Study on supporting school innovation across Europe : case study 8 : the Netherlands, Flevoland - the Netherlands.
Date: 2018-04-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture
Subjects: Europe, Netherlands, case study, continuing education, education policy, educational institution, educational system, innovation, learning, teaching

Study on Supporting School 
Innovation Across Europe 
Case study 8 - the Netherlands 

Flevoland, the Netherlands 

Jacquelien Bulterman-Bos 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
Directorate B – Youth, Education and Erasmus+  

Unit B.2 – Schools and multilingualism 

Contact: Viktoria Bolla 

E-mail:  Viktoria.BOLLA@ec.europa.eu 

European Commission 
B-1049 Brussels 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Case study 8 - the Netherlands 

Flevoland, the Netherlands 

The case study was prepared as part of the Study on Supporting School 
Innovation Across Europe implemented by PPMI for DG Education and 
Culture of the European Commission.  

Fieldwork was conducted between November 2016 and May 2017 

Author: Jacquelien Bulterman-Bos 

The author would like to thank to all the interviewees and workshop participants for their 
active participation in discussions and their inputs to the fieldwork. 

2018 

Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture 
Education and Training 

EN 

Disclaimer 
This  document  has  been  prepared  for  the  European  Commission.  However,  it 
reflects  the  views  only  of  the  authors,  and  the  Commission  cannot  be  held 
responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. 

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers 
to your questions about the European Union. 

Freephone number (*): 
00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 

(*) 

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone 

boxes or hotels may charge you).

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu). 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018 

ISBN: 978-92-79-81477-8 
DOI: 10.2766/497480 

© European Union, 2018 
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 

Image(s) © [Pressmaster + image 398203735]. Source: [shutterstock.com]

 
Table of Contents 

Table of Contents .................................................................................................. 5 
1. Introduction and context: what, where and why? ................................................... 6 
1.1. Understanding the selected region: key characteristics ..................................... 6 
1.2. Getting to know the schools selected for the field study: brief profile .................. 7 
1.2.1. School 1 - the Tjotter school ............................................................... 7 
1.2.2. School 2 - the Warande school ........................................................... 8 
2.  Two  perspectives  on  the  school  innovation  process:  what  supports  and  what  limits 
innovation? ........................................................................................................... 8 
2.1. The Tjotter school ........................................................................................ 8 
2.1.1. Presenting the innovative approaches practised in the school ............. 8 
2.1.2. Main enablers for innovations ............................................................. 9 
2.1.3. Main barriers for innovations .............................................................10 
2.1.4. Main achievements ............................................................................10 
2.1.5. Sustainability of innovative practices .................................................11 
2.1.6.  Monitoring,  evaluation,  learning  loops  and  planning  of  innovative 
approaches ..................................................................................................11 
2.1.7. Stakeholders’ engagement ................................................................12 
2.1.8. Mainstreaming and transferring innovations ......................................12 
2.2. The Warande school ....................................................................................12 
2.2.1. Presenting the innovative approaches practised in the school ............12 
2.2.2. Main enablers for innovations ............................................................14 
2.2.3. Main barriers for innovations .............................................................14 
2.2.4. Main achievements ............................................................................14 
2.2.5. Sustainability of innovative practices .................................................15 
2.2.6.  Monitoring,  evaluation,  learning  loops  and  planning  of  innovative 
approaches ..................................................................................................15 
2.2.7. Stakeholders’ engagement ................................................................15 
2.2.8. Mainstreaming and transferring innovations ......................................15 
3. Innovation in schools: lessons learned and policy pointers ..................................... 16 
3.1. Understanding the barriers: what hinders the school innovation process? ...........16 
3.2. Spotting the supporters: what facilitates the school innovation process? ............16 
3.3.  Reflecting  on  the transferability  of  school innovations  into  the local contexts  and 
their sustainability .............................................................................................17 
3.4. Policy pointers ............................................................................................17 
Annex I: A short review of the field work ................................................................. 19 
Annex II: Photos from the two schools .................................................................... 24 
Annex  III:  A  story  of  innovation  in  the  Dutch  educational  policy:  reflection  from  the 
author ................................................................................................................. 26 
Bibliography......................................................................................................... 28 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction and context: what, where and why?  

1.1. Understanding the selected region: key characteristics  
Flevoland  is  a  newly  reclaimed  land  in  The  Netherlands  (see  Figure  1).  The  city  of 
Lelystad (see the map below) was founded in 1967.  

Figure 1. Map of the Netherlands 

The Figure below shows the employment statistics in Lelystad (blue), Flevoland (orange) 
and The Netherlands (green). It shows that Lelystad is a disadvantaged city compared to 
the national situation. 
In  addition,  Lelystad  is  characterised  by  the  following  trends  (Perspectives  of  Lelystad, 
Trends 2015): 

▪  Compared with the national average (33%), Lelystad had fewer students in pre-

academic tracks in secondary education (23%). 

▪  The number of high school drop outs has been drastically reduced recently (from 

5.5% to 2.7%) but is still higher than the national average (1.9%). 

▪  The number of students in special education in Lelystad has recently decreased 
and is presently comparable to the national percentage in The Netherlands 
(2.4%). 

6 

 
 
 
 
▪ 

In 2013, the average household in Lelystad could spend 32.900 Euro a year. This 
is 1.900 Euro less than the Dutch average. Households in Lelystad, thus, on 
average have less money to spend than elsewhere in The Netherlands. 

Figure 1. Unemployment rate in Lelystad, Flevoland and Netherlands in general, 2011 - 
20151 

1.2. Getting to know the schools selected for the field study: brief profile  
The  two  schools  chosen  for  this  case  study  are  from  Lelystad,  the  capital  of  Flevoland. 
They both are situated in residential middle-class and relatively wealthy neighbourhoods 
in  terms  of  level  of  employment,  education  and  income  (Wijkmonitor,  2015).  These 
public  schools  belong  to  a  foundation  of  21  schools.  The  board  of  this  foundation 
considers these schools as examples of innovative schools within the foundation. 
The  Tjotter2  school  (school 1)  managed to  improve  student  results  in  a  relatively  short 
period of time. The Dutch Inspectorate assesses the quality of education of schools based 
on  school  visits  and  standardised  tests.  The  Tjotter  school  used  to  be  a  rather  “weak 
school”,  but  managed  to  improve  student  results,  notably  thanks  to  the  work  of  the 
recently  appointed  new  director.  This  school  is  special  because  it  focuses  on  teachers’ 
shared learning within a clear common view of education (See 2.1.1. for more details).  
The Warande3 school (school 2) is recognised for its open and innovative approach. The 
school,  founded  in  2010  in  a  newly-developed  neighbourhood,  is  part  of  a  child  centre 
where  child  care  and  education  are  integrated.  According  to  the  interviewed  policy 
makers  from  the  City  Council  of  Lelystad,  the  Warande  school  is  open  to  the 
implementation  of  “21st  century  skills”  in  education.  According  to  the  Dutch  School 
Inspectorate, student results are satisfactory now.  

1.2.1. School 1 - the Tjotter school 
The  school  was  recommended  both  by  the  Dutch  Inspectorate  and  by  the  Teacher 
Foundation.4  The  school  used  to  have  a  bad  reputation  because  of  low  results.  The 
Inspectorate  recommended  this  school  for  a  case  study,  as  it  managed  to  improve 
student  results  and  the  quality  of  teaching.  The  Teacher  Foundation  was  enthusiastic 
about  the  way  in  which  the  Tjotter  school  reacted  to  its  programme.  The  school  is 

1 Source: Report “Zicht op Lelystad (Source: Perspectives of Lelystad, Trends 2015). 
2 See: http://www.obs-de-tjotter.nl  
3 See: http://www.kindcentrumwarande.nl  
4  The  Teacher  Foundation  is  a  private  organisation  that  encourages  collective  learning  and 
incremental  improvement  of  education.  It  emphasises  that  a  team  of  teachers  needs  to  be  a 
learning community. 

