This chapter identifies the tensions and dilemmas policymakers and practitioners face on the continuum between curriculum prescription and curriculum autonomy across different layers of a learning ecosystem. Even though curriculum flexibility presents exciting new opportunities, optimal outcomes depend on its perception within the political environment. Differing perspectives on the benefits and risks of curricular flexibility and autonomy shape public policy debates and influence changes in the degree to which they are granted. The delegation of responsibilities among system actors influences how students acquire relevant knowledge, skills, attitudes and values. The extent to which curriculum flexibility and autonomy is granted can risk a misalignment between teachers’ and learners’ autonomy, considering possible overlaps in their agency. The chapter also considers tensions around professional autonomy and parental involvement, high-stakes assessment culture, and dilemmas about scales of implementation.
Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy
2. Tensions and dilemmas around curriculum flexibility and autonomy
Abstract
Tensions and dilemmas around curriculum flexibility and autonomy
Curriculum flexibility and autonomy are not imperative for better student outcomes. While these concepts are important, promising and worth encouraging, more is not necessarily better. Optimal flexibility and autonomy is most desirable: favourable to a given situation in a particular classroom or school and coherent with the broader context to best support learning.
The use of autonomy at the school level depends on local circumstances. The interplay between curriculum flexibility and autonomy can affect teachers’ practices differently depending on factors such as the extent to which a culture of teacher autonomy exists; the pedagogical leadership capabilities of school principals; the preparedness of teachers in adapting the curriculum to the needs of their students; and their individual and collective views on how prescriptive the curriculum should be.
Drawing on both research and country examples, this chapter summarises the tensions and dilemmas policymakers and curriculum designers face when striking a balance of curriculum flexibility and autonomy. These include 1) curriculum control and autonomy, 2) perception and reality, 3) professional autonomy and learner autonomy, 4) professional autonomy and parental expectations, 5) professional autonomy and high-stake examinations, and 6) small- and large-scale implementation.
Pendulum swings between curriculum control and autonomy
Shifts in the political environment or concerns over education quality in schools can result in sudden changes to the curriculum flexibility accorded to local authorities, schools and teachers (Nieveen and Kuiper, 2012[1]; Lundgren, 2013[2]). According to Nieveen and Kuiper, there are significant fluctuations between government control and school autonomy, often resulting in abrupt and intense changes. (Nieveen and Kuiper, 2012[1]). As Sinnema puts it:
Curricula are constantly changing, and their balance between prescription and autonomy is a source of much debate in policy and public contexts. That debate draws on divergent perspectives about the benefits and risks of curricular autonomy and often leads to changes in the degree of prescription in national curricula – similar to the ebb and flow of the tide, there are constant fluctuations in curricular autonomy over time and it is high in some places whilst low in others. (Sinnema, 2015[3])
Sudden shifts between more autonomous and more prescriptive curricula affect teachers’ efficiency. The limited time allowed for shifts in and adaptation to curricula does not allow teachers to work efficiently, which impacts their well-being. The consequent lack of efficacy negatively impacts parental perception of teachers’ professionalism.
This implies that the context in which schools and teachers operate can affect the level of autonomy they experience (Priestley et al., 2015[4]) and that such autonomy can be reduced through adjustments in policy or new accountability requirements, such as through school evaluation measures (i.e., external inspection or internal self-evaluation) or a culture of high-stakes assessment (Hong and Youngs, 2016[5]).
There is considerable variation between countries and jurisdictions in the delegation of responsibilities among different levels of their education systems (Figure 1.3 and Figure 1.4). Delegation of decisions includes the curriculum dimensions discussed in Chapter 1, including flexibility in learning goals, content, pedagogy, assessment and learning time.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the correlation between student performance and the autonomy afforded to schools and teachers. When school principals and teachers have greater autonomy over curriculum and assessment policies, students perform better than when decisions are made centrally (OECD, 2016[6]).
Figure 2.1. Correlation between decentralised school governance and science performance
Notes: Results based on 70 education systems.
1. The responsibilities for school governance are measured by the share distribution of responsibilities for school governance in Table II.4.2.
Source: (OECD, 2016[6]), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777.
Indeed, in the Netherlands, the call for curriculum flexibility and autonomy for schools and teachers came from the failure of large-scale, top-down curriculum reforms in the early 2000s. Schools and teachers were not sufficiently consulted about the desirability and feasibility of these reforms, which they felt acted as a straitjacket restricting their capacity to make adjustments as needed (Nieveen and Kuiper, 2012[1]).
However, such data from Figure 2.1 must be interpreted carefully. Literature from different countries suggests a more complex picture of governance issues that should be understood in its time-specific context. Sweden appears to be on a pendulum swing between curriculum centralisation and decentralisation, affected by shifting political pressures. Research suggests that Sweden reconsidered granting curriculum flexibility and autonomy to schools due to two driving forces, among others: 1) PISA and other international assessment results, and 2) policy favouring efficiency in centralised curricula over complex localised practices (Lundgren, 2013[2]; Haugsbakk, 2013[7]).
At the same time, there is a form of “soft governance” in curriculum requirements and expectations (Wermke, Olason Rick and Salokangas, 2019[8]). Moreover, there are different forms of control within schools that limit teachers’ autonomy, such as the way student performance is monitored by administrators and parents. While teachers can offer ideas on certain aspects of the school, the autonomy teachers perceive manifests more at the classroom level and in relation to minor matters (Frostenson, 2015[9]) rather than at levels where they can influence policy, resourcing and support.
Research also indicates that teachers face limitations on curriculum flexibility and autonomy due to accountability measures. The extent of flexibility available to teachers in New South Wales (Australia) was deemed limited by the level of specification in syllabuses and accountability measures for teachers (Creese, Gonzalez and Isaacs, 2016[10]). This lack of flexibility was seen as prohibiting teachers from accommodating students’ varying attainment and needs, including targeted stretch challenges to ensure ongoing progress for each student (Masters, 2020[11]). In Estonia, teachers also cite a lack of structural autonomy, leaving them with insufficient guidelines to fulfil curriculum expectations that are seen as idealistic (Erss, 2016[12]). This is based on policy rhetoric that appears to suggest autonomy for teachers but, in practice, holds them accountable for students’ progress without meaningfully involving them in decision-making.
Research also shows how curriculum flexibility and autonomy can be hindered by high-stakes assessment culture. In Korea, teachers report their structural autonomy being constrained under the prevalent culture of credentials, with many teachers neither welcoming nor believing that the autonomy granted would diversify school curricula (Hong and Youngs, 2016[5]). While curriculum reform was introduced to increase programmatic flexibility for local authorities, schools and teachers, a mismatch between desired and granted autonomy soon became visible.
