An Empty Future? How the Future is Absent from Dutch Primary Education

ABSTRACT

Educating today for the world of tomorrow requires executives and school leaders with ideas about what the future might entail. How do executives and school leaders in Dutch primary education imagine this future? In our empirical study of 17 educational organizations we asked how they saw future trends and what they were doing to either prepare pupils for them or perhaps even attempt to somehow influence their course. Our results show that although all participants stated that future-oriented education was important, their weekly logged activities showed that most were more taken up by current priorities than by seeking to participate in social innovation and help create the conditions in which societal priorities could be anticipated or mitigated.

Introduction

The focus on performance in current Western or westernized societies is strong and this is problematic. Falabella (2014) positions this focus in a neoliberal competition-based framework. Neoliberalism, as Read (2009) elucidates, has achieved the status of a hegemony, becoming almost non-negotiable as an ideology – it becomes harder to imagine that there are alternatives (Fisher, 2009). Consequently, the assumption that human nature is essentially competitive remains unchallenged. Making performance so central, not to say crucial for survival in a world that measures success in terms of winning the competition, directs attention and effort to those performances that we can actually measure (Scott, 2012).

The world of educational research nowadays adopts a similar narrow view that reduces quality to measurable performances. Falabella (2014) therefore underlines the subtle hegemony of neoliberalism and speaks of a paradox in which “[…] the state strategically steers national school priorities and outcomes, while policy discourses promise ‘free choice,’ ‘school autonomy’ and ‘diversity’” (2014, p. 3). Today, only a small minority of researchers frames quality in terms of broad child development, whereas the majority stresses effective child learning and individual performance. As Honingh (2022) reflects, this division is anything but new as it brings us back to the debate between Dewey and Thorndike. Their paradigmatic controversy still seems to be at the heart of education, as played out around, for instance, the enthusiasm with which learning analytics is embraced. On the one hand, there has been a spectacular rise in the quantity and uses of learning data, with learning analytics a fast-developing field that can count on the support of the European Commission; on the other hand, experts in learning analytics report wider social, political, and pedagogical issues that need to be tackled without being confident of a successful resolution by the use of learning analytics alone (Ferguson et al., 2019). This illustrates how the internal criticisms of a scholarly community do not always translate into careful considerations of politicians when they favor one scientifically informed way forward over another or of practitioners when they implement scientifically developed methods in their own schools. Notwithstanding critical reservations and concerns from researchers, the Thorndike paradigm appears to be on the winning side, perhaps due to its alluring simplicity in measuring educational effectiveness and thus serving broader neoliberal aspirations with its assumptions of methodological individualism. This outcome orientation has also had repercussions for how organizations are deemed to function. In a neoliberal-oriented society such as the Netherlands, the provision of education has come to rely on notions of New Public Management, which results in a strong task orientation, a strong focus on monitoring, and a separation of content (what) and processes (how) (e.g. Honingh et al., 2021). Enders and Westerheijden speak of “legitimacy through procedure” in this context (2014, p. 189).

Authors such as Mazzucato (2020) have warned of the risk that a focus on control and monitoring impedes progress and innovation in the public sector. Might it be the case that the current focus on performance, measurable quality and standardized tests deflects attention away from a question we believe is of the utmost importance: what is education really about? Bearing in mind the crises we face, be they wars, pandemics or climate change, loss of biodiversity or mass refugee movements, the pressing question is: what future are we preparing young generations for? Moreover, can we take preemptive measures, perhaps even change courses when trends foresee grim futures? In a neoliberal competition-based paradigm it is easy to forget that beyond delivering the service of producing labor for the near future, education is not just a service that responds to current demands but actively shapes the future by forming future citizens (Atkinson, 2020). An anecdote can illustrate the absence of awareness of the latter function. One of us was at a presentation in which a school leader complained about public servants who, in her experience, do not have a realistic perspective of what actually goes on in schools and therefore come up with the wrong policies. When asked who has their hands on the future public servants 30 years from now, she fell silent first and then mumbled “You’re right, that’s us.” An anecdote is never conclusive evidence of anything, yet the incident is telling. In light of this tension between the focus on performance here and now and an already tangible future that urges innovation, we formulated the following research question: How do executives and school leaders of Dutch primary education imagine the future and what are they doing to adapt their education to mitigate and/or prepare for this perceived future?

