ordination among the actors involved. This challenge is compounded by the lack of clearly defined system-level goals for digital education, clear and distinct mandates of key actors and limited co-ordination between initiatives.
The Dutch digital education ecosystem consists of a complex set of organisations with partially overlapping responsibilities and, in some cases, ambiguous mandates. The success of digital education in the Netherlands relies on the effective co-ordination of a large number of initiatives on topics ranging from digital inclusion (incl. All Digital and the Social Internet Package), digital security, privacy and interoperability (incl. Edu‑V, Digital Safe Education, the Safe Internet Service, DPIAs and CERT), basic skills and capacity building (incl. the Basic Skills Masterplan, the curriculum reform, the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre, Knowledge Roundabout, NAPL, etc.), quality assurance, innovation and the creation of learning resources (incl. NOLAI and IOL). These initiatives are led by at least four ministries, a range of implementation and support agencies (including Kennisnet, SLO, SIVON, NRO and the Inspectorate) and steering groups or governing boards involving a combination of the above, in addition to initiatives led by local authorities, PO-Raad and VO-raad, more than 30 stakeholder organisations, publishers, edtech companies, education consultancies and test developers.
A lack of clarity concerning some actors’ mandates contributes to duplications and makes it difficult for schools to know where to turn for support
The complexity of the Dutch digital education ecosystem generates a number of co-ordination challenges. While the different ministries involved in digital education seem to co-ordinate their activities effectively (see above), the same cannot be said about the many education-focussed initiatives currently underway, which often seem to be undertaken in silos and somewhat disconnected from each other. This is understandable given the sheer number of initiatives and actors to connect to and co-ordinate with. But the downside is that the various initiatives insufficiently capitalise on potential synergies, while the siloed approaches of various agencies and programmes contribute to both duplications and gaps.
During the OECD review visit, duplications were most evident around the curriculum reform and the introduction of the new core objectives. Two separate pilots of the new core objectives were undertaken simultaneously by SLO and by the Expertise Centre for Digital Literacy (co-managed by SLO) to test them prior to their country-wide roll out. A third pilot was carried out by the Inspectorate in preparation for the New 2027 Inspection Framework. The dissemination of evidence on digital education issues to school practitioners is another area of overlapping competencies. One track of the new Expertise Centre for Digital Literacy is devoted to answering practical questions by schools and teachers, while Kennisnet and NRO’s Kennisrotunde have been doing the same for some years already. Peer learning facilitation is another area of duplication. Kennisnet manages Networks of e-coaches and ICT Co-ordinators, but the PO-Raad, VO-raad and SIVON lead additional networks, sometimes on overlapping themes. Further duplications were evident in the areas of monitoring and evaluation, as discussed further below.
The difficulty of co-ordinating between different digital education initiatives results in part from the ambiguous and sometimes overlapping mandates of the various implementation agencies. This is particularly evident with Kennisnet, whose mission seems to have grown in complexity ever since the agency had to withdraw from providing direct support to schools. Nowadays, Kennisnet is involved in many different activities in nearly all thematic areas of digitalisation, with the result that its core mission is now less clearly defined. Overlapping mandates and activities make it difficult for agencies to work in synergetic ways on some thematic issues or projects, while competing on others. The difficulties that this situation creates for co-ordination and synergies was particularly evident in the case of the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre. SLO and Kennisnet are jointly responsible for the Expertise Centre, but there appeared to be limited co-ordination, alignment or communication in their governance and management of the Expertise Centre. By contrast, the collaboration between Kennisnet and SIVON on the Digital Safe Education programme appeared more synergetic. This was likely helped by more clearly defined and differentiated mandates as well as a few years of joint work to build social capital between their respective staff.
Given the complexity of the Dutch digital education ecosystem, schools and other stakeholders find it difficult to know where to turn for support, not least since there is no formal organigram or overview explaining the division of responsibilities in the system that could serve as guidance. They are thus likely to miss out on valuable sources of information and support. This was clear during the OECD review visits of schools, where some practitioners reported turning to Kennisnet for guidance, whereas others referred to NRO’s Kennisrotunde as their key source of information, thus potentially missing out on guidance on topics covered by the other agency only. A similar issue exists with the separate Expertise Centres for each of the four basic skills. Each of the Centres has a different approach, products and communication channels. Even though schools will eventually have to teach all four basic skills and would thus benefit from all four Centres, the lack of integration of their services and their different communication channels may result in schools not taking up services of all Expertise Centres.
Uncertainty prevails around the role of OCW in steering and co-ordinating digital education
The digital transformation of education is challenging governance models based on limited central steering in some areas
Governing, co-ordinating and steering such a complex digital education ecosystem poses a challenge, especially within strict constitutional constraints and without the support of a clear long-term strategic vision. The Dutch system’s historical legacy, criticism expressed by the 2008 Dijsselbloem Commission7 (Kohnstamm Institute, 2014[73]) and stakeholder opposition to previous school curriculum reforms have contributed to the government’s reluctance to engage in more proactive central steering of the education system. Yet, this hands-off approach has shown its limits in the face of some challenges brought about by the digital transformation. On the one hand, insufficient central steering had led to concerns about schools’ compliance with critical aspects related to digital security and privacy. On the other hand, not all schools were seen as able to exercise their autonomy on these complex issues effectively. The result has been a system in which some schools thrive with respect to digital education, whereas others are a long way from meeting basic standards for digital security and privacy.
In recent years, momentum has thus been growing and support building up for government authorities to exert more central steering on key aspects of digital education and education quality, on the grounds of students’ protection, but also equity of access to quality education. Concerns about the declining performance of Dutch students in recent international assessments has added to these pressures (see Chapter 1). Greater central steering does not necessarily stand in conflict with school autonomy. Even in decentralised systems, the central level plays an important role in steering education reform and providing the system-wide vision needed to enable their effective delivery. Central authorities can also be instrumental in developing clear goals and providing actors on the ground with feedback on their progress, which is an important building block of successful governance and reform processes (Burns and Köster, 2016, p. 229[68]).
The Education Council provided guidance on this issue in a 2023 position paper on the relationship between schools, school boards and government, recommending “a government approach based not on more central governance, but on a more consistent approach based on subsidiarity and serving public interests” (Onderwijsraad, 2023[24]). The subsidiarity principle implies that “decisions are taken at the lowest possible level, preferably close to educational practice” and that shifting responsibility and competence from school boards to a higher level requires the central government “to demonstrate that there is a need for it”. The Education Council acknowledges, however, that “parties also need to be equipped to practise subsidiarity: they can only take on responsibilities and powers if they are adequately equipped to do so with sufficient resources, time, knowledge and skills”. The second principle – serving public interests – acknowledges that “some public interests are better served at a higher administrative level, (such as) certain public interests which are beyond the capacity of individual school boards acting alone, but within the gift of central government. Examples might include aspects related to equality of opportunity or system efficiency” (Onderwijsraad, 2023[24]).
OCW’s co-ordination function could be improved
While the system as a whole relies on extensive stakeholder consultative processes and co-creation in the formulation and implementation of the different policy initiatives, there is no process that would bring together all actors and stakeholders to inform them on developments related to the goals advanced by the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education, to discuss progress and challenges, to identify potential synergies and blind spots, and to consider necessary adjustments. While the ring consultation process of the Inspectorate resembles certain aspects of this process, it is limited to the thematic areas under the supervision of the Inspectorate, and participants reflect mostly school and school boards actors, including parents and students. There is no equivalent for the broader range of digital education issues overseen by OCW that would involve a broader group of participants including private actors, agencies, programmes and other government parties.
OCW engages in strong bilateral co-ordination efforts for the vertical co-ordination between OCW and each initiative under its purview. Likewise, although often informal, the horizontal co-ordination between OCW and other ministries involved in digital education seems effective overall. What seems to be in need for improvement, however, is the horizontal co-ordination between the different digital education initiatives. As the next sections and chapters illustrate, this lack of co-ordination translates into a range of issues, including duplications, blind spots, misalignment of strategic directions and limited exchange of information among of the different players in the system. It also reflects the limited central steering of the Dutch (digital) education system as the Constitutional provision on the freedom of education and the autonomy of school boards limit the scope for government intervention in school matters. Yet, this does not prevent central steering either.
OCW has been more proactive on central steering and co-ordination in recent years, but its approach remains ambiguous and inconsistent
As indicated above, there is a growing acknowledgement among stakeholders that some aspects of digital education require more proactive central co-ordination and steering and OCW’s approach to steering has evolved in response to the unique challenges brought about by digitalisation, for example assuming a greater role in digital safety and privacy. This more active role emerged from considerations of school’s limited capacity to successfully engage in highly complex legal and technical issues as well as efficiency that can be generated through economies of scale, for example by centralising DPIAs under SIVON.
As discussed in other chapters of this report, the OECD review team identified several policy areas in which limited central steering risked impeding synergies between actors and initiatives. This included the areas of digital security, data privacy and interoperability (see Chapter 3), where further central steering will be needed to ensure that important advances (coming out of the Digital Safe Education initiative, CERT, Safe Internet, DPIAs and Edu-V) benefit all schools and are sustained in the long run (see Chapter 3). Other areas included strengthening teachers’ capacity for digital education (see Chapter 5), as well as monitoring and evaluation, where greater steering by OCW will be required to collect the information necessary to assess the progress of the Dutch digital ecosystem towards strategic objectives (see further below).
While OCW’s approach to central steering has evolved in recent years, it lacks consistency. On the one hand, recent letters to Parliament suggest a willingness from OCW to take on additional steering responsibility in a number of areas: on digital security and privacy in 2022 (Dijkgraaf and Wiersma, 2022[65]), on education quality and teachers’ preparedness for digital education in 2023 (Dijkgraaf, 2023[52]) and on staff recruitment, school co-operation and the implementation of the curriculum reform in 2024 (Dijkgraaf and Paul, 2024[53]), and most recently on the development of a future-proof national digital infrastructure and a reform of its governance for cybersecurity and privacy (Paul, 2024[74]) and (Ministry of Justice and Security, 2022[23]).
On the other hand, some important related aspects, such as the alignment of initial teacher education with the demands of the curriculum reform process and quality assurance of teachers’ CPL remain untouched by the Ministry. The review team formed the impression that there was no consensus among stakeholders or within the ministry itself on the role of OCW and whether its responsibility was primarily to bring different actors of the education system together or to provide them with directions (“conducting an orchestra”). A prevailing view among many OCW actors during the OECD review visit was a vision of OCW’s role as overseeing the functioning of the system, but not necessarily steering it.
