This chapter examines the role of the Dutch curriculum framework, student assessments and school evaluations in supporting effective digital education. It reviews the role of digital literacy in the ongoing revision of the Dutch curriculum framework, its links to student assessments and the role of school-level evaluations in promoting the effective use of digital education resources. The chapter identifies strengths and challenges related to each of these policy areas. It concludes with recommendations to support the effective implementation of core objectives for digital literacy and to enhance school-level monitoring and evaluation mechanisms that can foster continuous improvement in digital education.
OECD Review of Digital Education Policy in the Netherlands
Abstract
The national curriculum framework
Schools in the Netherlands enjoy a high level of autonomy in determining their teaching content and methods and there is no national curriculum in the conventional sense. Instead, teaching in Dutch schools is guided by a national curriculum framework developed by the Institute for Curriculum Development (Stichting Leerplan Ontwikkeling, SLO), an independent non-profit institution funded by the Ministry of Education. The curriculum framework consists of three sets of legally binding documents that serve as a basis for curriculum development at the school level. These documents include core objectives (kerndoelen), two reference frameworks (referentiekader) for Dutch language and mathematics/arithmetic, as well as examination programmes (examenprogramma) for upper secondary education.
The national curriculum framework and school curricula
The core objectives developed by SLO specify broad learning goals that students are expected to reach at the end of primary and lower secondary education. Schools are expected to develop their curricula with the core objectives in mind and are held to account for ensuring their students’ success in meeting the targets. In line with the freedom of education principle, the core objectives do not describe how these targets should be reached and do not include information or prescriptions related to didactics.
Established in 1993, the core objectives were last revised in 2006. There are currently 58 core objectives for students at the end of primary and 58 objectives for the end of lower secondary education, organised around seven learning areas respectively. For primary education, the learning areas are Dutch language, English language, Frisian language, mathematics/arithmetic, personal and world orientation, art, and physical education. The learning areas for lower secondary education are Dutch language, English language, mathematics/arithmetic, people and nature, people and society, art and culture, exercise and sports. (For students in the Friesland province, there are additional objectives for the local language) (SLO, 2006[1]; SLO, 2016[2]).
The core objectives apply to all primary schools and across different pathways in lower secondary education. They describe – in very general terms – the competencies that students must acquire before progressing to the next level of education. For example, the first objective for primary education (one of three related to Dutch language oral teaching) is: “Students learn to acquire information from spoken language. They also learn to present that information in a structured way, either orally or in writing.” Given the broad nature of the objectives and their applicability to only two points in a students’ learning trajectory, the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (OCW) has, over the years, complemented them with several instruments that provide additional guidance to teachers and schools.
In response to concerns over students’ competency in reading and mathematics, SLO was tasked with developing two reference frameworks for Dutch language and mathematics/arithmetic, which were introduced in 2010. The frameworks are binding for schools and provide a more detailed description of the competencies students are expected to acquire. Each competency is differentiated by four levels applicable to students at the end of primary education and at the end of each pathway in lower secondary education (MBO and VMBO-b/k, VMBO-g/t and HAVO, and VWO) (OCW, 2009[3]). The reference frameworks have also been used to calibrate the examination programmes that are used to develop central exams for upper secondary education and they serve as a reference for publishers of learning materials.
The central examination programmes (examenprogramma) are another legally binding component of the national curriculum framework, which provides the key reference point for students’ learning objectives at the end of upper secondary education. The examination programmes are developed by the Ministry of Education and SLO. For each subject, they determine whether it is centrally examined and, if so (as is the case for most subjects), which learning areas should be assessed by the central and by school-based examinations respectively. Given the importance of the central examinations at the end of upper secondary education, the examination programmes’ attainment targets significantly shape the curriculum development in secondary schools (Examenblad, 2024[4]). Based on the examination programmes, exam syllabi for secondary education are developed by the Board of Tests and Examinations (College voor Toetsen en Examens, CvTE), an autonomous administrative authority, mandated by the government to ensure the quality and administration of national tests and examinations.
In addition to the three legally binding components of the national curriculum framework, SLO has developed voluntary guidance to support schools in developing their school-based curricula. These include content lines (inhoudslijnen) covering each learning area for primary schools. The content lines draw on the core objectives (and, for Dutch and mathematics, the reference frameworks) and provide suggestions of content items (aanbodsdoelen) that could be covered at different stages of primary education (and, in some cases, extending into pre-primary and lower secondary education) to work towards the core objectives (SLO, 2024[5]; SLO, 2023[6]). The content items are described at a relatively high level and serve as non-binding suggestions that subject teachers can use to develop more detailed learning strands for their school before translating them into lesson and activity plans (see Figure 6.1).
Source: SLO (2024[5]), Waarom inhoudslijnen? [Why content lines?], https://www.slo.nl/sectoren/po/inhoudslijnen-po/waarom-inhoudslijnen.
To support schools in developing their curricula, SLO also provides continuous learning strands (doorlopende leerlijnen) for a range of learning areas. The learning strands suggest how the core objectives in each learning area can be articulated at and across different levels of education in the form of intermediate objectives (SLO, 2024[7]). For example, the continuous learning strands for mathematics propose a continuum of age-appropriate objectives for topics such as “number representation” from pre-school to Group 4 of primary education and from Group 5 of primary education to Form 1-2 of secondary education. The learning strands are not binding and serve to support schools in articulating their own learning pathways. Learning strands are also available for upper secondary education, where they articulate the connection between the core objectives for the end of lower secondary education and the competencies assessed in the examination programmes at the end of upper secondary education.
SLO maintains a website (Leerplan In Beeld [Curriculum in Focus]), which provides access to the legally binding documents of the national curriculum framework (core objectives, reference frameworks, and examination programmes and syllabi) as well as the non-binding guidance documents (continuous learning strands, content lines and other relevant resources, such as European Reference Frameworks), organised by subject and level of education (SLO, 2024[8]).
The reform of the national curriculum framework
Efforts to update the Dutch curriculum framework go back to at least 2014 and the “Education 2032” reform programme. The initiative underwent several reorientations owing to political opposition, concerns over the reform process, its scientific underpinning, as well as a lack of stakeholder support, ultimately failing to result in any curriculum revisions until 2022 (Visser, 2016[9]; Van der Wateren, 2016[10]; Vecon, 2023[11]; Rouw and van der Hoeven, 2023[12]). The current curriculum reform was initiated in 2022, when the Ministry of Education tasked SLO with revising the core objectives for primary and lower secondary education, along with the examination programmes for upper secondary education (OCW, 2021[13]; OCW, 2022[14]). The curriculum reform is intended to modernise the examination programmes and core objectives, some of which are widely considered to be outdated. Additional goals of the reform are to provide more guidance to schools and teachers (without being prescriptive) and to improve the alignment between the core objectives for primary and lower secondary education, the examination programmes in upper secondary education and the reference frameworks for Dutch and mathematics (SLO, 2023[15]).
The reform is intended to proceed subject-by-subject, prioritising work on the core objectives and examination programmes for four “basic skills” (basisvaardigheden). These basic skills are Dutch language, mathematics/arithmetic, as well as the new learning areas citizenship (burgerschap) and digital literacy (digitale geletterdheid), for which no core objectives had been in place at the time of the OECD review visit (Rouw and van der Hoeven, 2023[12]). First drafts of the revised core objectives for Dutch language and mathematics/arithmetic were released in September 2023 (SLO, 2023[15]). Following a pilot in schools and revisions based on practitioners’ feedback, the core objectives were delivered in their final form in April 2025 and are currently in the process of being adopted into law (SLO, 2025[16]). Drafts of the new core objectives for digital literacy and citizenship were published in March 2024 (SLO, 2024[17]) and their final versions were presented in September 2025 (after the OECD review visit) (SLO, 2025[18]; SLO, 2025[19]).1 The core objectives for the remaining learning areas (modern foreign languages, people and society, people and nature, art and culture, and exercise and sports) are still in the testing phase (SLO, 2024[20]). SLO is also reviewing the reference frameworks for Dutch and mathematics and is expected to publish an advisory report on their revision.
The revision of examination programmes for all subjects and school types has begun in parallel with that of the core objectives. Under the leadership of SLO, teachers, school leaders, students and relevant stakeholders are working together to update the examination programmes, aligned with quality requirements that OCW has set out under the guidance of a scientific curriculum advisory committee (wetenschappelijke curriculumcommissie). As of September 2025, draft examination programmes have already been prepared for Frisian language and culture, classical languages, social studies, modern foreign languages, Dutch, mathematics (HAVO and VWO) and natural sciences. In September 2024, work began to update the examination programmes for exercise and sport, art and culture, and people and society. At the same time, the Board of Tests and Examinations (CvTE) has begun developing draft syllabi, based on the revised examination programmes, for subjects that are assessed at the central level (SLO, 2024[20]).
Digital literacy in the new curriculum framework
The current core objectives, created in 2006, make only passing reference to students’ ability to navigate an increasingly digitalised world.2 Including digital literacy in the revised national curriculum framework was therefore seen as an important objective of the ongoing revision process. Introducing a distinct learning area for digital literacy in primary and lower secondary education and treating it as a “basic skill” in the Dutch curriculum framework also sends a strong signal concerning their centrality for the Dutch education system. The core objectives for digital literacy outline nine learning goals across three domains. Each core objective consists of a brief description of the target (included in Table 6.1), which is further elaborated and differentiated for the end of primary and the end of lower secondary education (SLO, 2024[17]). These core objectives for schools are supplemented with student-oriented “mastery objectives” (beheersingsdoelen), describing what students must know and be able to do, and “experience objectives” (ervaringsdoelen), describing the efforts that students are expected to make.
Domains, core objectives and their descriptions for primary (PO) and lower secondary education (VO)
Source: SLO (2025[18]), Definitieve Conceptkerndoelen Digitale Geletterdheid [Final Core Objectives Digital Literacy], https://www.slo.nl/publish/pages/22984/definitieve-conceptkerndoelen-digitale_geletterdheid-inclusief-toelichtingsdocument.pdf.
In 2022, prior to the development of the draft core objectives, SLO had already developed content lines (inhoudslijnen) for digital literacy in primary education (SLO, 2024[8]). These content lines provide non-binding suggestions for content items that schools can teach at three stages of primary education (SLO, 2022[21]). An equivalent non-statutory document for lower secondary education links these content lines to corresponding goals (aanbodsdoelen) at the next level of education (SLO, 2022[22]). These earlier guidance documents are organised in four areas (practical ICT skills, media literacy, digital information skills and computational thinking), with the plan to align them with the core objectives once the latter have been approved. In developing the core objectives, SLO conceived of digital literacy and citizenship as transversal competencies that could be taught across multiple relevant subjects. It is therefore expected that both digital literacy and citizenship will be integrated transversally across the revised examination programmes of relevant subjects, rather than being examined as stand-alone subjects (SLO, 2021, p. 15[23]).
Student assessment
Primary and secondary schools in the Netherlands have an established culture of student assessment. Assessment is used to track the progress of individual students over time and informs decisions about students’ progression and certification. It also provides data for schools’ self-evaluation, quality assurance and accountability. The following sub-sections provide an overview of the different types of assessment that are conducted for each of these purposes.
Formative assessment and student monitoring
Assessment for student monitoring plays an important role in the Dutch education system (Nusche et al., 2014[24]). Students’ performance is tracked to provide parents with regular updates on their performance and to inform teachers’ pedagogical choices throughout primary and secondary education. Since 2014/15, primary schools have been obliged to administer attainment tests in Year 8 (see below) and use a student monitoring system (Leerlingvolgsysteem, LVS) to keep track of students’ progress and results from Year 3 onwards (Eurydice, 2024[25]). Schools can choose among a range of LVS offered by private providers and accredited by CvTE (CvTE, 2024[26]), some of which combine the monitoring of students’ performance with administrative functionalities typically found in learning management systems (LMS) and student information systems (SIS) (also referred to as Leerlingen Administratie Systeem, LAS) (OECD, 2023, p. 255[27]). Accredited LVS in primary education include “Leerling in Beeld” (developed by Cito), “Boom LVS” and “IEP-LVS”. The widespread use of LVS in the Netherlands also allows schools to monitor students’ performance over time and to transfer this information across schools as students advance through the education system.
While the use of an LVS is not mandatory in secondary education, many schools use a LVS or SIS/LAS that allows them to record and monitor students’ performance data. ParnasSys, for example, is a commonly used SIS/LAS that allows schools to track students’ learning, adjust instruction to their learning needs and provide parents with regular updates on their progress (Eurydice, 2024[25]). Likewise, Magister is an administrative system with a broad set of functionalities developed by Iddink, which is used by many secondary schools to track students’ data and to provide both students and parents with updates on their education performance. Parents typically receive progress reports on their children’s academic development several times a year, summarising their performance on written and oral tests, as well as school projects (Eurydice, 2023[28]).
Digital technologies play an important role in monitoring students’ achievement in the Netherlands. The widespread use of digital learning platforms has significantly expanded the availability of data on students’ learning progress and schools have embraced Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS), particularly at the primary level, in mathematics and Dutch language. Snappet, for example, is currently partnering with over 2 500 schools in the Netherlands, according to information provided by its supplier. The software offers learning assignments in various subjects and uses adaptive technology to adjust tasks to students’ ability levels and to provide immediate feedback. Snappet also allows teachers to track students’ progress and identify the exercises they struggle with. Other applications, like Flexi (developed by Kurve), Rekentuin, Taalzee and Words&Birds (developed by Prowise Learn) use algorithms and data-driven analyses to provide students with customisable exercises and instructional materials while tracking their progress, providing direct feedback, real-time error corrections and exercises tailored to students’ learning levels (OECD, 2023, p. 145[29]).
