It is impossible to implement an educational reform in the Netherlands if the professional field does not want it, even if that reform is proclaimed under a dictatorship, such as during the German occupation between 1940 and 1945. The top management of the Ministry of Education and the NSB then wanted to make local history – the study of one’s own immediate environment – the basis of subjects such as geography, history and biology. In this way, education could serve as a means to “strengthen the love for one’s own place and region.”
In her dissertation In ‘dignified national spirit’. Dutch secondary education during the German occupation 1940-1945for which she received her PhD from the University of Amsterdam last week, historian Nienke Altena shows why this reform went wrong. “Precisely because the NSB started to advocate for local history, the educational field turned away from it. The entire project got bogged down in a bureaucratic swamp, in which mainly reports were written.”
What were the first things the Germans did with education when they gained power in the Netherlands?
“It struck me that initially they had little interest in Nazisifying education. It was not the case that biology and geography immediately had to only work with Nazi examples, as in Germany. School leaders had to work on purifying the teaching materials. That was a difficult job, because they did not know exactly what the Germans found acceptable and what they did not find acceptable.
“The occupier especially wanted the school not to become a hotbed of resistance. The predicate was: order and tranquility. For this purpose, in November 1940 the Germans even appointed an ‘Authorized Representative of the Reich Commissioner for the Supervision of Order and Peace at the Schools’. Students and teachers had to be kept in line. But in practice that was not easy.”
You were a secondary school teacher yourself. Did you recognize any of this?
“Yes, it struck me that the Representative encountered known problems, for example around bullying. It regularly happened that children of NSB parents were bullied, and then the Representative came to such a school to find out what had happened. He talked to teachers and students, but no one came out that he had said something mean. That is of course still the case. It is very difficult to gain insight into bullying behavior in a classroom. For a school leader during the occupation, there was an additional problem: he not only had to protect the bullied child, but also the bully. Because of course you didn’t want such a child to get into trouble with the Germans or to be in their sights.”
The interaction between the new rulers and education shifted quite quickly to the local level, you write.
“Yes, that’s right. The appointment of NSB mayors in the course of 1941 is an important development. The NSB members did not get a foot in the door at the Ministry of Education, but their local position of power was a real challenge for school leaders. Especially in public education, where the distance to the municipality was smaller than in the Catholic and Protestant Christian schools of special education.
“The interesting thing is that you see that school leaders sought support at central level in their resistance to the interference of these NSB members. For example, when teachers were forced to go to lectures by the Educators’ Guild, the educational organization of the NSB. It often happened that the ministry then sided with the school leaders.”
The Germans made no concessions when it came to the expulsion of Jewish students and teachers.
“That was an absolute priority for them: they had to leave. Secretary General Jan van Dam of the Ministry of Education tried to limit the intervention to Amsterdam, but the occupier wanted nothing to do with it. The Jews disappeared from school everywhere in the Netherlands in 1941. This was carried out ruthlessly.
“The Germans also took action against special education, but it soon became apparent that there was more room for negotiation. Dutch officials were given the opportunity to help shape these measures and thus build on pre-war policy.
“For example, there had been a plan at the ministry for some time to cut spiritual teachers’ salaries by 40 percent. This measure could now be introduced. The money that was released was invested in smaller classes. The hated position of ‘researcher with certificate’, fresh graduates who could teach the class cheaply as a ‘kwema’, also disappeared. These were actions that the authorities hoped would go down well with the Dutch population.”
The 1920s and 1930s were decades of stagnation when it came to educational innovation, you write. How did the attempt to make local history important during the war proceed?
“Van Dam had been talking about anti-intellectualist education for some time and, like the well-known writer, teacher and conservationist Jac. P. Thijsse, was charmed by local history. But the moment the NSB made this a showpiece, his and most teachers’ enthusiasm disappeared. Van Dam was pro-German, but had little regard for the NSB.
Another reform, the introduction of film education, did go ahead. Why was that?
“Because it was not a fundamental reform, such as the introduction of local history. The films were about uncontroversial subjects such as roofing and skating. Other countries were also much further along with this. Before the occupation, Catholic schools were reluctant to allow educational films in the classroom, because this could lead to a deterioration of morals, but the department now had to take less account of that resistance. What also played a role is that the introduction of film education was driven by Adriaan Schoevers, a clever businessman who used his German contacts to put pressure on officials in the department.”
NEW: Give this item as a gift
As an NRC subscriber you can subscribe every month 10 items give as a gift to someone without an NRC subscription. The recipient can read the article directly, without a paywall.
Why you can trust NRC