 
 
 
 
                                         
innovative  because  the  team  of  teachers  works  as  a  learning  community,  monitoring 
each other’s work.  
The Tjotter school, a primary school with students aged 4-12 years old, was founded by 
the  City  Council  of  Lelystad  in  1978.  The  school  has  243  students,  28  teachers,  two 
janitors, a teaching assistant, a director and a co-director.  
The  school  now  enjoys  a  good  reputation,  but  it  used  to  have low student  outcomes,  a 
negative  pedagogical  climate,  and  suffered  from  a  loss  of  trust  between  school  and 
parents,  according  to  the  Inspectorate  and  the  teachers.  According  to  interviews,  they 
currently feel more positive about the climate in the school. 
The school focuses on the use of standardised tests issued by the Dutch Institute of Test 
Construction  to  monitor  student  results.  It  uses  a  standard  curriculum  with  teaching 
materials and an accompanying test. The school uses HGW (Action Oriented Approach, a 
way of assessing the needs of each individual child) to address differences in the class5. 
Teachers  regularly  observe  each  other’s  lessons  by  using  a  common  questionnaire.  The 
school leader uses a similar observation instrument to ensure the transfer between CPD 
sessions and the daily routines in the classroom. 

1.2.2. School 2 - the Warande school 

This school was recommended by the City Council of Lelystad and mentioned by the head 
of the board of the foundation because of its innovative culture. It integrates both child 
day care, kindergarten, elementary education and after school care. Teachers  belong to 
innovation groups that are in charge of designing innovations. 
The school and the child centre were established in 2010.  They form an integrated child 
centre,  catering  to  children  aged  0-13  years  old.  The  school  has  250  students,  14 
teachers, 14 pedagogical assistants, a special needs coordinator, a team leader for child 
care, an adjunct-leader and a school leader.  
Presently, the  Inspectorate  considers the  performance  of students  as  ‘satisfactory’.  The 
interviewed policymaker of the city council characterised this school as “open to the rest 
of society” and “open to innovation”. 
The  school/day  care  centre  focuses  on  continuous  development  of  children  from  0-13 
years old. It uses a standard curriculum for language and math with teaching materials 
and  accompanying  test.  Standardised  tests  issued  by  the  Dutch  Institute  of  Test 
Construction (Cito) are used. These tests are primarily used as a tool to learn more about 
students’ learning process, not as an end in itself.   

2.  Two  perspectives  on  the  school  innovation  process: 
what supports and what limits innovation?  

2.1. The Tjotter school 

2.1.1. Presenting the innovative approaches practised in the school 
The  Tjotter  school  leader  focused  on  the  improvement  of  teachers’  pedagogical  and 
didactical  skills.  She  encouraged  similar  classroom  management  strategies  for  all 
teachers,  as  well  as  strong  student  participation,  since  active  learning  make  students 
owners  of  their  own  learning  process.  Team  schooling  with  subsequent  follow  up  and 
monitoring within the learning community of teachers, individual coaching and change of 
personnel  were  among  her  instruments.  She  encouraged  the  implementation  of  a 
common  view  of  education  and  teacher  mutual  learning,  as  well  as  a  culture  of 
continuous  improvement.  Learning  from  good  examples  (observing  how  other  teachers 
have  implemented  an  innovation,  watching  videos 
is 
demonstrated) played an important role for the learning process of teachers.  

in  which  an  innovation 

5 Pameijer, N., Van Beukering, T. & De Lange, S. (2009). Handelingsgericht Werken: een 
handreiking voor het schoolteam. Leuven/Den Haag: Acco. 

8 

 
 
                                         
One of the teachers (a young beginning teacher) played a particularly active role in the 
innovation. She  focussed  on  cooperative  learning  (CL)  and taught  other teachers  about 
this  method.  CL uses  group  work to  encourage  active  learning. She  also  suggested  the 
school  leader  to  contact  the  teacher  Foundation.  The  TF  offers  tools  that  encourage  a 
culture  of  continuous  improvement  within  schools  and  connects  schools  together. 
Teachers commented positively about visiting other  schools  and getting new ideas  from 
other schools. 
Approaches being used at the Tjotter school to improve students’ results include:  

▪  Direct Instruction6; 
‘Teach like a Champion’7: 62 teaching techniques to improve student learning; 
▪ 
▪  Differentiation/adapting education to children’s needs (HGW)8: an action-oriented 

approach to assess the needs of individual children; 

▪  Cooperative learning9: a way of encouraging active learning by group work; 
▪  Making student results and group results visible on a data wall in the classroom 
and engaging students in continuous improvement by reflecting on these data; 

▪  Making students owners of their own learning process by student portfolios; 
▪  Encouraging student participation and (direct) feedback on student’s results; 
▪  A school culture in which making mistakes is allowed, for this encourages 

growth/learning;  

▪  Positive behaviour support (PBS)10, a method that emphasises positive attention 

for children. 

The innovations took place during the last four years.  Then, the Inspectorate concluded 
that student results were too low. The team lost confidence in the old school leader and 
requested  the  board  for  a  new  director.  The  present  school  leader  initiated  the 
innovations and encouraged the team to become owners of the innovations. 
The head teacher organised CPD-courses focusing on the points mentioned above,  while 
clearly  focussing  on  teachers’  enactment  in  the  class.  The  head  teacher  also  coached 
teachers herself, organised co-teaching by external experts, and encouraged teachers to 
visit lessons of other teachers and to give feedback to each other. Collaborative design of 
lessons was encouraged. All activities were accompanied by clear goals, a time schedule 
and monitoring. Thus, a common language of the enactment of education and a culture 
of continuous improvement and monitoring was established in the Tjotter school. Within 
one year, the results improved from dissatisfactory to satisfactory. The head teacher was 
ambitious and spent much extra time for her work. 
The costs of extra professionalisation and co-teaching involved an extra budget of about 
30,000 to 40,000 euro per year above the regular CPD budget of about 20,000 euro. The 
school also invested in computers and tablets to enable students to work independently.  