Educational Autonomy in the Neoliberal Netherlands

To better understand why the Netherlands as a case study can provide valuable insights it is for an international readership important to know that compared to other countries the Dutch education system grants a high level of autonomy to the governing boards of educational organizations. Dutch schools (and thus their governing boards) are formally more autonomous than schools in any other country (OECD, 2016). In no other country so many of the key decisions on education are taken on the governing boards’ level: over 90% compared to an OECD average of 34% (OECD, 2018). It is of particular relevance to keep in mind that as a consequence of this autonomy Dutch schools do not follow a standardized curriculum – yet methods provided by large commercial providers, some multinationals among them, abundantly fill the gap. At the same time, Dutch government demands a specific school performance, such as percentages of youngsters who pass the central exams. We believe that due to these circumstances the Dutch case serves as an interesting example of how the tension between autonomy and governmental demand for results and academic achievements plays out in practice. In fact, as we will show, despite the importance that all the participants said to attach to future-oriented education they were more taken up by current priorities than by seeking to participate in social innovation and helping to create the condition in which societal priorities could be anticipated or mitigated. These findings show the pervasive nature and dominance of the neo-liberal paradigm. Moreover, in the Netherlands, policy platforms such as OECD and UNESCO are taken as guidelines without critical debate. Yet, as Duoblienė et al. (2023) point out, publications of the OECD and UNESCO remain within the discourse of neoliberalism, a regime that perpetuates the business as usual of individualization, bureaucratization and mono-modernist thinking that is in fact to a large extend at the origins of the current polycrisis (Sutoris, 2022).

Theoretical Background and Scenarios

Is the future merely what happens to us? This is a rather fatalistic outlook which can easily lead to indifference toward what is unforeseen. We need to acknowledge some level of uncertainty as at least the recent past (Corona, Ukraine, Gaza, bird flu, oceanic heating,…) has shown us that we cannot expect the future to be as predictable as privileged inhabitants of regimes that profit from capitalist globalization might once thought it to be (cf. Taleb, 2007). Yet, at the same time some trends are indicative of future disruptive events like pandemics or wars. The future is not an entirely empty space, nor should educationalists treat it as one. Ceyhan and Sahin (2018) point out that, as a matter of ethics, teachers should be sensitive to the technological and environmental issues that their students are sensitive to; their review of the literature shows that in general the levels of sensitivity among teachers and students are high. We found no scholarly research about the topic of scenarios, orientation toward the future or ethical sensitivity to technological and environmental concerns in Dutch primary education.

Today the outcomes of trends that were set in motion in the past are becoming more and more tangible. We know that these trends will not miraculously come to a quiet ending in the near future, especially not by themselves. On a general level one can point out several trends without naming their concrete, worldly manifestations. For instance, White (2020) names increasing longevity, the expansion of the internet, changes in work patterns, climate change, the rise in inequality and the coming of populism. In a similar vein, Hannon and Peterson (2021) distinguish historical processes currently in progress in three dimensions. The planetary dimension encompasses the sixth great extinction, the Anthropocene age and climate change. The technological dimension covers job disruption by robotics, artificial intelligence and global connectivity. The human dimension concerns genetic engineering, convergence of human bodies with artificial intelligence and human enhancement technologies (together these fall under the umbrella name of transhumanism).

How do these historical processes connect to curricula and classroom practices in the Netherlands? Several Dutch teacher-led initiatives such as the Coöperatie Leren voor morgen (Cooperation Learning for tomorrow) indicate a sure and growing awareness of the importance of incorporating current trends into preparations for the future. Yet, we found no scholarly literature about the role Dutch executives and school leaders play in this regard. As for school leaders, the general literature shows that they play a significant role in establishing a learning climate in their schools (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2020). Moreover, this learning climate benefits from a purpose-driven reform orientation (Hitt & Tucker, 2016). This suggests that a learning climate embraces an orientation toward the future, but what future? We found no empirical findings in the scientific literature.

The same goes for executives. Moreover, there is little empirical knowledge about the relationship between them and their school leaders (Honingh et al., 2020) and it is unclear how their steering impacts classroom behavior and learning (Heemskerk et al., 2014; Oomens & Bremer, 2019). Still, Turan and Bektas (2013) conclude that beyond being representatives of school bureaucracy, they “should be cultural and moral guides who pioneer the creation and development of fundamental values in school” (p. 156).

This notion of moral guides urges to look beyond a mere managerial focus to questions related to the visions and ideas executives and school leaders have about education in and for the future. What is the kind of education they hope for and can actively shape as leaders in the educational field? Do they aspire to something beyond mere teaching to the test and measurable performances? Is it helpful for them to stay informed about global trends, to see if there are good reasons to teach children specific subjects, content and/or skills? Is there a need to focus on a broader curriculum? Does this require an instrumentalist perspective? Does education have a value in its own? Or is it not a matter of either/or, can value be attained by the right instruments?

