Page 46 - TWO OF A KIND • Erik Renkema

CHAPTER 2
and in 2006 30 cooperation schools for primary education (0,43%) were counted. These numbers disregard the primary schools for students with special educational needs.
Especially during the decades of 1960 and 1970 the number of attempts to start a cooperation school increased (Derriks, Roede, en Veugelers 2000). Although they were an exception to the common system, they were tolerated by the government. Also, organizations representing public and non-government education expressed a reluctancy to the phenomenon of the cooperation school (Derriks et al. 2000). The educational law was not adjusted until 2011 (Glenn and De Groof 2012). Then, a cooperation school was described as follows: “A cooperation school is a school in which public as well as non-government education is offered” (Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 32 134 2011, 2).
This means that public and non-government identity must be identifiable in a cooperation school. It is up to the school and its board to organize these forms and content of integrated and restricted religious identity (Onderwijsraad 2000).
So far, we have described the integrated and restricted identity of a cooperation school by referring to its legal obligations and to its values. A special characteristic of both the integrated and the restricted identity is that different religious values and different perspectives of religious education come together in one school. In classes and staff religiously neutral education (i.e. public) has merged with religious education (i.e. so far Protestant and/or Catholic).
Little research has been done to answer the question on what values and on what (new) identity this cooperation school is based and what the implications of this identity are for the organization of religious education. In an empirical research project Derriks, Roede and Veugelers studied school documents of four primary cooperation schools and two secondary cooperation schools (Derriks et al. 2000). Moreover, they interviewed the principals of these schools. Although this research of Derriks et al. also describes cooperation schools, our research will provide a more general and more valid perspective on this theme: the number of respondents is larger. Therefore differences and similarities will have a more solid base. Moreover, our research strictly focuses on primary schools. By paying attention to primary education only, we can draw conclusions
44