This chapter draws on examples collected from countries/jurisdictions to illustrate how different degrees of curriculum flexibility and autonomy impact the effectiveness of teaching and learning, as well as the inclusivity of learning environments. While increased flexibility and autonomy can foster creative teaching methods and better address student needs, it also presents challenges such as the need for clear guidelines and targeted teacher training. Outcomes can differ significantly at national, regional and local levels, and are influenced by the educational, cultural and social contexts. This chapter then outlines strategies to navigate these challenges, emphasising the importance of professional development and collaborative policymaking. It concludes that carefully balanced curriculum flexibility and autonomy, underpinned by supportive educational policies, can lead to more dynamic and responsive education.
Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy
3. Country experiences with curriculum flexibility and autonomy
Abstract
Challenges and strategies related to curriculum flexibility and autonomy
This chapter presents examples of challenges that countries/jurisdictions face with curriculum flexibility and autonomy, and the strategies they use to address them1. The challenges and strategies will be presented according to the dimensions of curriculum flexibility, as defined in Chapter 1 (Box 1.1): goals and learning content; pedagogy; assessment; instruction and learning time.
Challenges and strategies related to flexibility in goals and learning content
Learning goals are typically set at the national level with an aim to ensure equity and consistency across different regions or schools; all students should be able to access quality learning opportunities regardless of where they are born or their socio-economic background. At the same time, a certain degree of curriculum flexibility is necessary for equity and iwerrnnovation, through the adaptation of the goals and content to the local context or to the individual student’s needs. Flexibility is often greater in secondary education than in primary, where emphasis on foundational competencies tends to take priority.
Providing flexibility in goals and learning content enables schools and local authorities to adapt and personalise the curriculum, fostering a closer connection between the learner and the learning experience. Moreover, flexibility can be a powerful tool that allows teachers to respond to the specific learning needs of students. Indeed, among those who participated in the E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign, schools in 24 out of 35 countries/jurisdictions, and teachers in 28 out of 352 countries/jurisdictions, reported that they make decisions on the selection of learning content, typically drawn from an authorised curriculum (see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1).
However, countries/jurisdictions reported numerous challenges when giving decisions on flexibility over goals, learning content and curriculum design to teachers, schools and local authorities, as summarised in Table 3.1.
Challenges
Table 3.1. Challenges related to flexibility in goals and learning content
Lack of a common vision for the curriculum
It can be challenging for countries/jurisdictions to ensure a common vision when responsibility for curriculum content is shared between or among the central and local governments, and schools. Moreover, it can be difficult to reconcile varying visions of the curriculum in such circumstances. In some cases, curriculum goals and visions defined at a national level might not be sufficiently embedded in curricula designed at the local authority or school level, causing variations in how students are prepared for the future.
In India, national and state governments both have the power to influence the education agenda. In such circumstances, developing a shared vision of future curriculum is particularly challenging. For example, a state might consider it important to address the socio-economic, linguistic and political diversity of the population and preserve local knowledge, while also ensuring that the vision defined at the national level is maintained.
Unclear or insufficient communication about content flexibility
The way learning content is described in curriculum documents can lead to multiple interpretations, often causing confusion (Marope, 2017[1]); content might be understood as intended by curriculum designers, or interpreted in unexpected ways (Ben-Peretz, 1975[2]). Curriculum design requires expertise in the systematic organisation of content, as well as its implementation and evaluation. It requires a bird’s eye view to look at the big picture to ensure all parts of the curriculum work well together and match the overall goals and learning trajectories within and across different subject areas (Schmidt, Wang and McKnight, 2005[3]).
Structural flexibility, such as the choice between academic programmes, subject areas, tracks, or mandatory and elective courses is more likely to be obvious to students. Some countries implement curriculum flexibility by giving students different choices with regard to different types, levels or pace of learning: e.g. different subjects within a learning area; different topics within a subject area; or different tracks; different pace of learning within course of study or within a classroom, especially after the COVID-19 pandemic (OECD, 2020[4]; Whalley et al., 2021[5]; Vincent-Lancrin, Cobo Romaní and Reimers, 2022[6]). If content flexibility is not systematically communicated, both teachers and students might be unaware of the opportunity to customise the curriculum at the classroom level. This lack of awareness could also contribute to inequities, particularly problematic among girls and migrant children (Vincent-Lancrin, Cobo Romaní and Reimers, 2022[6]; OECD, 2023[7]).
Furthermore, frequent changes to the curriculum requiring fast response and adaptation from teachers can hamper teachers’ ability to exercise autonomy over curriculum content (Dilkes, Cunningham and Gray, 2014[8]). Unless increased levels of flexibility in a curriculum are clearly communicated and discussed with school leaders and teachers, they might fail to benefit from the autonomy and miss the opportunity to tailor the curriculum to fit their students.
The language employed to frame goals, content, and guidelines or direction for the use of the curriculum can either clarify expectations and degrees of autonomy accorded to teachers and students, or result in diverging interpretations, therefore impacting student learning outcomes.