The duration of the legislative process imposes constraints on central steering
The Dutch education system relies on laws to govern important aspects of digital education, as opposed to decrees or regulations (whose use is limited to minor issues in the Netherlands). Given the significant duration of the legislative process (typically in the order of 3-4 years), this imposes constraints on the agility of policy making and slows down reform efforts on issues such as quality assurance and inspection processes. This is particularly an issue for digital education, which is evolving at a significant pace and whose challenges and issues can be rather technical, thereby limiting schools’ capacity for self-regulation. In the interim, government authorities have to rely on alternative arrangements, such as the voluntary commitment of stakeholders, as illustrated by the 2023 cell phone ban in secondary and vocational schools.
The monitoring and evaluation of digital education is hindered by a lack of strategic guidance and co-ordination, fragmented responsibilities and limited data sharing
Once key objectives for digital education are clarified and communicated to stakeholders through a digital education strategy, a well-designed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework that is aligned with this vision is key to assess progress towards policy objectives and to identify potential implementation challenges (OECD, 2023[66]). This requires the systematic collection of performance data to monitor progress towards the achievement of policy objectives as well as the structured evaluation of the design, implementation and results of a specific policy intervention for the purpose of accountability and learning about the impact of individual policies (OECD, 2019[75]).
There is a lack of a strategic approach to monitoring and evaluation of digital education by the ministry and insufficient co-ordination of data collections
Monitoring the implementation of policy initiatives and reforms and their intermediate and final results is necessary to keep track of progress and identify any areas that require further action, while the structured evaluation of the design, implementation and results of policy interventions are essential mechanisms for accountability and learning about the impact of policies (OECD, 2019[75]). Yet, while monitoring, evaluation and assessment are a well-developed component of the education system in general (Nusche et al., 2014[1]), systematic evaluation is more limited when it comes to digital education.
The Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education (OCW, 2019[47]) does not include measurable targets, implementation timeframes or performance indicators for progress monitoring (see Figure 2.3). With the exceptions of inspections processes and recent subsidy-based initiatives (the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy and National Education Programme), there is little evidence of a systematic culture of evaluation and evidence-informed management of digital education. This stands in contrast, for example, to the 2024 Updated Value-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda advanced under the leadership of EZK, which includes dedicated budgets for its strategic actions and entails the development of a monitoring system. The NGF-funded projects on digital education are another example of strong built-in M&E mechanisms (EZK, 2022[27]).
Apart from a few exceptions, the limited provisions for monitoring and evaluation permeate all levels of the digital education ecosystem, from the ministry to schools. There are several reasons for this, including a lack of clear goals and underlying objectives that progress could be monitored against, a lack of central monitoring capacity on digital education, and fragmented responsibilities for M&E. As discussed above, the Dutch Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education lacks a widely shared strategic longer-term vision for digital education policy, backed up by a clear roadmap outlining objectives, measurable targets, implementation timeframes and responsibilities. This has consequences for the system’s ability to monitor and evaluate progress on digital education as the lack of clear goals and measurable targets does not help key actors and initiatives to form a shared understanding of what needs to be monitored. A related issue is the lack of shared understanding of definitions for key concepts (e.g. quality education, digitally skilled teacher) to guide actors in their monitoring and evaluation efforts.
Furthermore, the central monitoring capacity (in terms of legal leverage and legitimacy) is limited, which derives from the fact that many critical digital education issues are currently not examined by the Inspectorate because they are not part of the statutory core objectives. This will change in the coming years with the introduction of digital literacy among the basic skills to be assessed at the end of primary and secondary education, or the introduction of the Standards Framework for Information Security and Privacy for Education (IBP) into law. But in the interim, there is no leverage for OCW or the Inspectorate to require schools to report on these issues.
Limitations to central monitoring capacity also have to do with the lack of a strategic and articulated framework for M&E on digital education. While some centrally-supported M&E initiatives exist (e.g. the MYRA survey, the systematic evaluation of interventions supported by the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy or the National Education Programme funding), they do not appear to be articulated and aligned to strategic objectives, resulting in the perception of patchy and unco-ordinated M&E efforts when it comes to digital education. Specifically, what is lacking is an indicators framework linking strategic goals for digital education to possible M&E indicators, i.e. reflecting on how the achievement of the strategic goals could be measured, which indicators would be needed to monitor progress and achievement and defining which thresholds could be considered evidence of success, achievement or progress.
Moreover, responsibilities for monitoring digital education are dispersed across different agencies and actors, leading to duplication, gaps and variation in scientific rigour (for example, evidence from school surveys is often based on low response rates and most evaluations are based on observational data that do not allow for causal inferences). Furthermore, the results of schools’ and school boards’ M&E activities are not systematically shared with the ministry and relevant implementation agencies. This gave the review team the impression that those responsible for steering the system are often working with limited evidence of what is happening within schools on digital education issues.
Overall, the absence of a culture of systematic M&E is compounded by the limited co-ordination between the different organisations contributing to monitoring activities (e.g. the Kohnstamm Institute, Kennisnet, the Dutch national centres for ICILS, TIMSS, PIRLS, TALIS and PISA, the Inspectorate and PO-Raad and VO-raad). There seems to be some central steering of these monitoring data collections from OCW to ensure that they fit together. However, the reliance on a multitude of different monitoring instruments leads to some duplication, while the varying technical standards and levels of quality of these data collection exercises and low survey response rates can impact the reliability of the resulting data and lead to contradictory evidence and messages.
There is a need for clearer accountability and transparency requirements to gather comparable data for digital M&E
The knowledge base on the impact of specific EdTech applications also seems weak and is an identified gap in the digital education ecosystem. One of the issues is that the data of most school software is held by private publishers/companies, and they are not always willing to share it for research purposes. To fill this gap, Dutch EdTech just started a Masterclass for its members on how EdTech companies can develop evidence for their products. Some data is also available at the school board level to enable evaluations of specific applications and there is promising evaluation research undertaken within the larger school boards, which conduct evaluation research on specific digital applications in collaboration with universities. For instance, the Lucas school board is conducting an evaluation of Snappet, a widely used learning app for mathematics, language and spelling, in collaboration with Radboud University under the NOLAI umbrella (Radboud Universiteit, 2025[76]). On the whole, stakeholders and educators reported difficulties in locating reliable information on the effects of digital education resources, including their impact on different student groups, the conditions in which they are most effective and any undesirable effects that educators should be aware of (see Chapter 5). The fragmentation of evidence on the impact of specific digital resources and applications underlines the need to strengthen the evidence base on digital education.
Greater transparency and accountability would also be needed from schools and their boards. In spite of the strong national impetus on digitalisation as an engine of growth and OCW’s emphasis on digital literacy in the new curriculum’s core objectives, discussions during the OECD review visit highlighted broad variation in the level of digital education development across Dutch schools, and how little is known on what is happening within schools and classrooms with digital technology, what works in digital education and the contexts in which things work. Likewise, little is known of teachers’ capacity to teach in digital environments, their professional learning needs, their participation in different types of professional learning activities on the didactic aspects of digital education and effective approaches in this respect. Students’ views on their experience learning with digital tools would also be useful at system level to understand contexts for digital education, the variance of digital maturity across schools, and to inform policy development.
There is a need to build capacity for the monitoring of progress and development of digital education in schools. With the exceptions of inspections and the OCW’s recent subsidy-based initiatives (the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy and National Education Programme), there is no evidence of built-in evaluation processes and a systematic culture of evidence-informed management of the digital education ecosystem with an integrated system of M&E. The development of comparable data between schools would thus be particularly useful to inform policymakers as well as parents on the extent of digital education use in different schools, alongside possible difficulties encountered, and outcomes achieved.
There is scope for improving the involvement of stakeholders in the governance of the digital education ecosystem to foster its coherence and facilitate its steering
A final challenge identified during the review relates to the involvement of different stakeholders in the governance of the digital education ecosystem. Despite frequent consultations and a strong tradition of co-creation in the Netherlands, the limited involvement of schools, their boards and teachers in strategic processes at the system level risks to undermine their coherence. The involvement of stakeholders in vision-setting, the development of the strategy for digital education and steering of the system is likely insufficient, thereby weakening the development of a shared understanding and ownership for the digital education strategy and associated policy directions and initiatives. This insufficient engagement of school boards, schools and teachers could also undermine the sense of trust that comes from being treated as partners and may diminish the acceptance of central steering and guidance at the implementation stage. This was perceived during the OECD review visit as a missed opportunity to rely on the potential of school leaders to become champions of digital education within their school and to collectively steer the system at school level. In the case of teachers, the absence of a professional organisation gathering input from different unions was acknowledged to be a limitation for such involvement.
The governance of intermediary agencies and initiatives, such as the Inspectorate, CvTE, Kennisnet, and SLO, lacks a sufficiently systematic and coherent approach. While central government actors are typically engaged in these processes, the involvement of other key stakeholders (particularly those at school level and other agencies or programmes operating in the same domain), is sometimes perceived as unstructured or inconsistent. A recurrent challenge is the limited strategic guidance from OCW on how to engage the right actors effectively at the appropriate stages of policy design and implementation, with clear goals and a defined timeline. Rather than sequencing and structuring stakeholder involvement according to the needs of a given initiative and a clear implementation roadmap, stakeholders tend to be brought together without a clear framework for when and how their input should be integrated.
This lack of process leadership undermines the efficiency and effectiveness of stakeholder engagement. It places a significant burden on agencies and actors with limited time and capacity to contribute meaningfully, particularly when their involvement is not aligned with key decision points. For instance, SLO was formally engaged in the development of the IOL initiative from the outset, but the absence of strong co-ordination and clarity on when and how their input would be used diluted the potential for synergies between the curriculum reform and the development of corresponding OER. This illustrates a broader need for OCW to shift from a formalistic model of stakeholder inclusion to one based on purposeful and timely engagement that maximises actors’ capacity to contribute to shared goals.