These reflexive questions are all the more relevant as the fabric of our societies and the materiality of our living conditions have changed dramatically and turned out to be less predictable, yet not at all completely unpredictable as we will sketch out below. We are well aware that impending collapses that threaten Western societies do not come from nowhere and that other civilizations have lived through breakdowns caused by the very same variables that drive the potential downfall of Western civilization (Yusoff, 2018). To look beyond short-term fixes and include the fate of future generations that make up the more-than-human-world, it could be wise to add to current professional aspirations also the indigenous habit of trying to become a good ancestor (Krznaric, 2020). Leadership therefore requires to go beyond exploitation (business as usual) and incorporate the notion of exploration (March, 1991).

Are there useful scenarios that help to think through the challenges and uncertainties in the future and its consequences for education? Below we present some examples.

Scenarios and Purposes

White (2020) sketches two scenarios for the future of education. The first is the business-as-usual scenario that continues the economic and social status quo which has dominated the West these last four decades. Existing systems remain unchanged and education continues to accommodate them. Inequality of opportunity increases as good education becomes more expensive. Better education does not only provide access to better grades and universities, but also to more extra-curricular activities that result in broader character formation, greater self-esteem and better networking skills. In short, the existing system exacerbates the gap between elites and the rest, neatly fitting capitalist thinking in terms of competition for scarce resources. White’s analysis concerns England, but we see no compelling reason to assume the situation in the Netherlands is dramatically different as this country has been looking at the Anglo-Saxon world for years when it comes to regulating society with a unilateral focus on cost efficiency. Dutch enthusiasm for New Public Management is a telling example. When we look at education in the Netherlands, we see that children’s opportunities increase with the educational background of their parents (Jansen et al., 2022). Again and again, says White, we see how equality of opportunity creates a hierarchical society with an elite at the top that has little appreciation for the rest yet simultaneously expects jealousy and idolatry from them. From a slightly different angle, Sandel (2020) reaches a similar conclusion and provides empirical evidence that the well-offs consider their success to be due to their own merit, implying that the unsuccessful deserve their failure (cf. Deresiewicz, 2014).

The second scenario White offers is not about equality of opportunity, but a democratic equality of respect. In this scenario people are treated as equals and there is a common goal that everyone should be enabled to lead the flourishing life of their choosing. To ensure this happens, everyone has sufficient goods. To realize this second alternative the whole society needs to be rearranged, including education.

The takeaway message of both of Whites scenarios it that left to themselves current trends will lead to an unfavorable future for the majority of us and that if we want more equality, which is better for everyone (Wilkinson & Pickett, 2009), we actually need to intervene.

Hannon and Peterson (2021) describe several directions schools are taking to handle current trends. They translate the above-mentioned three dimensions (planetary, technological, and human) into four scales: planetary, societal, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. Notwithstanding the inevitably speculative nature of how trends will turn out, Hannon and Peterson combine their dimensions and scales into educational purposes for thriving people, societies and planet. These are

• Planetary level: live sustainably, protect the Earth’s ecosystem, acquire global competence;

• Societal: navigate a disrupted and uncertain landscape of work, reinvent a participative, authentic, and meaningful democracy;

• Interpersonal: loving and respectful relationships in diverse, technologized societies;

• Intrapersonal: a secure sense of self, responsibility for personal health, fitness, and well-being.

Regardless of the precise content and value of the scenarios and their inherent ideologies, the interesting point about this kind of thinking is that the future is considered not to be empty at all. Both White (2020) and Hannon and Peterson (2021) start their thinking in our actual, concrete world with the challenges, risks and materializations are already tangible, be it unevenly distributed (cf. Sutoris, 2022). In a more conceptual and operational sense, their writings are exemplars of exploration, defined by March (1991) as preparing for the future by both anticipation and experimentation. Exploration is opposed to exploitation, i.e. continuing as usual. In terms of Bateson (1972), exploitation is a form of single loop learning, in which we compare goals and results and in case of a discrepancy change actions to correct the faults. Double-loop learning, on the other hand, occurs when after detecting faults one starts to reexamine the values that underly the goals and, if necessary, one revises the goals. True exploration challenges us to triple loop learning, which encompasses change at the level of identity and typically occurs in case of random feedback loops and a consequent crisis in sense- and meaning-making.

Exploration requires a certain degree of speculation. As recent publications show (e.g. Helgason et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2021), speculative thinking in educational research is still in its infancy. This does not preclude speculative thinking or exploration in educational practice. In our study we were therefore interested in the extent to which executives and school leaders in Dutch primary education were involved in exploration and, more specifically, what images of the future they had as their guiding lights.