In Ireland, The Junior Cycle Framework 2015 introduced more flexibility for the teacher and the learner. Subject specifications are written in the form of learning outcomes. These must be translated into learning intentions for the learner. As a result, both the role of the teacher and the learner are changing; by removing the prescriptive nature from the curriculum, they both have more of a say in what is learned. This allows students to engage in independent study to complete a task and has the potential to be very rewarding for both the teacher and the learner. For these changes to be effective, the government recognises that the teachers will need to be more engaged in facilitation and guidance to ensure the potential of the new framework for the learner and their learning experience.
Limited confidence and capacity among teachers and schools to design their own curriculum
As countries devolve more responsibilities over curriculum design to schools, some teachers and school leaders might not realise the extent of their autonomy and flexibility over curriculum design. In the absence of such awareness, teachers and school leaders might continue to follow national guidelines, rather than recognising them as frameworks for consideration that are not mandated. This can lead to overloading the curriculum when schools seek to cover more than required and, as a consequence, limit teachers’ capacity to personalise the content in response to the needs of their students.
In addition, several countries/jurisdictions reported that teachers and school leaders might lack the confidence to exercise their role as “curriculum designers”. This might stem from their limited access to training and professional development on curriculum design, or from them not being aware of such opportunities.
One of the challenges faced by teachers and school leaders is that they may lack the confidence to design curriculum content that addresses specific aspects of national standards. New Zealand reports that some schools have difficulty with curriculum principles defined at a national level. These were developed to assist schools in designing their own curriculum content. However, schools’ capacity to use these principles as guiding mechanisms varies. The principles of “learning to learn” and “future focus” prove especially difficult for schools to grasp and translate into locally designed curricula.
It might take time for central or local governments to design and implement adequate training, as was the case with the Curriculum for Excellence, the most recent curriculum reform in Scotland (United Kingdom). The Curriculum for Excellence is a framework that allows practitioners decision-making power and flexibility to deliver relevant learning opportunities through quality teaching, which can include giving prominence to student voice. The challenge Scotland experienced through this reform is ensuring that practitioners are skilled and confident enough to undertake the task. As Scotland transitioned from a prescriptive curriculum covering ages 5-14 to the more flexible Curriculum for Excellence, the challenge of delivering practitioner autonomy and empowerment was expected. Career-long learning opportunities are required for all education practitioners, emphasising the need for ongoing central and local support to maintain and sustain teachers’ confidence and capabilities.
For effective curriculum flexibility and autonomy, principles in curriculum design should apply not only at the national or jurisdictional level but also at the local, district or school level (see the Overview Brochure on Curriculum Redesign report; (OECD, 2020[9]).
Lack of support and professional learning to develop teachers’ expertise in content adaptation
Curriculum flexibility and autonomy is not a cure-all but is considered as a strong policy lever for change in education. However, in countries where curriculum reform prioritises local flexibility and autonomy, school practice often lags behind in the absence of proper teacher training and targeted continuous professional development. Adapting content – whether to different groups of students, to individual learners’ needs or to meet emerging demands in society – is not an obvious skill even for experienced teachers who may be used to sticking to the “script” by following traditional textbooks and guidelines (OECD, 2019[10]; OECD, 2021[11]).
Research suggests that while strong government steering decreases schools’ and teachers’ sense of ownership of and commitment to curriculum reform, a lack of steering often results in uncertainty and confusion. This is particularly true when the state is regarded as the guarantor of educational quality and equity (Ko, Cheng and Lee, 2016[12]; Nieveen and Kuiper, 2012[13]; Earl et al., 2003[14]).
Local authorities, schools and teachers need the capacity to design school-specific aspects of the curriculum if they are to use the curriculum flexibility granted to them (Leat, Livingston and Priestley, 2013[15]; Caldwell, 2016[16]; Halinen and Holappa, 2013[17]; Saarivirta and Kumpulainen, 2016[18]). However, teachers typically have little to no training in curriculum design, especially regarding content selection, prioritisation and adaptation. Thus, they might view curriculum flexibility as an unwelcome and added cognitive burden, work task, and responsibility that is a by-product of professional autonomy (Shawer, 2010[19]; Sinnema, 2015[20]).
In Australia, a country where states and territories enjoy a considerable amount of curriculum flexibility and autonomy, some recurrent issues emerge as part of the monitoring of the Australian Curriculum’s implementation. For instance, concerns exist about local capacity to contextualise and adapt the curriculum for diverse student populations (e.g. students with special needs, those whose first language is not English, gifted students, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students); for diverse contexts (urban, rural, remote) or interests (e.g. new literacies, STEM, coding, ICT); and for diverse school systems (e.g. faith-based, secular).
In Korea, while the demand for curriculum autonomy is very high, as a policy measure it often receives little empathetic acceptance, as there seems to be a gap between expectations and the reality within schools. Teachers have highlighted several issues, including concerns related to the policy that allows schools to modify classroom hours by up to 20% for specific subjects, credit transfers, evaluation (regarding the intensive course programmes), as well as subject selection and time allocation. Furthermore, the perception that autonomy policies tend to result in conflicts between teachers, additional workload and increased teaching burden still persists.