Discrepancy between “perceived” and “intended” flexibility and autonomy
Tension can exist between what schools and teachers perceive as the flexibility and autonomy they have versus what is intended by the policy. It is therefore worth examining how teachers view their level of autonomy in determining learning content. Indeed, when curriculum flexibility is granted in different areas, studies from Israel as well as England and Scotland (United Kingdom) point to discrepancies between flexibility in curriculum content/goals and/or pedagogy, and the lack of flexibility actually exercised (Greany and Waterhouse, 2016[13]; Leat, Livingston and Priestley, 2013[14]; Nir et al., 2016[15]).
Figure 2.2 and Figure 2.3 show the discrepancies between structural autonomy granted over education policies in general and those specifically concerning curricula. Figure 2.2 indicates teachers’ perceived sense of autonomy specific to course content. Overall, perception of autonomy is high – on average, 84% of teachers across the OECD feel they have control over determining course content – but this varies by country.
Over 95% of teachers feel they have control over determining course content in Iceland, Korea, Norway and Sweden compared to only 47% in Portugal.
However, when looking at Figure 2.3, it becomes apparent that the actual autonomy granted to teachers is significantly lower than their perceived autonomy; on average, teachers have less than 50% of responsibility over the curriculum in OECD countries.
The countries/jurisdictions that grant the highest level of autonomy to teachers are New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Chinese Taipei, with teachers having over 70% of responsibility over the curriculum, whereas on the opposite end of the spectrum, Greece grants less than 3% of responsibility to teachers over the curriculum.
Teachers’ and principals’ autonomy together can be regarded as the schools’ autonomy, i.e. to what extent schools have a saying over the content of the curriculum.
Six countries/jurisdictions – Czechia, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Hong Kong – grant over 90% of responsibility for the curriculum to schools. On the other hand, schools’ autonomy is lowest in Greece, where the schools only have 3.4% of responsibility over their curriculum. The only two countries where principals have more autonomy over the curriculum than teachers are Japan and Viet Nam.
Figure 2.2. Teachers’ perceived autonomy in determining course content
Percentage of decisions taken at each level of government in public lower secondary education (2017)
Note: Results of TALIS based on responses of lower-secondary teachers.
Source: OECD (2020[16]), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888934084190.
Figure 2.3. Teachers’ “intended” autonomy in determining course content
Notes: The tasks include responsibility for the curriculum and instructional assessment within the school (establishing student-assessment policies, choosing textbooks, and determining which courses are offered and the content of those courses). The calculation is based on the tasks included in the school questionnaire.
Source: OECD (2016[6]), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
Tensions around professional autonomy and learner autonomy
Teacher and student autonomy to use and access a curriculum can be affected by conditions that either limit their scope of action in practice or that they perceive as limiting when planning and organising learning experiences (Mausethagen and Mølstad, 2015[17]; Frostenson, 2015[9]; Elo and Nygren-Landgärds, 2020[18]; Wermke and Höstfält, 2014[19]).
As mentioned earlier, research suggests that teachers and schools do not always exercise their autonomy over the curriculum (Leat, Livingston and Priestley, 2013[14]; Kuiper, 2017[20]). This is often associated with the extent to which professional autonomy is overtly encouraged, articulated and authorised; how decision-making regarding curriculum design, development and planning is delegated to the regional/local district or school level; and the degree of preparation provided through teacher training programmes and how closely these are monitored by the governing body.
It can also be associated with tension between teachers exercising curriculum flexibility and students self-directing their individual learning journeys, when these directions and aspirations are not aligned. There is a need to monitor student learning progress and achievement through a variety of assessment measures to help teachers and school leaders gauge how their professional autonomy supports their students in achieving their goals and making informed decisions on what to continue and what to change.
Box 2.1. AI-Enhanced Mentoring at N. Yadlin Interdisciplinary Campus
The N. Yadlin Interdisciplinary Campus in Rishon-Le-Zion, Israel, uses a new approach to teaching that combines mentoring and competency-based learning, especially with the help of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. Recognising that education is changing, the campus has shifted teachers' roles from simply providing information to being mentors, by using a unique mentoring professional development program for the active teachers. This change allows for personalised guidance, with AI helping to customise learning experiences and resources via data analysis, making it easier for teachers to support their students.
Mentor teachers on campus play an important role in promoting socio-emotional development and critical thinking skills. Curriculum flexibility enables mentor teachers to adapt their teaching as well as students’ learning and assessment methods to meet the specific needs of small student groups, fostering a student-centred approach rather than a traditional exam-focused model. Emphasising critical thinking, presentation skills, and practical application of knowledge, the curriculum includes assessments such as debates, presentations and interactive discussions.
To achieve an optimal synergy between human mentors and AI digital teachers, the N. Yadlin Campus implements a multifaceted learning approach. Lessons are designed to incorporate whole-class instruction, small group activities, and independent work utilising digital technologies, including AI. This personalised approach facilitates academic acceleration for some, while providing additional support for other students. The campus's physical design - open spaces, classrooms without doors and without walls - supports its pedagogical model, encouraging creativity, collaboration and engagement.
The N. Yadlin Interdisciplinary Campus demonstrates the effective integration of curriculum flexibility via a combined approach of mentoring and the use of AI tools. By adopting the mentor-teacher model and leveraging AI technology, the campus supports students' personal leadership, choice, independence and achievement. This approach can serve as a practical policy model for other educational institutions seeking to modernise and enhance their teaching practices.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 School Networks, The N. Yadlin Interdisciplinary Campus (Michal Solomonovich).
Structural autonomy, professional autonomy and school leadership
In the Netherlands, curriculum standards for primary and lower secondary education offer considerable flexibility for schools and teachers to exercise their autonomy. However, both schools and teachers report that the curriculum standards lack clarity. They thus seek clarity through textbooks, seeing this as a safe way to comply with curriculum requirements, but thereby making textbooks a self-imposed form of prescribed curriculum. Hence, while they have structural autonomy, they do not feel that they have the professional autonomy to use the flexibility that the curriculum offers (Kuiper, 2017[21]).