Some agencies and programmes have developed more structured internal consultation mechanisms, such as the Inspectorate’s quarterly “Ring consultations” and SIVON’s inclusive Members’ Council that ensures the involvement of school boards of different sectors and sizes. However, the OECD review team formed the impression that – for many other initiatives – the lack of clear objectives, defined roles and a calendar for stakeholder engagement diminishes the potential of an otherwise highly inclusive approach to stakeholder engagement. Several stakeholders expressed concerns that the lack of process leadership in stakeholder engagement processes could give a disproportionate influence to private sector actors (including commercial publishers, Big Tech companies or education consultancies), on education policy and practice while actors representing non-commercial interests (such as developers of OER), are often underrepresented in policy dialogues (see Chapter 4).
Challenges related to inconsistent stakeholder engagement are also perceived at the school level. Although the 2006 School Participation Act mandates the involvement of parents and students in school governance through School Participation Councils (Medezeggenschapsraad, MR) its practical implementation remains uneven (OCW, 2006[18]). Parents consulted during the OECD review expressed concerns that the consolidation of school boards has created a growing distance between governance bodies and school communities. Likewise, students reported dissatisfaction with their role in school governance, with an estimated 10% of schools lacking a functioning student council (LAKS, 2025[77]). Enhanced process leadership in stakeholder engagement processes would not only improve coherence and collaboration but also ensure that all relevant actors feel heard and that their limited resources are used efficiently.
Update and strengthen the strategic vision for digital education to effectively guide improvements in the digital policy ecosystem
While the Netherlands does have a national strategy on the digital economy (EZK, 2022[27]), as well as a Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education (OCW, 2019[47]), the latter falls short of providing education stakeholders with an up-to-date, strategic long-term vision for digital education. This raises the question of how OCW can develop and maintain a vision for digital education that is shared among all relevant stakeholders and aligns their actions and interests to enhance the quality of education for all students. Digital education in the Netherlands is currently missing a clear strategic document that articulates key strategic goals in the medium and longer term, describes how these objectives contribute to the realisation of the whole-of-government New Dutch Digitalisation Strategy, and they will be pursued. The absence of a clear implementation roadmap or action plan in the current Digitalisation Agenda for Education entails the risk for the strategy to be perceived more as a statement of intention or good will rather than a plan with concrete policy implications and expectations for its realisation. To avoid this risk, a roadmap or action plan is needed that outlines the concrete actions and policy measures in different policy areas needed to fulfil each strategic objective, the actors assigned to implement these actions and the expected timeframes for their realisation, as well as the resources assigned to each objective and action, all while providing concrete provisions for the M&E of their progress and outcomes (OECD, 2023[66]).
A strategic vision is most likely to lead to success in implementing policy reform if it is well-communicated and understood by all stakeholders in the system (OECD, 2023[66]). In this respect, the review team also felt that the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education suffers from a deficit of communication and shared understanding of its strategic directions as well as different actors’ roles in realising its ambitions. For schools and school boards, clear goals are needed to ensure their schools are aligned with system-level strategies. Likewise, in interviews during the OECD review visit, intermediate agencies and leaders of digital education initiatives were not always sure which specific objectives of the national Digitalisation Agenda their projects were expected to contribute to and which other projects they might create synergies. An updated and expanded digital education strategy should address this by providing a clear implementation roadmap that can help different initiatives in identifying shared goals and potential synergies.
The recent release of the new system-wide NDS and its implementation programme and investment agenda provide momentum to reflect on the state of digitalisation in primary and secondary education and the strategic adjustments that may be needed to ensure its continued improvement. One option would be to update the current Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education and to strengthen it by adapting its design. Alternatively, if the current Digitalisation Agenda is to be retained, a roadmap or action plan linking its strategic priorities and ambitions to concrete actions, initiatives and responsibilities should be developed. An updated Digitalisation Agenda or associated action plan should outline which organisations are responsible for advancing its key elements, specify a timeline, dedicated budgets and M&E indicators.
Involve stakeholders in updating the strategy to form a shared understanding and sense of ownership
Given the decentralised nature of the Dutch education system as well as the complexity of the digital education ecosystem with its large number of initiatives and actors, involving them effectively in the development of an updated strategy will be critical to achieve a shared understanding and ownership of strategic priorities and create synergies during their implementation. The assessment on the state of digitalisation and co-development of an updated digital education strategy should therefore bring together all actors to take stock of government-wide priorities and what they entail for the education sector, but also to discuss challenges and proposed recommendations. The process should be even more inclusive than has been the case for the current Digitalisation Agenda for Education, which involved consultations with school boards, teacher unions and sub-central authorities. In addition to fostering widespread awareness of the strategic goals pursued, this would also help them understand how the different initiatives are expected to support each other in the pursuit of specific goals, as well as encourage collaboration and create synergies between the different initiatives. This could give OCW more leverage in co-ordinating initiatives, projects and actors to generate synergies later on. The success of this approach can be particularly valuable for managing complex multi-stakeholder processes, as has been illustrated by the successful implementation of the curriculum reform to date.
Several education systems have developed their digital education strategies involving teacher unions as well as student and business representatives, sub-central authorities, where relevant, as well as other ministries and government agencies (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, pp. 47, Annex Table 1.3[46]). The Netherlands could learn from these experiences and the process they followed in engaging multiple stakeholders in co-designing their strategies. New South Wales (Australia), for example, engaged in comprehensive stakeholder consultations over a two-years period, resulting in a strategy that responds to stakeholders’ needs and demands while also being aligned with a range of other strategies within the State (see Box 2.1). Ireland engaged in a similarly comprehensive consultation process to develop its digital strategy, involving a survey of all teachers, principals and students combined with focus group work to get more qualitative insights on their needs and challenges. Ireland has also incorporated international perspectives throughout its strategy’s development (see Box 2.1).
The 2022 “Schools Digital Strategy” in New South Wales (Australia)
The government of New South Wales has designed a Schools Digital Strategy that provides a seven-year roadmap to enable schools and learners to develop and thrive in digital education. The Strategy was the result of a two-year long process in which the government engaged with leaders, teachers and support staff in schools throughout New South Wales to understand their challenges and reflect on potential solutions. The Strategy put forward five investment themes: 1) Digital Support & Innovation; 2) Digital Devices; 3) Network & Infrastructure; 4) Digital Maturity & User Capacity; 5) Digital Content, Experience & Data. Investments in these areas were to be based on previous and existing investments of the Department of Education and to be targeted across students and schools depending on their identified needs. The Schools Digital Strategy was specifically linked to a range of other government strategies and policies, including Digital NSW (the digital strategy of New South Wales), the Department of Education Strategic Plan 2018-2022, the Connecting Metro/Country Schools Program (with a focus on schools’ physical infrastructure) and the 20-Year Economic Vision for Regional New South Wales (OECD, 2023[66]).
The “Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027” in Ireland
The "Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027” in Ireland is the result of an extensive consultation process involving an open public call for written submissions, a digital questionnaire for all teachers, principals and students, focus groups on specific themes with main stakeholders (e.g. education partners, industry, students and parents), the establishment of a core Consultative Group (with management bodies, unions, parents’ representative bodies and industry representatives) and bilateral meetings with other Departments and Agencies and international partners (Northern Ireland, the EU and the UK) (Department of Education Ireland, 2025[78]).
The Strategy relies on a three pillar approach that includes: 1) embedding digital technologies in teaching, learning and assessment (taking a learner-centred approach and including objectives in the areas of school leadership, teachers professional learning, digital content, curriculum and assessment, etc.); 2) digital technology infrastructure (with objectives around the funding of digital infrastructure, the provision of broadband connectivity to schools, the provision of guidance and procurement mechanisms to schools, etc.) and a more forward-looking pillar around 3) policy, research and digital leadership (Department of Education Ireland, 2022[79]). The Strategy builds upon and develops the priorities of the EU Digital Education Action Plan as well as of the wider Harnessing Digital – The Digital Ireland Framework. An Implementation Plan is associated to the strategy, with a first implementation period covering 2023-2024, and a second implementation period whose priorities will be informed by a review of the first period.
Source: Department of Education Ireland (2025[78]), Consultations on the Digital Strategy for Schools; Department of Education Ireland (2022[79]), Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027; OECD (2023[66]), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
Design the updated strategy to provide clarity and accountability during its implementation
With respect to desirable features of the digital education strategy, the Netherlands does include some mention of specific education initiatives in the DDS 2.0 with assigned responsibilities and time-bound goals for some of them (through an update on the “state of affairs” of the DDS 2018 (Government of the Netherlands, 2021[80])). However, these features are not present in the new system-wide NDS, nor for the Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education, which education stakeholders are more likely to consult and use as a reference. It would therefore be desirable for the Netherlands to incorporate in its updated digital education strategy 1) an action plan or roadmap listing specific initiatives and assigning responsibilities for their implementation; 2) a more systematic inclusion of time-bound goals for each initiative; 3) designated budgets for their implementation; 4) reference to measurable monitoring and evaluation indicators (see below) and 5) provisions for the evaluation of the strategy outcomes.
The digital education strategies of the French Community of Belgium and Wales (UK) could provide interesting models in this process since they illustrate many of the design features that tend to characterise effective strategies (see Box 2.2). Likewise, Estonia’s Education Strategy 2021–2035 provides a good example of a strategy that identifies monitoring indicators and sets measurable goals, specifying thresholds to be considered as evidence of success or achievement for each initiative (see Box 2.4).
Stratégie Numérique pour l’Éducation (Digital Strategy for Education) in Belgium’s French Community
The French Community of Belgium has developed a comprehensive Digital Strategy for Education in 2018 (updated in 2019), which provides a good illustration of the desirable features that strategic documents shall comprise to provide effective guidance, resources and accountability to various stakeholders towards implementation. The Strategy is organised around five axes: 1) Defining digital content and resources for learning; 2) Supporting and training teachers and school principals; 3) Defining arrangements for equipping schools; 4) Sharing, communicating and disseminating; and 5) Developing digital governance. Each of these five axes is operationalised in the form of 2-4 priority actions focussed on concrete implementation and intersecting deliberately with many of the projects from the Pact for Excellence in Teaching, as well as their implementation agenda.