2.1.2. Main enablers for innovations 
According to the teachers  interviewed,  the innovation  depended  primarily  on  the  school 
leader  who  had  a  strong  view  of  education.  She  derived  this  view  from  previous 
experience  as  a school leader. She believed that the quality of a school depends on the 
quality of teachers. The president of the board (who is in charge of 21 public schools in 
Lelystad) also commented that the innovation depended solely on the school leader. 
The innovation was also enabled by the school board that acknowledged the demand of 
teachers  for  a  new  director  after  the  Inpectorate  had  concluded  in  2011/2012  that 
student  results  were  too  low.  The  present  school  leader  was  experienced  in  ‘turning 

6 See, for instance, http://www.nifdi.org 
7 See: http://teachlikeachampion.com  
8 Pameijer. Pameijer, N., Van Beukering, T. & De Lange, S. (2009). Handelingsgericht Werken: een 
handreiking voor het schoolteam. Leuven/Den Haag: Acco.  
9 See: https://www.kaganonline.com 
10 See: http://www.apbs.org/index.html 

 
 
                                         
around’ schools to improve student results. The board gave her freedom to do what she 
thought  was  necessary.  The  school  leader  needed  extra  financial  support  for  teacher 
professionalisation  purposes,  which  she  obtained  from  the  broader  network  of 
professionalisation  organisations  across  Dutch  schools.  She  deliberately  selected  a 
professionalisation approach that she was familiar with and trusted.  
The national Inspectorate generally labels the quality of  a school as either ‘extra weak’, 
‘weak’,  or  ‘basic/satisfactory’. The  school  leader  told that the national Inspectorate  was 
very supportive by not labelling the school as ‘extra weak’. The inspectorate played this 
role because it had noticed that an improvement process was taking off and the school 
leader said that this label would be very discouraging for the team of teachers. 
The  innovation  was  encouraged  by  the  national  Inspectorate  that  generally  labels  the 
quality  of  the  school  as  either  ‘extra  weak’,  ‘weak’  or  ‘basic/satisfactory’.  After  the 
Inspectorate had noticed that an improvement process had taken off, it did not label the 
school as ‘extra weak’. The school leader found this very supportive because she believes 
that such a label would have been very discouraging for the team of teachers and would 
have interfered with their willingness to innovate.  
The school leader admitted that she was very dominant during the first two years of her 
work. At the same time, she allowed teachers to experiment and build up expertise. She 
distributed the responsibility for innovation among the team of teachers. She focussed on 
what they needed and enabled them to see and experience the innovation she expected. 
Recently,  she  has  given  up  her  dominant  role  giving  more  control  to  the  teachers 
because she wants them to become the owners of the innovation.  
At the beginning of the innovative trajectory, parent-school relationship was tense, but it 
has  improved  as a result of a new approach taken. Political authorities  –  other than the 
Inspectorate – were not involved in the innovation. The educational infrastructure around 
the  school  played  a  role  in  supporting  the  innovation  as  the  school  leader  obtained 
expertise for teacher professionalisation from this network. 

2.1.3. Main barriers for innovations 
Main  barriers  encountered,  according  to  teachers,  were  a  lack  of  time  and  the  large 
amount of new routines that needed to be implemented, which created stress at work.  
According  to  the  school  leader,  another  barrier  for  innovations  was  that  teachers  were 
not used at reflecting on their own actions. At first, there was a lot of resistance towards 
her  feedback.  Some  teachers,  who  did  not  show  enough  growth  in  implementing 
innovative ideas, were asked to find a job elsewhere. The other teachers started adopting 
innovative  ideas  in  their  work  not  out  of  fear  to  lose  their  jobs,  but  because  they  saw 
that the new pedagogies worked better than the old ones. 
According to the school leader,  another  barrier  of  innovations  is  the  lack  of  opportunity 
for  teachers  to  see  how  other  teachers  work.  It  is  hard  for  schools  to  find  alternate 
teachers  (which  is  necessary  when  a  teacher  visits  another  class  or  school).  Another 
barrier highlighted by a board member was the fact that the Dutch law requires full-time 
teachers to teach 25.75 hours a week, which leaves only 20 hours for things other than 
teaching. As a result, there is relatively little time for collaboration, learning new routines 
and  designing  improvement.  Therefore,  a  culture  of  isolation  is  likely  to  persist, 
especially  in  schools  that  lack  a  school  leader  who  could  actively  establish  the  learning 
culture within the teaching team.  

2.1.4. Main achievements 

Students  of  the  senior  class,  who  have  experienced  the  innovation,  mentioned  several 
improvements. They enjoy the data wall on which they can see their test scores and the 
improvements  they  make  as  a  class,  and  they  like  setting  their  own  goals  for  the next 
test.  They  appreciate  the  follow  up  if  they  do  not  attain  their  goals.  The  way  in  which 
classroom rules  are dealt with is nicer than it was  before. “If you do well (as  a class),” 

10 

 
they  said,  “there  is  a  reward”  (some  nice  activity  together,  for  instance).  One  of  the 
achievements of the innovation is that students feel happier. 
According to the  teachers, students are proud of their portfolio, which shows what they 
have achieved so far. Children have more intrinsic motivation because they see their own 
growth.  “It  does  not  matter  if you  are not  as good  as  others; if you show  growth, you 
can still contribute to a better class average,” they tell their students.  
The special needs coordinator emphasised the importance of a common language among 
teachers.  This  language  emerged  because  teachers  work  together  and  discuss  their 
problems together in the learning community. 
According to the teachers, parents are more open and more satisfied. Teachers feel their 
relationship  with  parents  has  improved.  They  referred  to  outsiders  who  once  gave 
workshops at school and noticed a cooperative attitude of students. Teachers believe this 
cooperative attitude of students is a result of the fact that students feel more responsible 
for their own learning process. 
Teachers are proud of their work, they cooperate better, are more open, ask each other 
for  feedback,  analyse  their  problems  together.  There  is  more  cohesion  in  the  group  of 
teachers.  

2.1.5. Sustainability of innovative practices 
Presently,  the  school  leader  is  also  managing  another  school  two  days  per  week.  This 
helps to mainstream the innovations implemented at the Tjotter. The school leader told 
the teachers that she trusted they could maintain the innovation themselves. 
The sustainability of the innovation depends on the degree to which teachers manage to 
sustain a culture of continuous improvement. If there is no clear commitment among the 
teachers, the sustainability of the innovation cannot be guaranteed. Since the innovation 
depends largely on the improvement of the teaching skills, it is important that  teachers 
continue to feel committed, and are supported accordingly. 

2.1.6.  Monitoring,  evaluation,  learning  loops  and  planning  of  innovative 
approaches 
At  the  beginning  of  each  school  year,  the  school  leader  plans  around  ten  study 
conferences for teachers per academic year. Four times a year, the team gathers at night 
to discuss the innovations. Each week, a ‘Board Session’ takes place  (see picture at the 
end of the report). Then, teachers share their successes and their problems in a standing 
meeting after school in front of the white board in the teachers’ room. A board session is 
an ‘innovation’ from the Teacher Foundation.  
Teachers  observe  each  other  and  check  whether  they  do  what  is  expected,  based  on 
agreements and goals that were written down on the white board in the teachers’ room 
or  in  other  documents.  These  agreements  are  set  when  teachers  discuss  their  ‘Board 
Sessions’  (see  picture  in  annex.)  Two  times  a  year,  they  compare  their  administration 
(according to HGW, Action Oriented Approach that uses various forms) of student results 
and special needs of students after school to check if they use the same system. If they 
do not do what is expected, they discuss the reasons. Moreover, every month, they visit 
each other’s classes. The special needs consultant visits each class four times a year. The 
school  leader  also  visits  classes,  using  an  observation  form,  invites  the  teachers  to  try 
out something new and allows them to decide on which elements of their behaviour they 
want to get feedback. 
There is a constant reflection on the present practice going on in the team. If things do 
not develop in the desired direction, teachers write down a goal, an action and a date on 
which this point will be evaluated again. 
Regularly,  the  Teacher  Foundation  organises  school  visits  that  enables  teachers  to 
ascertain  how  teachers  work  at  other  schools.  These  visits  are  well  appreciated  by 
teachers who found they learned a lot by observing how other schools worked.  

 
 
2.1.7. Stakeholders’ engagement 
The school leader hired the services of organisations providing CPD. They focused on the 
improvement  of  the  pedagogical  skills  of  teachers  via  the  innovative  approaches 
implemented  in  the  school.  The  school  leader  also  hired  people  from  the  Teacher 
Foundation,  who  offer  procedures  for  establishing  a  learning  community.  This  learning 
community plays an important role in monitoring and sustaining the pedagogical skills of 
teachers.  