Methods

The data collected in this study were part of a larger longitudinal study that focused on steering relationships in Dutch primary education with exploration as its ultimate dependent variable (Honingh et al., 2021). The overall mixed method strategy entailed questionnaires, weekly logs and group model building sessions. The present article discusses the part in which “exploration” was most explicitly conceptualized as “future orientation.”

We approached educational organizations via convenience sampling (mobilizing the networks of four members of the research team) and subsequent snowball sampling (asking for references). Most communication was done via telephone and e-mail. Sole criterium for inclusion was a minimum of three schools that resided under the umbrella of the educational organization to be able to develop a nested data set. Only one invitee declined as they switched jobs. In the end, our efforts resulted in 17 educational organizations willing to participate. For the overall project, this would generate enough statistical power in the quantitative data (not discussed here) and for the qualitative data (in this article) this would suffice for theoretical saturation (Robson, 2002). It is of particular relevance to remember that Dutch schools do not follow a standardized curriculum. Freedom of education in the Netherlands means that executives and school leaders can formulate their own vision on education. Therefore, we could not rely on standardized language for curriculum or quality systems and for this part had to rely on how participants verbalized their vision – hence the qualitative part of our study. See Table 1 for relevant background information about the educational organizations.

Table 1. Participating educational organizations.

Size	Participating executives per
Large	Medium	Small	educational organization
(21–35 schools)	(11–12 schools)	(2–10 schools)		0	1	2
N =	13	6	2	1	12	4

As Table 1 shows, the majority of the participating educational organizations were large scale. It also shows that in most cases one executive took part with three or four school leaders. In total, data were collected from 20 executives and 63 school leaders from a total of 17 educational organizations. We did not pre-select for small, medium and large cities and participants were located throughout the Netherlands in both rural and urban areas.

Quality Measures

Informed consent was incorporated into the questionnaire as items for them to agree with or not. All ethical/informed consent items were in line with guidelines as stated by the funding party. Participants were informed about the research goals and what participation would entail. Also, they were informed that participation was voluntary, that they could drop out of our study at any moment and without any explanation. Anonymity was guaranteed as was privacy security in data management. All these ethical matters (i.e. voluntary participation, anonymity) were first explained and then participants could indicate whether or not they agreed. All participants agreed to join under the stated conditions.

In addition to the research team and participants, we created an advisory board that was to advise on instrument development and data analysis and interpretation. This board consisted of both scientists and practitioners (including some of our participants). We met seven times, due to agendas in changing constellations. Also, some of our meetings were online due to the COVID-19 crisis.

As to positionality, the overall majority of researchers and advisory board were white and with training in higher education. Of remaining participating executives and all school leaders, these data were not collected. We will reflect on this in the discussion.

Instruments and Data Collection

We developed questionnaires for executives and school leaders to gain insight into how they imagined the future and what they were doing to adapt their education to mitigate and/or prepare for this perceived future (see Appendix). The findings discussed here were mostly grounded in qualitative data gathered via open questions in the questionnaires.

The first round of data collection took place in January 2020 and the second round in May/June 2020. In the time between the questionnaires, participants filled in 18 weekly logs that were emailed to them every Thursday. This means that data were collected before and during the COVID-19 crisis, the second measurement being administered when the schools were re-opened after a period of home schooling.

In the January questionnaire we asked the participants open and some closed questions about future-oriented education. We asked whether they used the term “future-oriented education” or another term, how they would typify it, whether or not they thought it to be important and why (not), if they thought it was important to engage in dialogue about this subject, and if so how dialogue occurred (i.e. not yet, not intended, spontaneously, organized). We also asked them to write in their own words what the educational philosophy of their educational organization was. Some descriptions of their vision and mission also contained references to the future. Where relevant, we added their descriptions to our dataset. In the May/June questionnaire we asked whether or not the crisis had brought future-oriented education closer and whether or not the crisis had changed their mind about future-oriented education. Some participants (N = 4) did not complete the questions on the questionnaires that were relevant for this study, bringing the total number of participants to 79.

In the time between the first and second questionnaires, participants were further asked to note and describe in their weekly logs one, two or three conversations they had had about future-oriented education in the preceding week. Note that the lockdown took place in week 7. Although many longitudinal studies suffer from cumulative non-response due to survey fatigue and attrition (Watson & Wooden, 2009), the increasing non-response in the logs can probably also be explained in part by this crisis. The resulting data set was too small to serve as a basis for explanatory difference between January and May/June data collections, so claims will have to be read as indicative.