For each priority action, the Strategy identifies the timeframe for implementation, with disaggregated timelines for a preparation stage, the implementation ramp-up and for reaching a cruising pace. The Strategy also outlines operationalisation aspects for each priority action, including underlying initiatives and projects, the stakeholders and partners involved in advancing them (including articulations with regional authorities to generate synergies in terms of digital equipment and infrastructure) and dedicated budgets. The Strategy also outlines connections with other axes of the Strategy as well as other objectives of the Pact, and includes a plan for monitoring its implementation progress, developing and publishing monitoring indicators and integrating them into the Pact's monitoring. The Strategy also establishes a body (Comité interréseaux du numérique éducatif – CINE) dedicated to the integration of schools into the digital society and tasked to support the implementation of initiatives related to teacher support and training, digital equipment, sharing, communication and the dissemination of resources (Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles, 2019[81]).
Digital 2030: Wales’ Strategic Framework for Post-16 Digital Learning
The Welsh Digital 2030 Strategic Framework for Post-16 Digital Learning was published in 2019 and explicitly describes the responsibilities and contributions that it expects from actors within the government as well as school providers. The impetus to develop the Digital 2030 framework came from the UK Government’s Further Education Learning Technology Action Group (FELTAG) whose 2014 final report concluded: “There is increasing confidence and capability in the Further Education sector in using digital learning technology. What we lack is the means to share these ideas and developments across the sector… All the findings point towards the need for a new approach, one that balances an ambitious top-down vision with a radically more collaborative bottom-up responsibility for innovation.”
Accordingly, learning providers have provided input throughout the development of the Digital 2030 framework, which identifies aspirations for the sector and for its learners through eight aims intended to set an overall strategic direction for the sector to work towards by 2030. The Digital 2030 framework outlines six national objectives of what needs to be put in place to reach the aims: 1) Leadership and management; 2) Curriculum delivery and assessment; 3) Widening participation and learning support; 4) Employer and community engagement; 5) Staff development; and 6) Enterprise systems and infrastructure. These objectives are intended for use by learning providers in shaping, delivering and reviewing their own digital development plans.
The Digital 2030 framework also describes actions that will be required to achieve the aims and objectives, distinguishing those at a ‘national’ level (co-ordinated by the Welsh Government and/or by key stakeholders), ‘collaborative’ actions by learning providers, and actions at an ‘organisational’ level (co‑ordinated by individual learning providers). The framework thus puts learning providers in charge of implementing the framework within their institutions. The Digital 2030 framework also establishes a Steering Group to advise on the development of the framework in a fast-changing technological environment, and to monitor its implementation, through monitoring indicators and a mid-term evaluation (Welsh Government - JISC, 2019[82]).
Source: Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles (2019[81]), Stratégie Numérique pour l'Éducation [Digital Strategy for Education]; Welsh Government - JISC (2019[82]), Digital 2030: Wales’ Strategic Framework for Post-16 Digital Learning.
Clarify the role of central steering in digital education and balance guidance, quality assurance and pedagogical autonomy more effectively
Establish more clarity on areas that would benefit from central steering or should not be part of schools’ responsibility
A key challenge for the Dutch school system is to define an appropriate role for OCW in steering the digital transformation of education in a way that safeguards public interests while preserving the freedom of education and pedagogical autonomy. A recent analysis of digital education policies in OECD and EU countries highlighted that the delineation of responsibilities is key for accountability and the successful implementation of digital education strategies, especially in education systems with complex governance structures (OECD, 2023[66]). As indicated above, traditional divisions of responsibility in the Dutch school system have come under pressure given the unique challenges brought about by digital education. This has led to the recognition by many stakeholders that some aspects of digital education require more proactive central co-ordination and steering. This is most apparent in the areas of digital security, data privacy, market regulation and interoperability. Several ongoing initiatives in these areas are welcomed by stakeholders but require further steering efforts from OCW to co-ordinate their efforts and legislative action to ensure that important aspects of their agenda can be enforced.
The Education Council has provided guidance on how demands for greater central steering can be responded to while accounting for the highly autonomous nature of the Dutch education system and the freedom of education principle. The Council recommends “a more consistent approach [to central governance] based on subsidiarity and serving public interests” (Onderwijsraad, 2023[24]). This approach can help in delineating responsibilities between actors in the digital education system more consistently, leaving responsibilities to schools as much as possible, in accordance with the freedom of education principle, while allowing for some responsibilities to be shifted to higher levels of governance (e.g. to the PO-Raad and VO-raad, organisations of school boards such as SIVON, central publicly agencies such as Kennisnet or OCW). In deciding where greater central interventions would be desirable, the most important consideration should always be the public interest and ensuring a values-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.
Following this principle, issues of digital security, privacy and market regulation are obvious candidates for a more centralised approach, as public interests are at stake for all three issues. Moreover, managing these issues requires highly specialised legal or IT expertise that is not necessarily available to all schools or their boards. These issues are also likely to be managed more efficiently at central level due to economies of scale and greater bargaining power if school boards negotiate data ownership, privacy or interoperability agreements with publishers and tech companies collectively rather than individually. In the case of Big Tech companies, there might even be a case for intervention at the supranational level should current efforts of the Netherlands on the development and enforcement of privacy and interoperability norms and standards fail. The specific modalities for central intervention will vary across these different areas.
With respect to digital security and privacy, the IBP Standards Framework for Information Security and Privacy for Education, once passed into law, would have the government intervene in school operations with a new set of standards that school boards would need to comply with. This would be justified by the government’s responsibility to uphold the public interest and guarantee students’ digital safety and privacy, while not infringing much on schools’ constitutionally guaranteed right to pedagogical autonomy. School boards would retain their responsibility to ensure that these IBP standards are met, albeit with support from OCW, the PO-Raad and VO-raad, or agencies and organisations like SIVON and Kennisnet. As discussed in Chapter 6, ensuring compliance may involve incorporating schools’ fulfilment of IBP standards on digital security in the school inspection framework, provided that sufficient technical capacity has been built. The inclusion of such standards in inspection frameworks would benefit from a collaborative design process involving the PO-Raad and VO-raad, school leaders, parents, students, and the Inspectorate.
In the case of collective procurement, there would be clear public interest in securing more favourable purchasing conditions for schools and limited capacity for schools and their boards to address these issues individually, thereby justifying a more centralised approach. However, doing so through SIVON and the PO-Raad and VO-raad (who can sign agreements on behalf of their members) would be as efficient – if not more – than doing so through the ministry. There would thus be no rationale for a direct government intervention other than through supporting SIVON and the PO-Raad and VO-raad, and potentially co-ordinating with supranational authorities with regard to contractual negotiations with Big Tech companies.
More centralised provision with respect to digital security, privacy and interoperability is not incompatible with school autonomy and pedagogical freedom. This is illustrated by the experience of New Zealand, which provides internet access, digital security and monitoring services on digital education to all schools (see Box 2.3). This centralised provision allows schools and teachers to focus on their work with students and is not interfering with their pedagogical autonomy. Many of the services offered by N4L are also available to schools in the Netherlands in one form or another (i.e. through the Safe Internet programme and the CERT service), offering them through a single provider as part of a fully-funded package increases its uptake and also allows for a more comprehensive monitoring of trends in both cybersecurity threats and the way schools use digital technology.
Network for Learning (N4L) is a Crown-owned technology company that provides faster, safer internet for New Zealand’s schools (kura). Its purpose is to improve digital learning experiences that empower kaiako (teachers) and ākonga (learners) to enhance educational outcomes for all. To do so, N4L provides a range of digital education services to all state and state-integrated schools and kura across New Zealand, including connectivity, digital security services and monitoring insights. N4L provides fully-funded, fast and secure internet connectivity to over 2 470 state and state-integrated schools and 900 000 network users throughout the country, with fast and secure wifi connection and no data limitation, including through satellite connectivity in the case of remote locations. N4L also works with schools to design and upgrade their internal network and equipment as part of the Ministry of Education’s Te Mana Tūhono ICT network and cyber security support programme (Ministry of Education New Zealand, 2025[83]), which provides long-term IT support to schools. N4L also provides connectivity at home for students without internet access.
N4L also provides an Internet Safety and Security Services baseline protection to schools and students against online threats and inappropriate websites and apps, through a suite of services with recommended settings (e.g. firewalls, web filtering, safe search filtering), as well as cybersecurity monitoring, notification and crisis resolution services. Finally, N4L supports schools through expertise, tools and insights. A support hub provides a range of resources, from FAQs to support articles and training guides. In addition, N4L analyses data and conduct research surveys to better understand how schools are using digital technology. To do so, it conducts an annual survey and publishes a data and insights report, covering topics such as how students are spending their time online, what type of data is being consumed and where, how confident schools feel about online safety, what type of online threats are being blocked and what technological challenges schools are facing.
Source: N4L (2025[84]), Network for Learning: About Us, https://www.n4l.co.nz/about/; New Zealand Ministry of Education (2025[83]), Te Mana Tūhono Programme, https://www.education.govt.nz/education-professionals/schools-year-0-13/facilities-and-operations/te-mana-tuhono.
OCW should assume a more proactive role in co-ordinating and generating synergies between policy initiatives
A key challenge for Dutch education authorities is to ensure the effective co-ordination among diverse stakeholders operating within a highly decentralised education system. The need for more central steering is not limited to school quality assurance mechanisms and the delineation of clearer responsibilities of schools and their boards on the one hand, the PO-Raad and VO-raad, intermediate agencies and organisations (e.g. SIVON, Kennisnet, SLO, etc.), and the ministry. As highlighted above, there are shortcomings and inconsistencies of central co-ordination in a complex landscape of different initiatives, often implemented by different agencies that do not always work in the most synergetic ways. The review visit interviews have underlined that co-operation between the main actors of the digital education ecosystem on important policy issues (such as quality assurance, the promotion of basic skills, capacity building or market regulation) can seem ad hoc and often depends on individual initiatives in the absence of a clear roadmap or central vision. This is an area where OCW has an important role to play, as limited co-ordination otherwise risks undermining a whole-of-system approach to implementing the digital education strategic objectives. As outlined below, the need for more co-ordination spans a range of different policy areas:
It relates for instance to the curriculum reform and the implementation of the new core objectives for digital literacy, with a need for co-ordination to leverage synergies across many different players: SLO, the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre, the Impulse Open Learning Materials programme and the NAPL programme in relation to teachers’ capacity building for digital education and digital literacy (see Chapter 6). The goal would not be to prescribe how schools and teachers should implement the reform, but rather to provide them with toolkits and support to exercise their autonomy effectively.
