In 2016, following many other countries worldwide ,the Netherlands signed the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, committing to the implementation of an inclusive education system. This commitment followed earlier efforts, such as the introduction of the 2014 Education Act for Students with Special Needs. This law, commonly known as passend onderwijs (“suitable” or “tailor-made education”), aimed to ensure that it became easier for parents to find a suitable place in the education system for their child. Decentralization was a key feature of this reform, with school regional partnerships established to encourage collaboration, resource sharing, and knowledge exchange (Ledoux & Waslander, 2020).

Despite these efforts, a 2020 evaluation of ‘passend onderwijs’ revealed significant challenges (Ledoux & Waslander, 2020). For instance, 50% of teachers experienced an increased workload since the law’s introduction (Smeets et al., 2019). While teachers partially attributed this to ‘passend onderwijs’, other factors such as budget cuts, high demands from educational inspection, and severe teacher shortages also played a role.

In 2024, the Dutch Ministry of Culture and Education (OCW) introduced a new policy framework, explicitly defining inclusive education as: “education in which all children and young people have full and equal access to an inclusive learning environment close to home, where they develop, learn, and participate together” (OCW, 2024, p.6). In contrast to ‘passend onderwijs’ , inclusive education explicitly aims at keeping as many children as possible in the regular system. Presently, the terms passend onderwijs and inclusive education coexist and sometimes create confusion.

The government’s goal is for most regular primary schools in the Netherlands to become inclusive by 2035. To support this ambitious transition, it is crucial to identify effective practices that schools can implement to become inclusive.

Existing literature highlights several critical factors for developing inclusive schools, including transformative and distributed leadership, a shared vision, active collaboration among staff, an inclusive school culture, opportunities for professional development, and parental involvement (Ainscow & Sandill, 2010; Ainscow, 2024; Booth & Ainscow, 2011; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education, 2020). Tools like the Index for Inclusion emphasize the need to embed these changes into the school’s culture, practices, and policies to ensure sustainability (Booth & Ainscow, 2011). However, recent studies reveal a lack of empirical research on what works in creating inclusive schools, particularly in specific contexts (Amor et al., 2019; Ainscow, 2020, 2024; Azorín & Ainscow, 2020; Kefallinou et al., 2020).

Although many Dutch primary schools face challenges, some have successfully evolved into exemplary models of inclusive education. These schools can provide valuable insights and practical strategies for other schools. Therefore, our research investigates how inclusive education is defined and given shape in these exemplary Dutch primary schools.

Research Question
How is inclusive education defined and given shape in exemplary primary schools of inclusive education in the Dutch context?

By addressing this question, our study aims to support the development of inclusive education by identifying successful practices. By giving insights in good practices and contextual factors, this research aims also to contribute to the international knowledge base about inclusive education and the broader European and international efforts to achieve inclusive education.

This exploratory qualitative study examines seven cases, each representing an exemplary primary school of inclusive education in the Netherlands. Selection of Schools In March 2024, we used a list of 24 exemplary inclusive primary schools compiled by 'Naar Inclusiever Onderwijs', a Dutch platform that promotes inclusive education. Although the list is not exhaustive, it provided a starting point. All 24 schools were invited to participate, and six agreed. Additionally, one school not on the list was included as a pilot. As the pilot interview yielded relevant and quality insights, this school was incorporated into the findings. Participants and Context The participating primary, regular schools were located in various Dutch cities and featured multicultural student populations. The schools varied in size, ranging from small (up to 150 students, N=1) to medium (150–300 students, N=2) and large (300–450 students, N=4). Whenever possible, we conducted two interviews per school: one with the school director and care coordinator, and one with a teacher. Six schools were visited in person, with a total of twelve interviews conducted. Seven directors, six care coordinators, and six teachers participated in the study. Two interviews were conducted online, while the remainder were held in person. Data Collection Data were collected between March and July 2024. Interview topics and sub-topics were derived from a literature review. The first interview, conducted at the pilot school, was performed jointly by the researchers. Subsequent interviews were conducted by either the first or second author. Data Analysis Interviews were analyzed using Atlas.ti 8 software. Initially, deductive codes derived from the literature review were applied to the interview transcripts. This was followed by open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to identify additional codes and subcodes. Currently, we are conducting axial coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to refine and consolidate codes with similar meanings. To enhance reliability, data triangulation was employed by gathering perspectives from school directors, care coordinators, and teachers within each school. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim to minimize interpretation bias. The first interview was coded independently by both authors, who then discussed the coding scheme to ensure consistency. The first author conducted the coding for subsequent interviews, with the authors regularly reviewing and refining the coding framework to maintain the reliability of the analysis.

The research question guiding this study is: How is inclusive education defined and given shape in exemplary primary schools of inclusive education in the Dutch context? Preliminary results indicate that the starting point of these exemplary inclusive schools is not based on a specific definition of inclusive education but rather on their broader vision and values. Interviewees frequently highlight elements such as "everyone is welcome" and "we start by identifying what the child needs." Many interviewees noted that their inclusive practices were not a sudden change but the result of a gradual process. They had been fostering inclusivity long before the term "inclusive education" became widely used, working collaboratively as a team to reflect on their school’s vision and goals. When asked for the difference between ‘passend onderwijs’ and inclusive education, the interviewees struggled and had different interpretations of the terms. Preliminary findings also reveal consistent elements that contribute to the effectiveness of these schools, including a focus on possibilities rather than referring children to other (special needs) schools, having in-house expertise such as a teacher who is also psychologist, ongoing professional development, and strong collaboration among staff. Schools also maintain clear processes for accepting students and hiring teachers. For example, when hiring a teacher, it is made clear that that the school believes that all children should be welcome and that teachers should be willing to learn or able to deal with diversity and be able to think outside of the box. Once the analysis is complete, we expect to provide concrete examples and recommendations for schools aiming to become more inclusive in general and in the Dutch context.

Ainscow, M. (2020). Promoting inclusion and equity in education: lessons from international experiences. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1729587 Ainscow, M. (2024). Developing Inclusive Schools Pathways to Success. Routledge. Ainscow, M., & Sandill, A. (2010). Developing inclusive education systems: the role of organisational cultures and leadership. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 14(4), 401–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603110802504903 Amor, A. M., Hagiwara, M., Shogren, K. A., Thompson, J. R., Verdugo, M. Á., Burke, K. M., & Aguayo, V. (2018). International perspectives and trends in research on inclusive education: a systematic review. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 23(12), 1277–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1445304 Azorín, C., & Ainscow, M. (2018). Guiding schools on their journey towards inclusion. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 24(1), 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2018.1450900 Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). The Index for Inclusion. Developing learning and participation in schools. Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap (2024). Beleidskader met elkaar voor alle kinderen en jongeren. Werken aan een inclusieve leeromgeving. Kefallinou, A. Symeonidou, S. Meijer, C.J.W. (2020). Understanding the value of inclusive education and its implementation: A review of the literature. Prospects, . https://doi.org/10.1007/s11125-020-09500-213 Ledoux, G., & Waslander, S. (2020). Evaluatie passend onderwijs. Eindrapport. IIEP-UNESCO. (2019). On the road to inclusion: highlights from the UNICEF and IIEP Technical Round Tables on Disability-inclusive Education Sector Planning. IIEP-UNESCO. Smeets, E., Ledoux, G., & Van Loon-Dikkers, L. (2019). Passend onderwijs in de klas. Tweede meting in het basisonderwijs en voortgezet onderwijs. KBA/Kohnstamm Instituut. UNESCO (2017). A guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. UNESCO.