Opinion | A broad first grade is necessary to increase students’ opportunities

Progressive and Christian parties agree on the benefits of the broad first grade. GroenLinks/PvdA, Party for the Animals, ChristenUnie, D66, Volt and CDA all want children to no longer be divided into different types of education (pre-vocational secondary education, havo, pre-university education) when they enter secondary education, but into a broad bridge class stay together longer.

The idea of ​​a broad first grade is based on convincing scientific evidence that shows that the current system of early selection – the Netherlands selects children at the age of 12 and therefore much earlier than most other countries – promotes inequality of opportunity. The Education Council therefore recommended in 2021 to introduce a three-year broad bridge class at all secondary schools. The now outgoing cabinet then introduced a subsidy scheme to encourage broad transition classes.

However, the broad first year continues to cause some resistance. The political parties that are outspokenly in favor do not have a parliamentary majority and not everyone is equally positive in education itself. Typical of this resistance were the critical letters from readers NRC posted in response to an opinion piece by philosopher Jan Warndorff who argued in favor of stopping early selection. That op-ed clearly didn’t convince everyone.

No scientific evidence

Broad bridge class skeptics usually base their criticism on three arguments for which there is no scientific evidence.

A first argument is that it would be an impossible task for teachers to teach children aged 12 to 15 with different educational levels at the same time. Most teachers in lower secondary education indeed have little experience in teaching classes with students of all levels and of course they need to be well prepared for broad bridge classes. But that is not an impossible task. Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon and East Asian countries have been working with a broad first year for decades. Teachers there appear to be well able to teach broad classes even after primary school.

Moreover, teachers and schools with a broad transition class can still differentiate by organizing that transition class flexibly, with different ‘level classes’ for subjects that they think are difficult to teach to a varied group of students. Subjects such as citizenship, culture and physical exercise, for which there is added value if they are taught to a varied group of students, can then be offered in broad classes.

Utopia that pre-vocational secondary education will become the same as pre-university education

A second argument is that undervaluation of pre-vocational secondary education is the problem. As soon as VMBO is no longer seen as ‘less’, children are no longer classified into high/low and selection is easier. We must therefore focus on increasing the social status of pre-vocational secondary education.

In other countries, teachers appear to be able to teach broad classes

That sounds great, but it is utopian to think that VMBO can count on the same appreciation as other types of education in the short term. After all, in the current education system, children are not selected for different types of education on the basis of their talents and interests, but on the basis of their educational achievements. The lowest performing students receive pre-vocational secondary education advice. This creates a status difference between students who can ‘learn well’ and students who cannot ‘learn well’. As long as the education system is organized in such a hierarchical manner, children should be given a fair chance to rise. Especially if a higher level of education is also accompanied by a better salary, more prosperity and higher life expectancy. A broad first grade ensures that children get that opportunity.

Smart students also benefit

The most persistent argument against broad bridge classes concerns high-achieving students. In a broad first grade they would develop less well and would regularly be bored, because the pace is too slow or the teacher spends too much time on less strong students. That fear is unfounded. Research shows that high-achieving students do not experience any negative consequences from such a class, while the other students develop better. In addition, when it comes to citizenship and social cohesion, a broad first year is also of great added value for high-achieving students. Our system of early selection strengthens social bubbles and promotes polarization and misunderstanding in society. This does not benefit high-achieving students either.

The systematic introduction of broad transition classes is essential to offer children fair educational opportunities. The counterarguments are illogical or inconsistent with scientific evidence.

We hope that debunking these arguments will help the political parties that have not yet declared themselves in favor of a broad first year of secondary education to overcome their shadow.

To share





Email the editor