2.1.8. Mainstreaming and transferring innovations 
As we have seen, the innovation in school 1 depended very much on the qualities of the 
school leader and her view of how effective and successful school education can look like. 
Personal qualities are not easy to mainstream. At the same time, the school leader made 
use of approaches that have been developed elsewhere and ordered CPD-courses for her 
team. As described above, the innovations implemented in this school are internationally 
‘known’  approaches.  For  instance,  ‘Teach  Like  a  Champion’  is  an  American  programme 
for  the  improvement  of  teaching  skills.11.  The  culture  of  continuous  improvement, 
encouraged  by  the  Teacher  Foundations,  Cooperative  learning,  or  Making  Learning 
Results Visible on a data wall in the classroom (see Picture 1 in annex) are also used by 
other  schools  in  and  outside  the  Netherlands.  All  these  approaches  could  be 
mainstreamed by professionalisation courses.  
According  to  the  school  board,  the  school  leader’s  interpersonal  skills  were  very 
important  in  facilitating  the  implementation  process.  According  to  an  interview  with  a 
board  member,  it  would  be  impossible  to  transfer  the  innovations  implemented  at  the 
Tjotter school to other schools of the foundation without the help of this particular school 
leader. Although  she used many  existing  approaches  that  could  be used  by  others too, 
the  way  in  which  she  integrated  them  in  the  local  learning  community  of  teachers  and 
monitored them really ‘made’ these existing approaches work. This is why the board had 
asked her also to work with another school. Presently, she divides her attention between 
this other school and Tjotter school. 

2.2. The Warande school 

2.2.1. Presenting the innovative approaches practised in the school 
School 2 is characterised by a large degree of ‘self-government’ by teachers, resulting in 
better student results  and a culture in which students feel responsible for  their learning 
process.  The  school  is  part  of  a  child  centre  where  child  care  and  education  are 
integrated.  Most  schools  in  the  Netherlands  and  day  care  centres  are  separate 
institutions  where  teachers  and  pedagogical  assistants  do  not  know  each  other.  At 
Warande school, teachers and pedagogical assistants are actively involved in developing 
a common view of both education and day care.  
Teachers,  however,  also  have  responsibilities  that  cannot  be  shared  with  pedagogical 
assistants. The school in itself was also innovative during the last couple of years. In the 
past,  the  Inspectorate  noticed  that  student  results  were  low.  The  teachers,  however, 
were very much hesitant towards the test-driven-accountability-approach established by 
the Inspectorate. As part of the innovation, the team has re-defined and interpreted test-
driven accountability in its own way: rather than emphasising the learning results per se, 
they decided to focus on  process  of learning, starting from children’s needs  and guiding 
them in their own development. In other words, they used these National tests (that are 
used by the Inspectorate to assess the quality of schools) in a formative way. They also 
tried to make students the owners of their own learning process. This approach presently 

11  Lemov,  Teach  like  a  Champion.  62  techniques  that  put  students  on  the  path  to  college.  San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2015. 

12 

 
                                         
as 

school 

topics, 

include: 

goes  hand  in  hand  with  the  use  of  standardised  tests.  The  results  have  improved 
accordingly. 
continuous 
such 
Various 
development  from  0-13  year  in  both  day 
care  and  school,  clarifying  learning  goals 
(and  making  student  results  visible  on  a 
data  wall  in  the  classrooms)  have  been 
defined.  All 
teachers  and  pedagogical 
assistants  were  made  responsible  for  the 
development  and  implementation  of  these 
concepts according to the TASC model (see 
Figure  3)12.    The  school  became  familiar 
with this model because it is used in special 
lessons in which gifted children are involved 
in  problem  solving.  The  teachers  told  that 
they  found  this  model  also  helpful  for 
themselves. 
The  key  words  of  the  innovative  culture  at 
bottom-up 
Warande 
involvement,  and  making  people  who  do 
the work responsible for how it is done.  
In  2013,  the  school  appointed  a  new 
leader,  who  started  a  process  in  which 
teachers  reconsidered  the  school’s  mission  and  vision.  Elements  of  this  mission  and 
vision  are  a  continuous  development  of  children  from  0-13 years  old,  making  students’ 
learning  results  visible  on  a  data  wall in  the  classroom,  and  using standardised tests  in 
formative  ways.  According  to the  school  leader  and  to the focus  group  of  teachers, the 
reconsideration  of  the  mission  and  vision  of  the  school  generated  a  lot  of  inspiration, 
commitment and a sense of community. Groups  of personnel  were formed  who were in 
charge of investigating, defining and trying out innovations that were found necessary to 
realise  the  mission  and  the  vision.  Although  the  school  leader  initiated  the  innovative 
culture, it was a collective effort.  
The school had started out as a child centre, but in 2013, the integration of an education 
and  a  day  care  was  still  lacking.  The  board  of both the  school  and the  day  care  centre 
supplied a budget for the integration. At the same time, the Inspectorate concluded that 
students’ results  were too low. This ignited the need for  organisational and pedagogical 
changes. 
The teacher and pedagogical assistants formed groups and each group took responsibility 
for implementing innovation according to the TASC model. The school leader and adjunct 
leader attended the meetings of the groups. They also made ‘flash-visits’ to classrooms, 
and  teachers  paid  ‘flash-visits’  to  other  teachers’  classrooms.  These  visits  were  made 
according to  a  certain  structure  and  observation  form. The  intention  of  such visits  is to 
learn from each other. 
The  school  leader  hired  external  CPD  services  for  the  integration  of  education  and  day 
care13, for a budget of about 20,000 euro. The board of the Day Care foundation and the 
board of the school supplied about 10,000 euro per year for that purpose. In other CPD 
opportunities, teachers were taught how to make student results visible on a data wall in 
the classroom (for a 11,000 euro budget).  

Figure 2. The TASC Model (Adams & 
Wallace, 1991) 

12  Adams,  H.  B.  and  Wallace,  B.,  (1991).  ‘Developing  the  Potential  of  Children  in  Disadvantaged 
Communities:  The  TASC  Project:  “Thinking  Actively  in  a  Social  Context”’,  Gifted  Education 
International, Vol. 7, Issue 3.  
13  Integration  means,  for  instance,  that  both  teachers  and  pedagogical  assistants  work  from  the 
same pedagogical ideas and consult each other when a child has a problem. 

 
 
                                         
The  groups  of  teachers  and  pedagogical  assistants  who  are  in  charge  of  innovation 
gather  about  six  times  a  year  for  1.5  hour.  The  school  leader  considers  this  as  part  of 
their regular work. Moreover, four times a year, the teachers and pedagogical assistants 
come  together  at  night  to  discuss  the  progress  of  the  groups  working  with  the  TASK 
model.  They  are  not  compensated  for  this  with  extra  money  other  than  their  regular 
salary. 