Findings in New Zealand report that teachers display a lack of confidence in mobilising their professional autonomy to use curriculum flexibly. New Zealand underwent various curriculum revisions to enhance programmatic and pedagogical flexibility, and grant schools and teachers autonomy over the curriculum. Despite this, Sinnema (2015[3]) observes that teachers hesitate to accept the responsibility associated with using professional autonomy to enact curriculum flexibility. Some features of the reforms have also revealed that while broad curriculum guidelines give school leaders and teachers a lot of autonomy in designing curriculum that is most relevant to their students, it can also inadvertently produce some challenges, e.g. in the absence of sufficiently detailed guidance, widely diverse approaches to implementation may lead to unequal learning outcomes. While maintaining a competency-based curriculum, teachers also need a knowledge-rich curriculum with critical subject-specific content made explicit to counter some declining trends in student performance; teachers may also lack the training to be curriculum designers. While more recent policy efforts are trying to fill in the gaps of previous reforms, there is an acknowledgment that a different sequencing of reforms (starting with shared goals and curriculum reform rather than reforms in assessment and teacher education) could have made implementation easier. It has also become clear that teacher professional autonomy needs to come hand in hand with structured guidance and support to teachers (OECD, 2024[22]).
Professional autonomy cannot be implemented without support and solid structures. A study in Australia notes the importance of distributed school leadership, as well as building professional capacity to have an impact on student achievement. It requires principal and other school leaders’ autonomy to build professional capacity through staff selection, professional development and appraisal; setting priorities on the basis of data about performance; and communication of purpose, process and performance (Caldwell, 2016[23]).
Greany and Waterhouse (2016[13]) studied the relationship between school autonomy, school leadership and curriculum innovation in England (United Kingdom) for over 40 years. They found no correlation between autonomy and the level of curriculum innovation. While their study shows that extensive accountability in terms of high-stakes testing and rigorous inspection constrains the autonomy of most schools, only school leaders with capacity, confidence and a willingness to take risks use their autonomy to develop innovative curricula.
Studies in the Netherlands (Leest and Wierda-Boer, 2014[24]) and Finland (Saarivirta and Kumpulainen, 2016[25]) also emphasise the importance of professional autonomy for school leaders. These findings indicate that school autonomy in and of itself contributes less to the implementation of innovative pedagogy and curriculum, than does the professional leadership of teachers.
The importance of professional autonomy for both teachers and school leaders was made visible during the COVID‑19 pandemic, when teachers and school leaders needed to use their autonomy and flexibility to its fullest potential to meet the differing needs of each student. The OECD E2030 students’ group shared that mathematics was one of the most challenging subjects to learn online. Box 2.2 provides an example of how a school and teachers explored curriculum flexibility for online mathematics lessons.
Box 2.2. Decision-making about time allocation at the school level
Online lessons became increasingly important during the COVID-19 pandemic and challenged parts of the implemented curricula. Proper allocation of time to activities is vital to making online lessons as efficient as offline lessons. In Pudong, Shanghai (China), a public school specified time distribution when teaching the “property of parallel lines”, required curriculum content, online. The allocation of time to different activities was decided at the school level, advised by the Teaching Research Group.
The school made a “30+10” rule for 40-minute lessons, with teachers leading activities for no more than 30 minutes, leaving no less than 10 minutes for discussion and questions, following the “art of the blank” theory. The 30 minutes are allocated to help students understand the fundamental knowledge and literacy of mathematics, including the connection between mathematical knowledge, the exploring and reasoning process, rational spirit, etc.
A mathematics lesson usually consists of several components: a warm-up or introduction, lecture demonstration, examples, student practice and summing up. In teaching the “property of parallel lines”, the teacher began with a review of the relationship between corresponding angles using the example of parallel lines (Figure 2.4). Lasting less than 1.5 minutes, the intent is to review and systematise what students already learned. Consequently, it accounts for a low percentage of class time in most situations.
Figure 2.4. Flowchart of the lesson on the “property of parallel lines”
Source: Lianghuo Fan and Xumai Ling, China.
Earlier research suggests that, compared to classrooms in Hong Kong (China) and London, more time in mathematics classrooms on the Chinese mainland was allocated to teaching and learning academic content. In this lesson, the teacher designed a series of exploration activities and encouraged students to explain them using a variety of methods. Students were involved in thinking and answering questions in the form of whole-class teaching. In total, the class spent about 11 minutes on questions and answers, with the average question being 15 seconds and the shortest and the longest blocks of time being 2 seconds and 43 seconds, respectively.
Figure 2.5. Illustration of how online teaching activities are implemented
Source: Lianghuo Fan and Xumai Ling, China (OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 stakeholders).
Examples and practices with variations took up most of the time. It is suggested that too many small steps with a poorly designed structure might cause loss of students’ interest (Zhang, 2005[26]). Starting with basic questions and offering variations might better keep students engaged. During the lesson, the teacher provided two simple examples and practices to help students understand the topic, and a challenge was given to arouse high-level thinking.
Nevertheless, the Chinese adage that “there is no fixed method for teaching” implies that a variety of teaching methods, including allocation of in-class time for different activities, is often needed to teach different students and topics.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, School Networks. Lianghuo Fan and Xumai Ling (China).
Distinctions between learner autonomy, choice and voice
Autonomy granted to both the teacher and the learner should be used to obtain maximum benefit from content flexibility. In other words, curriculum autonomy, combined with content flexibility, is intended to encourage teachers to support student agency, respond to their needs and interests, and take local circumstances and contexts into account. Student agency should not be narrowly interpreted as student choice restricted to already defined elective courses or preferred types of schools. Rather, it relates to the opportunities available for students to exercise greater influence in curriculum content selection in and across subject areas. Having a say in what and how one learns, and being listened to and respected by teachers enhances the individual and collective well-being of students (Anderson and Graham, 2016[27]).
Three terms – student choice, student voice and student agency – represent three forms of student engagement, involving differing degrees of learner autonomy. They are used interchangeably at times, leading to misunderstandings, false assumptions and expectations about the level of autonomy granted to learners. But each of these terms have a distinct meaning in the literature (Box 2.3) (also see “Learners” in Chapter 4).
Box 2.3. Distinguishing between student choice, student voice and student agency
While these opportunities for students to have their say and be engaged might be encouraged in concert with reforms related to increased teacher autonomy, their implementation is not without risk. When learners express wishes, beliefs and perceptions about what they should and want to learn, teachers and school leaders can face moral, professional and pedagogical dilemmas if they rely on their own beliefs and perceptions, without objective measures of students’ needs.
Dilemmas between student agency and equity
When students can exert agency through choices and decisions about their curriculum, their motivation to learn is likely to be enhanced and their selection of content likely to be developmentally appropriate (Eccles, 1997[28]), and they might find the curriculum more agreeable and helpful to their well-being (Green et al., 2014[29]). Conversely, when agency and efficacy are limited, there is increased potential for demotivation and a loss interest in learning (Eccles, 1998[30]; Eccles et al., 1993[31]).