Poland reports that many teachers are not prepared to make use of the flexibility in pedagogy that they have or the methods from which they might otherwise choose. This limits schools’ capacity to promote the collaborative teaching approach intended by Poland’s curriculum. Some teachers appear convinced that the textbook is the best solution to achieving obligatory learning outcomes, and have difficulty accepting contemporary educational practice, with many retaining traditional methods and scenarios that do not align with new content and related pedagogical practices. Longer-serving teachers often find it challenging to adapt to the introduction of new technologies and the subsequent changes in teaching and learning requirements. Finally, teachers do not always document the curricula they deliver, which is frequently based on their own understanding of the teaching and the learning process. When it comes to the selection and focus by teachers and/or students of curriculum content in a subject area, the degree of flexibility can vary from highly specified expectations that leave little scope for professional or learner agency, to broad content descriptions and goals that enable curriculum development at district and school levels.
The case of Portugal illustrates this complexity well. Under the Project for Autonomy and Curriculum Flexibility (PACF), Portuguese schools are allowed to use up to 25% of their curriculum time for innovative projects or additional subjects of their choice. This flexibility is intended to help tailor the curriculum to local needs and student interests. However, many teachers in Portugal lack the necessary training in curriculum design, which can lead to varied outcomes across different schools. The disparity in resources between schools also results in inconsistencies in educational quality. Managing this flexibility effectively requires substantial support and targeted professional development for educators to ensure that all students benefit equitably from the autonomy provided (OECD, 2018[21]).
When granted autonomy, teachers respond in distinct ways. Shawer (2010[19]) portrays three types of teachers:
curriculum senders, who faithfully implement the curriculum using textbooks;
curriculum adapters, who use textbooks and other sources to adapt the curriculum;
curriculum developers, who design their own curriculum using various source materials.
Curriculum senders likely feel they do not have the professional autonomy to use the curriculum flexibly and, therefore, use textbooks as a form of assurance to meet curriculum requirements. Such teachers have an increased likelihood of over-relying on textbooks even when granted considerable autonomy. This is observed as textbook overload (the need to complete all exercises in the textbook), often resulting in homework overload for students and teachers, even when the curriculum is revised to focus on essential learning rather than all that might be covered in textbooks.
Curriculum adapters and curriculum developers use their autonomy to adjust or adapt the curriculum to the needs of students. If textbooks are used, they function as a source and not a substitute for the curriculum. With such teachers, greater opportunities for curriculum innovation are possible while maintaining focus on equitable outcomes for students.
Flexibility in content constrained by national- or state-level examinations
Countries/jurisdictions report that, while local governments or schools might be granted flexibility over curriculum content, they might not be able to exercise it fully as they are conscious of the influence of high-stakes examinations. Hence, teachers and schools might see the content items covered by examinations as a form of prescribed curriculum. This is amplified in upper-secondary education, as students prepare for tertiary entrance examinations, and the expectations of both students and parents are heightened.
In Brazil, experts agree that the learning experience tends to become more rigid and disconnected from students’ needs as they progress towards the final years of schooling. This is notable as students prepare for college entrance examinations and to enter the workforce, culminating in higher dropout rates by the end of upper secondary education.
Complexity in managing flexibility in upper secondary compared to primary education
Most countries typically offer little flexibility in primary schools, where students’ acquisition of foundational competencies tends to be the priority. Many countries/jurisdictions offer increasing levels of flexibility as students transition through middle schooling and lower secondary education, where there tends to be a mix of mandatory subject areas and elective areas from which students can choose. This can mean broader subject area or course options, fewer mandatory subject area requirements and, in some contexts, specialisation in one or more disciplines as students transition through the senior years of secondary education.
The case of Hungary illustrates this issue. Compulsory subjects in the junior years of primary education are Hungarian Language and Literature, Mathematics, Ethics, Environmental Studies, Visual Culture, Music, Physical Education and Sports as well as Lifestyle. Studies of a foreign language start in Grade 4, based on the foreign language determined by the school. At this level, 10% of the compulsory number of lessons set forth in the framework curriculum can be freely used by the school, which means that it can supplement the hours of compulsory subjects with any subject. In the upper years of secondary education (Grades 11-12), the range of compulsory subjects increases (e.g. choice of a second foreign language by student, Humanity and Society, Humanity and Nature, Biology and Physics, Arts, and Information Technology), but so does the freedom offered to schools around the subjects selected to meet the required compulsory hours. At this stage, the National Core Curriculum defines only a minimum percentage of the distribution of time by literacy areas; specifically, the school may freely use approximately 10-20% of the compulsory hours with subjects of their choice. The free use of a certain number of lessons gives each school more opportunities to fulfil student needs in the two years before the school’s exit exam.
Strategies
Table 3.2. Strategies related to flexibility in goals and learning content
Defining a vision or principles at the national level for curriculum design at local and school levels
Several countries/jurisdictions have national principles, goals or a vision that guide and support curriculum design across localities and schools. They help ensure that locally based or school-developed curricula meet minimum quality standards and align with the national goals or vision of education (Box 3.1 and Box 3.2).