In secondary education, schools typically monitor students’ performance through regular formative and summative assessments but enjoy significant autonomy in choosing their approach. According to lower secondary teachers’ reports in TALIS 2024, they use digital tools in assessment somewhat less frequently than their peers in other OECD countries. 37% reported using digital tools to assess students “frequently” or “always”, compared to 45% on average across the 27 OECD education systems participating in the survey. 21% reported frequently using digital resources to provide feedback to students (OECD average: 34%) and 25% reported frequently providing students with digital resources to monitor their own learning (OECD average: 31%) (see Figure 6.2).
Frequency with which teachers reported using digital resources and tools for the following tasks; Based on responses of lower secondary teachers
Note: *Caution is required when interpreting TALIS 2024 estimates for teachers in the Netherlands because technical standards with respect to participation rates were not met, leading to a higher risk of non-response bias. For more information, see Annex A in OECD (2025[30]).
Source: OECD (2025[31]), TALIS 2024 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/talis-2024-database.html.
As is the case across OECD countries on average, younger lower secondary teachers are somewhat more likely to report frequently using digital resources in assessment in the Netherlands, but there are no significant differences between male and female teachers (OECD, 2025[31]). As in all OECD countries, teachers with more positive beliefs about the benefits of using digital resources and tools are more likely to use them for individualised instruction and assessment in the Netherlands. The same is the case for educators teaching larger classes (OECD, 2025, pp. 287, Tables 1.52 and 1.55[30]).
Summative assessment for students’ progression and certification
In addition to continuous formative assessment, which is aimed primarily at monitoring students’ progress, providing feedback and adapting instruction, Dutch students are subject to summative assessments that affect their further progression through the education system. At the end of primary education, students take the compulsory school leavers’ transfer test (verplichte doorstroomtoets basisonderwijs), which assesses their knowledge and skills in Dutch language as well as mathematics/arithmetic, compared to central reference levels. While the transfer test is not a pass-or-fail exam, the results of the test are considered when schools formulate their recommendation (advies) on suitable pathways in lower secondary education (VMBO, HAVO, VWO or a combination of them) (see Chapter 1). The recommendation is binding to secondary schools, which have to place students at or above the level of the recommended pathways. If students’ performance in the transfer test exceeds the teachers’ expectations, their recommendation may be adjusted upwards unless the teacher provides a justification for maintaining their initial recommendation. The results of the transfer test are also used by the Inspectorate of Education to monitor school quality in primary education (Eurydice, 2024[25]). While schools are required to administer a transfer test, they can choose from the tests developed by six different providers, the majority of which offer digital and adaptive testing formats (PO-Raad, 2017[32]).
Students sit school leaving examinations in the last year of upper secondary education (i.e. Year 4 of VMBO, Year 5 of HAVO and Year 6 of VWO). For most subjects, the final examinations consist of a school exam, followed by a central exam. The average result of both components determines students’ final grade. School-based examinations are developed and administered by schools. Their exam syllabi are reviewed by the inspectorate and need to be aligned with the central examination programmes (Eurydice, 2023[28]). CvTE is legally responsible for the central examinations and overseeing their development and administration. It has entrusted Cito with the task of developing the exam contents based on central examination syllabi (CvTE, 2024[33]). Some of the central exams are administered in the digital exam environment Facet, which was developed jointly by CvTE, Cito and the Education Executive Agency (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs, DUO). The use of digital exam formats varies across school types and subjects. Since digital formats were introduced for their final central examinations in 2005, nearly all students in the basic and middle-management vocational programmes (VMBO-b and VMBO-k) have transitioned to digital exams. (Paper-based central exams for general secondary education subjects in VMBO-b and VMBO-k are no longer offered since 2025). By contrast, most students in HAVO, VWO, as well as the combined and theoretical vocational programmes (VMBO-g and VMBO-t) still take their exams on paper (CvTE, n.d.[34]). Since the core objectives for digital literacy are not yet a statutory part of the national curriculum framework, they are not currently assessed at either the primary or secondary levels.
School evaluations
Internal school evaluations
Although there is no centrally prescribed self-evaluation process, schools in the Netherlands are required to report information on different aspects of students’ performance, the schools’ financial situation and its governance to ensure public accountability. The Dutch Primary Education Act (Wet op het Primair Onderwijs, WPO) and Dutch Secondary Education Act (Wet op het Voortgezet Onderwijs, WVO) mandate schools to prepare an annual school report (jaarverslag) and school guide (schoolgids), as well as a school plan (schoolplan). The school plan covers a period of four years and is primarily intended as a planning instrument for schools. While the format and level of detail of the school plans is flexible, they need to contain a description of the school’s educational and staff policy as well as its quality assurance system. The school plan’s preparation is initiated and led by the school principal and requires the approval of the participation council (medezeggenschap). The school boards bear overall responsibility for the preparation of the reports and submit them to the inspectorate (OCW, 1998[35]; OCW, 2020[36]).
In addition to the school plan, primary and secondary schools are required to submit an annual report in which they describe their progress over the past year, as well as financial indicators and an outlook on future developments. School boards are responsible for ensuring their schools’ preparation of annual reports and for submitting them as part of their own annual reporting obligations (bestuurverslag). Schools are required to publish the annual report and school plan, alongside descriptions of a range of school policies (concerning pedagogical provisions as well as matters such as parental contributions), as part of their school guides. The school guides are directed at parents, guardians and students and are published on schools’ websites as well as the central website “Scholen op de kaart” (Schools on the map). The preparation of these documents serves as an accountability instrument as well as an opportunity for schools to critically reflect on their strengths and areas of further development (OCW, 2023[37]). Many schools draw on the support of education consultancies (adviesbureaus) when preparing their school plans and annual reports.
External evaluations of schools and school boards
The Inspectorate of Education is responsible for reviewing and monitoring the quality of all recognised education institutions in the Netherlands as well as the education system as a whole. The inspectorate has the mandate to ensure that schools and school boards comply with legislation and statutory requirements and to encourage them to maintain and improve the quality of their educational offer. To do so, the inspectorate publishes system-wide reports and conducts regular inspections of school boards, as well as sample-based and risk-based school inspections, guided by a national inspection framework (Inspectorate of Education, 2023[38]; Inspectorate of Education, 2023[39]).
Every school board in the Netherlands is subject to a regular inspection every four years. The inspections of school boards focus on their ability to ensure high-quality education in their schools, including their approach to quality monitoring, school improvement support and financial management. The board-level inspections also involve visits of selected schools under the boards’ control (OCW, 2024[40]).
Since the inspectorate shifted the focus of its regular inspections to the board level in 2017, its approach to the inspection of individual schools has been risk-based. Using a Digital Performance Monitor, the inspectorate conducts an annual risk assessment of schools and school boards and identifies at-risk schools for inspections. The selection draws on data related to learning outcomes in central assessments and exams, developmental progress, data on enrolment and staffing, complaints, and the school boards’ annual reports. At the primary level, for example, the inspectorate considers the results of the previous three years’ leavers’ transfer tests (Dutch Parliament, 2023[41]). At the secondary level, the inspectorate considers repetition rates, students’ performance compared to their teachers’ transfer recommendations, as well as the schools’ results in the upper secondary central examinations (Dutch Parliament, 2023[42]). In both cases, the inspectorate takes into account the schools’ student composition and adjusts the expected performance accordingly.
In 2023, the inspectorate started complementing its risk-based inspections of schools with inspections of a random sample of schools, starting with 200 primary schools in the first year. The rationale of the sample-based inspections is to ensure that the inspectorate gains insights into school practices across the performance spectrum as well as to determine the validity of their risk models (Inspectorate of Education, 2024[43]). Inspected schools are rated on a three-point scale as “satisfactory”, “unsatisfactory” or “very weak”. Those receiving the lowest rating are automatically subject to follow-up inspections and have to improve within a year in order to avoid sanctions. Follow-up inspections for schools deemed “unsatisfactory” may be undertaken depending on the severity of the risk and the school board’s control of the situation (OCW, 2024[40]).
The inspection frameworks for primary and secondary education were established in 2021 (with minor updates in 2024) and are based on statutory requirements for schools and school boards (Inspectorate of Education, 2023[38]; Inspectorate of Education, 2023[39]). The frameworks cover standards related to the teaching and learning process (including its alignment with the national curriculum framework’s core objectives and reference levels for Dutch and mathematics), the safety, security and atmosphere of the learning environment, learning outcomes, school management, quality assurance and the school’s ambition. In the absence of statutory requirements, the inspectorate does not currently have a mandate to assess schools on criteria related to digital safety, digital education or digital literacy. Changes to schools’ statutory requirements related to the ongoing reform of core objectives or mandatory standards concerning privacy and information security would require corresponding revisions of the inspection frameworks.
In a decentralised education system with a high level of school autonomy, the Dutch Inspectorate of Education serves an important central steering role, which is underlined by the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). In 2022, 70% of 15-year-old students in the Netherlands attended a school whose principal reported that the results of their external school evaluation had led to changes in school policies (compared to the OECD average of 55%). Likewise, 72% of students attended a school whose principal had put into practices measures derived from the results of external evaluations (slightly above the OECD average of 68%) (see Figure 6.3). These results point to the inspectorate’s influence on school practices in the Dutch education system.
Share of 15-year-old students whose principals reported the following about their schools' external evaluations
Note: Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of the proportion of principals reporting that evaluation results led to changes in school policies.
Source: Authors' analysis based on OECD (2023[44]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
The revision of the curriculum framework is widely supported and aligned with the country’s digital transformation strategies
The reform of the national curriculum framework acknowledges the importance of digital literacy for students and the country’s broader digital strategy
The strategic importance of fostering digital literacy among students and the wider population is recognised in the whole-of-government Dutch Digitalisation Strategy 2021 (Government of the Netherlands, 2021, p. 63[45]). This goal also features prominently in the 2019 Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education (Digitaliseringsagenda primair en voortgezet onderwijs), an initiative of OCW, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy (EZK), the PO-Raad, the VO-raad and Kennisnet (see Chapter 2). The Agenda notes that “digital literacy is one of the fundamentals a pupil needs in order to function in today’s society”, and commits to including digital literacy in the curriculum frameworks for primary and secondary education (Ministry of Education, 2019[46]). To maintain the country’s position at the forefront of the digital economy, the Dutch government has committed itself to upskilling the workforce and having 1 million digitally-skilled people in the labour force by 2030 (EZK, 2022, p. 4[47]). In light of these ambitious targets, the curriculum reform marks an important step to ensure that the education system equips students with future-oriented skills to strive in an increasingly digital environment.
Results of the latest International Computer and Information Literacy Study (ICILS) have underlined the importance of further strengthening Dutch students’ digital literacy (see Chapter 1). ICILS results point to deficits in the computational thinking skills and the computer and information literacy of students in Year 8, when compared with international peers (Krepel et al., 2024[48]; Fraillon, 2024[49]). At the same time, the ICILS survey shows that school leaders in the Netherlands consider digital literacy to be an important skill and interviews conducted by the OECD review team suggest that many of them already seek to include it in their school-based curricula (Krepel et al., 2024, p. 55[48]). Similarly, a representative survey conducted by DUO on behalf of the Platform for the Information Society (ECP) in 2023, showed broad support for a stronger role of digital literacy in the Dutch school system (see Figure 6.4). 84% of teachers and 92% of school leaders in secondary schools saw a high or very high need to further improve their students’ digital literacy (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023[50]; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023[51]).
School leaders’, ICT co-ordinators’ and teachers’ assessment of the need to further develop students' digital literacy in the Netherlands
Source: DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies (2023[50]), Monitor Digitale Geletterdheid in het PO [Digital Literacy Monitor in Primary Education], p. 4; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies (2023[51]), Digitale Geletterdheid in het VO [Digital Literacy in Secondary Education], p. 29.
In the country’s current core objectives from 2006, digital literacy only plays a marginal role, which is one of the reasons why stakeholders across the Dutch education system have expressed a long-standing desire for curriculum reform and central guidance on digital skills. The 2023 DUO survey showed that teachers and school leaders considered a lack of curriculum guidance one of the main barriers to teaching digital literacy, both in primary and secondary schools (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023[50]; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023[51]). The ongoing reform of the national curriculum framework and the introduction of digital literacy as a distinct learning area among the core objectives and examination programmes presents an opportunity to fill this gap.
In the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age, all 37 participating education systems reported having integrated students’ digital skills in their school curricula from the primary to upper secondary level in one way or another (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, pp. 50, Annex Table 2.1[52]). While some national curricula merely recommend teaching digital skills, two thirds of them feature digital skills as a mandatory component (see Figure 6.5). By introducing students’ digital literacy as a compulsory core objective, the Netherlands would therefore follow the path taken by many OECD countries.
Dutch schools will be autonomous in how they integrate the new core objectives into their own curricula, but it is expected that most schools will take a transversal approach and promote students’ digital literacy in multiple subjects (SLO, 2021, p. 15[23]). The draft core objectives acknowledge the transversal significance of digitalisation and digital skills. For example, they refer to “navigating and assessing the reliability of digital sources online” in the core objectives for digital literacy as well as those for reading.
Many OECD countries and partner economies take a transversal approach to the integration of digital skills in their curricula. This was the case in 31 of 37 jurisdictions participating in the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age in 2025. At the same time, many countries – particularly at the secondary level – have optional or compulsory subjects, such as technology and computer science, that are more specifically focussed on teaching digital skills (see Figure 6.5). It remains to be seen how much guidance Dutch schools will receive in integrating the new core objectives for digital literacy, but the draft objectives lend themselves to a transversal integration while still providing schools with the opportunity to offer dedicated subjects with a focus on ICT.