The increasing importance of student agency is clear to stakeholders, and countries and schools take different approaches to learner autonomy. Ireland offers an example of students participating in curriculum decision-making (Box 2.4).
It is important to point out, however, that choice as part of content flexibility is not itself conducive to students’ well-being. While it may be welcome, the added responsibility requires students to exercise informed judgment and competency to ensure that their choices enhance their learning rather than detract from it. For example, the OECD E2030 literature review on equity showed that choices are often made for social reasons e.g., the same choice as their friends, in particular for girls and immigrant students (Voogt, Nieveen and Thijs, 2018[32]) The E2030 curriculum analysis on attitudes and values raised concerns about peer pressures such as “FOMO” (fear of missing out), which can negatively affect student well-being when students make choices driven by external rather than their intrinsic values or motivation (OECD, 2021[33]) (also see “Learners themselves” in Chapter 4).
Indeed, the literature on reforms that involve increasing student agency through curriculum flexibility presents tensions and dilemmas:
Higher-ability students benefit more from curriculum flexibility than lower-ability students (Volman and Stikkelman, 2016[34])
Immigrant students might have constrained choices in curriculum content owing to prioritisation of their language needs (Voogt, Nieveen and Thijs, 2018[32]), potentially widening equity gaps with other students in terms of content choice and interest.
Undesirable differences have been found between curriculum offerings made by different schools because of curriculum flexibility, resulting in increased achievement gaps between students from different socio-economic backgrounds (Cornelisz and van Harlem, 2016[35]).
When students take responsibility for their own learning, teachers must be ready to support and guide them. However, this might not be a straightforward task, and the challenges involved might not be obvious to teachers, even when teachers make their best effort to help students identify their interests as well as to help them to make well-informed decisions about themselves, exploring their full potential and talents – and not jumping to conclusions based on their immediate gratification (Voogt, Nieveen and Thijs, 2018[32]); (OECD, 2021[33]).
Box 2.4. Student agency in curriculum decision making
Julia, an 18-year-old student in Ireland, had to design a travel mug for her Architecture and Computer Design class. The project, which accounted for 40% of her grade, comprised a different object each year and encouraged students to be as innovative and personal as possible. For three months, every Architecture and Computer Design class was dedicated to finishing the project.
Julia’s mug was inspired by a futuristic design and had a thermochromic band that changed colour based on the liquid’s temperature. Moreover, there was a milk frother inside that could reheat the drink and prevent people from throwing out lukewarm coffee. One of Julia’s classmates loves canoeing and designed a travel mug that would keep steady at the bottom of a canoe. Julia explains how the teacher would help spark students’ ideas, and make sure all required elements were there and that they were on the right track.
However, no timeline was set by the teacher and students were granted creative license. This gave them considerable autonomy over their designs, process and time. Julia highlights that the project gave her valuable experience in project organisation and planning. As each student created a unique design, the teacher could often only help one person at a time. Julia found that this forced the students to collaborate and utilise each other’s strengths.
Students who were good with computers helped others with technical difficulties in the design applications. Students who were good at writing gave others feedback on the written portfolio to explain the travel mug design. For research, one student created a survey about how students use travel mugs, which everyone in the class answered, then shared the results to improve their designs.
Julia believes that no one worried about someone copying their designs because the examiner was going to grade the entire class at once, making it obvious if anyone had plagiarised. She felt this made the students see each other not as competitors but as mutual support.
Source: Interview with Julia, New Bridge College, Ireland, July 2022.
Learner agency in digital space
Technology and the Internet can enhance students’ ability to explore ideas and perspectives and enable them to shape their understanding of the world and their place in it. However, extensive exposure to virtual spaces and online communities can also undermine broader learning and diverse perspectives.
The online workings of filtering, data selection, aggregation and matching algorithms create virtual spaces that are personalised to individual choices, thus sometimes creating information silos and communities of narrowly defined interests. While student choice and agency can enhance and provide opportunities for learning, the exercise of such autonomy can also lead to an artificial reduction in choices as opportunities are mediated by technology.
The potential for individuals to develop a biased and distorted view of the world as a result is quite real. Psychologists warn of the pervasive risk of individuals developing confirmation biases, a phenomenon by which new information is misperceived or distorted to support prior beliefs or attitudes on a subject, rather than challenge them (Knobloch-Westerwick, Johnson and Westerwick, 2015[36]; Del Vicario et al., 2016[37]).
Experts also warn that people can become isolated through these filters in “information bubbles only partly of their own choosing”. Inaccurate beliefs that they can form as a result may be difficult to correct (Resnick et al., 2013[38]; Geschke, Lorenz and Holtz, 2018[39]; Pariser, 2011[40]). Chamorro-Premuzic (2014[41]) contends that the proliferation of search engines, news aggregators and feed-ranking algorithms is “more likely to perpetuate ignorance than knowledge”.
Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, there is some concern about student well-being, in particular in digital spaces, for example, peer pressure associated with “FOMO” (fear of missing out) (OECD, 2021[33]; Gupta and Sharma, 2021[42]; Alt and Boniel-Nissim, 2018[43]; Abel, Buff and Burr, 2016[44]; Haggis, 2003[45]).
Where teachers play an active role in supporting students, it is important to guide student agency and build their digital literacy along with other core foundations, i.e., literacy, numeracy, data literacy, socio-emotional and health foundations. This is suggested in the OECD Learning Compass along with other frameworks, such as the European Commission’s DigiComp (Box 2.5).
Box 2.5. Examples of European Commission digital competency frameworks
European Framework for Digitally Competent Educational Organisations (DigCompOrg)
Digital technologies – highlighted in the OECD Learning Compass 2030 as a common language across competency frameworks – increasingly affect the education system, including formal and informal learning, and teaching and learning approaches. Further, integration of digital technologies in education involves the practices of individuals (e.g., teachers, students, school leaders) as well as organisations.
As such, the European Commission’s DigCompOrg Framework, adopting a holistic approach, helps organisations from all education sectors integrate digital technologies into their practice by focusing on pedagogical, technological and organisational aspects. Specifically, DigCompOrg is structured along seven themes common to all education sectors, namely: (1) leadership and governance; (2) teaching and learning; (3) professional development; (4) assessment; (5) content and curricula; (6) collaboration and networking; and (7) infrastructure. Beyond these cross-sector themes, DigCompOrg is open to the addition of sector-specific elements. This approach can add value by promoting transparency, comparability and peer learning.
DigCompOrg has been the basis for the creation of SELFIE (Self-reflection on Effective Learning by Fostering the use of Innovative Educational) technologies, designed to help schools reflect on how they use digital technologies. Aggregated data from SELFIE are used to support policymaking.