It would also be desirable for OCW to take a more proactive co-ordination role in the areas of teacher initial teacher education and CPL, ensuring that initial teacher education programmes adjust to the new demands of digital education and the curriculum reform and taking advantage of OCW’s lead in the implementation of the National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers (NAPL) to make sure that the priority domains of NAPL align with OCW’s strategic goals for digital education and pressing issues like capacity building related to the new core objectives on digital literacy. But OCW’s co-ordination would also be important in linking the NAPL’s work stream on the development of quality criteria for CPL with the Education Development Initiative (Onderwijsontwikkeling Nederland, OON), which represents private education consultancies and works on quality assurance and certification mechanisms for teacher CPL programmes (see Chapter 5).
The regulation of digital education markets is another area where OCW could productively leverage synergies between the nascent quality alliance on learning materials led by the association of publishers (Media voor Educatie Vak en Wetenschap, MEVW), the Edu-V programme (in relation to quality criteria of data ownership and exchange, and interoperability of digital learning materials), as well as the Impulse Open Learning Materials programme, which could enrich commercial learning materials by offering greater scope for schools and teachers to personalise their teaching. Synergies between Edu‑V and MEVW already exist and similar synergies should be pursued with the IOL programme (see Chapter 4).
Last but not least, the various supports and services related to digital safety and privacy in schools should be co-ordinated more strongly (see Box 2.3). The selection and implementation of digital security and privacy services should be made as easy as possible for schools, given their highly technical and complex nature and the high stakes involved. One way to enhance co-ordination among related initiatives would be to involve the leaders of these initiatives in regular meetings led by OCW to share information on each other’s activities, progress and challenges encountered, to allow related projects and initiatives to learn from each other activities, to identify potential duplications, gaps or potential synergies, and to contribute to building a shared vision among them. These regular meetings could replace some of the bilateral interactions of OCW and individual initiatives, thereby making co-ordination efforts more efficient. Alternatively, OCW could establish a common steering committee for all projects and initiatives operating in a given policy area, or among projects and initiatives contributing to a common strategic objective (along the lines of the Programme Councils guiding several NGF programmes).
Consider strategies to accelerate reforms given the time-intensive legislative process
One factor that diminishes OCW’s ability to effectively steer digital education is the time-intensive legislative process in the Netherlands, since many issues are expected to “be set by law” – a process that can take up to four years. This is a source of delays that can make it difficult for the digital education ecosystem to keep up with the fast pace of technological change in the digital sphere. The Netherlands should therefore explore the scope for accelerating legislative processes. This could involve changes to the law-making process itself, which lies outside the scope of this review but could involve practices such as the greater prioritisation of specific legislative procedures or the use of fast-track procedures as used in Finland or Slovenia for minor adjustments to existing laws, for adjustments deriving from the transposition of European Laws, or when amendments are necessary as a result of rulings by appeal or Constitutional courts (Voermans and ten Napel, 2012[6]).
Another promising approach could be a greater use of voluntary multi-stakeholder agreements, as seen in the case of the cell phone ban, which allow for quick reforms in areas with a high level of consensus and a sense of urgency shared among stakeholders. The PO-Raad and VO-raad could be encouraged to explore the scope for such agreements in other areas among its members, as an alternative to formal law-making. In addition, Dutch education authorities could explore the scope for increasing the agility of the law-making processes itself, for example the scope for formulating laws in more generic terms and to then rely on statutory instruments or regulations to outline the detailed provisions, which can be elaborated and enacted with greater speed than parliamentary acts (Voermans and ten Napel, 2012[6]). OCW could seek the Education Council’s advice on the potential of such a strategy and the provisions that would be needed to ensure adequate safeguards to protect stakeholders’ interests and values such as the freedom of education principle
Consider clarifying agencies’ mandates and consolidating related initiatives and programmes to create synergies
A particular challenge of the Dutch digital education ecosystem relates to its complexity and large number of actors and initiatives with mandates that are sometimes unclear or overlapping. This makes it difficult for schools to know where to turn for help and makes it more difficult to create synergies between initiatives. OCW should review the current governance arrangements of the system to align them to the objectives pursued and to enhance synergies between related initiatives and programmes and across agencies operating in the same thematic space.
As a start, the mandates of key agencies should be reviewed in the light of the system’s strategic objectives and revised if necessary to ensure that they are still fit for purpose and aligned with the strategic goals pursued by the (digital) education system, but also as a way to identify and address potential duplications, gaps or untapped synergies. As described above, there could also be value in establishing thematic supervisory boards (e.g. focussed on access to digital resources; digital security, privacy and interoperability; basic skills and capacity building; quality assurance; innovation and market regulation) that would be tasked to oversee and guide the different initiatives in their area, and to foster synergies between them.
When deemed necessary, some consolidation of initiatives or agencies through mergers and integration of different projects under the same umbrella should be envisaged. This is particularly important when it comes to initiatives working with schools in order to provide more clarity to school stakeholders on whom to turn to for support. For instance, some consolidation of the different Expertise Centres could be a strategic approach to address duplications and ensure that schools receive support on the implementation of all four basic skills. The modalities could start with a common entry point for schools, with a view to build synergies and reduce duplications over time, up to a full integration of the different Expertise Centres in the longer term. There would also be value in consolidating SIVON and Kennisnet into a joint offer of services, as discussed in Chapter 3. While initial plans for a progressive integration of SIVON and Kennisnet had not been realised at the time of the OECD review visit, it has since then been announced that SIVON would become an organisation with two identities, serving its members on the one hand and, with additional public funding, carrying out activities for the benefit of the entire sector (Paul, 2024[43]).
Develop a framework for the system-level monitoring and evaluation of digital education that is aligned with strategic priorities and leverages existing data
A key governance challenge for OCW is to strengthen the monitoring of digital education in schools, including the quality of digital education and related issues such as digital security and privacy in schools, as well as the implementation key policy efforts such as the implementation of the new core objectives on digital literacy and teachers’ capacity for digital education. Stronger quality assurance mechanisms and related M&E activities are also needed in other areas of the education system where schools’ capacity to exercise their autonomy is constrained by imperfect information and evidence. This includes the quality of learning materials, the effectiveness of EdTech products as well as teachers’ continuing professional learning. A well-designed M&E framework that is aligned with the strategic vision for digitalisation is key to assess progress towards policy objectives, to identify potential implementation challenges and to help stakeholders to make informed decisions (OECD, 2023[66]).
Identify data needs and connect monitoring and evaluation provisions to the (new) digital education strategy
Policy makers are increasingly aware of the need to measure digitalisation within their education systems to enable evidence-driven policy making and ensure accountability. Setting up a monitoring and evaluation framework for digital education should start with the digital education strategy and the identification of measurable targets to assess progress towards its strategic objectives. Several OECD countries have adopted digital education strategies that include M&E indicators related to their stated goals and implementation of the strategy itself (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, pp. 42, Annex Tables 1.1 and 1.3[46]). The approaches taken by Estonia, France and Portugal provide instructive examples for the Netherlands (see Box 2.4). Estonia’s education strategy includes measurable and time-bound targets to guide actors in the system and to monitor progress towards strategic goals. Its comprehensive Education Information System also allows granular school-level data to be collected and monitored, which is particularly relevant in systems with a high degree of school autonomy. In France, developing a monitoring and evaluation system and associated dashboard was a key focus of its digital education strategy. Its approach is particularly instructive since it builds on existing evidence and brings it together to inform policymakers and actors at all levels of the education system. Portugal offers an example of a particularly rich indicator framework designed to monitor the implementation of its digital strategy, including not only some 100 indicators, but also an ongoing data collection to monitor digitalisation trends.
Estonia: Measurable time-bound goals and a comprehensive M&E information system
In Estonia, digital education is addressed as part of a broader lifelong learning strategy implemented through 3-year programmes and monitored annually based on a set of indicators, including not only a specific list of indicators, but also threshold targets to be attained as evidence of success (Estonian Ministry of Education and Research, 2021[85]). In addition to the programmes’ broad indicators for success, schools are advised to structure their internal evaluations using activity indicators, among which the frequency of digital technology use in learning and teaching. Estonia has also piloted a low-stakes test of students’ digital competences as part of quality assurance procedures and the country relies on schools’ self-reporting on their digital technology infrastructure, surveys of students, teachers and parents in Estonian schools, as well as an annual report developed by a specialised agency. The strength of the Estonian M&E system lies in Estonia’s Education Information System (EHIS), which brings together data on schools, students, teachers, exams and qualifications (OECD, 2020[86]).
France: Fostering M&E as a key action point of the Strategy, and a M&E dashboard as main deliverable
In France, the Digital Education Strategy for the period 2023-2027 (Stratégie du Numérique pour l’Éducation 2023-2027) aims to address 4 key challenges: 1) Strengthen national and local co-operation between education stakeholders around educational projects that leverage digital technology; 2) Develop students' digital skills (including digital citizenship and media and information literacy beyond technical skills); 3) Provide teachers with a clear offering combining digital tools and resources to further leverage digital technology to support student success; and 4) Develop the robustness, security, accessibility, quality, and eco-responsibility of the Ministry's IT tools (French Ministry of National Education and Youth, 2023[87]).
To support progress towards these objectives, all public digital education stakeholders engaged in the co-development of a set of indicators to monitor and pilot digital education policy, which has been shared within all levels of the digital education ecosystem. More specifically, the Strategy includes the development of a digital education dashboard (Tableau de Bord du Numérique Educatif, also known as EduPilote) covering indicators on contexts, use (of digital resources and services), competencies, training and equipment. Data filters enable users to obtain data at different levels of the education system: from the school level to aggregation at department, region, academy and national levels (French Ministry of National Education and Youth, 2025[88]).
Portugal: A monitoring framework of indicators and data on school digitalisation trends
In Portugal, digital education is embedded within a broader digital transformation strategy, which is linked to a comprehensive action plan (Portugal Digital, 2020[89]). A monitoring framework was developed to ensure the proper monitoring of the set of programmes and initiatives, based on a list of about 100 indicators. An Observatory for Digital Competences has developed a comprehensive indicator framework measuring trends over time for the selected education indicators (Direcao-general de estatisticas de educacao de ciencia, 2020[90]). Portugal also launched an online platform in late 2021 to report progress of school digitalisation and to allow continuous data collection. The data is entered into the system by digital ambassadors who work directly with schools in supporting and monitoring digitalisation. The data are shared on an online dashboard (Portuguese Republic, 2025[91]).