Number of jurisdictions with the following central frameworks for students' digital skills in school curricula
Note: Number of jurisdictions with available data = 37. See Boeskens and Meyer (2025, pp. 50, Annex Table 2.1[52]) for further details and individual jurisdictions’ responses corresponding to this figure.
Source: Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025[52]), “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, Annex Table 2.1.
The new core objectives for digital literacy are supported by relevant stakeholders and were developed with their involvement
SLO is drawing on the experience of stakeholders across the education system as it develops the new core objectives for digital literacy. SLO has established domain-specific working groups of primary and secondary education teachers, subject experts and curriculum experts under the supervision of non-subject specific specialists to moderate the process and ensure consistency across learning areas. The working groups were supported by advisory committees including – in the case of digital literacy – representatives from Kennisnet, the Media Literacy Network, publishers, test developers, as well as associations of teachers and staff working on computer science and digital literacy. While students are not directly involved in the development of the core objectives, SLO has collaborated with the National Action Committee for School Students (Landelijk Aktie Komitee Scholieren, LAKS) to organise panels that gave students the opportunity to provide feedback on interim outputs of the curriculum working groups. Additional monitoring and expert groups were consulted for quality assurance purposes (SLO, 2023[53]). The revision of the examination programmes follows a similar process.
Involving stakeholders early and throughout the curriculum reform process is important to build support for its implementation and to ensure that it responds to practitioners’ needs (Gouëdard et al., 2020[54]). The participatory and iterative nature of the development process therefore represents an important strength of the Dutch curriculum reform. Involving a wide range of education practitioners, experts and stakeholders also promises to strengthen the reform’s legitimacy, reduce resistance to change and strengthen its ownership among key stakeholders (Gouëdard et al., 2020[54]). This is particularly important in the context of a highly decentralised school system where the implementation of the curriculum framework will depend on the buy-in of schools and teachers. The inclusive approach to developing the new core objectives and examination programmes has so far enabled the ministry to avoid some of the challenges that had undermined previous reforms, including the Education 2032 initiative. In its interviews, the OECD review team formed the impression that the curriculum reform and the draft core objectives for Dutch language, mathematics/arithmetic, citizenship and digital literacy enjoyed support from relevant stakeholders across the education system.
Piloting the new curriculum framework provides an opportunity to collect valuable feedback prior to its implementation
Following the release of the draft core objectives and examination programmes, SLO started a piloting process, which allowed selected schools to test the new curriculum documents and provide feedback. The pilot phase of the draft core objectives started in September 2024 and involved up to 360 schools across the country. As part of this process, SLO held meetings in different educational regions to discuss the draft core objectives with school leaders, teachers and co‑ordinators working on the respective learning areas in the participating schools. This process was followed for digital literacy and citizenship, as it was for all other learning areas. Following the meetings, schools received a practical assignment and supplementary materials to test elements of the curriculum in their school. SLO collected feedback from schools and refined the draft core objectives on this basis prior to sharing them with OCW (SLO, 2024[55]). The piloting of draft examination programmes will follow a similar process and is conducted in collaboration with experts from CvTE and Cito.
Piloting curriculum frameworks can be an effective strategy to identify and overcome challenges early on, to take on board the experience of practitioners and to ensure their buy-in. The long legislative process involved in curriculum reforms can make it difficult to implement timely adjustments in response to problems encountered during the implementation process. Piloting curriculum frameworks can help to avoid this time lag and make the necessary adjustments based on feedback from the pilot schools (OECD, 2020[56]). Given the significant changes entailed by the Dutch curriculum reform – including the introduction of new learnings area and the provision of more detailed guidance to schools – information on schools’ early experiences with the new curriculum documents will be particularly valuable.
The revised curriculum framework and draft core objectives for digital literacy provide teachers with additional guidance
In line with the freedom of education principle, the Netherlands stands out among OECD countries for the level of autonomy that schools and teachers are granted by the national curriculum framework. This is borne out by principals’ responses in PISA 2022, which gave the Netherlands one of the highest values on the index of schools’ responsibility for the curriculum. The index captures teachers’ and schools’ autonomy, for example in deciding which courses and course contents are taught and which learning materials are used (see Figure 6.6). In the Netherlands, in contrast to many other OECD countries, this high level of autonomy does not only apply to private schools, but also to public schools (OECD, 2023, pp. 213, Figure II.6.3[57]).
Based on principals’ reports
Note: * Caution is required when interpreting estimates because one or more PISA sampling standards were not met (see PISA 2022 Reader’s Guide, Annexes A2 and A4). The index reflects the relative level of responsibility held by school staff (as opposed to local, regional or central authorities) in deciding issues related to the curriculum (i.e. "Establishing student assessment policies, including national/regional assessments"; "Choosing which learning materials are used"; "Determining course content, including national/regional curricula"; and "Deciding which courses are offered").
Source: OECD (2023[57]), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en, Table II.B1.6.1.
The openness of the Dutch curriculum frameworks provides schools with opportunities to innovate and adapt their instruction based on their pedagogical approaches and their students’ needs. At the same time, a high level of autonomy alone does not guarantee schools’ and teachers’ professional agency or their effective use of this freedom to enhance teaching and learning. Evaluations of Dutch curriculum documents suggest that some schools and teachers fail to embrace the pedagogical freedom they are granted. A 2022 evaluation of the reference frameworks for Dutch and mathematics, for example, found that teachers considered their reference levels too broad and struggled to evaluate students' performance against them (van den Broek et al., 2022[58]). Studies conducted by SLO also showed that the relative vagueness of the curriculum documents leads some teachers to rely too much on learning materials produced by education publishers, which risks diminishing their professional agency (Folmer, Koopmans-van Noorel and Kuiper, 2017[59]).
The ongoing reform of the Dutch curriculum framework responds to some of these concerns. It not only modernises students’ learning goals by introducing digital literacy alongside other important 21st century skills, but also promises to provide more extensive guidance to teachers and schools, particularly in primary and lower secondary education. It does so by increasing the number of core objectives and by describing them in more detail. For instance, the old curriculum framework includes 12 high-level core objectives related to “Dutch language”, whereas the new draft objectives include 21 learning goals on the subject, divided into three main domains (communication, language and literature) and several sub-domains. Furthermore, the draft core objectives complement a short description of each objective with a more detailed elaboration as well as examples of their pedagogical implementation. Table 6.2 illustrates this increase in guidance by contrasting a 2006 core objective on the use of Dutch texts with a new draft core objective on a similar topic.
Example of a core objective related to students’ ability to use different text sources
Source: SLO (2023[60]), Conceptkerndoelen Nederlands [Draft Core Objectives Dutch]; SLO (2020[61]), Kerndoelen Primair Onderwijs 2006 [Core Objectives Primary Education 2006].
To provide additional guidance and support, SLO has developed continuous learning strands (doorlopende leerlijnen) and content lines (inhoudslijnen), which provide suggestions for how the core objectives could be articulated across levels of education, including in the form of intermediate objectives and exemplary learning contents (SLO, 2024[7]). The learning strands are not binding but provide practical support for schools developing their own learning pathways in a way that is applicable to a wide range of pedagogical approaches and careful not to constrain schools’ pedagogical autonomy. This additional support responds to a concern frequently raised by teachers during the OECD review visit, as well as the scientific curriculum commission, namely that the core objectives provide too little guidance on what should be expected of students between the statutory milestones at the end of primary and lower secondary education (Curriculumcommissie, 2024[62]).
Many OECD countries engaging in curriculum reforms have faced the challenge how to provide guidance in a way that strengthens rather than constrains schools’ and teachers’ professional agency and their ability to innovate and tailor instruction to the unique contexts of their students (OECD, 2024, p. 53[63]). The ongoing curriculum reform in the Netherlands takes a balanced approach in line with its constitutional framework. It reflects a recognition that structural autonomy alone is insufficient ensure teachers’ professional autonomy, i.e. their capacity, confidence and trust to use their professional judgement to enhance students’ learning and well-being (OECD, 2024, p. 9[63]). The additional guidance will strengthen teachers’ ability to cultivate and exercise their pedagogical agency. This is particularly relevant for new learning areas, such as digital literacy, that have not been covered extensively in many teachers’ initial education and in which schools’ experience is more limited or heterogeneous. While the piloting of the draft core objectives and examination programmes will help to determine if further adjustments are needed to support schools, the positive feedback from stakeholders during the OECD review visit suggests that the ongoing reform marks an important step in the right direction.
Several initiatives are underway to facilitate the implementation of the new curriculum framework
While the design and content of school curricula is important, the success of curriculum reforms depends on schools’ capacity to implement them in practice. This is particularly important for new learning areas, such as digital literacy. Research conducted by DUO in 2021 (i.e. prior to the publication of the draft core objectives for digital literacy) suggested that very few teachers had made use of the voluntary guidelines offered on the topic. In primary education, 52% of teachers reported using neither learning strands (leerlijn), learning goals (leerdoelen), nor suggestions of content items (aanbodsdoelen) on digital literacy. Only 9% reported using the content items on digital literacy suggested by SLO, 12% used learning materials that reflected SLO’s content suggestions and 9% reported having developed their own learning strands (leerlijn) on the topic (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 16[50]).
In lower secondary education, the situation was similar, with 59% of teachers reporting that they used neither learning strands, learning goals, nor suggestions of content items on digital literacy in 2021. Only 3% – even fewer than in primary education – reported using the content items on digital literacy suggested by SLO, 9% used learning materials that reflected SLO’s content suggestions and 9% reported having developed their own learning strands (leerlijn) on the topic (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 16[51]). In recognition of Dutch schools’ and teachers’ limited experience in working on digital literacy, several central actors, including Kennisnet, SLO and the inspectorate, have taken steps to prepare the learning ecosystem for the implementation of the new curriculum framework and the digital literacy core objectives.
Schools can benefit from support to implement the new core objectives for digital literacy under the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy
Through the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy (Subsidie Verbetering Basisvaardigheden), introduced as part of the Basic Skills Master Plan (Masterplan Basisvaardigheden), OCW has made considerable funding available to strengthen basic skills, including digital literacy (see Chapter 3) (Wiersma, 2022[64]). With an overall budget of more than EUR 1.5 billion, disbursed in three tranches between 2022/23 and 2025/26, the subsidy can make a significant contribution to schools’ promotion of digital literacy as well as the use of digital technologies to promote students’ basic skills in other domains (see Chapter 3). More than 2 200 primary schools and 700 secondary schools (about a third of all schools at each level) benefited from the subsidy’s first tranche and the first disbursement of its second tranche (Jepma et al., 2023, pp. 19, 25[65]; Jepma et al., 2024, pp. 20, 27[66]). To ensure that funding reaches the schools in greatest need, a share of the subsidy is earmarked for priority schools that received a “very weak” or “insufficient” inspection rating (OCW, 2024[67]).
From the second tranche onwards, schools received subsidies of EUR 1 000 per student, which they could invest in evidence-based practices featured on a list (the interventiekaart) provided by the Ministry of Education. This included teacher training, increasing instruction time or purchasing effective learning and development tools. The term of the subsidy is fixed to two years and schools can only apply to receive funding once. Priority schools receive additional tailored support from a group of education co-ordinators (onderwijscoördinator). The subsidy programme also encourages peer learning, for example through a joint kick-off meeting and regional meetings for schools, as well as accompanying learning networks (begeleidende leernetwerken) (Service for the Execution of Grants to Institutions, 2024[68]).
While the Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy can be used to strengthen all basic skills, many schools have chosen to invest it in their capacity for digital education. Among the schools that received the first tranche of the subsidy, 43% of primary schools and 76% of secondary schools planned to use it for activities targeting students’ digital literacy (see Chapter 3). This included, for example, providing teachers with additional time for professional development or reducing the teaching load of i-coaches to free up their time to support the teaching of digital literacy. While these efforts will need to be sustained beyond the duration of the Basic Skills Master Plan, the subsidy has mobilised significant resources to lay the groundwork for the implementation of the digital literacy core objectives and to promote instructional quality more broadly.
SLO and Kennisnet have invested in the creation of an Expertise Centre to advise schools on the promotion of digital literacy
As part of the broader efforts to strengthen basic skills under the Basic Skills Master Plan, a Digital Literacy Expertise Centre (Expertisepunt digitale geletterdheid) was established in November 2023. The Expertise Centre is funded and run jointly by SLO and Kennisnet and works alongside equivalent expertise centres for citizenship, mathematics/arithmetic and Dutch. The Expertise Centre is intended as a central platform bringing together different actors involved in digital literacy education, including regular subject teachers, i-coaches or e-coaches, staff in charge of digital literacy at the school board level, policy makers and developers of learning materials. The Expertise Centre seeks to connect these stakeholders, provide information about digital literacy and inspire effective educational practices in this evolving learning area (Kennisnet, 2023[69]). To this end, the Expertise Centre provides an overview of relevant learning materials, training opportunities, regulations, and guidance materials around digital literacy education. In addition, it aims to build a community of practice by organising webinars, advisory meetings and knowledge networks. The Expertise Centre’s team is also working with the Impulse Open Learning Materials (Impuls Open Leermateriaal, IOL) initiative to integrate open educational resources (OER) directly into their website.
In 2023, 63% of primary school teachers and 65% of secondary school teachers in the Netherlands reported that they needed some form of additional support to promote their students’ digital literacy. This marked a significant increase, since 2021, of 7 percentage points in primary and 14 percentage points in secondary education. Teachers ranked the national expertise networks among the main actors from whom they hoped to receive this additional support, next to publishers, OCW and curriculum experts (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 48[50]; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 40[51]). At the time of the review visit, the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre was still piloting and evaluating its support offer before rolling it out at scale. It therefore remains to be seen whether the Expertise Centre will be effective in addressing schools’ and teachers’ needs. Nevertheless, the initiative marks an important step in recognising the expressed need to build the system-wide capacity around digital literacy. The emphasis given to peer learning and the exchange of best practices is particularly promising.