Data Analysis

Most of the data were either answers to multichoice questions or brief answers to “Other, namely … ” questions. These did not require elaborate coding schemes. The written data from the open question about the educational philosophy of the educational organization did need such a scheme (see Table 2). These data were initially analyzed inductively by one researcher. The codes were then clustered into two categories, which were discussed in the research team and the advisory board. These two categories, 1) “preparing for a future place in society” and 2) “developing the talents the child expresses now” (see ultra-right column in Table 2), will be further elaborated in the following section as out main results.

Table 2. Codes for educational philosophy.

Code	N coded	Example	Category
Developments in society	99	Future-oriented education is education that is set up so that the pupils learn and develop what they need in in order to function/live as optimal as possible in the (future) society.	1
All the talents of the child	48	Attention and care for children. Provide education on the level of the child so that we can bring out the best of the child.	2
Citizenship	44	We help children to develop into global citizens and to contribute their share to the society.	1
Constant development	42	We teach them to (keep) learn(ing), to reflect on themselves and to deal with changes.	2
Independence	41	In case of changes self-governance is essential, also called personal leadership or mental ownership.	2
World around you	23	Future-oriented education is, to my opinion, important because we lay the basis for the way we want future generations of humans to look at the world and entrust them with its care.	1
Sustainability	11	Initiatives of schools with which new educational concepts and innovations are developed and implemented with the goal to better prepare pupils for the future, taking into account societal concerns, new technologies and sustainable development.	1
Equal opportunities	7	Unequal offer to create equal opportunities	2

Note: All translations are ours..

The categories were used to make thick descriptions of the educational organizations regarding their perspective on future-oriented education. These thick descriptions were presented to the advisory board for validity. Practitioners from the field confirmed that the descriptions were very realistic. We did not seek further validation from the educational organizations themselves as all descriptions were based on the written data they provided.

Results

Terminology of ‘Future-Oriented Education’

A first step is to get an impression of the way participants talk about future-oriented education. The data collected in the January questionnaire show that this term was used by 67% of the participants, 14% did not have a specific term or said it was “just about good education” or “future-proof education,” 5% put it under the heading of innovation and development and 14% came up themselves with a term that referred to a specific direction, such as:

• Education in the 21^st century/21^st-century skills (twice)

• Meaningful learning

• Broad development

• Experience-based, wellbeing and engagement, competences, connectedness

• Tailor-made result-oriented education

• Personalized learning

• Executive functions

• Independence and ownership, learning together and working together

• The base in order, autonomy for pupils and professionals in a safe learning environment

• Emergent

Please note that none of the above terms refer to content such as specific future trends and how to deal with them (as for instance verbalized in the UNESCO Sustainable Development Goals). The terms either specify didactical choices (e.g. personalized learning), pedagogical goals (e.g. wellbeing and engagement) and specific strategies for learning (e.g. executive functions) or point to quality indicators (e.g. the base in order).

Educational Philosophy and Goals

When asked whether or not future-oriented education was important, all participants said it was. Some of them simply argued that education must always be oriented to the future. In their own wordings, which we coded inductively, we found two categories of how they typified the goals of their education in terms of what they focus on (see for examples Table 2):

• The importance of preparing for a future place in society: the primacy is with the relationship between the child and the larger whole it will become part of (society/citizenship, labor market, ecology).

• The importance of developing the talents the child expresses now: the primacy is with the development of the child itself regardless of future contexts (talents, equal opportunities, independent learning).

All educational organizations mentioned both elements in their vision statements. The majority (N = 11) accentuated the importance of preparing for a future place in society whereas the others either focused more on the importance of developing the talents of the child (N = 1) or thought both were equally important (N = 2). In the three educational organizations from which two executives participated the picture was less univocal. In two of them, one executive stressed the importance of preparing for a future place in society whereas the other stressed developing the talents of the child. In the third, one executive stressed the development of the child whereas the other thought both were equally important. All in all most of the participants thought preparing the child for a future place in society was more important than developing the talents it expresses now. The idea of society itself was not problematized, suggesting that participants assumed (ideal) future society were similar to the (ideal) current one (for instance, as Western democracies are supposed to function).

Concept of ‘Future Society’

What would that future place in society entail? Of the 79 participants, 59 (75%) did not refer to a concrete macro trend regarding the future. The 20 participants who did, mentioned:

• New technology/digitalization (7 participants from 6 educational organizations)

• Sustainability and climate-change related problems (5 participants from 4 educational organizations)

• Labour market (5 participants from 5 educational organizations)

• Equality (3 participants from 3 educational organizations)

• Health (2 participants from 2 educational organizations)

Note that the numbers reflect that in most educational organizations not all participants mentioned the same trends. In fact in only one educational organization did both executive and school leaders refer to the same trends. In the other cases the trends mentioned did not seem to reflect a shared perception of the future.