Figure 2.6. DigiCompOrg thematic structure and elements
Source: European Commission (https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/digcomporg/framework).
The Digital Competence Framework for Citizens
Furthermore, the European Commission identified components of digital competence in five areas in its Digital Competence Framework for Citizens (which outlines 21 competencies):
1. Information and data literacy: to articulate information needs; locate and retrieve digital data, information and content; to judge the relevance of the source and its content; to store, manage, and organise digital data, information and content.
2. Communication and collaboration: to interact, communicate and collaborate through digital technologies while being aware of cultural and generational diversity; to participate in society through public and private digital services and participatory citizenship; to manage one’s digital identity and reputation.
3. Digital content creation: to create and edit digital content; to improve and integrate information and content into an existing body of knowledge while understanding how copyright and licences are applied; to know how to give understandable instructions for a computer system.
4. Safety: to protect devices, content, personal data and privacy in digital environments; to protect physical and psychological health and be aware of digital technologies for social well-being and social inclusion; to be aware of the environmental impact of digital technologies and their use.
5. Problem-solving: to identify needs and problems and resolve conceptual problems and situations in digital environments; to use digital tools to innovate processes and products; to keep up to date with the digital evolution.
The framework is being used from policy orientation to curriculum development, career guidance and promotion using learning outcomes.
European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (DigCompEdu)
Building on the previous work carried out to define citizens' digital competence in general, as well as that of education organisations, the European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators is a framework describing what it means for educators to be digitally competent. It provides a general reference frame to support the development of educator-specific digital competences in Europe. DigCompEdu is directed towards educators at all levels of education, from early childhood to higher and adult education, including general and vocational education and training, special needs education, and non-formal learning contexts.
DigCompEdu details 22 competences organised in six areas. The focus is not on technical skills. Rather, the framework aims to detail how digital technologies can be used to enhance and innovate education and training.
Figure 2.7. European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators
Source: European Commission, https://joint-research-centre.ec.europa.eu/digcompedu_en.
Tensions around professional autonomy and parental expectations
Tension may arise from strong views among parents about the content, teaching methods and assessment strategies that students should experience in schools. Lubienski (2009[46]) did not find a correlation between school autonomy and the implementation of innovative curricula and pedagogies, and he argues that parents tend to prefer schools with traditional curricula and proven pedagogical practices instead of schools that focus on innovation.
Recent curriculum reforms undertaken in Portugal initially were faced with parents' preference for traditional curricula and proven pedagogical practices over innovative approaches (OECD, 2018[47]). Lubienski (2009[46]) suggests that schools should use their autonomy to organise parts of the curriculum according to their own vision and interests, to manage the expectations of parents who are suspicious of schools. Box 2.6 provides insight into how this issue was met, addressed and resolved.
Box 2.6. Stakeholder engagement in curriculum redesign in Portugal
The engagement of stakeholders in curriculum renewal is an asset that fosters better results. The ongoing process of curriculum redesign in Portugal started in 2016 with the involvement of teachers in a questionnaire at the national level, then with the Students’ Voice national conference, where children and young people from pre-school to higher education had the opportunity to share their opinion and suggestions on pedagogy, strategies and education in general. After the conception of the Students’ Profile by the End of Compulsory Schooling (2017), a rationale was developed for a quality education for all.
Figure 2.8. Types of structure to support and monitor schools
Source: Portuguese Ministry of Education, 2022.
Curriculum flexibility and autonomy was introduced as a pilot in the 2017/18 school year. Schools applied to take part, resulting in more than 200 school clusters managing up to 25% of their curriculum framework, focused on collaborative work and a cross-curriculum approach. The pilot was supported and monitored by regional teams, with members from different parts of the Ministry of Education, and external evaluation (OECD, 2018[47]). Following suggestions from the external evaluation, support and monitoring continued based on close contact between regional teams and schools, fostering awareness and practice-sharing among teachers, involving experts, parents and other stakeholders in commitment to a flexible curriculum adapted to the schools’ context and promoting meaningful learning.
Source: OECD (2018[47]) Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy in Portugal.
Tensions around professional autonomy and high-stakes external examinations
High-stakes assessment culture describes high school leaving examinations, university admission examinations or national standardised examinations that can be considered part of the selection criteria for a school or a university, among others. Teachers are unable to part from the tremendous impact it has on their professional autonomy.
Most countries and jurisdictions report that decisions on student assessment are granted to teachers (and students, in some cases). However, examinations administered by a body outside curriculum administration can influence teachers’ and school leaders’ beliefs and behaviours and can impose constraints on how they use their professional autonomy over curriculum flexibility. For example, research from Scotland (United Kingdom) suggests that, while the Curriculum for Excellence offers flexibility to schools and teachers regarding the way curriculum content and goals are implemented, the assessment system hampers schools in making use of the autonomy accorded them (Leat, Livingston and Priestley, 2013[14]). Similarly, schools in Israel report that, while they were encouraged to use their autonomy to design a contemporary curriculum, implementation of the curriculum was externally monitored through high-stakes testing, thereby limiting the willingness of schools and teachers to explore innovative, future-focussed learning experiences (Nir et al., 2016[48]) . In Korea, university entrance exams are high-stakes assessments that restrict the ability of schools and teachers to adopt more flexible approaches to education.
In countries with high-stakes standardised tests and examinations, teachers often feel the need to focus on teaching content traditionally to prepare students for these tests and examinations (Boardman and Woodruff, 2004[49]). Schools and teachers report feeling that they have limited choices regarding the curriculum, with a “washback” from external examinations influencing what teachers focus on, how they teach, and how they assess student learning for both formative and summative purposes (Hutchinson and Hayward, 2005[50]; Yin and Buck, 2019[51]; Göloğlu Demir, 2021[52]). Accordingly, teachers tend to default to practices focused on content directly associated with examinations. These factors can be seen as reflective of an educational culture that favours traditional content-centred pedagogy rather than competency-based methodologies or student‑centred forms of assessment. Therefore, students might not benefit from opportunities for deeper learning and understanding.
Under such circumstances, any increase in curriculum flexibility and autonomy to provide enriched, differentiated, adjusted and holistic learning is likely to strike them as contradictory to the way student achievement is assessed – and in some countries and jurisdictions how they or their schools are held accountable through student results. In the absence of revisions to assessment policies and practices, teachers and students might not benefit from increased flexibility in the curriculum, creating a noticeable gap through the assessment system between desired and granted autonomy (Hong and Youngs, 2014[53]).