Source: Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (2021[85]), Education Strategy 2021-2035; OECD (2020[86]), Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems: Lessons from Six OECD Countries; French Ministry of National Education and Youth (2023[87]), Digital Education Strategy 2023-2027 (Stratégie du Numérique pour l'Éducation 2023-2027); French Ministry of National Education and Youth (2025[88]), Presentation on Digital Education Dashboard (Tableau de Bord du Numérique Educatif - EduPilote); Portugal Digital (2020[89]), Portugal's Action Plan for Digital Transition Contents; Direcao-general de estatisticas de educacao de ciencia (2020[90]), Indicators - INDICADORES Todos POR EIXOS DE AÇÃO – Observatório; Portuguese Republic (2025[91]), Capacitação Digital das Escolas (CDE) Data [Digital Training of Schools Dashboard].
The development of M&E indicators typically requires wide discussions and consultations with stakeholders to define the specific elements of digitalisation that should be monitored or evaluated, as well as other operational elements like the frequency of monitoring processes and the assignment of the necessary resources to perform the M&E function (OECD, 2023[66]). The development of a national M&E indicator framework for digital education should aim to incorporate all digital education indicators relevant in the national context, considering the strategic objectives pursued by the national strategy, so that their monitoring can inform, guide and monitor progress in its implementation. A recent OECD review of digital education policies proposes a list of generic indicators for priority inclusion in national M&E frameworks on digitalisation in education, which could be used as a starting point for Dutch stakeholders to discuss their key information needs in this area (OECD, 2023, pp. 234, Table 9.4[66]).
This challenge is not unique to the Netherlands. A growing number of education systems are working on developing a stronger evidence base on the use of digital education technologies to measure trends in these indicators. In addition to the examples described in Box 2.4, Colombia and Japan took instructive approaches to developing M&E indicator frameworks and associated infrastructures (see Box 2.5). Colombia’s experience is relevant not only because it aligned its M&E action plan well with strategic objectives, but also because its thematic focus on the use, access and impact of digital technologies mirrors important data gaps identified in the Netherlands. Japan has taken a forward-looking approach, envisaging the collection and analysis log data from learners’ devices to support a multi-dimensional M&E process and, eventually, more personalised learning.
Monitoring the use, access and impact of digital education technologies in Colombia
In Colombia, one of the objectives of the digital education strategy is to direct the use of digital technologies towards innovation in educational practices. This requires strengthening M&E of the use, access, and impact of digital technologies in education, which focussed primarily on access measures related to the provision of terminals and the number of teachers participating in training programmes at the time the Strategy was issued. Accordingly, one of the proposed actions in the Strategy consists in the development of a systematic and co-ordinated process for monitoring and evaluating the use, access, and impact of digital technologies in education.
This is to be achieved through the development of standardised conceptual definitions and comparable indicators, unified data collection instruments (for surveys, administrative records and qualitative data), the implementation of an Information and Evaluation System for Educational Innovation using Digital Technologies, the design and implementation of an Educational Innovation Index as well as a Digital Evolution Index that will measure the capacities of educational institutions according to their connectivity levels, access to digital technologies, and levels of adoption of digital technologies by the educational community (National Council for Economic and Social Policy, 2020[92]). The Colombian Strategy also encompasses a monitoring plan, listing the entities responsible for each action, their execution periods, the necessary and available resources to carry them out, and the importance of each action for fulfilling the overall objectives of the policy. Periodic reports were expected from all entities and compiled and consolidated into semi-annual progress reports.
Monitoring the use, access and impact of digital education technologies in Japan
In Japan, following widespread consultation, public authorities have created a roadmap for digitalisation which envisages bringing together, enhancing and standardising existing data sources in education (for example, by adopting international standards into national data frameworks). The first stage of the roadmap entails moving education institutions’ administrative processes and data collections online as much as possible. A second stage envisages using the online platforms built in stage one as a basis to collect and analyse log data from learner devices that can feed into multi-dimensional monitoring and evaluation processes. A third stage could begin to use the data collected to support individually optimised learning and to evaluate progress on academic achievement and noncognitive skills. The digitalisation roadmap is intended to cover all aspects of the Japanese education system (Digital Agency et al. - Japan, 2022[93]).
Source: National Council for Economic and Social Policy (2020[92]), Technologies for learning: National policy to promote innovation in educational practices through digital technologies; Digital Agency Japan et al. (2022[93]), Roadmap on the Utilization of Data in Education.
Leverage data collected by the PO-Raad and VO-raad, the Inspectorate and other promising sources of evidence
A realistic monitoring and evaluation framework needs to account for resource constraints, data availability and the reporting burden placed on schools, hence the importance of using or adapting existing data resources as much as possible (OECD, 2023[66]). In the Netherlands, promising sources of evidence have been identified during the review visit interviews, including several survey-based data collections. However, the Netherlands faces enduring challenges related to low response rates of schools to data collections and surveys. Key sources of evidence include the mandatory data collection of the inspectorate, as well as the voluntary data collections from PO-Raad and VO-raad for the Vensters platform, which inform the “Schools on the Map” and achieves nearly universal response rates (Vensters, 2025[60]). The Netherlands should leverage these existing comprehensive data collections to support the development of a comprehensive M&E framework for digital education. To do so, existing data collections by the Inspectorate and the PO-Raad and VO-raad could be extended by adding a greater focus on digital education issues.
However, covering gaps in the current monitoring landscape would also require developing original data collections focussed on digital education aspects and mobilising novel sources of data/evidence. Several promising new sources of evidence could be leveraged to support M&E efforts going forward. These include, for example, the DVO programme’s questionnaires and data on schools’ cybersecurity preparation. Relevant questions focussing on digital education could also be added to a digital education module of the school councils’ Vensters data collections. Several other OECD countries are relying on surveys of school leaders, teachers as well as students to collect information on digital education in schools. Both the Flemish Community of Belgium and England (UK), for example, use surveys to collect data on various aspects of digital education (see Box 2.6). Both offer relevant examples of data collections on digital education to inform policy making and ensuring schools’ participation.
In England (UK), a biennial Technology in Schools survey was recently launched to gather up-to-date data to understand the current state, use and spread of technology within primary and secondary schools in England and inform policy making. Findings from the first survey round were published in 2023 (Department For Education - England, 2023[94]).
Every five years, the Flemish Community of Belgium publishes a study on ICT integration in Flemish education “MICTIVO”, based on the results of a web survey conducted in 20% of Flemish schools which gathers the views of school leaders, teachers and students. MICTIVO focusses on four components: infrastructure and policy, perceptions, competences and usage at the micro level, measured through scales derived from exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (Heymans et al., 2018[95]).
Source: Department For Education (2023[94]), DFE-RR1400 2022-23 Technology in Schools Survey. Research report. November 2023; Heymans et al. (2018[95]), Monitor for ICT integration in Flemish Education (MICTIVO): The theoretical and methodological framework.
Strengthen the system-level evaluation of digital education
The use of digital technologies in schools is not an end in itself but should serve to improve the quality of teaching and learning, i.e. improve student outcomes in terms of cognitive skills and digital literacy, their socio-emotional skills and well-being, as well as their labour market and social outcomes (OECD, 2023[66]). At the same time, there are justified concerns that the inadequate use of digital technologies in the classroom could do more harm than good. Evaluating the impact of digital education policies and initiatives is therefore critical to assess their effectiveness and make adjustments where needed. Accordingly, many countries are designing strategies to fill gaps in the evidence base on the impact of digital education on student outcomes and evaluate the effectiveness of different digital pedagogical approaches, learning resources or tools.
Countries use a range of methods to evaluate the impact of digital education policies, from evaluated pilots of policies or initiatives and analysing data on students or schools with different exposure to digital education, to the use of classroom analytics data to assess the effectiveness of different teaching and learning methods. In the Netherlands, existing evaluation practices could be used more systematically and widely, such as the M&E provisions built into the activity plans of the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy, the evaluation work in NOLAI, as well as the research and data generated at school board level. International approaches to the evaluation of digital education, for example in Estonia (see Box 2.4), Colombia and Japan (see Box 2.5), or Italy (see Box 2.7) could provide inspiring examples.
In Italy, the 2022 School Digitalisation Plan “Piano Scuola 4.0” foresees the implementation of two key actions: “next generation classrooms” and “next generation labs”. While the former concerns the creation of a digital learning environment in classrooms, the latter focusses on strengthening students’ skills in areas as robotics, AI or coding. Participating schools will undergo monitoring activities every six months, which include the collection of qualitative and quantitative data on the progress of the implementation, outputs and outcomes of the projects. These data points will be compared against schools’ performance on the national evaluation system and will be published on an online dashboard.
Source: Italian Ministry of Education, (2022[96]), Piano Scuola 4.0., https://pnrr.istruzione.it.
References
[28] Adriaansens, M. et al. (2023), Inzet op Arbeidsmarktkrapte in de Klimaat- en Digitale Transitie: Het Actieplan Groene en Digitale Banen [Combating Labor Market Tightness in the Climate and Digital Transition: The Green and Digital Jobs Action Plan], Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, The Hague, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-a245a47c3d74e4bc8d2781bc835add45eb9efcd2/pdf (accessed on 16 June 2024).
[32] Allemaal Digitaal (2025), Over Allemaal Digitaal, https://www.allemaal-digitaal.nl/over-ons/ (accessed on 4 March 2025).
[4] Bijsterveld, S. (2013), Religion and the secular state: The Netherlands, Duncker & Humblot, https://research.tilburguniversity.edu/en/publications/religion-and-the-secular-state-the-netherlands (accessed on 11 February 2025).
[46] Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025), “Policies for the digital transformation of school education: Evidence from the Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 328, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/464dab4d-en.
[3] Braster, S. (2013), Christianity, neutrality and public schooling: The origins of the Dutch educational system, 1801-1920, https://doi.org/10.13042/Bordon.2013.65404.
[26] Broer, N., J. van der Walt and C. Wolhuter (2023), “Educational freedom and educational ideals in the Netherlands”, Vol. 28/1, pp. 101-119, https://doi.org/10.1177/20569971231174867.
[68] Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en.
[31] BZK (2025), Digital inclusion - Digital Government, https://www.nldigitalgovernment.nl/overview/accessibility/digital-inclusion-everyone-must-be-able-to-participate/ (accessed on 4 March 2025).