British Columbia (Canada) sets out a vision of the Educated Citizen as a literate and numerate learner who can demonstrate the core competencies of Thinking, Communication, and Personal and Social Responsibility. The curriculum is flexible and personalised such that teachers develop conceptual understandings through Big Ideas, and competencies through the Curricular Competencies, while content elaborations provide options for developing knowledge.
New Zealand’s eight principles embody beliefs about what is important and desirable in the school curriculum nationally and locally:
1. High expectations: The curriculum supports and empowers all students to learn and achieve personal excellence, regardless of their individual circumstances.
2. Treaty of Waitangi: The curriculum acknowledges the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi3, and the bicultural foundations of Aotearoa New Zealand. All students have the opportunity to acquire knowledge of te reo Māori me ōna tikanga4.
3. Cultural diversity: The curriculum reflects New Zealand’s cultural diversity and values the histories and traditions of all its people.
4. Inclusion: The curriculum is non-sexist, non-racist and non-discriminatory; it ensures that students’ identities, languages, abilities and talents are recognised and affirmed and that their learning needs are addressed.
5. Learning to learn: The curriculum encourages all students to reflect on their own learning processes and to learn how to learn.
6. Community engagement: The curriculum has meaning for students, connects with their wider lives, and engages the support of their families, whānau5, and communities.
7. Coherence: The curriculum offers all students a broad education that makes links within and across learning areas, provides for coherent transitions, and opens up pathways to further learning.
8. Future focus: The curriculum encourages students to look to the future by exploring such significant future-focused issues as sustainability, citizenship, enterprise and globalisation.
The expectation is that these principles underpin all school decision-making. The principles put students at the centre of teaching and learning, with a curriculum that engages and challenges them, is forward-looking and inclusive, and affirms New Zealand’s identity.
Singapore states core beliefs about learning in its Singapore Curriculum Philosophy (MOES, 2021[22]) that can be summarised as follows:
a belief in holistic education, centred on values, social and emotional well-being and character development;
a belief that every child wants to and can learn; focus on children’s learning needs when designing learning experiences;
a belief that learning flourishes in caring and safe learning environments; when children construct knowledge actively; through the development of thinking skills and dispositions; when assessment is used to address children’s learning gaps.
This philosophy asks Singaporean teachers to place every student at the heart of educational decisions. In guiding local decision-making on the curriculum, the philosophy envisages that students develop their capacity to reflect on learning, to monitor, assess and improve their learning, and that learning is undertaken collaboratively.
Box 3.1. Decision-making at a district level to deliver on national priorities in South Korea
Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education is the largest Education Office in South Korea, including approximately 22% of the nation’s schools. Since 2019, it has been preparing and promoting the establishment of Gyeonggi Future School to expand the model of Future Schools. In line with the Green Smart Future School Project by the Ministry of Education, Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education Future School models focus on a futuristic curriculum, based on ecological transformation education to respond to the climate crisis.
To make this more visible, the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education selected schools that develop and implement a curriculum with ecological transformation education as its priority, or pilot schools that want to make ecological transformation education an important direction of education. These schools are supported in a variety of ways: providing a budget so that schools can autonomously and creatively develop their own curriculum; supporting the creation and enhancement of physical learning spaces where education is possible; allocating time to prioritise the development of the curriculum; and supporting the professional community of teachers. The trial aims to strengthen on-site customised support.
Ecological Forest Future School, a type of Gyeonggi Future School, teaches and tests ecological transformation with a focus on response to the climate crisis. Songnae High School in Buchen City was selected as an Ecological Forest Future School in 2019. The ecological space created in the school is called the Participatory Forest Space, where students cultivate and manage trees and flowers planted in a multi-layered structure to examine the diversity of life. At the same time, Songnae High School was encouraged to open courses that promote ecological transformation education. Environment and Information classes were designated as core subjects, contemporary subjects (Artificial Intelligence Basics, Data Programming, Data Science, and Machine Learning) were offered, and non-examination subjects, such as Eco-leader camp, were established. The local Office of Education encourages the Autonomous Curriculum to become more common and supports teachers to develop a “learning community” by organising necessary education and training.
Although the Autonomous Curriculum policy was established as an important recommendation at the national level, the degree of implementation in schools is insufficient. That said, the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education’s active Future School policy can raise the visibility and operation of the Autonomous Curriculum. Ecological transformation education is expected to become an indispensable part of civic education to make South Korean students global citizens of the 21st century who will lead the future. Therefore, the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education is trying to spread ecological transformation education throughout the province by activating pilot schools to help it become firmly established.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 School Networks – nest4Next. Suhyang Kim (CIO).
Box 3.2. Decision-making at a district level to deliver on national priorities in Japan
Ozu Middle School is located in Izumiotsu-City in Osaka Prefecture, Japan, and serves about 450 students. In 2022, students and teachers began discussing the need for a shared vision to guide their collaborative efforts. The elaboration of this shared vision, the "School Compass”, became their primary goal.
