The Netherlands faces a huge challenge. While our society increasingly relies on technology, from engineers enabling the energy transition to software developers and AI specialists, primary school children receive very little structured instruction in science and technology. This is striking, as science and technology (S&T) has been a mandatory part of the curriculum for years.
Yet, our survey of 363 primary schools shows that only 18% of schools offer science and technology as a regular program . The remaining schools offer it only occasionally, relying on individual projects or external providers, or don't address it at all. This means an entire generation of children is insufficiently prepared for a future dominated by technology and innovation.
Why this research?
At Zappiebox, we have a lot of contact with primary schools through our work in educational toys. We've increasingly heard that schools are struggling to incorporate science and technology into their curriculum. Teachers have indicated, "We'd like to, but we lack the time, knowledge, and resources."
That's why we decided to investigate this further. We contacted 363 primary schools, enough to get a representative picture of the more than 6,700 primary schools in the Netherlands. The results are certainly alarming, but also offer hopeful signs.
The results in brief
Our research shows that there are five ways in which schools shape or do not shape science and technology:
-
Not or hardly (29%) : Schools where science and technology simply don't have a place. Overcrowded schedules and an emphasis on language and math often play a role.
-
Incidental or thematic (22%) : Annual technology days or individual projects, often dependent on the efforts of an enthusiastic teacher.
-
Interwoven in methods (22%) : Science & Technology is 'somewhat' incorporated into methods such as Blink or IPC, but often superficially and strongly dependent on the teacher.
-
Externally organized (9%) : Inspiring guest lectures or excursions through Mad Science, Techniek Torens, or companies. Valuable, but occasional and region-dependent.
-
Structurally organized (18%) : The only truly effective approach: schools with their own curriculum, technology coordinator, or makerspace. Science and technology are given a permanent place here, as are language and math.
What do schools themselves say?
The figures corroborate the stories we heard. Many schools indicated that they consider science and technology important, but simply don't have the time. "We'd like to, but it just doesn't fit anymore." Others pointed to the lack of expertise: "We don't have anyone who can take this on."
Yet, we also saw positive examples. Schools that work systematically on science and technology with a specialist teacher, a technology coordinator, or external partners. There, the subject is taken just as seriously as math or language arts.
Why is it falling short?
On paper, it's clear: science and technology are compulsory in primary education. The 2006 core objectives stipulate that students must learn to research, design, and solve technical problems. But in practice, there are three major bottlenecks:
-
Time: Schedules are packed, with a strong emphasis on basic skills. Science and Technology easily fades into the background.
-
Resources: Budgets are limited and schools tend to opt for subjects that are closely monitored by the inspectorate.
-
Expertise: Many teachers feel insufficiently equipped to provide good science and technology education.
The consequences for children
The difference between structured and incidental science and technology education is significant. In structured education, children gradually build knowledge and skills: they learn to research, design, and create. Incidental education often remains a one-off, enjoyable experience without lasting learning outcomes.
The risk is that children don't get enough opportunities to develop their curiosity and problem-solving skills. These are essential skills in a world where technology is becoming increasingly important.
Why this is so urgent
The results are alarming because the future of our country depends on the makers and thinkers we're training now. The energy transition, digitalization, and robotization require people who are technically skilled, creative, and entrepreneurial. If children aren't introduced to technology early enough in primary school, we run the risk of them not having the interest or skills to play a role in it later on.
Or, as one school principal put it: “We are too busy with the basics now, but in fact we are setting ourselves apart for the future.”
Hopeful signs
Fortunately, there are also schools that demonstrate that it is possible. With their own vision, a technology coordinator, and structured lessons, they make science and technology a natural part of their curriculum. Their example shows that it is possible – and that children benefit enormously from it.
Conclusion: time for action
The conclusion of our research is clear: far too few primary schools offer science and technology courses on a regular basis. This needs to change. Schools are willing, but they lack the time, resources, and expertise.
We believe there should be more room for science and technology in education, as this safeguards the future of our society. The major challenges of our time demand a generation that is technically skilled and creative.
It is up to the government and policymakers to support schools in this regard. Only with a sufficient budget, clear frameworks, and specialized support can science and technology become a permanent fixture in primary education.
Read more?
Download the full white paper: Technology and science in primary education are in a bad state