Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Religious schools in the Netherlands: An analysis of arguments and assumptions in a tense public debate

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

269 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In the public and political debate about religious schools in the Netherlands, various arguments recur. Those arguments are not isolated or neutral, but are shaped and defined by various normative assumptions. Arguments against religious schools are, for instance, affected by the dominant secular discourse in Western Europe. Unconscious normative assumptions are potentially problematic if they remain unnoticed and if there is a lack of reflection on them. A religious worldview has become a minority perspective in the Netherlands, which makes it important to reflect on the normative assumptions underlying the arguments in the debate about religious schools in order to avoid blindly and uncritically imposing a majority norm on a minority. In this article, the arguments dominating the public and political debate on religious schools in the Netherlands are discerned. Implicit assumptions are brought to the surface and analysed from an interreligious perspective. In order to do so, the social, religious and historical context of the Dutch debate is reflected upon, and the recurring arguments are defined by conducting a qualitative content analysis.

Original languageEnglish
Article number102792
Pages (from-to)1-9
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Educational Development
Volume100
Early online date20 May 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2023

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 10 - Reduced Inequalities
    SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities

Keywords

  • Arguments
  • Diversity
  • Minorities
  • Normative assumptions
  • Religious schools

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Religious schools in the Netherlands: An analysis of arguments and assumptions in a tense public debate'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this