[51] BZK (2024), Updated Values-Driven Digitalisation Work Agenda, https://www.digitaleoverheid.nl/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/01/26234-AZ-Vertaling-WWD-Engels_V2.pdf.
[67] Co-Teach Informatica (2025), Co-Teach Informatica | Informatica aanbieden zonder vakdocent informatica | Informatica aanbieden zonder vakdocent informatica, https://co-teach.nl/ (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[58] de Vries, D., J. Piotrowski and C. de Vreese (2022), “Resultaten onderzoek digitale competenties (DIGCOM)”, https://dare.uva.nl (accessed on 6 June 2025).
[94] Department For Education - England (2023), “DFE-RR1400 2022-23 Technology in Schools Survey. Research report. November 2023”, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/technology-in-schools-survey-report-2022-to-2023 (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[78] Department of Education Ireland (2025), Consultations on the Digital Strategy for Schools, https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-education/consultations/digital-strategy-for-schools/ (accessed on 3 May 2025).
[79] Department of Education Ireland (2022), Digital Strategy for Schools to 2027, https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/69fb88-digital-strategy-for-schools/#digital-strategy-for-schools-to-2027 (accessed on 19 August 2022).
[93] Digital Agency et al. - Japan (2022), Roadmap on the Utilization of Data in Education, https://www.digital.go.jp/assets/contents/node/basic_page/field_ref_resources/0f321c23-517f-439e-9076-5804f0a24b59/20220307_en_education_outline_01.pdf.
[52] Dijkgraaf, R. (2023), Kamerbrief over Digitalisering in Funderend Onderwijs [Letter to Parliament on Digitalisation in School Education], https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2023/07/06/visiebrief-digitalisering-in-het-funderend-onderwijs (accessed on 7 June 2024).
[53] Dijkgraaf, R. and M. Paul (2024), Kamerbrief over Herijking Sturing Funderend Onderwijs [Letter to Parliament on the Reassessment of Guidance for School Education], https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2024/04/05/herijking-sturing-funderend-onderwijs (accessed on 1 July 2024).
[22] Dijkgraaf, R. and D. Wiersma (2022), Kamerbrief over Financiële Positie van het Onderwijs [Letter to Parliament on the Financial Situation of Education], Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-09187c501873571bebe39bf81567b9fe316f8767/pdf (accessed on 10 July 2024).
[65] Dijkgraaf, R. and D. Wiersma (2022), Kamerbrief over Verhogen Digitale Veiligheid Onderwijs en Onderzoek [Letter to Parliament on Increasing Digital Security in Education and Research], Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-309c973b8f6d9d55f6910986403934170c57e7c5/pdf (accessed on 17 June 2024).
[90] Direcao-general de estatisticas de educacao de ciencia (2020), Indicators - INDICADORES Todos POR EIXOS DE AÇÃO – Observatório, https://observatorio.incode2030.gov.pt/indicadores/indicadores-todos-por-eixos-de-acao/ (accessed on 21 August 2022).
[7] Dutch Government (2025), How an Act becomes law - Overheid.nl, https://www.overheid.nl/english/about-the-dutch-government/what-government-does/how-an-act-becomes-law (accessed on 26 February 2025).
[39] Dutch Government (2025), Mandatory primary education transition test - School advice and transition test in group 8, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/schooladvies-en-doorstroomtoets-basisschool/verplichte-doorstroomtoets-basisonderwijs (accessed on 29 July 2025).
[50] Dutch government (2025), De Nederlandse Digitaliseringsstrategie (NDS), https://www.digitaleoverheid.nl/document/de-nederlandse-digitaliseringsstrategie-nds/ (accessed on 3 August 2025).
[38] Education Inspectorate (2025), Protocol Ring Consultation, https://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/over-ons/documenten/publicaties/2016/03/03/protocol-ringenoverleg (accessed on 25 March 2025).
[35] EPDG (2025), About the Expertise Center - Expertisepunt Digitale Geletterdheid, https://expertisepuntdigitalegeletterdheid.nl/over-ons/ (accessed on 24 March 2025).
[85] Estonian Ministry of Education and Research (2021), Education Strategy 2021-2035, https://www.hm.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2022-10/haridusvaldkonna_arengukava_2035_kinnittaud_vv_eng_0%20%281%29.pdf.
[10] Eurydice (2024), Assessment in primary education, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/netherlands/assessment-primary-education (accessed on 10 July 2024).
[40] EZK (2025), The National Growth Fund [Nationaal Groeifonds], https://www.nationaalgroeifonds.nl/english/the-national-growth-fund (accessed on 6 March 2025).
[30] EZK (2023), Overview of actions Green and Digital Jobs Action Plan, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-857e723eb0ead72161c9a43a55f6a23a606c0b29/pdf (accessed on 2 March 2025).
[27] EZK (2022), Strategie Digitale Economie [Digital Economy Strategy], Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy, The Hague, https://open.overheid.nl/repository/ronl-c6a3495a523bef54ca41011f629b77b7b611045f/1/pdf/rapport-strategie-digitale-economie.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[48] EZK (2021), Dutch Digitalisation Strategy 2.0 (English version), https://www.nederlanddigitaal.nl/documenten/2019/11/13/english-version-of-the-dutch-digitalisation-strategy-2.0 (accessed on 4 June 2025).
[49] EZK (2019), Dutch Digitalisation Strategy (English version), https://www.nederlanddigitaal.nl/documenten/2019/09/30/english-version-of-the-dutch-digitalisation-strategy (accessed on 3 August 2025).
[81] Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles (2019), Stratégie Numérique pour l’Education [Digital Strategy for Education], http://www.enseignement.be/download.php?do_id=14908.
[88] French Ministry of National Education and Youth (2025), Presentation on Digital Education Dashbord (Tableau de Bord du Numérique Educatif - EduPilote), https://tube-institutionnel.apps.education.fr/w/kRicMhc6qMnYemdrcuV8X8.
[87] French Ministry of National Education and Youth (2023), Digital Education Strategy 2023-2027 (Stratégie du Numérique pour l’Education 2023-2027), https://www.education.gouv.fr/media/120418/download.
[80] Government of the Netherlands (2021), The Dutch Digitalisation Strategy 2021, https://www.nederlanddigitaal.nl/english/the-dutch-digitalisation-strategy-2021 (accessed on 8 June 2024).
[95] Heymans, P. et al. (2018), Monitor for ICT integration in Flemish Education (MICTIVO): The theoretical and methodological framework.
[37] Inspectorate of Education (2025), Inspection, https://english.onderwijsinspectie.nl/inspection (accessed on 25 March 2025).
[56] Inspectorate of Education (2024), Levels of digital literacy at the end of primary education 2021-2022 (Peil.Digitale Geletterdheid Einde (speciaal) Basisonderwijs), https://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/documenten/themarapporten/2024/03/15/peil.digitale-geletterdheid-einde-basisonderwijs-2021-2022.
[55] Karssen, M. et al. (2023), Monitor Digitalisering Funderend Onderwijs - Onderzoeksrapport Voortgezet (Speciaal) Onderwijs MYRA 2023 [School Education Digitalisation Monitor - (Special) Secondary Education Research Report MYRA 2023], Kohnstamm, Amsterdam, https://kohnstamminstituut.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/1112-MYRA-monitor-digitalisering-funderend-onderwijs-rapportage-voortgezet-onderwijs-2023.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2024).
[54] Karssen, M. et al. (2023), Monitor Digitalisering Primair en Voortgezet Onderwijs [Monitor Digitisation of Basic Education, Primary Education Research Report MYRA 2023], https://www.kennisnet.nl/app/uploads/MYRA-monitor-digitalisering-funderend-onderwijs-rapportage-primair-onderwijs-2023.pdf.
[71] Kennisnet (2025), Normenkader IBP voor het onderwijs - Normenkader informatiebeveiliging en privacy voor het onderwijs, https://normenkaderibp.kennisnet.nl/ (accessed on 13 March 2025).
[33] Kennisnet (2025), Over Kennisnet, https://www.kennisnet.nl/over-kennisnet/organisatie/ (accessed on 18 March 2025).
[64] Kennisnet (2023), Expertisepunt digitale geletterdheid in het najaar gelanceerd [Digital literacy expertise center launched in the fall], https://www.kennisnet.nl/nieuws/expertisepunt-digitale-geletterdheid-in-het-najaar-gelanceerd/ (accessed on 19 July 2024).
[73] Kohnstamm Institute (2014), Impact of the Dijsselbloem Commission on education policy, https://kohnstamminstituut.nl/rapport/impact-van-de-commissie-dijsselbloem-op-onderwijsbeleid/ (accessed on 30 April 2025).
[77] LAKS (2025), Views and Vision - Landelijk Aktie Komitee Scholieren, https://www.laks.nl/views-and-vision/ (accessed on 31 March 2025).
[57] LAKS (2024), LAKS Monitor 2023, National Action Committee for School Students, Utrecht, https://www.laks.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/LAKS-Monitor-2023.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2024).
[96] Ministry of Education - Italy (2022), Piano Scuola 4.0., https://pnrr.istruzione.it.
[83] Ministry of Education New Zealand (2025), Te Mana Tūhono programme, https://www.education.govt.nz/education-professionals/schools-year-0-13/facilities-and-operations/te-mana-tuhono (accessed on 4 May 2025).
[2] Ministry of Interior and Kingdom Relations (BZK) (2023), Chapter 1: Fundamental Rights - Dutch Constitution, https://www.denederlandsegrondwet.nl/id/vlxups19rfoe/hoofdstuk_1_grondrechten#p23 (accessed on 7 February 2025).
[23] Ministry of Justice and Security (2022), The Netherlands Cybersecurity Strategy 2022-2028 | Publication | National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism, https://english.nctv.nl/topics/netherlands-cybersecurity-strategy-2022-2028/documents/publications/2022/12/06/the-netherlands-cybersecurity-strategy-2022-2028 (accessed on 3 August 2025).
[84] N4L (2025), Network for Learning: About Us, https://www.n4l.co.nz/about/ (accessed on 3 May 2025).
[92] National Council for Economic and Social Policy (2020), Technologies for learning: National policy to promote innovation in educational practices through digital technologies, https://colaboracion.dnp.gov.co/CDT/Conpes/Econ%C3%B3micos/3988.pdf.