The other 59 participants wrote about swift and/or continuous change in general (15 participants) or unknown changes (7 participants), whereas the majority (37 participants) remained silent about the future.

Translating the Future into the Now

When we combined having or not having a concrete idea about the future with concrete ideas about how to organize the school or educational process, the following picture emerged:

• Of the 20 participants who had concrete ideas about what lay ahead, 1 actually had concrete ideas about what this meant for the educational organization, 15 had concrete ideas about the educational process and 1 had concrete ideas about both (3 participants remained silent).

• Of the 59 participants without clear ideas about what lay ahead, surprisingly enough 11 had concrete ideas about what this meant for the educational organization, 24 about the educational process and 8 about both (16 participants remained silent).

Only one of the participating educational organizations had a well-thought-out idea of the planetary future in the long term and the role of humans in a larger ecological whole (as summarized in: “Take care for yourself, each other and the planet. Withing [our organization]: “What Matters Really?!”). For the 59 participants without clear ideas about the future, it is difficult to imagine how some 75% of them still translated non-content into concrete ideas about what this meant for educational organization, educational process, or both. When we took a closer look at the data, we found concrete initiatives in curriculum changes to include movement, art and world orientation (8 educational organizations), a sustainable building (2 educational organizations) and encouraging healthy living including offering fruit and using the playground more (5 educational organizations). Only one educational organization mentioned initiatives in all three domains.

Talking About Organizing for the Future

When asked about why a dialogue about the future was important, some participants referred to the importance of the topic (e.g. “We want to deliver happy global citizens and there will be different jobs than we can imagine now”), others to the joint effort in general (e.g. “It is about the organization of our society and we are collectively responsible for this”) and still others to the dialogical form (e.g. “We can learn a lot from each other”). We also asked how dialogs about future-oriented education occurred. This was a closed question and participants could choose between organized or spontaneous conversations, or conversations that were planned in the near future or not at all. When we combine the answers with concrete ideas about the future, we see that 5 participants said that conversations were organized and 9 that they were spontaneous. Further, 2 participants said this was planned for the near future and 1 said their educational organization had no intention to organize them. Of the participants without concrete ideas, 28 said conversations were organized, 19 said they were spontaneous, 6 said they were planned for the near future and 1 said they were not intended (1 unclear answer). This means that of the 59 participants with no concrete ideas about the future, some 80% still had a dialogue about future-oriented education, either organized (47%) or spontaneous (32%). This raises the question: what were these dialogs about? Possibly the above-mentioned initiatives were the subject, but these were observed in fewer educational organizations than mentioned here. Perhaps the importance of future-oriented education itself was the subject, suggesting that as a theme it is now entering an agenda for exploration and that educational organizations are in the process of giving meaning to this emerging theme.

Covid-19 Crisis Orientation Towards the Future

As mentioned the COVID-19 crisis struck during our longitudinal study. In the second measurement we added two questions regarding future-oriented education to our previously (i.e. pre-Covid-19) designed questionnaire. The first question was whether or not participants thought differently about future-oriented education. For 32 participants (10 with and 22 without clear ideas) this was not the case. For 2 participants the crisis was reason to organize the dialogue differently (broader, not just with pioneers) and to place education in a broader societal context (the school as instrument for the labor market). For 6 participants the urgency of future-oriented education had become clearer.

The second question was whether or not the COVID-19 crisis had brought the realization of future-oriented education closer. For 32 participants this was the case because more ICT was used, especially to make distance learning possible. The crisis had sped up this development and teachers were able to gain experience. This would suggest that the adaptions fell more under the heading of exploitation rather than exploration. Although the weekly logs had a dramatic fall in response rate, the conversations reported since the start of the crisis were mostly about ICT. Nonetheless, in the second questionnaire there were also participants who said that they thought future-oriented education was explicitly not about digitalization, that ICT created its own puzzles for new didactical forms such as collaborative learning, and that home schooling could increase the risk of inequality.

All in all we suggest that, for the participants in our study, future-oriented education was more a matter of responding to urgent matters in the here and now than of taking initiatives, being proactive and participating in societal innovation.

Conclusion and Discussion

To conclude, although all the participants in our study proclaimed that future-oriented education was important, an overwhelming majority of them did not describe what they thought the future would entail. Interestingly, whereas the majority articulated the goal of preparing children for their future place in society, most said nothing about that future society or said they expected it to be uncertain, holding many secrets and surprises. It was not until the COVID-19 crisis that future-oriented education became tangible and a synonym for ICT and distance education for most of the participants.