High-stakes assessment culture can also impact learner mindsets and decisions they make on curriculum choice, when allowed. This is particularly true in countries where national or central admissions exams weigh heavily on one's pursuit of higher education, and it can impact students’ learning and well-being (see “Interplay between assessments, students’ learning and well-being” in Chapter 4).
Additionally, since providing greater autonomy to teachers can resolve problems associated with job satisfaction and burnout (Davis and Wilson, 2000[54]; Pearson and Hall, 1993[55]; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2014[56]), narrowing their role (along with a false presumption of increased local autonomy) can aggravate their feelings of resentment and reduce job satisfaction (Walker and Graham, 2019[57]).
In summary, national standardised assessments were found to somewhat erode teachers’ autonomy (Runté and Runte, 1998[58]; Elo and Nygren-Landgärds, 2020[18]). Regardless of what might be stated about teachers having the autonomy to implement the curriculum in flexible ways, adherence to what is familiar and known related to external assessment regimes is more likely to be the result in practice. The influence that high-stakes assessments have is significant and will hold initiatives in areas such as curriculum and pedagogy “hostage” if not aligned to policy shifts (Muskin, 2015[59]). Recognising the challenge, British Columbia (Canada), for example, has made efforts to align provincial assessments with the curriculum so that both assess progress towards the same goal.
Tensions around flexibility in small-scale and large-scale implementation
When introducing or strengthening curriculum flexibility and autonomy, countries and jurisdictions often face challenges in how to support and/or scale individual cases or models that are found to be effective in specific contexts.
Several schooling approaches and programmes are either proclaimed or recognised as flexible compared to the dominant practice within a country or jurisdiction. These can be viewed as alternative models in some countries and jurisdictions, or as levels of flexibility in others. They can also embed structural elements that assure compliance with national or state curriculum requirements, while maintaining their philosophical underpinnings and respecting parental choice. Box 2.7 provides examples of such models of schooling, where autonomy and flexibility are fundamental to the teaching and learning culture.
Box 2.7. Tensions in alternative education models
Flexibility vs. structural requirements in the International Baccalaureate
The International Baccalaureate (IB) programme is firmly established in education worldwide, with over 5 000 schools offering it, including schools that offer the IB as an alternative to other curricula and credentials. The IB promotes individual learning and a flexible framework that enables schools to incorporate government requirements where relevant, and for schools, teachers and students to localise the learning context.
However, there are structural limitations to this flexibility. Even though the Primary and Middle Years programmes are more flexible, the Diploma programme prescribes content and assessment. The programme’s emphasis on breadth and rigour, which requires students to select from subject areas across six groups and with an inflexible workload, leads to higher levels of stress than among students following a general education programme (Suldo et al., 2018[60]). Moreover, compared to curriculum models that promote specialisation and discontinuation of whole learning areas, the IB offers less flexibility for learners (Dawborn-Gundlach, 2017[61]).
Flexibility vs. teacher authority in Steiner Education
Steiner (also known as Waldorf) Education, founded by Austrian educator Rudolph Steiner, aims to provide students with a holistic education. There are more than 1,100 Steiner schools worldwide, with significant concentrations in Europe. Specifically, Europe hosts 802 Steiner schools, accommodating around 190,000 students and employing approximately 18,400 teachers.
The Steiner approach forgoes several traditional practices and curriculum constructs that feature in schooling and teaching in other systems. For example, while some systems prioritise standardised testing, the ranking of students and Steiner schools emphasise individual development and artistic expression. Moreover, they prefer storytelling over the use of textbooks. There is also a strong emphasis on teachers more than other levels of authority as decision-makers in Steiner schools.
While this suggests that the Steiner approach is flexible compared with other approaches and highly regulated schooling systems, a rigidity rooted in the philosophical beliefs of its founder underpins teaching and learning in Steiner schools. Foremost, are the division of childhood into three distinct stages, set blocks of time to learn subject matter that is often revisited, skill development in specific artistic and technical areas (such as playing a musical instrument and knitting), a strict approach to the teaching of reading, and the high status given to teachers as decision-makers with decisions governed by training in Steiner philosophy and methodology. Hence, a degree of structural rigidity has been maintained in Steiner Education for over a century.
Flexibility vs. individualistic emphasis in Montessori Education
Montessori education worldwide is conducted based on the philosophical beliefs of its founder, Italian physician and educator Maria Montessori.
While most Montessori schools operate in a similar way, there are some variations (Daoust and Suzuki, 2014[62]). Montessori schools focus on independence, the uniqueness of each child, the joy of learning and the self-construction of knowledge through interaction with one’s environment. Hence, Montessori education eschews the ranking and assessment of students against set norms and standards using traditional student performance monitoring systems.
At the same time, solid structural foundations guide practice, and teachers are expected to adhere to training in Montessori methods and requirements. These include the use of specific equipment (and how and when these are used), a focus on real life (as opposed to fantasy or abstraction), intrinsic motivation rather than rewards, and little to no emphasis on socially constructed knowledge. There is also a strong emphasis on the “prepared environment” of surroundings and resources organised to stimulate students’ interest and engagement in learning, with displays of students’ work and other artefacts seen as distracting from the students’ self-directed learning and independence.
Flexibility vs. independence in the Jenaplan School
The Jenaplan School, in Germany, was established in 1991 by teachers and parents committed to reforming the schooling process. Initially a primary school, the Jenaplan School developed through the senior secondary-school grades, enabling students to undertake their entire schooling at one school. The school is organised around self-regulated learning by students.
Students learn in mixed-aged groups, with older students assisting teachers in guiding younger students and with each child planning and controlling their own learning programme. Student learning portfolios are key to the self-regulated process and assessment of progress and achievement. Learning is based around three phases: (1) an introductory phase to new concepts and skills; (2) a working phase, where students undertake tasks relevant to areas and topics they selected; and (3) a presentation/appraisal phase, where students demonstrate what they have learnt. Teachers at the Jenaplan School work in teams where mutual respect is practised, and they are seen as mentors and learning partners of students in a co-agency approach, rather than decision-makers in the curriculum each student follows.
Flexibility vs. lack of assessment in Sudbury schools
Sudbury Schools in different parts of the world are independent of each other but share the same characteristics. These include democratic decision-making, where students and staff have equal say (including in the hiring and dismissal of staff), parents have no or limited involvement, there is no predetermined curriculum, student learning is not organised into groups but students are free to undertake learning tasks with others and mixed-age interactions are encouraged, and teachers are not required to use specific pedagogical methods.
