In a recent paper, Toon and Jensen (2017) decry the increasing number and diversity of partnerships in initial teacher education – and propose a framework to better understand the effectiveness of partnerships in terms of the depth of collaboration, roles, and the accountability of the various partners and systems involved in or implicated by the collaboration. In the Netherlands, there are several examples of the deepest type of partnership described by these authors, in which partners jointly design, deliver, evaluate and improve preparation and early career development. These partnerships are supported and encouraged at the system level in the Netherlands, by linking partnerships with accreditation of ITE programmes, and also at the policy level.
In the Netherlands, an independent accreditation body, the Dutch-Flemish Accreditation Organisation (NVAO), approves each school-university partnership before they are funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science. The body determines if there is a clear and manifested vision, a shared focus on improvement, leadership, co‑operation and self-management, and a commitment to improving learning for students. Partnerships are also reviewed after they receive funding.
Responding to concerns from schools and school boards about the “classroom readiness” of newly qualified primary teachers, the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science launched a range of initiatives to improve the fitness for purpose of primary initial teacher education (ITE). These initiatives have included facilitating and funding much closer integration of universities of applied sciences (HBOs), which provide training in primary education, with school boards, at the strategic level, and with individual schools at both the strategic and operational level.
The initiatives have had a major impact on the ITE system. During interviews, the ministry reported that almost half of ITE courses are now working closely with schools on course design and delivery. Clearly, there is a continuum in the deepness of the partnerships between schools and HBOs. To illustrate the depth and commitment to partnerships in the Netherlands, this case study describes a partnership between an HBO and school, and a pilot project in academic training schools in the Netherlands.
The partnership between Hogeschool Leiden and Snijderschool, Rijswijk is a strong example of the deepest type of partnership.
Snijderschool is one of 50 primary schools controlled by the Lucas Onderwijs school board, and Lucas Onderwijs is one of five school boards involved in a partnership project with Hogeschool Leiden. In this project, the school boards and the Hogeschool are building a sustainable partnership to develop ITE and professional development programmes together and drive improvement across their schools.
Of the 50 schools under the responsibility of the Lucas Onderwijs, 20 are involved in ITE. There are three models of school involvement:
Snijderschool is in the third category, with students working alongside teachers to research practice based issues, facilitated by academic staff from the Hogeschool Leiden.
Initially the partnership was self-funded, but the ministry has now provided three years of project funding to develop the partnership and employ dedicated partnership staff.
The key characteristics of the partnership are (Figure 1):
Figure 1. Schools and teacher education institutions co-creating primary ITE programmes
In 2006, the Dutch education ministry selected 16 schools to participate in a pilot programme to create academic training schools – partnerships between schools and teacher training programmes.
As of 2012, there were 22 university-affiliated (academic) training schools. Teacher training in these schools is strongly linked to applied research and development (Box 1).
Academic training schools co‑operate closely with teacher training institutions to conduct practice-based research and innovation, ongoing professional development for teachers, and training for teacher candidates as follows:
In one example, a group of teachers was allocated one day a week to conduct research of practical relevance to the school, based on a central theme decided by school leadership.
An early qualitative study (Snoek and Moens, 2011) of one of the pilot programmes found that involvement in conducting research led to increased professional development at a range of levels, including expertise in the research topic, insights into how to conduct research, awareness of the school’s overall vision and organisation, and understanding of how to work with colleagues and share knowledge.
Training schools are partnerships between schools and teacher training programmes. Together, they provide prospective teachers with in-school training for a large part of their teacher training programme. Of the 56 training schools, 22 are university-affiliated, i.e. academic training schools. This means that teacher training in these schools is strongly linked to applied research and school development.
Participants in the academic training schools acknowledge the following benefits resulting from the partnerships (this list is not exhaustive):
The OECD Review Team in its review of the Netherlands from 6-10 March 2017 noted that:
The OECD Review Ream concluded that:
Hogeschool Leiden (2018), Leraar Basisonderwijs (Pabo voltijd), (accessed on 22 May 2018). 
This case study describes a “promising practice” drawn from an OECD review of initial teacher preparation in the Netherlands from 6-10 March 2017.
The OECD Review Team – Hannah von Ahlefeld (OECD), Michael Day (University of Roehampton), Kjetil Helgeland (OECD) and Danielle Toon (Learning First) – identified a number of “Promising practices” in each country. These practices may not be widespread or representative, but seen in the context of other challenges, they represent a strength or opportunity to improve the country’s initial teacher preparation system – and for other countries to learn from them.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of OECD member countries.
This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgement of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to email@example.com.
Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at firstname.lastname@example.org or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at email@example.com.