The Uncertain Future

Is the future indeed uncertain? We believe that the validity of the uncertain-future claim is questionable. Perhaps participants did not engage in scholarly literature, for instance on “living on the cultural and social frontier of the high Anthropocene” (Sutoris, 2022, p. 10), but in the more accessible popular scientific literature we find an abundance of books that sketch the contours of our current situation and the trends that will continue to develop in the near future. More specifically, and because some educational organizations mentioned them, there is a lot of information about future professions to be found on the internet. Multiple trends are also discussed in the public debate that can inform primary education about the future it could be preparing its pupils for. It seems that the “uncertain” future is more a matter of the future being “unstudied,” and that the future is less unpredictable and therefore less surprising than often pretended.

Climate Change and Future-Oriented Education

If we look at the trends some participants did mention, we see that climate change was hardly mentioned and therefore largely absent. That only four educational organizations related future-oriented education to the climate raises questions, particularly when we know that 75% of Dutch people over 18 are worried about the climate crisis (CBS, 2021) and when it comes to Dutch children, the primary target group in primary education, this rises to 80% (NOS, 2021). Moreover, the media presence of Greta Thunberg, icon of the worried youngster, can hardly have escaped anyone’s attention.

One possible explanation for the almost complete absence of specific trends is that executives and school leaders really have no idea of what the future has in store climate-wise. This would be hard to explain given the presence of (the consequences of) climate change in the public domain (forest fires, oceanic heating,…). Moreover, our findings suggest that as a theme it indeed is entering the exploration agenda, but as an emerging theme it is as yet difficult to operationalize, although some educational organizations mention having taken concrete steps (e.g. a sustainable building, attention to health and curriculum changes).

Difficulty in Conceptualizing the Term ‘Future-Oriented Education’

Another possible explanation is the term “future-oriented education” itself. Several advisory agents in the Netherlands offer courses on this subject. Their leaflets do speak of important societal trends, but the courses themselves seem to focus on what this means for school leaders as process managers. This would make future-oriented education a matter of implementing a new educational concept. In a hype-sensitive sector such as education (Armstrong, 2021), this could mean that future-oriented education becomes one of so many fads on an overly crowded exploration agenda.

Another explanation is that executives and school leaders interpreted future-oriented education as the education that their own educational organizations were to offer in the future, leading them to make sure their organization would still be there and to focus on its sustainability by creating the conditions for continuity such as qualified staff, financial health and local relevance.

Blocked Imaginations

Of course, a sample of 17 educational organizations from which 20 executives and 63 school leaders participated has its limitations as it raises the question of external validity. Yet, given the New Public Management regime and the measurability of education it privileges as well as its ubiquitous and narrow focus of future labor market demands, we think that the lack of explicit images of the planetary future for guiding school innovation might be really widespread in the Netherlands. In short, the suggestion that all future problems can be solved with expert knowledge (and not, for instance, a system change that abandons neoliberalist consumer freedom) seems deeply ingrained in thinking about future-oriented education.

Another limitation to the imagination is related to the paradox Falabella (2014) mentioned when it comes to freedom in means (methods, curricula) but not ends (central exams). Although Dutch educational organizations enjoy a lot of autonomy (freedom of education is enshrined in law), the Dutch government increasingly interferes with what they should measure up to. Understandably, a focus on performance leads to a tendency to build on evidence-based practices. In situations where both the means to develop one’s own education are increasingly scarce and effectiveness of public money is stressed, evidence-based practices can offer a sense of security that a minimum quality level will be achieved. However, as the term “evidence-based” suggests, the practices in which the evidence was amassed lie in the past. Furthermore, working with evidence-based practices can eventually result in a narrow focus on what can be measured and consequently impoverish educational practices and thus the development of young people. In short, if we continue to do what we always do, we will get what we always got.

Taking a Stand with the Young

A focus on performance also seems to neutralize educational efforts, obscuring the fact that education is never neutral and that its offerings are also a matter of ethics (Honingh, 2022; Stevens, 1996). As Duoblienė et al. (2023) and Sutoris (2022) point out, important policy platforms are still in the grip of neoliberal ideology with consequent “depoliticization” of education in its aftermath (see also Read, 2009). These authors advise that youngers can and should be political agents in the here and now, not mere future laborers. When it comes to the future this means a sensitivity to what concerns the learners (e.g. Ceyhan & Sahin, 2018) and a sensitivity to what is at stake for them. Turan and Bektas (2013) justifiably point to executives as cultural and moral guides. It is a matter of taking a stand.