Through a whole-of-school approach to participatory dialogue, students who wish to contribute to this vision are called "Compass Designers." These students undertook various activities to create their School Compass, including planning and organising meetings, gathering opinions from students and teachers, analysing their school and future societal trends, and creating a new vision based on this analysis. Teachers supported the activities of students, sometimes interacting with them on an equal footing, without intervening too much.
The resulting “School Compass” vision comprises three key elements: "having self-worth," "respecting each other," and "be flexiible to create something from zero." Ozu Middle School considers the School Compass as its most important guide for its curriculum, aiming to enhance students' sense of ownership, responsibility and independence for curriculum.
Building on the School Compass, Ozu Middle School has introduced a new form of project-based learning called the "Co-creation Project." This curriculum embodies students’ suggestions emphasising "we can learn what we want to do" and "the project I choose becomes my class." In these classes, the main goal is to implement the projects suggested by students. Individual students in turn select the projects they wish to participate in.
For example, in the latter half of 2023, 65 projects were implemented, including "delivering Japanese curry to the people of Ukraine" and "creating an original game on SDGs." Teachers say that this initiative has increased students' sense of ownership over their school and society as well as their self-efficacy.
In 2023, Ozu Middle School was designated an experimental school by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT). This designation, a “Kenkyu Kaihatsu” school, allows the school to implement a unique curriculum exempt from national curriculum standards. As an experimental school, Ozu Middle School aims to foster student agency through its unique Co-creation Project, promoting interdisciplinary learning and encouraging students to pursue diverse and individualised projects.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 School Networks – nest4Next. Suhyang Kim (CIO).
Specifying a framework or learning outcomes for local authorities and schools to design their own curriculum
Countries/jurisdictions use national curriculum frameworks or learning standards to ensure that minimum quality standards are met across schools. Many national governments define the learning outcomes expected for each grade, stage or for a given cycle of learning. These can come in the form of legal frameworks (Box 3.3). Such guidelines orient local authorities and schools in their curriculum design, provide a form of accountability for quality learning, and assist in achieving equitable outcomes across different states and schools.
British Columbia (Canada) redesigned Performance Standards that define what proficient student development looks like in terms of critical thinking and communication in literacy and numeracy. The Performance Standards apply to all learning areas and are the foundation for subject-specific skills. Teachers personalise the descriptions of overarching thinking and communication skills to their context and task.
Ireland’s recent reforms introduced greater flexibility for teachers and learners. At the same time, subject-area specifications were written in the form of learning outcomes that must be translated into learning intentions at the local level (Department of Education and Skills, 2015[23]).
In New Zealand, National Standards in reading, writing and mathematics were introduced in Grades 1-8 (ages 5-12) to manage risks related to a lack of shared expectations for achievement across the country’s schools. While these were later revoked, expectations for progress and achievement across the curriculum were set, with online assessment materials to assist schools in monitoring student learning against the standards.
In the United States, 41 states, the District of Columbia, four territories and the Department of Defence Education Activity district adopted common learning standards in 2009, called the Common Core State Standards. While states may add to or change these standards according to the needs of their students, they aim to ensure consistency across the country, with minimum standards as a touchstone for the different authorities.
Box 3.3. Local guidelines for authentic and innovative learning sequences in Denmark
Denmark has no national curriculum, but rather legal frameworks that establish compulsory subjects and the number of lessons assigned to each cohort, attainment targets and guidelines for municipalities and schools. Further efforts to widen the scope for local autonomy have been deployed recently. Several municipalities have set out overarching principles and strategies that include references to active pedagogies such as “Learning through Play”, the OECD “Learning Compass”, experiential and project-based learning.
The municipality of Høje Taastrup, for example, has enacted “School for the Future” – a political vision for the eight schools in its jurisdiction. In co-operation with the school principals, the municipality has developed six cornerstones of a framework: design model/project model; professional goals; 21st Century skills; authentic and innovative; technology; and organisation.This implies that schools apply project-based learning sequences, which are longer and more authentic. Teachers act on this principle by initiating projects and designing models of their own professional choice, aligning them with the national attainment targets and competency domains. It is essential that the projects are authentic and innovative. For instance, the students target an audience outside their class and connect the school-subjects to the solution of real-life and relevant issues. The duration of project-based work varies from one school to another and can take between 12-40 weeks yearly.
Attainment targets and organisation
Planning, implementation and evaluation of the learning sequences is carried out by interdisciplinary teams responsible for each cohort. Each team decides the attainment targets for each project. However, the school must ensure that they are providing the legally required number of lessons in each subject. Many projects are interdisciplinary, so each subject supports the work in the project and the targets when relevant. The school chooses weekly plans and timetables as they see fit. Some teams work on the project as a part of the school day, while other teams use the full school day for theirs. The students should have a comprehensive school day with opportunities for immersion in long-lasting activities.