The Sudbury Schools model developed from an initial school’s approach in 1968 based on several beliefs and convictions, foremost of which is that learning is self-initiated and self-motivated, not a process that students have no influence over. Unless a student asks for a specific learning format, each one is free to design what and how they will learn. There are no tests and there is no ranking of students.
Sources: International Forum for Steiner/Waldorf Education. "Waldorf World List 2024." Waldorf International, 2024, www.waldorf-international.org/en/waldorf-world-list-2024/., European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education. "Steiner Waldorf Education in Europe." ECSWE, 2024, www.ecswe.eu/steiner-waldorf-education-in-europe/.
Independent and small-scale schooling models exist at either end of the curriculum flexibility and autonomy continuum. Over time, some have expanded and multiplied, others have remained intentionally small, while others were discontinued. The extent to which approaches are sustainable depends on several factors, including funding sources; the commitment of founding members, their governing bodies, staff, parents and former students; the legacy and culture established over years of operation; and how government authorities and legislation regulate (or do not) their operation.
While these approaches provide insights into implementing curriculum flexibility and autonomy to varying degrees, scaling up innovative models in large schooling systems or across a nation is another matter. As observed (Levin, 2013[63]), scaling innovation is challenging not only in education; it is a problem and complex undertaking in any field, be it public or private.
Dillenbourg (2017[64]) makes a similar point, explaining that education is stratified into layers (class, school, district, state, country) that differ in magnitude. Citing technological innovation, Dillenbourg (2017[64]) remarks that segmentation in education and analysis of different aspects and drivers of policy and practice makes it difficult to “join the dots” that scaling up requires.
References
[44] Abel, J., C. Buff and S. Burr (2016), “Social Media and the Fear of Missing Out: Scale Development and Assessment”, Journal of Business & Economics Research, Vol. 14/1, pp. 33-43, https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268112726.pdf.
[43] Alt, D. and M. Boniel-Nissim (2018), “Links between Adolescents’ Deep and Surface Learning Approaches, Problematic Internet Use, and Fear of Missing Out (FoMO)”, Internet Interventions, Vol. 13, pp. 30-39, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.invent.2018.05.002.
[27] Anderson, D. and A. Graham (2016), “Improving student wellbeing: Having a say at school”, School effectiveness and school improvement, Vol. 27/3, pp. 348-366.
[49] Boardman, A. and A. Woodruff (2004), “Teacher change and “high-stakes” assessment: what happens to professional development?”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 20/6, pp. 545-557, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.06.001.
[23] Caldwell, B. (2016), “Impact of school autonomy on student achievement: cases from Australia”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/7, pp. 1171-1187, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-10-2015-0144.
[41] Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2014), How the web distorts reality and impairs our judgement skills, https://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/may/13/internet-confirmation-bias.
[35] Cornelisz, I. and N. van Harlem (2016), Een analyse van leerling-centraal onderwijs in relatie tot onderwijsuitkomsten en beleidsinstrumenten. [An analysis of student-centered education in relation to educational outcomes and policy instruments.], https://www.onderwijsraad.nl/publicaties/2017/startnotitie-de-leerling-centraal-7572/item7572.
[10] Creese, B., A. Gonzalez and T. Isaacs (2016), “Comparing international curriculum systems: the international instructional systems study”, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 27/1, pp. 5-23, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2015.1128346.
[62] Daoust, C. and S. Suzuki (2014), Public Montessori elementary: Three models of implementation, https://amshq.org/Research/Resources-for-Research.
[54] Davis, J. and S. Wilson (2000), “Principals’ Efforts to Empower Teachers: Effects on Teacher Motivation and Job Satisfaction and Stress”, The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, Vol. 73/6, pp. 349-353, https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650009599442.
[61] Dawborn-Gundlach, L. (2017), “Lessons to learn from the International Baccalaureate”, Pursuit.
[37] Del Vicario, M. et al. (2016), The spreading of misinformation online, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1517441113.
[64] Dillenbourg, P. (2017), “The Challenges of Scaling-up. Findings From Education Research”, Meaningful Education in Times of Uncertainty, p. 102, https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/scaling-up-innovations.
[30] Eccles, J. (1998), “Perceived control and the development of academic motivation.”, Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 63/2-3, pp. 221-231.
[31] Eccles, J. et al. (1993), “Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families.”, American Psychologist, Vol. 48/2, pp. 90-101, https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.48.2.90.
[28] Eccles, P. (1997), An Introduction to Mathematical Reasoning, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511801136.
[18] Elo, J. and C. Nygren-Landgärds (2020), “Teachers’ perceptions of autonomy in the tensions between a subject focus and a cross-curricular school profile: A case study of a Finnish upper secondary school”, Journal of Educational Change, Vol. 22/3, pp. 423-445, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-020-09412-0.
[12] Erss, M. (2016), “Walking a fine line’: teachers’ perception of curricular autonomy in Estonia, Finland and Germany”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1167960.
[20] Folmer, E., A. Koopmans-van Noorel and W. Kuiper (eds.) (2017), Ruimte, richting en ruggensteun’, SLO.
[9] Frostenson, M. (2015), “Three forms of professional autonomy: de-professionalisation of teachers in a new light”, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, Vol. 2015/2, p. 28464, https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28464.
[39] Geschke, D., J. Lorenz and P. Holtz (2018), “The triple-filter bubble: Using agent-based modelling to test a meta-theoretical framework for the emergence of filter bubbles and echo chambers”, British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 58/1, pp. 129-149, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12286.
[52] Göloğlu Demir, C. (2021), “The impact of high-stakes testing on the teaching and learning processes of mathematics”, Journal of Pedagogical Research, Vol. 5/2, pp. 119-137, https://doi.org/10.33902/jpr.2021269677.
[13] Greany, T. and J. Waterhouse (2016), “Rebels against the system: Leadership agency and curriculum innovation in the context of school autonomy and accountability in England”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/7, pp. 1188-1206, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0148.
[29] Green, C. et al. (2014), “School choice and student wellbeing”, Economics of Education Review, Vol. 38, pp. 139-150, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2013.11.007.
[42] Gupta, M. and A. Sharma (2021), “Fear of missing out: A brief overview of origin, theoretical underpinnings and relationship with mental health”, World Journal of Clinical Cases, Vol. 9/19, pp. 4881-4889, https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i19.4881.
[45] Haggis, T. (2003), “Constructing Images of Ourselves? A Critical Investigation into ‘Approaches to Learning’ Research in Higher Education”, British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 29/1, pp. 89-104, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1501542.
[7] Haugsbakk, G. (2013), “From Sputnik to PISA shock–New technology and educational reform in Norway and Sweden.”, Education Inquiry, Vol. 4, https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v4i4.23222.