2.2.2. Main enablers for innovations 

The innovations at the school level were initiated by the school leader and carried out by 
the rest of the school staff. The integration of the day care and education, which occurred 
at the  organisational level,  was  initiated  by  the  boards  of the  education foundation  and 
by  the  day  care  foundation.  Some  other  innovations,  such  as  making  student  results 
visible  on  a  data  wall  concerned  education  only,  and  occurred  only  at  the  level  of  the 
school and the classroom.  
The region of Flevoland or the city of Lelystad did not play any role in the implementation 
of these innovations. Other elements from the broad educational community around the 
school  played  a  role  in  the  sense  that  some  CPD  organisations  were  hired.  Individual 
teachers also visited conferences and used specialised websites.  
Some  innovations  were  initiated  by  the  teacher,  who  had  done  a  course  about,  for 
instance,  clarifying  learning  goals.  Among  other  issues,  he  focused  on  how  children 
become  the  owners  of  their  own  learning  process,  and  how  success  criteria  can  be 
formulated in  cooperation  with  students.  This  person  was  willing to  be the  leader  of  an 
innovation group. The group presented its results during a teacher gathering. Then, other 
teachers  also  tried  it  out.  Generally,  if  the  team  is  convinced  of  the  usefulness  of  a 
certain  approach,  this  way  of  working is  documented.  The  stages  of  the  TASC model in 
which  the  various  innovative  groups  have  arrived,  are  published  in  the  teachers’  room 
(see Picture 3 in Annex II). 

2.2.3. Main barriers for innovations 
In school 2, barriers include a lack of time for teachers, and work pressure. Teachers feel 
that consensus-building between teachers is not self-evident. The conflicting schedules of 
teachers and pedagogical assistants can also represent a barrier. 
Teachers  believe  that  mandatory  regulations  also  represent  barriers.  They  strongly 
support  their  freedom  to  decide  themselves  about  the  pedagogies  applied  in  the  class. 
According  to  them,  regulations  on  pedagogies  can  easily  become  “bureaucratic”.  The 
school leader did not identify any barriers to implementing innovations, neither at system 
nor at school level. 

2.2.4. Main achievements 

According  to  the  Inspectorate,  student  results  have 
improved.  Presently,  the 
Inspectorate labels student results as ‘satisfactory’. As for pedagogical issues, the school 
leader  believes  that  more  innovations  are  necessary.  The  format  of  whole  class 
instruction and the one-size-fits-all approach is still very prevalent. Therefore, the school 
leader is hesitant in asserting that the innovation has “effects”: “We still have to learn to 
address  special  needs  and multiple intelligences.”  Compared  to  the  days  when the  new 
school leader  started  working  at Warande, the  children  are more task-oriented  and  the 
atmosphere in the school is quieter.  
The innovation groups  – the groups of teachers who use the TASC model to design and 
implement  a  certain  aspect  of  the  innovation  –  have  not  finished  the  full  cycle  of  the 
model  yet,  which  makes  it  difficult  to  talk  about  the  results  of  the  innovations.  Other 
aspects  of  the  innovations,  such  as  focussing  on  the  process  of  attaining  goals,  have 
been documented in an official document of the school. During the flash visits, the school 
leader  notices  how  teachers  work.  The  school  leader  assumes  that  documented 
agreements  will  be  observed  and  that  people  who  do  not  agree  will  be  open  about  it. 

14 

 
Next, they will discuss the issue and find a consensus. If somebody would not agree, he 
assumes  there  would  be  a  good  reason.  One  of  the  outcomes  of  the  innovation  is  a 
culture  in  which  teachers  agree  about  common  principles,  monitor  each  other  in 
implementing these  principles  and have  a  culture  of using  diversity  to improve  existing 
agreements. 

2.2.5. Sustainability of innovative practices  

Photo  3  at  the  end  shows  how  the  progress  of  the  innovations  is  made  visible  in  the 
teachers’  room  by  referring  to  the  TASC  model.  Both  the  school  leader  and  the  focus 
group  of  teachers  monitor  the  innovations.  Monitoring  is  a  way  to  enhance  the 
sustainability of the innovation. 

2.2.6.  Monitoring,  evaluation,  learning  loops  and  planning  of  innovative 
approaches 

As  described  above, the  school management  attends  the innovation  groups  of  teachers 
pedagogical  assistants.  The  goals  for  innovation  are  formulated  in  group  meetings.  On 
the  white  board  in  the  teachers’  room,  the  groups  show  in  which  stage  of  the  TASC 
model  the  innovation  process  currently  stands.  During  group  meetings,  the  progress  is 
reported.  One  stage  in  the  TASC  model  consists  of  experimentations.  Next,  teachers 
learn  from  the  experience  of  ‘experienced’  teachers.  Once  innovations  have  been 
documented in the strategic documents of the school, they are monitored by flash visits. 
The  observer  assesses  whether  the  way  in  which  the  teacher  works  complies  with  the 
agreements in the documents. The school leader officially visits the classes four times a 
year, but in the daily life, he visits classrooms much more often.  

2.2.7. Stakeholders’ engagement 

The following stakeholders were mentioned as having been engaged: 

▪  KPC, the Katholic Pedagogical Study-centre, a CPD-organisation with expertise on 
the integration of schools and day-care provided experience of other day care 
centres that had also been integrated with schools.  

▪  A staff member of the school board was also specialised in the integration of 

education and day care. She also has given advice in integrating school and day 
care.  

▪  Circles of expertise organised by the school board (of 21 primary schools), for 
instance the circle concentrating on special education needs. In this circle, the 
special education needs advisors of each school meet regularly to learn from each 
other. 

▪  Other activities organised by stakeholders in the area of education. Many 

organisations have websites spreading information that some teachers find useful. 
Some teachers have attended conferences organised by these organisations. 

2.2.8. Mainstreaming and transferring innovations 

Most innovations applied in the school are bottom-up developments. However, the team 
has  used  existing  knowledge  and  experience  from  the  stakeholders  around  the  school 
and  from  other  schools.  For  instance,  they  have  visited  other  schools  that  were 
integrated with day care centres. And they have been supported by a CPD organisation 
that specialised in this process. At the same time, in order to spread the innovation, the 
school opens its  doors for  visitors from other schools  who  want to learn from  Warande. 
The school is planning to participate in a conference for schools that are integrated with 
day  care  centre.  Teachers  and  school  leader  believe  that  the  approach  of  bottom-up 
innovation can be exported to other schools. They view this as a viable way of improving 
education. 

 
 
 
3.  Innovation  in  schools:  lessons  learned  and  policy 
pointers  

3.1.  Understanding  the  barriers:  what  hinders  the  school  innovation 
process? 
The most important barrier mentioned at different levels at Tjotter and Warande schools 
and  by  various  stakeholders  is  a  lack  of  time  for  teachers.  In  primary  education,  the 
Dutch law requires full-time teachers to teach 25.75 hours a week, which leaves only 20 
hours  for  other  things  such  as  lesson  preparation  and  correction  work  (vacation 
regulations are due to the fact that this adds up to more than 40 hours a week, which is 
normal  in  The  Netherlands).  As  a  result,  there  is  relatively  little  time  for  collaboration, 
learning new  routines  and  designing improvement.   Generally,  teachers  feel that  at the 
moment  basic  teaching  activities  in  primary  or  secondary  education  require  too  much 
energy  and  the  present  school  organisation  does  not  allow  enough  learning  from  each 
other  and  from  other  schools.  The  workshop  showed  that  this  problem  also  exists  in 
secondary education.  
The  innovation  process  is  also  negatively  influenced  by  teachers  who  disagree.  At  both 
schools, disagreeing teachers left the school, so resistance and disagreement can also be 
considered as a barrier. 
Furthermore, even though the Dutch government grants school enough autonomy, some 
of the workshop participants stressed that some schools (especially primary schools) do 
not  always  experience  the  constitutionally  granted  freedom  of  education.  Instead,  they 
feel  that  the  national  government  is  imposing  regulations  on  them,  which  they  do  not 
always find useful. Workshop participants are not aware of the fact that they could frame 
the policy of the school in their  own way and could use simple tools  (such as making a 
photo  of  the  results  of  a  teacher  meeting  written  on  a  white  board  rather  than 
constructing a policy report) to account for their policy towards the national Inspectorate. 