The city council of Høje Taastrup is dedicated to realising this vision of a motivational government-funded school where students are able to acquire formative skills to enable them to cope with challenges in their daily life, as well as providing them with options for their future. Formative education for future society implies that, in addition to academic skills, students acquire overarching competencies like creativity, critical thinking, communication and co-operation. They develop these competencies holistically so they can act, make decisions and cope with complex issues. The city council considers that, while it is important to have a strong focus on children’s and society’s future, we must also be aware of the needs that children have here and now.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 School Networks – Mads Sode (senior adviser, Municipality of Høje Taastrup).
Training and empowering teachers and school leaders as curriculum designers
Countries/jurisdictions are developing training programmes and technical support systems to help school leaders and teachers become curriculum designers. Some are emphasising the role of school leaders in ensuring the quality of the curriculum offered. Some countries/jurisdictions charter to define the role of teachers and school leaders as curriculum developers (Box 3.4).
In Ireland, the Department of Education and Skills provides professional support and resources, including time, curriculum and assessment materials, and dedicated continuing professional development (CPD), to ensure the successful implementation of the Junior Cycle. The Junior Cycle for Teachers (JCT) provides a national programme of CPD for school leaders and teachers. It employs a variety of delivery models, including school clustering, in-school visits, off-site workshops and online professional development, particularly webinars. JCT’s CPD provision takes account of the needs identified by education partners. JCT also collaborates with other Department of Education and Skills school support services to design, deliver and review its work. School leaders are also empowered to lead curriculum change in their schools. These leaders play a role in improving educational outcomes in their schools by creating a positive environment and motivating and empowering educators and learners within their respective school communities. Recognising the implications that the Framework for Junior Cycle carried for school leaders, the Department of Education and Skills agreed to finance extra hours of teachers’ pay, thus allowing schools to give teachers out of class time to help support delivery of the new curriculum. An essential feature of school leadership is flexibility in identifying and prioritising the leadership and management needs of the school and assigning/reassigning post holders to meet its evolving needs.
Scotland (United Kingdom) places an emphasis on the professional learning and leadership development of teachers (OECD, 2021[24]). A Head Teachers’ Charter affirms that head teachers are empowered to work with their school communities to design and develop a curriculum that meets the needs of their learners and the school context. There is additional focus on teacher leadership and professionalism, professional learning opportunities, and arrangements for cross-regional improvement support.
Most countries/jurisdictions invest in training modules on curriculum design. This is exemplified in Hong Kong (China) where the Education Bureau provides CPD programmes in curriculum leadership for Key Learning Area Co‑ordinators and subject-area panel heads. In addition, the Education Bureau designs and implements Collaborative Research and Development (“Seed”) Projects in different subjects and learning areas, in collaboration with schools and experts from the tertiary education sector. These pilot novel strategies in curriculum implementation which build teachers’ capacity as change agents and sustain the momentum of curriculum development in schools. Teachers can be seconded to the Education Bureau to work on “Seed” Projects or other curriculum development and bring that experience back to their schools.
Box 3.4. Teachers and students as curriculum designers in Estonia
Pelgulinna Gümnaasium in Tallinn, Estonia, delivers a Grade 1-12 programme of studies and offers an enriched programme for those interested in art and ICT. From its perspective, both teachers and students are learners. Instead of concentrating on examination results, the school has chosen to focus on building learner autonomy, teacher co-operation and well-being for all.
Teacher autonomy: One key measure amongst others
During the academic year 2016/17, teachers were invited on a voluntary basis to create learning circles and focus on professional development topics of their choice. The school supported these teachers in accessing external professional development. In 2017/18, all teachers were required to join a learning circle, choosing their own topic of interest. They were timetabled out of teaching for 75 minutes per week and by 2018/19, the school’s six learning circles appointed two teacher leaders per group.
Over the years, these groups also began to systematically share lessons learnt with each other. The image below shows the topics teachers chose to focus on during the academic year 2021/22. During the academic year 2022/23, teachers and school management decided that, for that year, all learning circles would focus on helping students build learning skills, and helping teachers conduct lesson study. Both are considered high-impact strategies for improving student learning.
Figure 3.1. Teacher Learning Circles
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, School Networks, Tiina Tiit (Vice-principal, Pelgulinna Gümnaasium) in co‑operation with Peeter Mehisto (UCL Institute of Education).
Learner autonomy: One key measure
In Grades 5-11, during three of the five seven-week long terms per year, students have four in-person days at school and one day of independent learning. All students in a given grade are free on the same day. During the remaining two terms (the first and the last), students have one independent, weekly lesson per subject. At the start of each of the three terms when all students are working independently one day per week, students are provided all their independent assignments for the given term, which integrate 2-3 different subjects per term and sometimes require group work.
While students are working independently, teachers are at school. They are available to students for face-to-face or virtual meetings. As all students work on a common electronic platform, teachers can monitor progress and provide feedback/”feedforward” (i.e. prospective guidance given in anticipation of upcoming performance). At a minimum of three times per term, teachers who have prepared the integrated assignments, provide joint feedback/feedforward to students on their work. Teacher co‑operation in jointly building assignments, providing feedback/feedforward to students and assessment of results appears as a de facto exercise in professional development and the co-construction of collective efficacy.
