Since the start of “modern” curriculum development about half a century ago, nations worldwide have increasingly experienced how complicated it is to realize substantial curriculum renewal at a certain scale. In this contribution we characterize curriculum implementation by its “multi” nature: it is multi-dimensional, multi-layered, and multi-directional. Next, we discuss the challenges of educational partners at various system levels (such as policy-makers, support agencies, test developers, textbook developers, pre- and in-service education, and inspectorate) to encourage schools and teachers to address curriculum change and the challenges of schools and teachers in taking up local curriculum development activities, e.g.: • Balancing curriculum development, professional development, and school development • Taking the time needed for successful implementation within the daily routines • Stimulating collaboration between school leaders and teachers • Handling pressure from stakeholders In order to encourage curriculum implementation, we propose a mutual adaptation approach as a best fit considering recent trends in Dutch curriculum policies and practices, including the reconsideration of plans for mandatory tests on literacy and numeracy and the increased attention to the overall quality of the curriculum. A few components of this “mutual adaptation 2.0 approach” would include the following: • Public, democratic curriculum debate with active participation by stakeholders beyond the “educational province”, about the societal mission of education. • Curriculum capacity building: professionals in school practices should get system-wide trust to (re)design and enact their own curriculum, implying substantial investments to increase the curriculum development capacity of school leaders and teachers. • Balancing curriculum autonomy and guidance: Most people in the Netherlands prefer modest regulations with lots of autonomy for own choices by schools and teachers. The question arises: how much guidance, specification, and exemplification is effective without endangering the space for local players? Taken together, these characteristics of mutual adaptation 2.0 might create a spirit and culture of encouragement for all involved in curriculum discourse and enactment.

Diephuis, R.A.M., and van Kasteren, R.M.M. (2003). Scenario’s voor een herontwerp van de basisvorming [Scenarios for a redesign of junior secondary education]. Utrecht, the Netherlands: VO-raad. Fullan, M., and Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementa- tion. Review of Educational Research, 47(1), 335-397. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Encouraging Curriculum Change in the Netherlands: The Next Episode // 181  Fullan, M. (2007). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press. Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams (Doctoral thesis). Enschede, the Netherlands: University of Twente. Hargreaves, A., and Fullan. M. (2013). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. New York: Teachers College Press. Kuiper, W., Nieveen, N., and Berkvens, J. (2013). Curriculum regulation and freedom in the Netherlands: A puzzling paradox. In W. Kuiper & J. Berkvens (Eds.), Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe. CIDREE Yearbook 2013 (pp. 139-162). Enschede: SLO. Nieveen, N., van den Akker, J., and Resink, F. (2010). Framing and supporting school- based curriculum development in the Netherlands. In E. Law & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Schools as curriculum agencies: Asian and European perspectives on school-based curriculum development (pp. 273-283).