The inspectorate is testing new models to monitor and support digital literacy in schools
The 2002 Education Supervision Act (Wet op het Onderwijstoezicht, WOT) provides the inspectorate with a relatively narrow mandate, focussed on schools’ compliance with statutory rules and what is often described as “the what” as opposed to “the how” of teaching (Government of the Netherlands, 2024[70]). Nevertheless, the inspectorate also has a duty to “promote the development” of education – a role that has historically provided more room for interpretation (Nusche et al., 2014[24]). The inspectorate is currently preparing an update to its inspection framework to accompany the curriculum framework reform. SLO is supporting the inspectorate in this process by developing a draft framework for the assessment of digital literacy in school inspections.
Although schools will not be assessed on their ability to promote students’ digital literacy until it is their statutory responsibility to do so, the inspectorate is using its instruments to prepare both schools and inspectors for the upcoming changes. Some of these instruments were described, in a 2024 letter to Parliament, as forms of “stimulating supervision” (stimulerende toezicht) (Paul, 2024[71]). As part of this strategy, the inspectorate has conducted around 200 school visits that covered their approach to digital education. Without focussing on compliance or individual schools, the visits served to inform future revisions of the inspection frameworks as well as reflections around adequate approaches to evaluating instruction around digital literacy and the skills that inspectors will need to assess it. The visits also served to raise awareness of the draft core objectives among school leaders and teachers. The knowledge gathered through these visits will feed into system-level reports, which the inspectorate is regularly preparing on priority themes in collaboration with scientists and practitioners (including, for example, the reports on the Peil.Digital Literacy survey and the Teaching Quality Monitor [Monitor Leskwaliteit] (Inspectorate of Education, 2024[72])).
Limited co-ordination risks to undermine a whole-of-system approach to implementing the new core objectives for digital literacy
Transformative curriculum reforms have far-reaching consequences for educational practice and require strong co-ordination and a whole-of-system approach to succeed (OECD, 2020[56]). In the decentralised Dutch education system, this means involving and co-ordinating a wide range of actors, including central agencies like SLO, Kennisnet and the inspectorate, teacher training institutions, stakeholder groups, schools and teachers, as well as private publishing companies and education consultancies. Each of them will play a vital role in the implementation of the new curriculum and they will need to align their efforts on matters ranging from initial teacher preparation to quality assurance.
While the involvement of a diverse group of actors in curriculum reforms provides opportunities to enhance the sector-wide buy-in and preparation, it also presents a significant co-ordination challenge. Curriculum reforms are inherently transversal and a fragmented approach to implementation can lead to inefficiencies and the loss of synergies (Gouëdard et al., 2020[54]). The complexity of the Dutch education system demands strategic co-ordination among all parties involved and OCW bears an important responsibility to bring the system’s key actors together to act in concert. This has been a key strength of the Dutch education system and has shown success in many domains (see Chapters 2 and 4). However, there are increasing concerns that the Ministry of Education’s traditional approach to steering may not suffice to address the problems that Dutch schools are facing today (Paul, 2024[73]). Key stakeholders during the OECD review visit have expressed a need for OCW to take a stronger role in setting goals and strategic directions to guide their collaborative efforts in the context of the curriculum reform (see Chapter 2).
Co-operation between key actors in the curriculum reform process remains ad hoc and lacks a clear road map or central vision
Successfully implementing a revised curriculum poses a significant challenge for any education system and requires strong co-ordination across the system to support teachers and students in this transition. The limitations to central steering that characterise the Dutch systems’ approach to digital education more generally also affect the implementation of the new curriculum. The successful development and implementation of the digital literacy curriculum requires close collaboration between a range of key actors, including SLO, teacher education institutions, public agencies and initiatives involved in supporting the education community, education publishers and consultancies, the research community and key stakeholder groups. The OECD review team formed the impression that the co-ordination between these actors remained ad hoc and lacked guidance in the form of a clear road map or central vision.
While OCW has been intent on giving sector organisations and other stakeholders a leading role in the curriculum reform process to ensure broad support (draagvlak) for the curriculum revisions, key stakeholders raised concerns about a perceived lack of structure to ensure that different actors are consulted and involved in the process at the right times. While SLO was given a mandate to develop the draft core objectives, the OECD review team formed the impression that there was a lack of clarity around the responsibility for the process’s overall co-ordination. First, it was not clear who would ensure that stakeholder organisations, ITE institutions, private actors and other central agencies were brought in at the right time to contribute to the revision process. Second, actors were not aware of plans to ensure that the draft core objectives could inform ongoing reform processes, such as the National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers” (Nationale Aanpak Professionalisering van Leraren, NAPL) and other key initiatives on digital education supported by the National Growth Fund, such as the IOL. Given the significant need for co-ordination, SLO has called on OCW to take a more proactive role in co-ordinating the curriculum reform process and ensuring successful collaboration between the different actors involved (samenwerking en regie) (SLO, 2024, p. 29[74]).
Teachers’ professional learning and support will play a critical role in preparing them to help their students meet the new core objectives for digital literacy. Teacher training institutions will need to adapt their programmes to prepare educators to work with the new core objectives for digital literacy and reflect on their implications for digital didactics. For in-service teachers, around 3 000 registered education consultancies play an important role in providing professional advice and learning opportunities (see Chapter 5) (Nusche et al., 2014[24]; NLwerktAANwerk, 2021[75]). In many cases, these education consultancies have long-standing relationships with schools, which will give them an important role in shaping school-level practices and stimulating institutional change in the context of the curriculum reform.
Ensuring that both initial teacher education institutions and providers of professional support for in-service teachers are included in the reform process will be critical to ensure the alignment between the evolving expectations for teachers and the support they receive to meet them (see Chapter 5). However, at the time of the review visit, stakeholders reported a lack of systematic, regular and co-ordinated exchanges between SLO, initial teacher education institutions, central public agencies and the education consultancy sector. The decentralised nature of teachers’ professional learning in the Netherlands has limited the ability of SLO and central authorities to steer both the quality and content of ITE and PD. This makes it all the more important to establish processes to ensure the alignment of ITE programmes with the new core objectives and examination programmes, and to prepare private actors to offer effective support to schools once they need it.
Education publishers and other developers of learning materials will also need to be systematically involved in the reform process and provided with the information and time they need to adapt learning materials to the new core objectives. As of yet, it appears as though the SLO’s non-binding suggested content items (aanbodsdoelen) on digital literacy play a relatively marginal role in Dutch classrooms. In 2023, only 12% of primary teachers and 9% of secondary teachers reported that they were using learning materials by educational publishers that integrated the suggested content items (aanbodsdoelen) on digital literacy (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 16[50]; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 16[51]). The classification of digital literacy as a basic skill will thus require significant revisions to existing learning materials to ensure their alignment with new core objectives. To ensure the availability of updated learning materials by 2027, publishers will need to start developing new products as the curriculum reform unfolds. Although regular meetings between OCW, SLO and the Association of Educational, Professional and Scientific Publishers (Media voor Educatie Vak en Wetenschap, MEVW) provide an important platform for co-ordination, the OECD review team formed the impression that this co-ordination remained ad hoc and that central authorities have been hesitant to provide clear guidance, e.g. on the way digital literacy objectives should be integrated into school-based curricula.
The complex landscape of institutional support for digital literacy risks duplication and uncertainty among teachers and schools
There is a growing recognition in the Netherlands that certain challenges facing the education system are too substantial for schools to address on their own (Paul, 2024[73]). Promoting students’ digital literacy is one of these issues. In 2023, 63% of teachers and 49% of school leaders in primary education, as well as 65% of teachers and 68% of school leaders in secondary education reported needing additional support in this area (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 48[50]; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 40[51]). In addition to private education consultancies providing schools with direct support on the subject of digital literacy (see Chapter 5), multiple public initiatives and organisations support the sector by providing information on the ongoing curriculum reform and guidance on its implementation: SLO provides updates on the revision of the core objectives and examination programmes, shares important documents and responds to frequently asked questions on the reform. Teachers and school leaders can also contact SLO directly with their enquiries. In addition, four Expertise Centres have been established to support the implementation of the new curriculum framework, focussing on mathematics/arithmetic, Dutch language, citizenship and digital literacy respectively. While in close contact, each Expertise Centre, operates independently, with their own staff and websites. The NRO’s Kennisrotonde provides stakeholders with additional evidence-based information, including on questions related to digital education (see Chapter 5). Education professionals are also supported by the PO-Raad and VO-raad, by teacher and school leader unions, as well as their school boards. Finally, Kennisnet offers a wide range of resources on digital literacy, including updates on the curriculum reform, research evidence, and practical tips for educators, including a widely cited handbook on digital literacy for schools (Kennisnet, 2021[76]).
In interviews with educators, school leaders and other stakeholders, the OECD review team formed the impression that practitioners had difficulty distinguishing the support provided by each of these actors and knowing where to turn for help. In a crowded field of support organisations, the introduction of new offers – such as the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre – may struggle to attract the attention of schools. In addition, the operation of separate Expertise Centres for each of the four basic skills stands in contrast with the envisaged transversal integration of digital literacy and citizenship in the curriculum. Questions on digital literacy are likely to arise in the context of other subjects, such as Dutch or mathematics and may therefore not neatly map onto the mandate of any single Expertise Centre.
The unclear and overlapping remit of different support organisations in the context of the ongoing curriculum reform might make it difficult for schools and educators to identify the most relevant sources of support and risks diminishing the take-up of the high-quality support on offer. The co-existence of multiple organisations working on digital literacy also risks creating inefficiencies and duplication unless their efforts are sufficiently co-ordinated (see Chapter 5). For instance, multiple organisations are currently involved in piloting the draft curriculum documents in schools. Next to the central curriculum pilot conducted by SLO and described above, the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre is conducting a pilot with 200 schools as part of its research to understand what support schools will need to implement the new curriculum.
There are insufficient mechanisms to ensure that all schools are adequately prepared to implement the core objectives for digital literacy
While some teachers and schools are already well-advanced, not all are prepared to implement the new core objectives for digital literacy
Schools in the Netherlands will bear a significant share of the responsibility to translate the new core objectives for digital literacy into tangible change in the classroom. The successful implementation of the new objectives will require school leaders and teachers to familiarise themselves with the revised learning goals, to align their school-based curricula and learning strands, to develop lesson plans, and to adapt their pedagogical approaches and classroom practices accordingly. Many school leaders also expect that their staff will need further strengthen their ICT knowledge and skills to implement the new digital literacy goals successfully (Inspectorate of Education, 2024[72]). Overcoming these challenges will require schools to take systematic approach, reflect on the obstacles they face and devise suitable solutions in lien with their broader school plan or vision.
Research conducted by the Inspectorate of Education suggests that some schools are already taking active steps to prepare themselves by working with the draft objectives for digital literacy. Approximately half of the primary school leaders interviewed for the Peil.Digital Literacy survey in 2023 expressed their intention not to wait for the official inclusion of digital literacy in the national curriculum (Inspectorate of Education, 2024[72]). For example, some of the schools visited by the OECD review team had already appointed i-coaches to experiment with the draft core objectives for digital literacy and to develop corresponding learning strands. Some had also used the preparation of school plans and annual reports as an opportunity to strengthen their strategic approach to digital education, including the allocation of resources for digital education and the development of training plans to increase teachers’ digital skills.
However, schools are not required to reflect on their approach to digital education as part of their school-based strategic planning activities and relatively few have started implementing concrete measures in this area (Inspectorate of Education, 2024[72]) (OCW, 2023[37]). In 2023, a significant proportion primary school staff (38% of school leaders and 45% of teachers) reported not yet addressing digital literacy in a systematic way (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 40[50]). Likewise, according to the MYRA survey, only slightly more than half of primary schools in the Netherlands had already developed a vision for the role of ICT in education (Karssen et al., 2023, p. 24[77]). According to a 2023 survey conducted by the Education Executive Agency (Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs, DUO), many teachers and school leaders reported not even being aware of the upcoming introduction of core objectives for digital literacy (24% of school leaders and 48% of teachers at the primary level; 48% of school leaders and 67% of teachers at the secondary level) (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 32[50]; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023, p. 28[51]). Teacher questionnaires thus indicate that schools will depart from very different starting points and point to a risk of inequities. They suggest, for example, that teachers in disadvantaged primary schools are less likely to consider digital literacy in their practice already (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023[50]; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023[51]).
Public support organisations have difficulty reaching some schools
As discussed above, a broad range of public organisations and initiatives offer guidance related to the curriculum reform and the addition of digital literacy to the national curriculum framework. This includes the newly founded Digital Literacy Expertise Centre, but also more established organisations such as Kennisnet. Their offer can be a valuable resource for schools to address the challenges they may face when implementing the new curriculum and digital literacy objectives, for instance by facilitating learning from other schools or by providing access to learning materials and training resources. However, difficulties remain in ensuring that this offer reaches the schools that are in greatest need of support. Visits conducted as part of the OECD review suggest that not all schools are aware of the resources provided, for example by the Expertise Centres and Kennisnet. Ensuring that all schools – particularly those in greatest need of support – are aware of and can draw on the available resources will require greater co-ordination across differences sources of support and efforts to disseminate their offer (see above).