3.2.  Spotting  the  supporters:  what  facilitates  the  school  innovation 
process?  
Based  on  the  field  work  and  workshop discussions,  the  following  supporting factors  can 
be identified: 

1.  A relative freedom for  a  school to decide on how to innovate and work based on 
its  own  concerns  and  needs  is  an  enabling  factor  for  innovations.  Bottom-up 
innovations  are needed that address the concerns, needs and talents  of teachers 
within  the  school.  Such  innovations  are  easier  accepted  by  teachers  and  other 
school  staff,  whereas  those  facilitated  by  external  authorities  usually  face 
reluctance from the school staff.  

2.  Personal  skills  of  the  school  leader  or  a  teacher-leader  contribute  to  creating 
commitment among teachers. Innovative teaching should be rewarded. New jobs, 
such  as  the  ‘teacher  leader’  and  ‘senior  teacher’  could  contribute  to  making  a 
career in teaching and enable innovation at the same time. 

3.  A  non-authoritarian  approach  of the school  leader  or  teacher  leader  that  is  both 
top-down  and  bottom-up enables  innovation.  On the  one  hand,  the  modelling  of 
an innovation by experienced teachers seems to be necessary, on the other hand 
the ability to involve teachers in the innovation and make them the owners of the 
process is also essential.  

4.  Participants  emphasise  that  innovation  needs  leaders  with  clear  goals  (that  fit 
within the mission  and  vision  of  the  school)  who  can  convince  resisting  teachers 
and monitor the innovation process. Leaders of innovations mediate between the 
expertise and concerns  outside the school and the expertise and concerns  within 
the school. 

5.  A collaborative approach involving local stakeholders and communities.  

16 

 
6.  The  monitoring  of the innovation  both by the school leader  and  by the team  via 

classroom visits sustains the innovation. 

7.  Teachers  can  learn  very  much  by  visiting  each  other’s  classes  and  by  visiting 
other schools. Innovations can be supported by teachers who replace the visiting 
teachers. 

8.  Innovations  can  be  enabled  by  CPD  opportunities  that  provide  good  practice 
examples  and  can  help  teachers  to  implement  innovative  ideas  in  their 
classrooms. 

9.  An  external  authority  that  monitors  the  quality  of  schools  and  identifies  a 
necessity  for  a  change.  In  the  case  of  the  two  schools  of  this  study,  the 
Inspectorate noticed that student results were too low. 

3.3. Reflecting on the transferability of school innovations into the local 
contexts and their sustainability  
Pedagogical  innovations  require  a  certain  know-how  that  is  difficult to  transfer. It must 
be constructed locally14. For teachers, it is important to work in an inspired team in which 
they can learn from each other. Their personal commitment is essential. External experts 
can  propel  the inspiration if they  can  provide concrete  examples  of how  to  work in  the 
classroom. 
The bottom up approach of innovation of both schools could be transferred, however, to 
enable  this,  it  is  necessary  to  appoint  leaders  who  can  create  commitment  in  the 
teachers’  team.  A  peer  assessment  and  classroom  visits  in  a  collegial  atmosphere  also 
seem to be essential to sustain the innovation. 
CPD  should  always  be  connected  to  the  innovative  goals  of  the  school  organisation. 
People  who  have  their  roots  in  the  practice  of  education  should  conduct  CPD.  If  CPD 
courses do not concentrate on what is relevant for the participating teachers and for the 
innovative goals of the school, leaders of innovation should intervene. Participants of the 
workshop  emphasise that teachers  should support  the  choice  for  CPD,  that  CPD  should 
acknowledge their talents. CPD should capitalise on intrinsic motivation. 
Some  workshop  participants  teaching in higher  education  emphasised  the  need to keep 
up with a development in the fields in which they educate students. Often, developments 
in  practice  do  not  reach  the  educational  institutions  in  time.  They  recommend  better 
facilitation  of  ways  in  which  (new technological)  developments  in  the field can  innovate 
professional education. 

3.4. Policy pointers 

▪  Policy pointer 1: Innovation is not a matter of an ‘evidence-based approach’ being 
implemented  in  practice,  but  is  largely  constructed  by  practitioners  who  are 
inspired  by  good  practices  of  other  practitioners.  Thus,  a  separation  between 
knowledge  construction  and  improvement  of  practice  is  a  barrier.  Governments 
can help remove this barrier by creating a knowledge infrastructure comparable to 
academic  hospitals  in  which  the  patient  care  goes  hand  in  hand  with  knowledge 
construction. This differs from the present situation in which researchers operate 
outside of practice.  

▪  Policy pointer 2: There is a need to empower teachers and create teacher leaders 
who  can  be  responsible  for  innovations.  Blueprints  belong  to  the  world  of  top-
down  innovations,  while  incremental  improvement  starts  from  the  bottom.  The 
model  of  the  ‘teacher  leader’  is  often  presented  as  an  alternative  for  top  down 
innovation.  Teacher  leadership  is  considered  an  important  aspect  of  school 
leadership. Because teachers are well versed with the complexities involved with 

14 Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next 
Generation. New York: Teachers College Press. 

 
 
                                         
 
teaching, they are uniquely positioned to promote a change within schools. It has 
been  suggested  that teacher  leaders have  the capacity to  lead  a  school towards 
increasing  teacher  collaboration,  encouraging  professional  learning,  spreading 
best practices and offering assistance with complex aspects of teaching (Wenner & 
Campbell, 2017). 

A  conversion  towards  synergy  between  knowledge  construction  and  action  in  the 
classroom  are  connected  would  require  a  whole  different  school  organisation.  The 
school  as  a  whole  should  be  a  part  of  a  network  in  which  teacher-researchers  and 
teacher-educators participate as well, both inside and outside a particular school.  
▪  Policy pointer 3: innovation occurs firstly “in the class”15. Rather than prescribing 
an  innovation  from  above,  policymakers  should  support  schools,  school  leaders 
and teachers to develop innovations themselves. 

▪  Policy  pointer  4:  Innovation  requires  good  leaders  with  excellent  interpersonal 
skills. Policymakers should invest in the preparation of school leaders  and should 
create  new  functions  within  the  school  for  teachers  who  become  the  leaders  of 
innovations.  The  leaders  of  the  innovations  need  to  be  able  to  support  and 
empower  teachers,  have  a  clear  view  of  what successful  education can look  like 
and have strong communication skills.  

▪  Policy  pointer  5:  Effective  teaching  is  very  complex.  Policymakers  should 
understand  that  teachers  need  much  more  time  to  establish  a  culture  of 
incremental  improvement.  Teachers  need more  time  for  collaboration.  To enable 
teachers to learn from others  on the job, it is necessary to have extra personnel 
to replace the teachers who are visiting other classes. 

▪  Policy pointer 6: Policy makers can enable innovations by supporting organisations 
around  schools  (stakeholders  in  the  Civil  Society)  who  model  good  practices  of 
innovations.  

15  The  title of  a  steering  educational  policy  document  of  the city  council  of  Lelystad  is  called:  “It 
happens in the class”.   

