Abstract
The Netherlands has a rich tradition in educational innovation for which teacher training always acted as a catalyst. This occurred also in the 1960s when a new teacher training program, called NLO (Nieuwe Leraren Opleiding), was initiated as a result of the Secondary Education Act of 1963. The vested program for teacher qualification was not sufficiently practice-oriented and considered outdated by policymakers. Moreover, in the turbulent political and social climate of the 1960s and 1970s, traditional ideas about parenting and education were under pressure, and progressive politicians and educationalists tried to combat inequality through education. Expectations regarding the educational innovations the NLO would bring ran high, for example in making a success of a new system of comprehensive schools (middenschool) which the government wanted to introduce. The question however was how far the government could take an ideologically driven education policy, and determining its direction was not without challenges.
The struggle for the curriculum, which is still ongoing, mainly revolves around the question of the type of teacher to be trained: a widely deployable teacher-mentor for cross-curricular education with an emphasis on learning skills, or a school subject specialist for the transfer of subject-specific knowledge and skills. Tradition in innovation follows this struggle in the period 1963-1998 for the training of history teachers. It focuses on two groups: managerial and governmental actors, such as parliamentarians, ministers and the management of teacher trainers, and actors that were professionally involved in teacher training, such as pedagogues, educationalists and history subject teachers. What interests did these parties represent and what influence did they have on education policy and the reform of training practice? This study tries to answer these questions. Educators, administrators and policy makers who worry about problems such as a declining level of education and teacher shortages could use it as a 'learning history' when they are looking for solutions.
The struggle for the curriculum, which is still ongoing, mainly revolves around the question of the type of teacher to be trained: a widely deployable teacher-mentor for cross-curricular education with an emphasis on learning skills, or a school subject specialist for the transfer of subject-specific knowledge and skills. Tradition in innovation follows this struggle in the period 1963-1998 for the training of history teachers. It focuses on two groups: managerial and governmental actors, such as parliamentarians, ministers and the management of teacher trainers, and actors that were professionally involved in teacher training, such as pedagogues, educationalists and history subject teachers. What interests did these parties represent and what influence did they have on education policy and the reform of training practice? This study tries to answer these questions. Educators, administrators and policy makers who worry about problems such as a declining level of education and teacher shortages could use it as a 'learning history' when they are looking for solutions.
Translated title of the contribution | Tradition in innovation: the history of initial training for (history) teachers in the Netherlands: policy and practice, 1963-1998 |
---|---|
Original language | Dutch |
Qualification | Doctor of Philosophy |
Awarding Institution |
|
Supervisors/Advisors |
|
Award date | 30-Nov-2023 |
Place of Publication | [Groningen] |
Publisher | |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - 2023 |