The inspectorate has limited scope to monitor and encourage schools’ readiness for digital education
The Inspectorate of Education plays an important role in steering educational practices in schools and in ensuring the quality of education in a highly autonomous system. The inspectorate holds schools to account for meeting statutory requirements related to matters ranging from inclusion, safety and security to their ability to promote students’ achievement of the core objectives. In the past, the inspectorate was also committed to promoting excellence by highlighting achievements that exceeded statutory requirements. To do so, the inspectorate could award a “Good” rating to schools that pursued and realised ambitions beyond the minimum standards. Schools with a “Good” rating could then apply to be assessed by an independent jury and recognised for excellence in a given domain (Inspectorate of Education, n.d.[78]). However, both the “Good” rating and the excellence awards were abandoned in 2023 out of a concern that they created excessive competition between schools (Inspectorate of Education, 2023[79]).
Since then, school evaluations have focussed on assessing schools’ compliance with legal standards. This limits the inspectorate’s ability to assess or encourage schools’ preparation for upcoming reforms and other developments before they become legal requirements, such as the introduction of the new curriculum framework in 2027. Other important preconditions for the safe and effective use of digital education, such as schools’ cyber security and resilience, also remain outside the scope of school inspections because they have not been given a legal basis yet (Dijkgraaf and Wiersma, 2022, p. 3[80]).
While schools can draw on a wide range of resources to help them implement the curriculum reform (e.g. by SLO and the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre) and strengthen their digital safety (e.g. by the Digital Safe Education [Digitaal Veilig Onderwijs] initiative), the limited mandate of the inspectorate makes it difficult to assess whether schools are adequately prepared for upcoming reforms. Having a better sense of schools’ readiness would be particularly important in the context of schools’ varying levels of strategic planning and use of existing supports concerning the promotion of digital literacy. While the inspectorate has started to gather information on practices surrounding digital literacy in some schools through the Peil.Digital Literacy survey, it cannot currently collect this information systematically through its regular evaluations.
The limited consideration of digital education in school evaluation frameworks is by no means unique to the Netherlands. Fewer than half of the 37 jurisdictions responding to the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age (17 [46%]) reported systematically using external school evaluations (i.e. inspections or external reviews) to collect information related to digital education. In 13 of these jurisdictions, external evaluations cover the use of digital resources in schools and schools’ access to fast and reliable Internet. Somewhat less frequently, external evaluations also cover the availability and quality of digital devices in schools (12 of 37 systems) and teachers’ skills for incorporating digital resources into teaching (10 or 37 systems) (see Figure 6.7). As is the case in the Netherlands, evaluating the use of digital resources in schools and teachers’ ability to incorporate digital resources is more frequently left to schools’ self-evaluations (in 17 and 14 of 37 systems respectively) (see Figure 6.7).
Aspects of school’ digitalisation monitored through external evaluations (reviews or inspections) and self-evaluations
Note: Number of jurisdictions with available data = 37. In the Netherlands, external evaluations do not cover the topics covered in the figure; See Boeskens and Meyer (2025, pp. 90, Annex Table 8.1[52]) for further details and individual jurisdictions’ responses corresponding to this figure.
Source: Reproduced from Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025[52]), “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 8.1.
The current core objectives do not sufficiently support teachers' agency and their active, critical and creative engagement with learning goals
Although Dutch schools need to align their curricula with the statutory national core objectives, the OECD review team formed the impression that teachers’ active engagement with the core objectives remained limited and that the objectives’ potential to support teachers in their role as designers of learning was not sufficiently realised. In interviews with the OECD review team, many teachers suggested that the core objectives offered limited support when designing school-based curricula. Given the broad nature of the core objectives and their exclusive applicability to the end of primary and lower secondary education, most teachers appear to rely on materials produced by private publishers for guidance when designing curricula and lesson plans instead.
Similar observations have been made about teachers’ limited use of the reference frameworks for Dutch and mathematics. A 2022 evaluation of 526 primary and secondary teachers found that only around one third of teachers were well acquainted with the reference frameworks and that many teachers were not familiar with the respective reference levels at all (22% in the case of Dutch and 29% in the case of mathematics). Among the teachers who were familiar, less than half strongly agreed that the goals expressed in the reference frameworks were sufficiently clear (van den Broek et al., 2022[58]).
These observations are consistent with PISA 2022 data, which highlight that – while teachers are aligning their teaching with central objectives – they also rely extensively on third-party materials when developing their teaching programmes. 76% of 15-year-old students in the Netherlands attend schools whose leaders reported that mathematics programmes were structured to a large extent according to central curricula (in line with the OECD average of 80%). However, in sharp contrast with most OECD countries, 71% of students’ mathematics programmes were structured “to a moderate or large extent” according to commercially designed programmes, compared to just 16% across OECD countries (see Figure 6.8). Though no international data are available for primary education, teachers’ reliance on commercial materials is unlikely to be lower at this level, given the similarly loose guidance provided by the primary education core objectives.
Share of 15-year-old students whose principals reported that the school's mathematics programme was structured according to the following resources
Note: 1. Responses refer to regional or state curriculum standards or curriculum guides, instead of national or federal curriculum standards or frameworks.
Countries and economies are ranked in ascending order of reports that mathematics programmes are structured to a large extent according to national or federal curriculum standards or frameworks.
Source: Authors' analysis based on OECD (2023[44]), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html.
During the OECD review visit, a number of stakeholders expressed concerns that teachers’ reliance on commercial learning materials was an undesirable consequence of the lack of clarity and guidance provided by the national curriculum framework. The non-prescriptive nature of the core objectives is intended to underpin the constitutional freedom of education and to provide room for schools’ pedagogical autonomy and teachers’ professional agency. However, in practice, many teachers rely on textbooks as a safe way to comply with curriculum requirements, thus replacing the strictures of a prescriptive curriculum with those of published textbooks and failing to transform structural autonomy into professional autonomy. Reports commissioned by SLO have identified this challenge since at least 2017 and warned that it may lead to a “self-imposed prescriptiveness” (Folmer, Koopmans-van Noorel and Kuiper, 2017, p. 18[59]).
Schools’ and teachers’ reliance on learning materials can have a range of reasons. Education publishers traditionally hold an important position in the Netherlands, catering to a diverse range of pedagogical approaches. For many teachers, the products of major education publishers constitute a valuable source of inspiration and guidance when designing learning programmes and lessons (see Chapter 4). Nevertheless, a lack of professional capacity, time, resources or confidence can limit teachers’ and school leaders’ willingness or ability to exercise their professional agency. This can lead to an over-reliance on established learning materials and limit teachers’ active, critical and creative engagement with central learning goals, thus diminishing their ability to design school curricula and learning programmes that are tailored to their students’ specific needs in line with their schools’ pedagogical orientation (see Chapter 5). In interviews with the OECD review team, teachers also mentioned high-stakes assessments, such as the transfer test at the end of primary education and national examinations at the end of secondary education, as reasons for their risk aversion and reliance on well-established learning materials (OECD, 2024[63]).
Addressing this challenge has been one of the motivations behind previous attempts at curriculum reform (e.g. the Education 2032 initiative) and remains front and centre in the ongoing revision of the core objectives (OECD, 2024, p. 53[63]; Nieveen and Kuiper, 2012[81]). As described above, the new core objectives and examination programmes are designed to promote teachers’ more active engagement with statutory learning goals by offering additional guidance for teachers and schools developing their own curricula. This includes the continuous learning strands (doorlopende leerlijnen) and content lines (inhoudslijnen), which SLO developed to provide non-binding suggestions for how the core objectives could be articulated across levels of education (SLO, 2024[7]). This has the potential to increase the curriculum framework’s practical utility and promote teachers’ active, critical and creative engagement with its contents.
However, while the proposed format of the new core objectives and the accompanying guidance are an important step in the right direction, strengthening teachers' agency and their active engagement with learning goals will take time and require a broader cultural shift, based on the active involvement of the teaching profession itself (see Chapter 5). While the revision of the core objectives has drawn on the expertise of a broad range of stakeholders (including teachers and teacher unions), most teachers’ engagement with the draft core objectives and planned curriculum reforms has been limited so far (DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023[50]; DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies, 2023[51]). This underlines the need for additional efforts to ensure that educators take ownership of the ongoing curriculum reform and actively work with the curriculum framework to enhance their teaching practice.
There are concerns that the introduction of digital literacy core objectives could add to perceived curriculum overload
Despite the comparatively minimal statutory requirements imposed by the national curriculum framework, perceptions of curriculum overload are a recognised phenomenon in the Netherlands (OCW, 2024[40]). While curriculum overload is more commonly associated with elaborate curriculum documents that prescribe extensive learning contents, experience has shown that curriculum overload can also result from a lack of detail or clarity on what should be taught and in what depth (OECD, 2020[82]). Interviews conducted during the OECD review visit highlighted that the lack of guidance provided by the national curriculum framework has made it difficult for schools and teachers to prioritise learning contents and has left some educators feeling overwhelmed with the material they need to cover. The revision of the national curriculum framework promises to address this problem by providing more detailed guidance to accompany the core objectives and examination programmes. Yet, educators interviewed by the OECD review team voiced concerns that the addition of new core objectives for digital literacy could exacerbate curriculum overload.
Curriculum expansion (that is, adding new content to curricula without a corresponding removal of old content) is a common concern in many OECD countries (OECD, 2020[82]). Societal developments, such as the digital transformation or the green transition, and the need to cultivate students’ citizenship competencies in increasingly complex societies, give rise to ever evolving learning needs. At the same time, basic skills remain fundamental to navigate social and professional environments and falling levels of literacy and numeracy are a significant concern in the Netherlands (OCW, 2024[40]). Clear guidance can help teachers and schools to address the challenge of incorporating 21st century competencies and other emerging priorities alongside foundational skills to help their students meet an evolving set of learning goals in a limited amount of time.
The draft core objectives of the revised curriculum framework provide a clear role for digital literacy education in the Netherlands. Yet, at the time of the OECD review visit, teachers had been offered no guidance on how they would be expected to integrate the new core objectives in their school-based curricula. These reflections had mostly been confined to internal discussions among education authorities, SLO and education publishers. The absence of official guidance has led to some uncertainty among educators on whether they will be expected to teach digital literacy in a separate subject or transversally across the curriculum, as is the case in most OECD countries (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025[52]). Interviews conducted by the inspectorate indicate that the great majority of primary school teachers would favour a transversal integration of digital literacy across several or all school subjects (Inspectorate of Education, 2024[72]) – an approach that is also supported by teacher unions (Kennisnet, 2023[83]). However, while the transversal integration of digital literacy objectives appears to be the approach currently envisaged by SLO, it comes with its own challenges. In particular, its success will depend on teachers across all subject areas learning how to promote digital literacy effectively and working collaboratively to integrate the digital literacy core objectives (OECD, 2020, p. 68[82]).
Students’ digital literacy will not be systematically assessed until the new core objectives are adopted
The Basic Skills Master Plan underlines the Dutch education system’s strong commitment to fostering students’ digital literacy (Wiersma, 2022[64]). Digital literacy is seen as an important competency in its own right and as essential for students to participate fully in the digital age. In addition, like literacy and numeracy, it is also considered an important foundation to support students’ learning in other domains (OECD, 2023, p. 273[84]). International comparative data from ICILS 2023 provide valuable insights into the digital literacy levels of a representative sample of Dutch students in Year 8. The results point to significant room for improvement in students’ computer and information literacy as well as their computational thinking skills (see Chapter 1). Yet, information on students’ digital literacy at the national level remains limited since schools in the Netherlands are not yet obliged to assess it. As a consequence – besides the information furnished by international assessments – there is no systematic monitoring of students’ digital skills and no comparative information to guide instruction and improvements at the school or student level. Once the core objectives for digital literacy have been adopted as a statutory part of the national curriculum framework, schools will be expected to ensure students’ attainment of digital literacy goals and to assess their performance. In most cases, schools will have no prior experience in monitoring students’ achievement in this domain and in adapting their instruction accordingly. Enabling schools to do so will require a period of adjustment and support (see Chapter 5).
This lack of an established approach to the assessment of students’ digital skills is not unique to the Netherlands. ICILS 2023 data suggest that only 4 of 33 participating countries and economies required the assessment of either computer and information literacy (CIL) or computational thinking (CT) for all students. Of the remaining countries, 14 did not require the assessment of either skill and 15 used a non-compulsory central assessment or left assessment decisions to schools (Fraillon, 2024, p. 265[49]). The OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age corroborates this finding, indicating that the assessment of students’ digital skills is not as established as that of other skills (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025[52]). Of the 36 participating jurisdictions with available data, 14 reported that students’ digital skills were assessed through school-based formative assessment at the primary, lower secondary and upper secondary levels respectively. Summative school-based assessments of digital skills existed in only 12 jurisdictions at the secondary level and standardised central examinations of students’ digital skills were significantly less common, with the exception of no-stakes examinations in lower secondary education (see Figure 6.9).
Number of countries/jurisdictions reporting that students’ digital skills are assessed as part of the following
Note: Number of jurisdictions with available data = 36. See Boeskens and Meyer (2025, pp. 53, Annex Table 2.2[52]) for further details and individual jurisdictions’ responses corresponding to this figure.
Source: Reproduced from Boeskens, L. and K. Meyer (2025[52]), “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 2.3.
Provide a clear road map for the implementation of the new core objectives and co-ordinate actors for a whole-of-system approach
Link the curriculum implementation to broader strategic goals for digital education
The ongoing revision of the national curriculum framework constitutes the first major update of its core objectives since 2006 and a major reform for the Dutch education system. It presents an important opportunity to ensure that students’ learning objectives remain aligned with broader societal developments and the envisaged introduction of digital literacy as one of four basic skills acknowledges its increasing importance. Implementing the revised curriculum will not only mark an important step in realising the goals of the 2019 Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education (Ministry of Education, 2019[46]); It also offers an opportunity to advance a more strategic approach to digital education more broadly.