The school has organised these independent days in order to help students build planning, group work, self-assessment and self-regulation skills. Integrated assignments are intended to help students make connections between disciplinary concepts, thereby making learning more meaningful. The school also gathers feedback and suggestions from students about independent learning assignments and related learning processes.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, School Networks, Tiina Tiit (Vice-principal, Pelgulinna Gümnaasium) in co‑operation with Peeter Mehisto (UCL Institute of Education).
Promoting peer-learning to enhance teachers' professional autonomy
Collaboration among teachers is recognised as one of the most effective ways to enhance competencies in the profession, as it fosters the sharing of best practices, mutual support and collective problem-solving, leading to continuous professional development, ultimately leading to improved teaching practices and educational results (OECD, 2020[25]; Vescio, Ross and Adams, 2008[26]). Engaging in professional collaboration has been found to correlate with higher levels of job satisfaction and self-efficacy among teachers. It promotes the use of cognitive activation practices that enhance instructional quality and innovation in the classroom (OECD, 2020[25]).
Countries/jurisdictions use different models of peer-learning and collaboration to support the implementation of flexible curricula.
British Columbia (Canada) presents a good example of the co-creation model in curriculum design, e.g. including the First Nations Education Steering Committee as an educational rights-holder when implementing a new graduation requirement for an Indigenous-focused course.
One example is teachers’ learning communities in experimental innovation schools in Korea. These communities enable the school curriculum to be flexible, diversified and specialised, and act as a mechanism that develops the professionalism of teachers. Teachers in these communities develop, revise and update curricula according to their schools’ visions and local circumstances. The importance of flexibility and autonomy is emphasised in the national curriculum and professional development programmes.
In Portugal, collaborative work among teachers is fostered by regional teams. These teams integrate members from different departments of the Ministry of Education, support teachers in the implementation and management of curriculum flexibility and autonomy, promote school networks with peer learning activities, and share practices to promote meaningful learning for all students.
In Singapore, the aim is to form networks to learn from one another. Teacher leaders (one of three career tracks6) model and demonstrate ways to customise and adapt the curriculum to help their peers become more skilful in responding to students’ needs. These networks can be at the teacher-to-teacher level and provide ways to empower oneself and build learning communities within and across schools. At the in-service level are many opportunities for professional development, with the Ministry of Education emphasising the importance of in-service professional development (MOES, 2021[27]).
Giving schools access to examples of good curriculum content
Several countries/jurisdictions are conscious of the need to build capacity throughout the schooling system, and use guidance, training and technical support systems to help school leaders and teachers become effective curriculum designers.
To support the development of different curricula, Chile developed a bank of plans and programmes implemented in schools where the results conform with learning standards. This initiative urges schools to use such examples as an alternative to ministerial programmes to build their own programmes. The Curriculum and Evaluation Unit of the Ministry of Education is working to make the programme bank available to the education system. A digital platform to guide local curriculum development is another mechanism used to support curriculum development at school, grade and subject-area levels.
As part of a large-scale project (EFOP 3.2.157), Hungary is creating a digital platform that provides support for curriculum planning at school, grade and subject-area level. Through this platform, Hungary aims to enhance sharing between schools of curriculum materials and information about curriculum development.
Singapore’s teacher networks, described above, enable sharing of content and resource materials via different channels, including social media. The English Language Institute (ELIS)8, launched in 2011, provides a good example. It is dedicated to the professional development of both English Language teachers and teachers who use English as the medium of instruction. ELIS curates a range of free, online, English learning resources for levels ranging from primary education to junior college. These are organised on its website by educational level and area of learning according to the key components of Singapore’s English Language teaching. Teachers are provided with succinct guidance to these resources and how they can be used with class groups. ELIS also publishes videos to guide teaching, provides professional learning for teachers and prepares the English Language Classroom Inquiry Digest, which showcases successful classroom practices.
Holding schools accountable for the quality of their curriculum
Countries/jurisdictions that provide schools with flexibility over curriculum content often set up accountability mechanisms to ensure the quality of locally developed curricula, such as standardised assessments, regular inspections and mandatory reporting requirements, to ensure that all students meet consistent educational standards and achieve equitable outcomes (OECD, 2020[28]). Some also use school evaluation as a tool to monitor the quality of curricula designed at the school level, while others keep schools accountable by monitoring student learning outcomes through their national assessment programmes (OECD, 2020[28]).
In Costa Rica, curricula are customised according to the needs and local characteristics of the regions, but the country has an accountability system to verify and validate the outcomes. This process is conducted by education authorities who undertake technical visits to schools to ensure that locally developed curricula meet learning goals. They also provide support, follow-up guidance and coaching for teachers and students.
The Netherlands has an inspectorate that monitors whether each school’s curriculum meets minimum standards. Curricula developed at the local school level in the Netherlands must be based on legal standards, which are described in broad terms. As part of the external accountability process, schools must develop and provide documentation that demonstrates how they incorporate the legal standards into their curricula. This might be done by verifying the time they spend on mandatory subject areas, as well as the textbooks and other resources they use that align with the standards.