Possibly, however, executives and school leaders are aware of future trends, but discouraged by the neoliberal regime from taking a stand as this implies commitment to a certain perspective on what lies ahead – a perspective perhaps that counteracts the glorification of the entrepreneurial self that neoliberalism so embraces and has made all-pervasive in the educational field it created with its policies (Fisher, 2009). After all, many scholars point to this entrepreneurial self and its consequent consumer society as the source of both social fragmentation, environmental pollution and depletion of natural resources (e.g. Hannon & Peterson, 2021; White, 2020). Committing to a safer future might just mean going against mainstream politics and openly discussing the issues related to the status quo. It is a choice between openly embarking on a debate or keeping future-oriented adjustments under the radar. We can interpret the denouncement of so-called political activism in education (as if a-political education were even possible) by the new Dutch far-right government as a sign of political engagement of executives and school leaders. Yet, our study shows that this political engagement is not oriented toward the future. As climate change is framed by said government as left-wing political hobby, openly embarking on a debate or staying under the radar could turn into a choice with unforeseen consequences.

We cannot make this choice for executives and school leaders. As these debates can evoke the image of activism, going under the radar has as its advantage that one can use the autonomy granted without being disturbed in what is considered as an extra. However, we would like to point out the disadvantage of this choice. What remains invisible cannot enter the public debate and moreover remains understudied by researchers. One might get the impression that Dutch primary education is for the most part unconcerned with what is happening today and will unfold in the future.

If, in contrast, the absence of the future is indeed mostly a matter of lack of knowledge or not knowing what to do, then being open about one’s doubts, dilemmas, and uncertainties relieves the silence that now characterizes the field. We do not plea for educational organizations to simply embrace one scenario and uncritically stick with it, as scenarios are always inherently speculative. However, we do encourage educational organizations to become more imaginative and ground exploration for the future in a study of future societal and planetary trends. This is also a practical matter. One trend in Dutch education is that universities and vocational educational institutes do embrace future-oriented education, making it mandatory in all subjects. As preparation for this follow-up education, primary education cannot lag behind.

Role of Research

As said the research team and advisory board consisted of white, highly educated westerners. Although this roughly reflects the Dutch educational field, the question is if/how this reflection influenced the research, for instance in its leading questions and choice of methods. Have we remained within a frame of data extraction and/at critical distance? If so, how helpful are our findings in changing a course? What are we continuing that we rather leave behind?

These questions serve as critical reflections for further research designs. We therefore suggest that there is an active role to play for researchers too. Ceyhan and Sahin found that their participants learned about the future by participating in their scenario study. However, speculative thinking in educational research is still in its infancy (e.g. Helgason et al., 2020; Khan et al., 2021). Moreover, can researchers too assume that they can actually learn from their participants? Besides speculation as a source for knowledge (cf. Savransky, 2016), we believe there is far more room for actual participation in knowledge creation than we in this study have enabled (cf. Machado de Oliveira, 2021).

As climate scientists are shedding their reservations about mixing what they know with pressing for action, the question that emerges is, can we as researchers in the social sciences become more openly committed to the future of life on our planet as well?

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Nationaal Regieorgaan Onderwijsonderzoek [40.5.18400.022].

Appendix

January Questionnaire for the Executive and School Leader

Q53 Future-oriented education

Formulate in a couple of sentences your thoughts about future-oriented education. (You may take phrases from other (policy)documents.) In my opinion future- oriented education is about … .

Q54 Please complete these sentence:

According to my view, future-oriented education is (un)important because … .

Q59 Do you use the term future-oriented education in your communication with the executive/school leaders or schools?

Yes/No

Q57 In case you answered no, do you use similar terminology in your organization? What terms do you use?

Q58 Is it in your opinion relevant to talk about future-oriented education?

Yes, because … /No, because …

Q60 Do executives and school leaders talk about future-oriented education

Answers:

Yes and this conversation occurred spontaneously

Yes, we organized this conversation

No, we intend to do this in the near future

No and there is no intention to do so

Q61 additional remark:

Second questionnaire (May questionnaire executive and school leader)

Q53 Future-oriented education

Could you please reflect on this statement and let us know whether or not you agree with this statement or not and provide us some arguments.

“The crisis had brought future-oriented education closer”

Q54 Could you please reflect on this statement and let us know whether or not you agree with this statement or not and provide us some arguments.

“The crisis has changed my mind about future-oriented education”

Q57 Did you made notes in the last couple of months since the start of the covid-pandemic to develop a suitable vision for next stages and phases of the crisis?

Not at all

Some

Fairly reasonable

A large number of notes

Sufficient notes that can serve as the foundation of a plan

Lots of notes/the foundation of a plan