Successful curriculum reforms require co-ordinated action across a range of education policy areas from initial teacher education and professional development to assessment, monitoring and evaluation. In recent years, a number of OECD countries, including Wales and New Zealand, have used curriculum reforms as an opportunity to link strategic objectives across different policy areas and to develop a strong narrative explaining how they fit together (OECD, 2020[85]; New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2021[86]). To create synergies between the various ongoing reforms affecting digital education in the Netherlands, the implementation of the revised curriculum should be linked to broader strategic goals and initiatives across the education policy landscape. As elaborated in Chapter 2, the Netherlands currently lacks a clear digital education strategy that is suited to guide its various reform efforts. In developing such a strategy, central authorities should provide a central place for the ongoing curriculum reform and link its implementation to other elements of its ambitious reform agenda.
Take an active role in co-ordinating the implementation of the curriculum with actors across the system
Beyond the careful design, piloting and revision of the core objectives as well as the development of accompanying guidance by SLO, the successful implementation of the new curriculum framework requires actors across the Dutch education system to co-ordinate their actions. Teachers and other stakeholders need to be involved to provide feedback on the new core objectives and guide their revision; Providers of initial teacher education and continuing professional development need to adapt their offer to prepare teachers for the integration of new learning areas; Education publishers, developers of open educational resources and EdTech companies need to develop teaching and learning materials to support the promotion of digital literacy; Inspection frameworks and documents guiding schools’ self-evaluation need to be adapted to reflect evolving expectations and statutory requirements, etc.
While SLO has led the development of the new national curriculum framework, OCW has a mandate and is best positioned to co-ordinate the contributions of different actors during the curriculum implementation process (SLO, 2024, p. 29[74]). Many key actors have already been involved at different points of the reform process and this collaborative, stakeholder-driven approach should remain a guiding principle. Nevertheless, the stakeholders involved recognise a need for greater co-ordination. To address this challenge, OCW should liaise with key stakeholders to develop, agree on and communicate a road map to guide the critical phases of the curriculum reform process going forward. The road map should provide a clear timeline for the legal implementation process, the points at which different actors should be involved to co-ordinate their work, as well as implementation targets. In doing so, OCW should build on the collaborative approach that has proven successful in the revision of the core objectives and examination programmes while acknowledging the expressed demand of stakeholders for greater transparency and central co-ordination.
OCW should take a holistic approach to the involvement of stakeholders and ensure the inclusion of relevant actors concerned with digital education and digital literacy, including representatives of the open educational resource community (e.g. through IOL and Wikiwijs) and the digital education technology sector (e.g. through Dutch Edtech). The curriculum implementation process should also involve the private school advisory sector to ensure that education consultancies can offer effective support to schools when it will be needed, for example via the Education Development Initiative (Onderwijsontwikkeling Nederland, OON), which represents education consultancies and seeks to promotes quality assurance in the sector.
Furthermore, it will be important to ensure the alignment and identify synergies between the curriculum implementation process and other ongoing policy initiatives. The National Action Plan for the Professionalisation of Teachers (Nationale Aanpak Professionalisering van Leraren, NAPL), for example, could make an important contribution to teachers’ professional development for the implementation of the new core objectives. Insofar as students’ progress towards the core objectives will need to be assessed through school-based assessments, OCW should also ensure that Cito and CvTE are positioned to support schools in their new responsibilities and in leveraging innovative formats to assess students’ digital literacy.
Ensure that publishers, test developers and teachers have sufficient time to develop appropriate materials on digital literacy
An effective road map guiding the implementation of the new curriculum framework should take into account the time it takes to develop new learning materials that are suited to promote students’ digital literacy in different subjects and in line with different pedagogical approaches. At the time of the OECD review visit, the core objectives and examination programmes had been made available in draft format and were still awaiting further revisions based on practitioners’ feedback. In addition, the sector was awaiting further guidance on important questions, e.g. whether schools would be encouraged to integrate the core objectives for digital literacy transversally or in specific subjects. While these uncertainties are being resolved, OCW and SLO should ensure the continued close collaboration with all actors involved in the development of learning materials to ensure that they can plan their work to provide the sector with high-quality materials in time. Besides representatives of the education publishing sector (MEVW), these discussions should involve producers of open educational resources and representatives of initiatives like IOL (see Chapter 4).
Prepare schools and strengthen their capacity to implement the revised core objectives
Clarify the remit of different sources of support for the implementation of the revised core objectives and promote their take-up among the schools in greatest need
The Dutch education system offers a diverse range of supports that schools and teachers can draw on to prepare themselves for the effective use of digital technologies in general and their work with the new core objectives for digital literacy in particular. This comprises both decentralised sources of direct support (largely by private education consultancies) and a variety of central support offers. The latter include resources offered by SLO, Kennisnet, PO-Raad and VO-raad, trade unions, school boards, the NRO’s Kennisrotonde and the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre. OCW should seek to further clarify the remit of these different providers of support where necessary and help them to co-ordinate their activities leading up to the implementation of the new curriculum (see Chapter 2). Improved co-ordination could help teachers and school leaders to locate relevant sources of expertise and support. Closer co-ordination could also avoid duplication and create synergies (e.g. between the pilots of the core objectives carried out by SLO and the Expertise Centres). Efforts to further clarify and rationalise the central support offer should go hand in hand with efforts to ensure that public support reaches the schools in greatest need.
Encourage schools’ strategic planning and preparation for the implementation of digital literacy core objectives
Although schools will not be required to align their own curricula to the new national curriculum framework until it is passed into law, they should be encouraged and supported in preparing themselves for its eventual implementation. Some schools have already engaged in strategic reflections on their approach to digital literacy and the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre is encouraging schools to integrate digital literacy into their educational vision. Schools should also be encouraged to familiarise themselves with the new core objectives and reflect on how they might adapt their school-based curricula to accommodate them. Doing so can provide schools with a head start and significant advantage once the new curriculum framework is passed into law. It also allows them to identify learning needs among their staff and to develop professional development plans to address them in time.
To further promote schools’ strategic planning and preparation for the implementation of digital literacy objectives, the PO-Raad and VO-raad should work closely with the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre and consider corresponding capacity-building initiatives. Although the inspectorate does not yet have a mandate to assess schools’ adherence to the new core objectives, it should encourage schools to reflect on their approach to digital education and the upcoming reforms in their 4-year school plans (schoolplan) and support schools’ self-evaluation in this area. Ireland offers an example of how to lead schools to engage in structured self-evaluations and action planning focussed on digital learning and how to support them in evaluating their use of digital resources through non-directive tools and guidance materials (see Box 6.1).
All schools in Ireland are required to develop a Digital Learning Plan, which is reviewed by the inspectorate as part of its whole-school evaluations. Schools’ self-evaluations and digital learning planning are seen as important opportunities for schools to establish goals related to digital education and to measure their progress against them. Schools are supported in their self-evaluations by the Digital Learning Framework (DLF), a planning tool, which is based on the UNESCO ICT Competency Framework and other EU frameworks and has been adapted for the Irish context. The DLF was rolled out in 2017, following an initial trial in 50 schools, and was evaluated in 2024 (Donohue et al., 2024[87]). Schools’ self-evaluations follow a Digital Learning Planning Cycle, a six-step process aligned with schools’ regular School Self-Evaluation (SSE) process. The planning cycle encourages schools and teachers to review and formulate plans to enhance their digital learning in six steps: 1) Identifying a focus; 2) Gathering evidence; 3) Analysing and making judgements; 4) Writing and sharing the report and improvement plan; 5) Putting the improvement plan into action; 6) Monitoring actions and evaluating their impact.
Source: Oide (2025[88]), Digital Learning Planning, https://www.dlplanning.ie/ (accessed on 6 April 2025); Donohue et al. (2024[87]), Digital Learning Framework (DLF) National Longitudinal Evaluation: Wave 2 Final Report, Educational Research Centre, https://doi.org/10.70092/0412063.0824.
The Dutch inspectorate, in turn, will need to further invest in its capacity to evaluate schools’ approach to promoting students’ digital literacy and using digital education technologies. Its strategy of “stimulating supervision” (stimulerende toezicht), involving non-compliance-oriented school visits with a focus on digital education, is a promising approach that should be further pursued. The school visits provide an opportunity to raise schools’ awareness around the effective integration of digital resources and the implementation of digital literacy core objectives. At the same time, they help the inspectorate by informing future revisions of the inspection framework and building capacity among its evaluators. The insights gained during these visits should inform the preparation of thematic reports or guidance materials focussed on the effective pedagogical uses of digital education resources.
Promote the identification and sharing of innovative approaches to promoting digital literacy
It is clear that some schools will need additional support in adapting their curricula to work towards the new core objectives for digital literacy. In interviews with the OECD review team, actors involved in the curriculum reform expected that schools’ level of preparation would be most heterogeneous and that their learning curves would be steepest in the domain of digital literacy (compared to the other basic skills). The additional guidance that SLO is preparing to accompany the new core objectives (in the form of suggested content items and content lines) will provide much-needed support for schools that may otherwise face difficulties adapting to the new expectations. However, additional efforts should be undertaken to identify and share promising practices emerging from the field - particularly during the first years after introducing the new national curriculum framework – in order to take advantage of the diversity of innovative approaches that will emerge across the Dutch school system.
Fostering collaboration between schools and teachers and identifying and sharing best practices can be a powerful means to support the implementation of new learning goals and curriculum reforms. In Scotland, for example, school inspectors have played an active role in fostering collaboration and supporting the introduction of new curricula in recent years (see Box 6.2). By entrusting inspectors with this task, Scotland has mobilised existing resources and actors that were well-placed to foster both horizontal and vertical learning and who had the capacity to identify impactful practices effectively and efficiently. The Dutch Inspectorate of Education could play a role in highlighting and sharing successful practices related to the implementation of the digital literacy core objectives, building on its experience in highlighting positive practices in a non-directive way through its “Good” ratings. Other actors, such as the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre, could also assume a role in this process.
In Scotland, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Education (HMIE) plays a vital role in disseminating knowledge among school staff and supporting the implementation of the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE). Its innovative and responsive approach to school inspections included developing a set of tools and action plans to focus inspections on quality and equity in schools’ implementation of the CfE and the identification of good practices. Schools could access visual descriptions of best practices that inspectors had observed in schools across the country. These “sketch notes” covered practices related to the implementation of the CfE as well as related priorities, such as recovering lost learning after school closures following the COVID-19 pandemic. At the system level, HMIE uses evidence from inspections to provide advice to Ministers and to produce reports on selected themes.
Source: Reproduced from OECD (2021[89]), Education Policy Outlook 2021: Shaping Responsive and Resilient Education in a Changing World, https://doi.org/10.1787/75e40a16-en, Box 3.3; OECD (2021[90]), Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/bf624417-en.
Promote stakeholders’ active engagement with the revised core objectives and the integration of digital literacy across subjects
Consider how the curriculum framework can facilitate teachers’ active engagement with the core objectives and accompanying curriculum materials
Promoting teachers’ professional agency and their active engagement with the curriculum framework should remain a priority during the ongoing revision of the core objectives. Teachers should feel enabled and confident to work with the core objectives in order to design learning environments that are tailored to their schools’ pedagogical approaches and their students’ needs, rather than passively relying on existing learning materials. Strengthening teachers’ professional agency will require concerted policy efforts (see Chapter 5 for a more in-depth discussion), but the design of the national curriculum framework can contribute to this goal. SLO’s efforts to develop suggestions for content items and to make them accessible through the “Curriculum in Focus” platform alongside the curriculum’s statutory components is an important step in this direction. Central authorities should go further in exploring how the affordances of a digital curriculum can stimulate teachers’ engagement with and their creative implementation of the core objectives.
The OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age shows that an increasing number of countries are taking steps to make their digital curricula more interactive (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, p. 17[52]). Interactive elements in curricula can, for example, enable teachers to filter curriculum contents across grades and subjects in order to facilitate interdisciplinary or project-based instruction. Some curricula also include features that support teachers in developing their own materials and designing lessons in line with the curriculum goals, thus becoming “directors of their own curricula.” Australia, Estonia and England (UK) are examples of countries that have explored different ways to exploit the affordances of digital curricula by making them more interactive, linking them to digital teaching materials or training trustworthy AI to support teachers’ work (see Box 6.3). While the pared-down nature of the Dutch curriculum framework’s statutory elements may not lend itself to significant customisation, interactive elements could further enhance the utility of its accompanying non-statutory components.
Interactive navigation of contents in the Australian Curriculum
The Australian Curriculum is published as an interactive digital curriculum accessible in multiple formats through computers, mobile devices or phones. The curriculum contents can be navigated interactively and filtered for particular purposes. For example, a school that wants to focus on developing students’ critical and creative thinking skills can filter the curriculum by year, subject and competency area. This allows teachers to quickly access relevant sections of the curriculum without having to navigate lengthy documents, thus reducing their workload and the risk of perceived curriculum overload (OECD, 2020, p. 83[82]).
Linking curriculum contents and digital teaching resources in Estonia
Estonia has encouraged the development and use of digital textbooks, which teachers and students can access through the interactive curriculum service platform Opiq. Estonia’s e-textbooks mirror the contents of traditional textbooks but include cross-references between textbooks and links to additional materials, such as visual simulations and experiments. Since 2016, Opiq has collaborated with educational publishers and content creators to provide schools and teachers with access to various learning resources and to enable them to customise curriculum contents in line with their needs. Teachers can also use the platform to manage individual students’ assignments and progress (OECD, 2020[56]).