[21] National Education Programme (2025), Over het Nationaal Programma Onderwijs, https://www.nponderwijs.nl/over-het-nationaal-programma-onderwijs (accessed on 20 March 2025).
[45] NRO (2025), Kennisrotonde, https://www.kennisrotonde.nl/over-de-kennisrotonde (accessed on 1 April 2025).
[44] NRO (2025), Missie en strategie, https://www.nro.nl/missie-en-strategie (accessed on 31 March 2025).
[1] Nusche, D. et al. (2014), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Netherlands 2014, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264211940-en.
[59] OCW (2024), Dashboard Jaarrekeninggegevens [Financial Statement Data Dashboard], https://www.ocwincijfers.nl/onderwerpen/dashboard-jaarrekeninggegevens (accessed on 10 July 2024).
[20] OCW (2024), OECD Review of Digital Education in the Netherlands: Country Background Report, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
[63] OCW (2024), Regeling van de Minister voor Primair en Voortgezet Onderwijs van 4 april 2024, nr. OVO/44663863, Subsidieregeling verbetering basisvaardigheden voor prioriteitsscholen 2024 [Regulation of the Minister for Primary and Secondary Education of 4 April 2024, No. OVO/44663863, Subsidy Scheme on Improving Basic Skills for Priority Schools 2024)].
[61] OCW (2022), Ontwikkeling kerndoelen Nederlands, rekenen/wiskunde, burgerschap en digitale geletterdheid voor het primair onderwijs en de onderbouw van het voortgezet onderwijs [Development of core objectives for Dutch, mathematics/arithmetic, citizenship and digital literacy for primary education and lower secondary education], Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, https://www.slo.nl/publish/pages/18777/opdracht_slo_bijstelling_kerndoelen_nederlands_rekenen-wiskunde_digitale_geletterdheid_burgerschap.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2024).
[19] OCW (2021), “Act of 23 June 2021 amending a number of education laws in connection with clarification of the citizenship assignment for schools in primary education”, https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2021-320.html (accessed on 12 February 2025).
[11] OCW (2020), Wet Op Het Voortgezet Onderwijs [Secondary Education Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0044212/2025-01-01.
[47] OCW (2019), Digitaliseringsagenda Primair en Voortgezet Onderwijs, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, https://www.nederlanddigitaal.nl/documenten/publicaties/2019/11/19/digitalisation-agenda-for-primary-and-secondary-education (accessed on 3 June 2024).
[14] OCW (2014), Wijzigingswet enkele onderwijswetten (herziening organisatie en financiering van ondersteuning leerlingen in het basisonderwijs, speciaal en voortgezet speciaal onderwijs, voortgezet onderwijs en beroepsonderwijs) [Amendment Act on certain education laws], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0032176/2018-01-01 (accessed on 24 February 2025).
[17] OCW (2010), Wet Goed Onderwijs en Goed Bestuur [Good Education and Good Governance Act], https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stb-2010-80.html (accessed on 20 February 2025).
[16] OCW (2010), Wet Referentieniveaus Nederlandse taal en Rekenen [Dutch Language and Mathematics Reference Benchmarks Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0027679/2022-08-01 (accessed on 19 February 2025).
[18] OCW (2006), Wet Medezeggenschap Op Scholen [School Participation Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0020685/2024-08-01 (accessed on 19 February 2025).
[15] OCW (2002), Wet Op Het Onderwijstoezicht [Education Supervision Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013800/2025-01-01 (accessed on 18 February 2025).
[13] OCW (2001), Wet Tegemoetkoming Onderwijsbijdrage en Schoolkosten [Education Contribution and School Costs Compensation Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012438/2024-08-01 (accessed on 19 February 2025).
[8] OCW (1998), Wet Op Het Primair Onderwijs [Primary Education Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003420/2024-01-01 (accessed on 18 February 2025).
[9] OCW (1982), Wet op de Expertisecentra [Primary Expertise Centres Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003549/2025-01-01/#TiteldeelI (accessed on 18 February 2025).
[12] OCW (1969), Leerplichtwet 1969 [Compulsory Education Act 1969], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0002628/2024-01-01 (accessed on 19 February 2025).
[5] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[66] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
[86] OECD (2020), Strengthening the Governance of Skills Systems: Lessons from Six OECD Countries, OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3a4bb6ea-en.
[75] OECD (2019), Open Government in Biscay, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e4e1a40c-en.
[24] Onderwijsraad (2023), Een Duidelijke Positie voor Schoolbesturen [Clear Positioning for School Boards], https://www.onderwijsraad.nl/documenten/2023/09/28/schoolbesturen (accessed on 4 November 2025).
[43] Paul, M. (2024), Digitalisering en leermiddelen in het funderend onderwijs [Digitalization and learning resources in primary and secondary education], https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2024D45723&did=2024D45723 (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[25] Paul, M. (2024), Kamerbrief over Herijking Sturing Funderend Onderwijs [Letter to Parliament on the Reassessment of Guidance for School Education], https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2024/04/05/herijking-sturing-funderend-onderwijs (accessed on 1 July 2024).
[74] Paul, M. (2024), Letter to Parliament on Digitization and Learning Resources in Primary Education [Digitalisering en leermiddelen in het funderend onderwijs], https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/36570f27-25f5-430b-b3a2-5a87d7d7394d/file (accessed on 4 August 2025).
[89] Portugal Digital (2020), Portugal’s Action Plan for Digital Transition Contents.
[91] Portuguese Republic (2025), Capacitação Digital das Escolas (CDE) Data [Digital Training of Schools Dashboard], https://digital.dge.mec.pt/dados-cde (accessed on 5 May 2025).
[76] Radboud Universiteit (2025), Van co-creatie naar co-implementatie: een pilot [From co-creation to co-implementation: a pilot], https://www.ru.nl/over-ons/nieuws/van-co-creatie-naar-co-implementatie-een-pilot (accessed on 4 August 2025).
[41] SIVON (2025), Organisation, https://sivon.nl/organisatie-2/ (accessed on 19 March 2025).
[34] SIVON (2025), Safe Internet, https://sivon.nl/diensten/internet/ (accessed on 14 March 2025).
[42] SIVON (2024), SIVON Jaarstukken 2023 [SIVON Annual Financial Statement 2023], https://sivon.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Jaarrekening-SIVON-2023-definitieve-versie.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2024).
[36] SLO (2025), Mission and ambitions, https://www.slo.nl/over-slo/visie-missie/ (accessed on 21 March 2025).
[62] SLO (2024), Conceptkerndoelen Burgerschap en Digitale Geletterdheid [Draft Core Objectives for Citizenship and Digital Literacy], SLO, Amersfoort, https://slo-kerndoelen.files.svdcdn.com/production/uploads/assets/updates/DEF_kerndoelenboekje_BU_DG.pdf?dm=1709640714 (accessed on 8 July 2024).
[29] SZW (2025), Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid [Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment], https://www.government.nl/ministries/ministry-of-social-affairs-and-employment (accessed on 2 March 2025).
[72] van Bijsterveldt-Vliegenthart, J. and H. Zijlstra (2011), Vaststelling van de begrotingsstaten van het Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (VIII) voor het jaar 2011 [Adoption of the budget of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (VIII) for the year 2011], https://www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/brieven_regering/detail?id=2011Z07486&did=2011D18634 (accessed on 9 October 2025).
[60] Vensters (2025), What is Vensters? The Story Behind the Numbers, https://www.vensters.nl/wat-is-vensters (accessed on 10 April 2025).
[69] Viennet, R. and B. Pont (2017), “Education policy implementation: A literature review and proposed framework”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 162, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/fc467a64-en.
[70] Vincent-Lancrin, S., C. Cobo Romaní and F. Reimers (eds.) (2022), How Learning Continued during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Lessons from Initiatives to Support Learners and Teachers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bbeca162-en.
[6] Voermans, W. and H. ten Napel (2012), (PDF) Report: Legislative Processes in Transition: Comparative Study of the Legislative Processes in EU Countries, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256041563_Report_Legislative_Processes_in_Transition_Comparative_Study_of_the_Legislative_Processes_in_EU_Countries (accessed on 25 February 2025).
[82] Welsh Government - JISC (2019), Digital 2030: Wales’ Strategic Framework for Post-16 Digital Learning, https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-06/digital-2030-a-strategic-framework-for-post-16-digital-learning-in-wales.pdf.
← 1. OCW leads the Basic Skills Master Plan, together with a range of stakeholders, which include teachers, school leaders, administrators, teacher training institutes, publishers, parents, libraries and municipalities.
← 2. This includes the Entree Federatie single sign-on to access various digital learning resources, the Wikiwijs platform for the exchange of digital learning materials, or the Overstapservice Onderwijs (OSO, Education Transfer Service) to exchange student data between schools.
← 3. This includes the Reference Architecture for Primary and Secondary Education (Funderend Onderwijs Referentie Architectuur, FORA), which provides primary schools with insight into processes and activities and the rules that they must comply with, or the app checker, which assesses the compliance of different apps and online tools with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
← 4. The core objectives define the learning outcomes to be achieved by students, whose achievement is to be monitored by schools and the Inspectorate. They are akin to the curriculum standards used in other countries.
← 5. Ring 1 involves the Inspectorate, the sector Councils (MBO Raad, PO-Raad, VO-raad), unions (AOb, AVS, CNVO, JOB, NRTO), parents (Ouders & Onderwijs) and students (LAKS).
← 6. Ring 2 involves the Inspectorate, the organisations of schools for specific disciplines (Connect Green, Council for Practical Education), the organisations of schools for public education (VOO, VOS/ABB) and organisations representing government-dependent private education (Council for Special Education, ISBO, NJPV, NMV, Siméa, SHON, VBS, Verus, VGS, Association of Free Schools) as well as the parents’ association Balans.
← 7. The Dijsselbloem Commission was set up by the lower chamber of Parliament in 2007 to investigate education innovations in the 1990s and provided policy recommendations on the division of roles between government and the education sector. The Commission recommended that the government should limit itself to the 'what' (determining what pupils should know and be able to do at a certain time) and the schools should decide on the 'how' (the way in which this should be achieved). The Commission further recommended that large-scale educational innovations should no longer be implemented from above and that the government should exercise restraint when it comes to imposing new tasks on education (for example with regard to new social problems) (Kohnstamm Institute, 2014[73]).