[5] Hong, W. and P. Youngs (2016), “Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea”, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Vol. 36/sup1, pp. 20-33, https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.959471.
[53] Hong, W. and P. Youngs (2014), “Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea”, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Vol. 36/sup1, pp. 20-33, https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.959471.
[50] Hutchinson, C. and L. Hayward (2005), “The journey so far: assessment for learning in Scotland”, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 16/2, pp. 225-248, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170500136184.
[36] Knobloch-Westerwick, S., B. Johnson and A. Westerwick (2015), “Confirmation Bias in Online Searches: Impacts of Selective Exposure Before an Election on Political Attitude Strength and Shifts”, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, Vol. 20/2, pp. 171-187, https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12105.
[21] Kuiper, W. (2017), “Ruimte, richting en ruggensteun - SLO”, in Folmer, E., Koopmans-van Noorel A. and W. Kuiper (eds.), Curriculumspiegel 2017, https://www.slo.nl/@4553/ruimte-richting/ (accessed on 3 May 2022).
[14] Leat, D., K. Livingston and M. Priestley (2013), “Curriculum deregulation in England and Scotland - Different directions of travel?”, in Kuiper, W. and J. Berkvens (eds.), Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe, CIDREE.
[24] Leest, B. and H. Wierda-Boer (2014), Talen in het hoger onderwijs, https://staatvanhetnederlands.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Leest-en-Wierda-Boer-2011.pdf.
[63] Levin, B. (2013), What Does It Take to Scale Up Innovations? An Examination of Teach for America, The Harlem Children’s Zone, and The Knowledge is Power Program, https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/scaling-up-innovations.
[46] Lubienski, C. (2009), “Do Quasi-markets Foster Innovation in Education?: A Comparative Perspective”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/221583463325.
[2] Lundgren, U. (2013), sweden—from governing with curricula to steering with outcomes, CIDREE: Consortium of Institutions for Development and Research in Education in Europe, http://www.cidree.org/fileadmin/files/pdf/publications/YB_13_Balancing_Curriculum_Regulation_and_Freedom.pdf#page=270.
[11] Masters, G. (2020), Nurturing Wonder and Igniting Passion, designs for a new school curriculum: NSW Curriculum Review, https://research.acer.edu.au/nswcurriculumreview/6.
[17] Mausethagen, S. and C. Mølstad (2015), “Shifts in curriculum control: contesting ideas of teacher autonomy”, Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, Vol. 2015/2, p. 28520, https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28520.
[59] Muskin, J. (2015), Student Learning Assessment and the Curriculum: issues and implications, http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/ipr1-muskin-assessmentcurriculum_eng.pdf.
[1] Nieveen, N. and W. Kuiper (2012), “Balancing Curriculum Freedom and Regulation in the Netherlands”, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 11/3, pp. 357-368, https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2012.11.3.357.
[15] Nir, A. et al. (2016), “School autonomy and 21st century skills in the Israeli educational system”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/7, pp. 1231-1246, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0149.
[48] Nir, A. et al. (2016), “School autonomy and 21st century skills in the Israeli educational system”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/7, pp. 1231-1246, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-11-2015-0149.
[22] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/603809f2-en.
[33] OECD (2021), Embedding Values and Attitudes in Curriculum: Shaping a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aee2adcd-en.
[16] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/888934084190.
[47] OECD (2018), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy in Portugal - an OECD Review, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/about/documents/Curriculum-Flexibility-and-Autonomy-in-Portugal-an-OECD-Review.pdf.
[6] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
[40] Pariser, E. (2011), The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you, Penguin.
[55] Pearson, L. and B. Hall (1993), “Initial Construct Validation of the Teaching Autonomy Scale”, The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 86/3, pp. 172-178, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1993.9941155.
[4] Priestley, M. et al. (2015), The teacher and the curriculum: Exploring teacher agency, SAGE Publications Ltd.
[38] Resnick, P. et al. (2013), “Bursting your (filter) bubble”, Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work companion - CSCW ’13, https://doi.org/10.1145/2441955.2441981.
[58] Runté, R. and R. Runte (1998), “The Impact of Centralized Examinations on Teacher Professionalism”, Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l’éducation, Vol. 23/2, p. 166, https://doi.org/10.2307/1585978.
[25] Saarivirta, T. and K. Kumpulainen (2016), “School autonomy, leadership and student achievement: reflections from Finland”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/7, pp. 1268-1278, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-10-2015-0146.
[56] Skaalvik, E. and S. Skaalvik (2014), “Teacher Self-Efficacy and Perceived Autonomy: Relations with Teacher Engagement, Job Satisfaction, and Emotional Exhaustion”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 114/1, pp. 68-77, https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.pr0.114k14w0.
[60] Suldo, S. et al. (2018), “Predictors of Success Among High School Students in Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate Programs”, Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol. 62/4, pp. 350-373, https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218758443.
[34] Volman, M. and R. Stikkelman (2016), Startnotitie: de leerling centraal, Literatuurstudie naar effecten van pedagogische en didactische argumenten voor leerling- en studentgericht onderwijs, https://hdl.handle.net/11245.1/aaffa205-77ab-4f56-9a8d-69e94732ebbd.
[32] Voogt, J., N. Nieveen and A. Thijs (2018), Ensuring equity and opportunities to learn in curriculum reform, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/EDU-EDPC(2018)14.pdf.
[57] Walker, S. and L. Graham (2019), “At risk students and teacher-student relationships: student characteristics, attitudes to school and classroom climate”, International Journal of Inclusive Education, Vol. 25/8, pp. 896-913, https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2019.1588925.
[19] Wermke, W. and G. Höstfält (2014), “Silent and explicit borrowing of international policy discourses. The case of the Swedish teacher education reforms of 2001 and 2011”, Education Inquiry, Vol. 5/4, p. 23417, https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v5.23417.
[8] Wermke, W., S. Olason Rick and M. Salokangas (2019), “Decision-making and control: perceived autonomy of teachers in Germany and Sweden”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 51/3, pp. 306-325, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1482960.
[3] Wytse, D., L. Hayward and J. Pandya (eds.) (2015), The ebb and flow of curricular autonomy on local curricula: Balance between local freedm and national prescription of curriculum.
[51] Yin, X. and G. Buck (2019), “Using a collaborative action research approach to negotiate an understanding of formative assessment in an era of accountability testing”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 80, pp. 27-38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.018.
[26] Zhang, D. (2005), “Educational mathematics: the educational state of mathematics”, Journal of Mathematics Education, Vol. 14/3, pp. 1-4.