Using curriculum documents to train trustworthy AI to support teachers in England (United Kingdom)
England’s Department for Education recently announced funding of GBP 4 million to create a data pool of previously published government documents, curriculum guidance, lesson plans and anonymised pupil assessments. This data will be made available to selected AI companies to use it to train trustworthy AI tools that can help teachers with routine administrative tasks, but also pedagogical work, such as the marking of students’ work and the creation of teaching materials and lesson plans aligned with the curriculum (Department for Education, 2024[91]; OECD, 2024[92]).
Source: OECD (2020[82]), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en; OECD (2020[56]), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en; OECD (2024[92]), Education Policy Outlook 2024: Reshaping Teaching into a Thriving Profession from ABCs to AI, https://doi.org/10.1787/dd5140e4-en; Department for Education (2024[91]), Teachers to get more trustworthy AI tech, helping them mark homework and save time, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/teachers-to-get-more-trustworthy-ai-tech-as-generative-tools-learn-from-new-bank-of-lesson-plans-and-curriculums-helping-them-mark-homework-and-save (accessed on 12 October 2024).
As trusted and experienced providers of digital and analogue learning materials and software, the Dutch education publishers will continue to play an important role in supporting teachers and creating a bridge between high-level learning objectives and classroom practices. Nevertheless, as discussed in Chapter 4, teachers’ development and exchange of open educational resources has significant potential to complement traditional learning materials and should be supported as a means to stimulate innovation and teachers’ professional agency. To do so, SLO could, for example, work with the Impulse Open Learning Materials (IOL) initiative and leverage the ”Curriculum in Focus” platform to link relevant open educational resources developed through IOL to suggested curriculum content items. Providing SLO with the mandate and resources to make the curriculum framework more interactive and customisable could turn it into a catalyst for teachers’ professional agency.
Support the transversal integration of digital literacy across subjects
Most OECD countries that have taken steps to strengthen students’ digital literacy in recent years have sought to promote it transversally, across the curriculum. In the OECD’s Policy Survey on School Education in the Digital Age, the overwhelming majority of responding jurisdictions reported teaching digital skills across compulsory subjects (Boeskens and Meyer, 2025, pp. 50, Annex Table 2.1[52]). Doing so does not preclude the introduction of dedicated subjects (such as computer science or technology) or focussing on digital skills in some subjects more than in others. In 2019, for example, France introduced mandatory courses on computational sciences and technology in secondary schools to teach digital skills and encourage students to reflect on the role of digital technologies in society (OECD, 2023, p. 80[93]; Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, 2019[94]).
In the Netherlands, it appears likely that schools will promote students’ digital literacy transversally, rather than in stand-alone subjects. Key stakeholders have expressed their support for this approach and surveys conducted by the inspectorate indicate that the majority of schools, insofar as they already promote students’ digital literacy, do so across subjects (Inspectorate of Education, 2024[72]). Integrating new competency areas transversally can be an effective way to avoid curriculum overload, to encourage project-based learning and to stimulate collaboration among teachers (2020[82]). Promoting digital literacy in multiple subjects can also help to ensure that students will be able to apply their digital skills in diverse contexts later in life.
Yet, integrating new learning areas transversally comes with its own set of challenges and schools and teachers will need to be supported in doing so successfully. The interdisciplinary integration of new learning objectives requires careful planning and co-ordination among teachers. Without adequate guidance and support, for example, there is a risk that transversal learning areas receive less attention as schools work to adapt their curricula to the new core objectives. Avoiding this will require both external guidance (e.g. by the Digital Literacy Expertise Centre) as well as efforts within schools to break down silos and encourage collaboration among teachers of different subjects. Both school leaders and i-coaches can play an important role in leading these reflections at the school level and efforts should be made to facilitate their exchange across schools as they adapt their school-based curricula (particularly among more isolated schools). Other countries that emphasise schools’ freedom to adapt high-level curriculum frameworks to their specific context, such as New Zealand, have demonstrated the importance of providing teachers with resources to support this process (see Box 6.4).
New Zealand’s national curriculum comprises the New Zealand Curriculum as well as the Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, both of which offer broad frameworks rather than detailed teaching plans. The curriculum promotes flexibility and innovation and leaves significant room for teachers and schools to develop their own learning contents adapted to their specific contexts. New Zealand announced changes to both elements of its national curriculum on 14 June 2024. To promote the effective and consistent implementation of the revised curriculum and to support teachers in the process, New Zealand is using digital platforms that facilitate teachers’ continuing professional learning, provide them with practical ideas to implement the new curriculum and offer a range of resources related to teaching strategies, student assessment tools, leadership and the engagement of learners and families. In addition to developing and maintaining the national curriculum, the Curriculum Centre (Te Poutāhū) (part of the country’s Education Service Agency, Te Mahau) provides national resources and curriculum advice including through its “curriculum leads” with specialist knowledge in mathematics, science, reading and other subjects, who are based in regional offices.
Source: OECD (2024[95]), OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2024, https://doi.org/10.1787/603809f2-en; OECD (2020[56]), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en; New Zealand Ministry of Education (2024[96]), Tāhūrangi - New Zealand Curriculum, https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/.
Strengthen the capacity to monitor schools’ compliance with technical standards for digital education
The Netherlands have undertaken important steps to strengthen schools’ technical standards and their provisions for digital security, notably through the Digital Safe Education (Digitaal Veilig Onderwijs, DVO) initiative and the development of a robust Standards Framework for Information Security and Privacy for Education (Normenkader informatiebeveiliging en privacy [IBP] voor het onderwijs) (see Chapter 3). The IBP Standards Framework is scheduled to come into effect in 2027 at which point school boards and schools will be expected to meet its targets. Given the significant heterogeneity in schools’ current levels of compliance, it will be important to monitor their preparation and progress leading up to the standards’ enforcement. Doing so will allow directing further implementation support where it is most needed. Once the statutory requirements have come into effect, schools’ continued compliance with the IBP Standards Framework will need to be evaluated.
At the time of the OECD review, there remained uncertainty around the process and responsibilities for monitoring digital security in schools both leading up to and after the IBP Standards Framework’s passage into law. OCW should make it a priority to bring about a timely decision and assign responsibilities to give the actors involved sufficient time and resources to fulfil their new roles successfully. If the responsibility to monitor schools’ compliance with the IBP Standards Framework is assigned to the inspectorate, this will need to be reflected in its inspection framework, which is currently undergoing revision. The inspectorate will also need to consider whether the compliance with the IBP Standards Framework can be effectively monitored at the level of school boards or whether it would need to involve systematic inspections at the school level.
Ensuring schools’ compliance with the IBP Standards Framework will require technical expertise beyond the education inspectorate’s traditional remit. Central authorities will therefore need to strengthen the technical capacity of inspectors or provide them with cost-efficient access to external expertise. This could involve retaining staff with technical expertise or drawing on existing expertise in the system, for example in collaboration with the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) for primary and secondary education, run by Kennisnet and SIVON. It could also involve pooling technical expertise with inspectorates of other sectors that are subject to comparable digital security requirements.
To ease the implementation of the IBP Standards Framework, central authorities should continue to prepare schools and school boards and identify priority areas for further support leading up to the standards’ passage into law in 2027. While the inspectorate will not have a mandate to test schools’ compliance with the standards until then (Dijkgraaf and Wiersma, 2022, p. 3[80]), identifying deficits and priority areas for further support will be critical. One option to collect this information would be for the inspectorate to check how digital risks are dealt with in a sample of schools as part of a thematic analysis before integrating the standards into its regular inspection framework. There may also be scope to adapt existing regulatory frameworks to the digital transformation of schools, for example by expanding schools’ requirements for risk reporting to encompass an assessment of digital risks. The implementation of the IBP Standards Framework could also be supported by one-on-one support for schools and school boards since neither DVO nor the CERT pilot are currently in a position to proactively advise individual schools on matters of digital security outside of emergency situations. (The provision of technical support to implement the IBP standards is discussed in Chapter 3).
References
[52] 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.
[62] Curriculumcommissie (2024), Kerndoelen in Ontwikkeling: Reflecties bij de Leergebieden Nederlands en Rekenen en Wiskunde [Core Objectives in Development: Reflections on the Learning Areas Dutch and Arithmetic and Mathematics], https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/dpc-c4f68d1a61fb2f35dc14ef724997981df34bfe69/pdf (accessed on 24 November 2024).
[33] CvTE (2024), Centrale examens vo | Onze toetsen en examens, https://www.cvte.nl/onze-toetsen-en-examens/centrale-examens-vo (accessed on 11 July 2024).
[26] CvTE (2024), Leerlingvolgsysteem | Toetsen primair onderwijs | CvTE, https://www.cvte.nl/onderwerpen/toetsen-primair-onderwijs/leerlingvolgsysteem (accessed on 11 July 2024).
[34] CvTE (n.d.), ‘Kom maar op met die toekomst!’, https://www.cvte.nl/over-het-cvte/onze-verhalen/ingeborg-riedijk (accessed on 11 July 2024).
[91] Department for Education (2024), Teachers to get more trustworthy AI tech, helping them mark homework and save time, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/teachers-to-get-more-trustworthy-ai-tech-as-generative-tools-learn-from-new-bank-of-lesson-plans-and-curriculums-helping-them-mark-homework-and-save (accessed on 5 April 2025).
[80] 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).
[87] Donohue, B. et al. (2024), Digital Learning Framework (DLF) National Longitudinal Evaluation: Wave 2 Final Report, Educational Research Centre, Dublin, https://doi.org/10.70092/0412063.0824.
[51] DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies (2023), Digitale Geletterdheid in het VO 2023 [Digital Literacy Monitor Secondary Education], https://ecp.nl/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Rapportage-ECP-Monitor-Digitale-Geletterdheid-VO-16-oktober-2023.pdf.
[50] DUO Onderwijsonderzoek & Advies (2023), Monitor Digitale Geletterdheid in het PO 2023 [Digital Literacy Monitor Primary Education], https://ecp.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Rapportage-ECP-Monitor-Digitale-Geletterdheid-PO-16-oktober-2023.pdf.
[41] Dutch Parliament (2023), Regeling leerresultaten PO 2020 [Regulation on learning outcomes for primary education 2020], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0043066/2023-10-05 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
[42] Dutch Parliament (2023), Regeling leerresultaten VO 2016 [Regulation on learning outcomes for secondary education 2016], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0038374/2023-03-16 (accessed on 17 July 2024).
[25] Eurydice (2024), Assessment in primary education, https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/netherlands/assessment-primary-education (accessed on 10 July 2024).
[28] Eurydice (2023), Assessment in general secondary education (HAVO, VWO), https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/netherlands/assessment-general-secondary-education-havo-vwo (accessed on 10 July 2024).
[4] Examenblad (2024), Examenprogramma’s [Examination Programmes], https://www.examenblad.nl/2024/onderwerpen/examenprogrammas (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[47] 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).
[59] Folmer, E., A. Koopmans-van Noorel and W. Kuiper (2017), Curriculumspiegel 2017 [Curriculum Mirror 2017], SLO, Enschede, https://www.slo.nl/@4586/curriculumspiegel-1/ (accessed on 2 April 2025).
[49] Fraillon, J. (2024), An International Perspective on Digital Literacy: Results from ICILS 2023, International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), Amsterdam, https://www.iea.nl/sites/default/files/2024-11/ICILS_2023_International_Report_0.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2024).
[54] Gouëdard, P. et al. (2020), “Curriculum reform: A literature review to support effective implementation”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 239, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/efe8a48c-en.
[70] Government of the Netherlands (2024), Education Supervision Act [Wet op het Onderwijstoezicht], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0013800/2024-08-01 (accessed on 25 November 2024).
[45] 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).
[43] Inspectorate of Education (2024), Jaarverslag Inspectie van het Onderwijs 2023 [Annual Report of the Inspectorate of Education 2023], https://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/documenten/jaarverslagen/2024/06/10/jaarverslag-inspectie-van-het-onderwijs-2023 (accessed on 22 November 2024).
[72] Inspectorate of Education (2024), Peil.Digitale Geletterdheid Einde Basisonderwijs 2021-2022 [Peil.Digital Literacy End of Primary Education 2021-2022], https://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/documenten/themarapporten/2024/03/15/peil.digitale-geletterdheid-einde-basisonderwijs-2021-2022 (accessed on 2 June 2024).
[79] Inspectorate of Education (2023), De waardering Goed en het predicaat Excellente School worden afgeschaft [The Good rating and the Excellent School award are abolished], https://www.onderwijsinspectie.nl/onderwerpen/excellente-scholen/nieuws/2023/04/21/de-waardering-goed-en-het-predicaat-excellente-school-worden-afgeschaft (accessed on 31 July 2024).
[38] Inspectorate of Education (2023), Onderzoekskader 2021 voor het Toezicht op de Voorschoolse Educatie en het Primair Onderwijs [2021 Evaluation Framework for Inspections of ECEC and Primary Schools].
[39] Inspectorate of Education (2023), Onderzoekskader 2021 voor het Toezicht op het Voortgezet Onderwijs [2021 Evaluation Framework for Inspections of Secondary Schools].
[78] Inspectorate of Education (n.d.), Veelgestelde vragen | Excellente scholen [Frequently asked questions | Excellent schools], https://www.excellentescholen.nl/documenten/vragen-en-antwoorden/predicaat (accessed on 31 July 2024).
[66] Jepma, I. et al. (2024), Implementatieonderzoek Subsidieregeling “Verbetering Basisvaardigheden” Tranche 2 [Implementation Study “Basic Skills Improvement” Tranche 2], Sardes for OCW, Utrecht, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/dpc-d4e6acf25067d7bb425eb4ec638b11bb824f779a/pdf (accessed on 19 September 2024).