18 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                         
Annex I: A short review of the field work  

1st interview programme (with policy makers) 

Name 
interviewer: 

and 

surname 

of 

J. Bulterman 

Interview 1  

and 
Position 
organisation of interviewee: 

represented 

President of school board of 21 Schools 

Type of interview: 

Face-to-face  

Date of interview: 

December 8th, 2016 

Place of interview: 

Lelystad, The Tjotter 

Duration of interview: 

30 minutes 

Interview recorded: 

Yes 

Additional notes:  

Interview with Stakeholder: Board member of both The 
Tjotter  and  of  Warande  (The  board  governs  21  public 
schools in Lelystad) 

Name 
interviewer: 

and 

surname 

of 

Position 
and 
organisation of interviewee: 

represented 

Interview 2 

Dr. Jacquelien Bulterman 

Policy maker Education, City Council of Lelystad 

Type of interview: 

Face-to-face  

Date of interview: 

January 23th, 2017 

Place of interview: 

City Hall Lelystad 

Duration of interview: 

1.5 hour 

Interview recorded: 

Yes 

2nd Interview programme (with school leaders) 

Interview 1  

Name 
interviewer: 

and 

surname 

of 

J. Bulterman 

Position 
and 
organisation of interviewee: 

represented 

School leader, the Tjotter 

Type of interview: 

Face-to-face 

Date of interview: 

December 8th, 2016 

 
 
 
 
 
Place of interview: 

Lelystad, The Tjotter 

Duration of interview: 

120 minutes 

Interview recorded: 

Yes 

Interview 2  

Name 
interviewer: 

and 

surname 

of 

J. Bulterman 

Position 
and 
organisation of interviewee: 

represented 

ICT and giftedness coordinator, the Tjotter 

Type of interview: 

Face-to-face 

Date of interview: 

December 8th, 2016 

Place of interview: 

Lelystad, The Tjotter 

Duration of interview: 

30 minutes 

Interview recorded: 

Yes 

Interview 3  

Name 
interviewer: 

and 

surname 

of 

J. Bulterman 

Position 
and 
organisation of interviewee: 

represented 

Teacher, the Tjotter 

Type of interview: 

Face-to-face 

Date of interview: 

December 8th, 2016 

Place of interview: 

Lelystad, The Tjotter 

Duration of interview: 

20 minutes 

Interview recorded: 

Yes 

Additional notes: 

Interview  was  a 
observation 

Interview 4  

reflection  on 

the  classroom 

Name 
interviewer: 

and 

surname 

of 

J. Bulterman 

and 
Position 
organisation of interviewee: 

represented 

Teacher, the Tjotter 

Type of interview: 

Face-to-face 

Date of interview: 

December 8th, 2016 

Place of interview: 

Lelystad, The Tjotter 

Duration of interview: 

20 minutes 

Interview recorded: 

Yes 

20 

 
Additional notes: 

Interview was based on classroom observation 

Name 
interviewer: 

and 

surname 

of 

J. Bulterman 

Interview 5 

and 
Position 
organisation of interviewee: 

represented 

Special needs consultant, the Tjotter 

Type of interview: 

Face-to-face 

Date of interview: 

December 8th, 2016 

Place of interview: 

Lelystad, The Tjotter 

Duration of interview: 

30 minutes 

Interview recorded: 

Yes 

Interview 6 

Name 
interviewer: 

and 

surname 

of 

Jacquelien Bulterman 

Position of interviewee: 

School leader 

Type of interview: 

Face-to-face  

Date of interview: 

January 24th, 2017 

Place of interview: 

Lelystad, the school 

Duration of interview: 

1.15 hour 

Focus group discussion with school community at Warande school  

surname 

of 

Jacquelien Bulterman 

Name 
and 
facilitator(s): 

Participants: 

Date of focus group: 

Participant 1: teacher 
Participant  2:  teacher,  special  education  specialist, 
language specialist 
Participant 3: teacher 
January 24th, 2017 

Place of focus group: 

Lelystad, the school 

Duration of focus group: 

45 minutes 

Key topics discussed: 

Topic 1: nature of innovation 
Topic 2: what enabled it, key barriers 
Topic 3: policy pointers 

Focus group with students at Warande school 

Name 
visitor(s): 

and 

surname 

of 

Jacquelien Bulterman 

Other participants:  

Students age 8-10 

Date of a visit:  

January 24th, 2017 

 
 
Place of a visit:  

Lelystad 

Duration of a visit: 

20 minutes 

Objects/activities/practices 
observed: 

Students told about way of working at school and what 
they wanted to learn 

Photos/other visuals attached: 

Yes.  The  photo  below  shows  how  the  progress  of  an 
innovation group is published in the teachers’ room. 

Focus group discussion with school community in the Tjotter 

Participants: 

Children in the highest group of The Tjotter 

Date of focus group: 

December 8th, 2016 

Place of focus group: 

Classroom at The Tjotter 

Duration of focus group: 

5 minutes 

Recorded: 

Partly 

Key topics discussed: 

How did children experience the innovation 

Focus group discussion with school community in the Tjotter 

Participants: 

This  was  a  board  session  (see  photo)  after  school 
where  the  team  gathered  to  discuss  successes  and 
worries.  It  was  facilitated  by  teachers.  During  the 
discussion  the  national  expert  got  the  chance  to  ask 
questions to the team 

Date of focus group: 

December 8th, 2016 

Place of focus group: 

Teacher room The Tjotter 

Duration of focus group: 

40 minutes 

Recorded: 

No 

Key topics discussed: 

Topic 1: Barriers for innovation 

Topic 2: What enabled the innovation 

School visit to observe innovative practice in the Tjotter 

Name 
visitor(s): 

and 

Date of a visit:  

surname 

of 

Jacquelien Bulterman 

December 8th, 2016 

Place of a visit:  

Lelystad, The Tjotter 

Duration of a visit: 

2 times 30 minutes 

Objects/activities/practices 
observed: 

Please specify an object/objects of your observations 

Reflection  on  rules,  the  data  wall,  a  math  quiz, 
cooperative learning,  

Photos/other visuals attached: 

Yes.  Please  specify  which:  data  wall  and  a  standing 
meeting of teachers after school. 

22 

 
The Workshop with schools and other stakeholders  

Name  and  surname  of  the 
workshop facilitator(s): 
Number  of  participants  and 
their represented organisations: 

Jacquelien Bulterman-Bos 

Total number of participants: 22 
Types of participants: 

•  College professors 
•  Primary school teachers 
•  Secondary or tertiary school teachers 
•  School leaders  
•  CPD-consultants 
•  Educational researchers 
•  Representatives of schools of the field study 

April 11th, 2017 
University  for  Teacher  Preparation,  Teacher  Training, 
Master  Education  and  Educational  Research,  Gouda, 
The Netherlands 
11:45-15:00 
Yes 
Necessary  system  changes  to  mainstream  school 
innovations. Role of external authorities, the role of the 
school leader, the role of CPD and teacher preparation.  

Date of the workshop: 
Place of the workshop: 

Duration of the workshop: 
Recorded: 
Key topics discussed: 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex II: Photos from the two schools  

The Tjotter School 

The picture above shows a ‘data wall’ on school 1. On this wall, the student results 
are announced for each individual. The colours indicate if goals have been achieved 
(green) 

24 

 
 
 
 
 
 
The  picture  above  shows  a  teacher  meeting  after  school,  a  so-called  ‘board 
session.’ The  person  on  the  far  left  is  the school  leader. Two  other  teachers  are 
leading the meeting. They remain standing because they want to work as quickly 
as possible.  