[65] Jepma, I. et al. (2023), Implementatieonderzoek Subsidieregeling “Verbetering Basisvaardigheden” Tranche 1 [Implementation Study “Basic Skills Improvement” Tranche 1], Sardes for OCW, Utrecht, https://sardes.nl/publicatie/implementatieonderzoek-subsidieregeling-verbetering-basisvaardigheden/ (accessed on 19 September 2024).
[77] Karssen, M. et al. (2023), Monitor Digitalisering Funderend Onderwijs - Onderzoeksrapport Primair Onderwijs MYRA 2023 [School Education Digitalisation Monitor - Primary Education Research Report MYRA 2023], Kohnstamm Instituut, Amsterdam, https://www.kennisnet.nl/app/uploads/MYRA-monitor-digitalisering-funderend-onderwijs-rapportage-primair-onderwijs-2023.pdf (accessed on 2 June 2024).
[83] Kennisnet (2023), Digitale geletterdheid en de leraar – wat vindt de vakbond? [Digital literacy and the teacher - what does the union think?], https://www.kennisnet.nl/podcasts/digitale-geletterdheid-en-de-leraar-wat-vindt-de-vakbond/ (accessed on 5 August 2024).
[69] 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).
[76] Kennisnet (2021), Handboek Digitale Geletterdheid 2021/2022 [Handbook on Digital Literacy 2021/2022], https://www.kennisnet.nl/app/uploads/Kennisnet-Handboek-digitale-geletterdheid-2021-2022.pdf (accessed on 27 November 2024).
[48] Krepel, A. et al. (2024), ICILS 2023. De Digitale Deletterdheid van Nederlandse Leerlingen in het Voortgezet Onderwijs, Kohnstamm Instituut, Amstelveen, https://kohnstamminstituut.nl/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/1141-ICILS-2023.pdf (accessed on 21 November 2024).
[94] Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale (2019), Le Numérique au Service de l’École de la Confiance, https://www.education.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/imported_files/document/DP-LUDOVIA_987361.pdf (accessed on 5 April 2025).
[46] Ministry of Education, C. (2019), Digitaliseringsagenda Primair en Voortgezet Onderwijs [Digitalisation Agenda for Primary and Secondary Education], https://www.nederlanddigitaal.nl/documenten/publicaties/2019/11/19/digitalisation-agenda-for-primary-and-secondary-education (accessed on 3 June 2024).
[96] New Zealand Ministry of Education (2024), Tāhūrangi - New Zealand Curriculum, https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/ (accessed on 25 September 2024).
[86] New Zealand Ministry of Education (2021), Refreshing The New Zealand Curriculum, https://www.education.govt.nz/our-work/changes-in-education/curriculum-and-assessment-changes/new-zealand-curriculum/ (accessed on 3 February 2022).
[81] Nieveen, N. and W. Kuiper (2012), “Balancing curriculum freedom and regulation in the Netherlands”, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 11/3, pp. 357-368, https://doi.org/10.2304/EERJ.2012.11.3.357.
[75] NLwerktAANwerk (2021), Onderwijsadviesbureaus [Education Consultancies], https://www.nlwerktaanwerk.nl/routes/onderwijsadviesbureaus (accessed on 25 July 2024).
[24] 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.
[40] OCW (2024), OECD Review of Digital Education in the Netherlands: Country Background Report, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science.
[67] OCW (2024), Regeling van de Minister voor Primair en Voortgezet Onderwijs van 4 april 2024, nr. OVO/44668746, Subsidieregeling verbetering basisvaardigheden voor scholen 2024 [Regulation of the Minister for Primary and Secondary Education of 4 April 2024, No. OVO/44668746, Basic Skills Improvement Subsidy Scheme for Schools 2024], https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2024-12001.html (accessed on 19 July 2024).
[37] OCW (2023), Toelichtende Brochure: Jaarverslag Onderwijs [Explanatory Brochure: Annual School Report], Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/brochures/2023/01/13/brochure-richtlijn-jaarverslag-onderwijs (accessed on 22 November 2024).
[14] 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).
[13] OCW (2021), Bijstelling conceptexamenprogramma’s voor vmbo, havo en vwo [Adjustment of draft examination programs for vmbo, havo and vwo].
[36] OCW (2020), Wet Op Het Voortgezet Onderwijs [Secondary Education Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0044212/2025-08-01 (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[3] OCW (2009), Referentiekader Taal en Rekenen [Reference Framework for Dutch Language and Mathematics], Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, https://www.slo.nl/publish/pages/5901/referentiekader_taal_en_rekenen_referentieniveaus.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2024).
[35] OCW (1998), Wet Op Het Primair Onderwijs [Primary Education Act], https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003420/2025-08-01 (accessed on 16 October 2025).
[30] OECD (2025), Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/90df6235-en.
[31] OECD (2025), TALIS 2024 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/talis-2024-database.html (accessed on 15 October 2025).
[63] OECD (2024), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy: Promoting a Thriving Learning Environment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eccbbac2-en.
[92] OECD (2024), Education Policy Outlook 2024: Reshaping Teaching into a Thriving Profession from ABCs to AI, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dd5140e4-en.
[95] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/603809f2-en.
[27] OECD (2023), Country Digital Education Ecosystems and Governance: A Companion to Digital Education Outlook 2023, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/906134d4-en.
[29] OECD (2023), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[44] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Database, https://www.oecd.org/en/data/datasets/pisa-2022-database.html (accessed on 29 January 2024).
[84] OECD (2023), “PISA 2022 ICT Framework”, in PISA 2022 Assessment and Analytical Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9bd299c1-en.
[57] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[93] OECD (2023), Shaping Digital Education: Enabling Factors for Quality, Equity and Efficiency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bac4dc9f-en.
[89] OECD (2021), Education Policy Outlook 2021: Shaping Responsive and Resilient Education in a Changing World, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/75e40a16-en.
[90] OECD (2021), Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future, Implementing Education Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bf624417-en.
[85] OECD (2020), Achieving the New Curriculum for Wales, Implementing Education Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4b483953-en.
[82] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.
[56] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[88] Oide (2025), Digital Learning Planning, https://www.dlplanning.ie/ (accessed on 6 April 2025).
[73] 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).
[71] Paul, M. (2024), Kamerbrief over Stimuleren van Kwaliteitsverbetering Onderwijs [Letter to Parliament on Stimulating Quality Improvements in Education], https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/dpc-00c78dae5c20583830019138ac51d92f2b05cb9b/pdf (accessed on 25 November 2024).
[32] PO-Raad (2017), De digitale eindtoets afnemen: zo maakt u de juiste keuze |, https://www.poraad.nl/schoolontwikkeling/digitalisering/professionele-inzet-ict/de-digitale-eindtoets-afnemen-zo-maakt-u (accessed on 11 July 2024).
[12] Rouw, R. and Q. van der Hoeven (2023), “The Dutch evidence journey in curriculum revision”, in Who Really Cares about Using Education Research in Policy and Practice?: Developing a Culture of Research Engagement, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a865dff3-en.
[68] Service for the Execution of Grants to Institutions (2024), Verbetering basisvaardigheden 2024 [Improving basic skills 2024], https://www.dus-i.nl/subsidies/verbetering-basisvaardigheden-2024 (accessed on 19 July 2024).
[19] SLO (2025), Definitieve Conceptkerndoelen Burgerschap [Final Concept Core Objectives Citizenship], https://www.slo.nl/thema/meer/actualisatie-kerndoelen-examenprogramma/actualisatie-kerndoelen/definitieve-conceptkerndoelen/ (accessed on 15 October 2025).
[18] SLO (2025), Definitieve Conceptkerndoelen Digitale Geletterdheid [Final Concept Core Objectives Digital Literacy], https://www.slo.nl/thema/meer/actualisatie-kerndoelen-examenprogramma/actualisatie-kerndoelen/definitieve-conceptkerndoelen-digitale/ (accessed on 15 October 2025).
[16] SLO (2025), Definitieve Conceptkerndoelen Nederlands en Rekenen en Wiskunde [Final Concept Core Objectives Dutch and Arithmetic and Mathematics], https://slo-kerndoelen.files.svdcdn.com/production/uploads/assets/updates/Definitieve-conceptkerndoelen-Nederlands-en-rekenen-en-wiskunde_herziene-versie-2025.pdf?dm=1744890809 (accessed on 15 October 2025).
[20] SLO (2024), Actualisatie kerndoelen en examenprogramma’s [Revision of core objectives and examination programmes], https://www.slo.nl/thema/meer/actualisatie-kerndoelen-examenprogramma/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).
[74] SLO (2024), Advies Implementatie Kerndoelen [Advice on the Implementation of Core Objectives], Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development (SLO), Amersfoort, https://www.slo.nl/@23909/advies-implementatie-kerndoelen/ (accessed on 4 July 2024).
[17] 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).
[7] SLO (2024), Doorlopende leerlijnen [Continuous learning strands], https://www.slo.nl/thema/meer/leerlijnen/ (accessed on 18 November 2024).
[8] SLO (2024), Leerplan In Beeld: Doelen voor het Primair en Voortgezet Onderwijs [Curriculum in Focus: Goals for Primary and Secondary Education], https://leerplaninbeeld.slo.nl/ (accessed on 18 November 2024).
[55] SLO (2024), Praat jij ook mee over de conceptkerndoelen burgerschap en digitale geletterdheid in de onderwijspraktijk? [Do you also join the discussion about the draft core objectives citizenship and digital literacy in educational practice?], https://www.actualisatiekerndoelen.nl/updates/doe-mee-met-de-fase-van-beproeven-van-de-conceptkerndoelen-burgerschap-of-digitale-geletterdheid (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[5] SLO (2024), Waarom inhoudslijnen? [Why content lines?], https://www.slo.nl/sectoren/po/inhoudslijnen-po/waarom-inhoudslijnen/ (accessed on 18 November 2024).
[60] SLO (2023), Conceptkerndoelen Nederlands [Draft Core Objectives Dutch], https://www.slo.nl/thema/meer/actualisatie-kerndoelen-examenprogramma/actualisatie-kerndoelen/@22842/conceptkerndoelen-leergebied-nederlands/ (accessed on 19 July 2024).
[15] SLO (2023), Conceptkerndoelen Nederlands en Rekenen en Wiskunde [Draft Core Objectives for Dutch Language and Mathematics and Arithmetic], SLO.
[6] SLO (2023), Inhoudslijnen po [Content lines primary education], https://www.slo.nl/sectoren/po/inhoudslijnen-po/ (accessed on 5 July 2024).
[53] SLO (2023), Veelgestelde vragen [Frequently asked questions], https://www.slo.nl/thema/meer/actualisatie-kerndoelen-examenprogramma/actualisatie-kerndoelen/veelgestelde-vragen/ (accessed on 16 July 2024).
[22] SLO (2022), Doelen Digitale Geletterdheid VO Onderbouw 2018 [Goals for Digital Literacy in Lower Secondary Education 2018], https://www.slo.nl/publish/pages/19936/aanbodsdoelendgvo-ob-indeling202210-2022.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024).
[21] SLO (2022), Inhoudslijnen digitale geletterdheid [Content lines for digital literacy], https://www.slo.nl/sectoren/po/inhoudslijnen-po/inhoudslijnen-digitale-geletterdheid/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).
[23] SLO (2021), Startnotitie digitale geletterdheid [Starting note on digital literacy], https://www.slo.nl/@20065/startnotitie-digitale-geletterdheid/ (accessed on 20 November 2024).
[61] SLO (2020), Kerndoelen Primair Onderwijs 2006 [Core Objectives Primary Education 2006], https://www.slo.nl/publish/pages/17358/kerndoelen-primaironderwijs2006-overzicht_1.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2024).
[2] SLO (2016), Karakteristieken en Kerndoelen [Characteristics and Core Objectives], SLO, Enschede, https://www.slo.nl/publish/pages/4881/karakteristieken-en-kerndoelen-onderbouw-vo.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2024).
[1] SLO (2006), Kerndoelenboekje Basisonderwijs [Core Objectives Booklet Primary Education], SLO, Amersfoort, https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-7effcbd8-41bd-482b-bc4c-54b0bab740ff/pdf (accessed on 18 November 2024).
[58] van den Broek, A. et al. (2022), Analyse en Evaluatie Referentieniveaus Nederlandse Taal en Rekenen [Analysis and Evaluation of Reference Levels Dutch Language and Mathematics], SLO, Amersfoort.
[10] Van der Wateren, D. (2016), Onderwijs2032 als nadere professionalisering, https://wij-leren.nl/onderwijs2032-als-nadere-professionalisering.php (accessed on 5 July 2024).
[11] Vecon (2023), Ons Onderwijs 2032 [Our Education 2032], https://www.vecon.nl/pagina/27606/ons-onderwijs-2032 (accessed on 5 July 2024).
[9] Visser, J. (2016), Onderwijs2032 moest dé vernieuwing worden. Maar leraren zien er weinig in - De Correspondent, https://decorrespondent.nl/5688/onderwijs2032-moest-de-vernieuwing-worden-maar-leraren-zien-er-weinig-in/eb2c77a1-d90a-03e1-1317-b470e492f3b4 (accessed on 5 July 2024).
[64] Wiersma, D. (2022), Kamerbrief over Masterplan Basisvaardigheden (Letter to Parliament on the Basic Skills Master Plan), https://open.overheid.nl/documenten/ronl-87e80b67638eac706986d2467ba0dbc854000ea7/pdf (accessed on 20 November 2024).
← 1. The final core objectives for digital literacy had not been published at the time of the OECD review visit and the preparation of this report.
← 2. Core objective 5 for lower secondary education refers to students learning “to search for, organise and assess information in written and digital sources based on its value for themselves and others.” Core objective 4 for primary education refers to students learning “to retrieve information from instructive and informative texts, including diagrams, tables and digital sources” (SLO, 2006[1]; SLO, 2016[2]).