The Warande School 

The picture above shows how the progress of innovation groups is published on a 
white boar in the teachers’ room. It, for instance, shows one of the questions of a 
group “How can both school and day care contribute to continuous education?” Or 
“How does a portfolio look like that fits our view of education?” 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex III: A story of innovation in the Dutch educational policy: 
reflection from the author  
The Dutch educational policy is characterised by the ‘Polder model’. This policy limits the 
amounts  of  mandatory  regulations.  Instead,  the  government  negotiates  with  various 
stakeholders  to  solve  problems  that  are  identified  collectively.  As  for  education,  the 
government  has  realised  that  a  top-down  approach,  in  which  authorities  outside  of 
schools  prescribe  what  teachers  should  do,  is  ineffective.  Instead,  the  national 
government  acknowledges  the  responsibility  of  schools  themselves  to  meet  with  the 
standards  of  the  Inspectorate.  As  a  result,  schools  have  a  considerable  amount  of 
freedom in defining what they consider to be good education.  
The Inspectorate checks whether schools do their work sufficiently well. If not, the school 
is  labelled  as  ‘failing’  and  is  obliged  to  change  its  policy.  At  the  same  time,  the 
government does have an agenda for desirable pedagogy in the future (for instance, the 
use  of  ICT).  Rather  than  forcing  schools  to  implement  these  ideas,  the  government 
supports a number of organisations that offer various ways in which schools can become 
familiar with new approaches. The national government, thus, supports the stakeholders 
around the school to support innovative pedagogy.   
The  two  schools  had  low  student  achievements  according  to  the  Inspectorate.  In  both 
schools, the Inspectorate contributed to a situation in which a need for change was felt in 
the teachers’ team. This  factor helped to enable the innovation. Moreover, the personal 
skills  of  school  leaders  also  greatly  helped  to  enable  the  innovation.  In  school  1,  the 
school leader made sure that the teachers became owners of her strong innovative ideas. 
In  school  2,  teachers  had  strong  ideas  themselves  that  did  not  comply  with  the 
expectations of the Inspectorate. The school leader negotiated with teachers and tried to 
bring their ideas in line of the demands of the Inspectorate. Both school leaders managed 
to create an atmosphere in which a common line emerged. 
Both school leaders worked top-down and bottom-up at the same time and managed to 
do  so  in  a  non-authoritarian  way.  The  top  down  approach  at  school  1  consisted  of  the 
strong view of education that was implemented in the school. The top down approach at 
school 2 consisted of the view of the school leader to bring existing pedagogical ideas in 
line with the Inspectorate. They both worked bottom up because they managed to make 
the team co-owners of the innovation and actively used recourses within the team.   
Both  schools  were  also  active  in  monitoring  the  innovation  (by  using  a  checklist),  and 
managed  to involve  the team  of teachers  in monitoring the  innovation. Here  also, they 
managed to avoid a hierarchical top-down approach.  
Both school leaders were free on how to innovate.  This freedom enabled them to tailor 
their actions to the actual needs of the school. Local policymakers had nothing to do with 
the innovations.  
Both school leaders used resources outside the school to improve teachers’ pedagogical 
skills.  CPD  organisations  helped  to  enable  the  innovation.  The  school  leaders  selected 
those  organisations  that  met  with  their  own  needs  and  criteria.  External  authorities, 
other than the Inspectorate, did not play a role (or  a very little role) in the design, the 
implementation or the mainstreaming of the innovation. 
Lelystad has more problems than an average city of this size in the Netherlands. It used 
to  have  many  ‘weak  schools’.  Nowadays,  this  number  has  been  reduced.  Educational 
policy  mostly  occurs  at  the  national  level,  but  the  actual  situation  in  Lelystad  requires 
local  attention  too.  Every  four  years,  the  City  Council  establishes  a  local  educational 
agenda  (LEA),  which  represents  the  Dutch  Polder  model  at  work.  It  consists  of 
negotiation,  cooperation  and  consensus  building  between  the  government  and 
stakeholders. Present priorities of the LEA-agenda are closing the achievement gap (with 
a focus on early education), addressing special needs, adequate job preparation and 21st 
century skills.  
“It  happens  in  the  classroom”  is  the  title  of  the  LEA  2015-2018.  The  LEA  works  with 
project  groups.  The  city  council  focuses  primarily  on  the  process  of  bringing  various 

26 

 
stakeholders together. The city council has established a project group in which schools 
participate  and  make  plans.  Together,  they  set  priorities.  Schools  are  responsible  for 
finding ways to meet the priorities. The money that is made available by the City Council 
is  primarily intended to catalyse  an innovation. The city council tries to connect schools 
with each other. Yearly, a conference is organised where the development of LEA goals is 
discussed. The local college is also involved. Every two years, the ‘Educational Monitor’ is 
produced, which provides factual information on relevant issues. 
Local educational policy in Lelystad is highly based on cooperation and dialogue between 
the  local  government, the  civil  society  and  educational  partners/schools.  Cooperation  is 
non-mandatory.  Participation  in  the  LEA-agenda  is  generally  based  on  intrinsic 
motivation.  The  interviewed  policy  maker  does  not  consider  the  mainstreaming  of 
innovation  as  part  of  his  job.  Schools  have  their  own  responsibility.  As  LEA  says:  “It 
happens in the classroom.” 
The City of Lelystad used to be responsible for all public schools in Lelystad. Nowadays, 
this  responsibility  has  been  ‘privatised’  to  a  foundation  that  runs  21  primary  schools  in 
Lelystad.  This  foundation  is  in  charge  of  the  administration  of  schools,  but  its 
involvement  with  pedagogical  issues  and  innovation  is  very  indirect.  The  foundation 
organises ‘learning circles’ that enables schools to learn from each other. 
Both  school  leaders  have  created  commitment  at  the  level  of  the  teaching  staff.  They 
both were free to choose where to set priorities and which CPD organisations they hired. 
Both  school  leaders  focused  on  ownership  among  teachers  and  used  existing  expertise 
within their own team to propel innovations school wide. 

 
 
 
 
Bibliography  

▪  Adams,  H.  B.  and  Wallace,  B.,  (1991).  ‘Developing  the  Potential  of  Children  in 
Disadvantaged  Communities:  The  TASC  Project:  “Thinking  Actively  in  a  Social 
Context”’, Gifted Education International, Vol. 7, Issue 3, 

▪  Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2009). Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research 

for the Next Generation. New York: Teachers College Press. 

▪  Lemov, D. (2015). Teach like a Champion. 62 techniques that put students on the 

path to college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

▪  Locale Educatieve Agenda (Local Educational Agenda) “Het gebeurt in de klas” (It 

happens in the classroom) 2015-2018. 

▪  Pameijer,  N.,  Van  Beukering,  T.  &  De  Lange,  S.  (2009).  Handelingsgericht 
Werken: een handreikingvoor het schoolteam (Action oriented approach: tools for 
teams of teachers). Leuven/Den Haag: Acco 

▪  Wijkmonitor 2015, Lelystad (Neighbourhood monitor). Gemeente Lelystad. 
▪  Zicht  op  Lelystad  (Perspectives  of  Lelystad),  Trends  2015.  City  Council  of 

Lelystad. 

28 

 
 
HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS 

Free publications: 

•  one copy: 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); 

•  more than one copy or posters/maps: 

from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm);  
from  the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm);  
by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or 
calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*). 

(*)  The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may 
charge you). 

Priced publications: 

•  via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu). 

 
 
 
 
N
C
-
0
1
-
1
7
-
3
2
6
-
E
N
-
N

ISBN: 978-92-79-81477-8