In the United States, each state sets the standards, but local school districts are responsible for implementing them. Standardised assessments are used at the state level to monitor and evaluate implementation. While school inspection is not a feature of education in the United States, some states, larger cities and districts started to consider school reviews as part of their response to the country’s 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act, which focuses on accountability through quality and improvement measures.
Challenges and strategies related to flexibility in pedagogy
Giving schools and local authorities flexibility over how a curriculum is delivered is common practice across countries. Almost all countries (94%) contributing to the OECD Education 2030 policy questionnaire on curriculum report providing schools or teachers with some level of flexibility or autonomy over pedagogy. As with flexibility in curriculum content, flexibility in pedagogy enables teachers to address the needs of their students and foster pedagogical innovation. When done with adequate levels of support and guidance, flexibility in pedagogy can empower teachers and enhance their professionalism and sense of achievement.
However, implementation of flexibility in pedagogy also presents challenges. While they can reduce the overall impact of reforms aimed at increasing flexibility, strategies can be used to overcome or minimise these challenges.
Challenges
Table 3.3. Challenges related to flexibility in pedagogy
Overloaded or overly prescriptive curriculum content
An overly prescriptive or overloaded curriculum can limit teachers’ ability and motivation to exercise their agency in making the most of their pedagogical options for their students, as seen in flexibility on learning content (OECD, 2020[29])). When curriculum content is overloaded, teachers might feel the need to try to cover the full breadth of the curriculum with strategies and methods that they believe are time-efficient and favour coverage over depth. This limits their ability to use innovative pedagogical strategies and teaching practices, e.g. inquiry-based learning, project-based learning, that are believed to activate students’ cognition while addressing their social and emotional foundational needs.
In British Columbia (Canada), the previous provincial curriculum was seen as too detailed and prescriptive by teachers, particularly in areas where there was a provincial exam assessing content. As a result, teaching in these areas became very focused on content coverage without the time to engage in deeper or more hands-on learning. The fullness of the previous curriculum was further complicated by achievement indicators. Many teachers viewed these as another required layer of curriculum.
Another factor that lessens teachers’ pedagogical choices is over-reliance on textbooks. In the Netherlands, despite the wide flexibility schools have over pedagogy, some teachers rely on the textbook as a self-imposed form of prescribed curriculum, thereby countering the flexibility they have been granted.
Lack of opportunities to support awareness raising, mindset change and pedagogical flexibility through teacher education, professional learning and collaboration
While a country/jurisdiction or schooling authority might grant teachers professional autonomy, findings indicate that it is difficult for them to utilise their pedagogical flexibility. This appears to be because of minimal or no training in how to adapt to a range of circumstances where they might use different methods (OECD, 2020[25]).
Other factors such as weak communication between different system levels (national, regional, local district/municipalities and local school) or little collaboration between various school actors (policymakers, local governing boards, school leaders, teachers, parents, students, etc.) can also contribute to difficulties in implementing changes in teaching practices and mindsets (Fullan, 2018[30]; Van den Akker, 2018[31]; Van den Akker and Kuiper, 2008[32]).
Portugal points to concerns regarding the difficulties in promoting a paradigm shift from teacher-centred to learner-centred pedagogies.
While considering the need for more learner autonomy, China recognises that it is difficult for teachers to adjust their habits of teaching and leave more time and space to students.
In Hong Kong (China), the emphasis is traditionally put on collective interest rather than individualism and agency. Hence, it takes time and great effort to make such a paradigm shift. This applies not only to schools striving to maximise their flexibility and adjust the curriculum to cater to individual student needs, but also to students who need to assume more responsibility for their own learning. Moreover, since some teachers may still be adopting a more teacher-centred approach in their pedagogy, students in these classrooms may not have sufficient opportunities to develop or demonstrate more agency in their approach to learning.
Figure 3.2. Content of teacher education and sense of preparedness for teaching
Results based on responses of lower-secondary teachers
Notes: ICT: Information and communications technology. Values are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers for whom the indicated elements were included in their formal education or training.
Source: (OECD, 2019[10]), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners., Figure I.4.4.
As Figure 3.2 shows, teacher education tends to primarily focus on subject content (92.2%) over the teaching of cross-curricular skills (65.1%) and the use of ICT for teaching (56%). While the former is a fundamental element of their profession, the latter are increasingly becoming drivers of innovative practices. This finding suggests there is a time lag in training teachers to support their students to develop the types of skills they need in fast-changing, technology-driven societies.
Moreover, low levels of confidence to teach in a mixed-ability setting (44.1%), and to teach in a multicultural or multilingual setting (25.5%), indicate that teachers feel poorly prepared to adapt their teaching practices to changing demographics or to bring a more “student-centred” approach to teaching and learning. Shifting their mindset from “teacher-centred pedagogies” to “learner-centred pedagogies” may, therefore, seem intimidating even when granted pedagogical flexibility, given their lack of relevant training (Weimer, 2013[33]; Soysal and Radmard, 2016[34]).
Despite the best intentions of policymakers and curriculum designers, teachers might not be able to adapt their teaching unless they receive adequate training in both when and how to employ different and impactful pedagogical methods (Huizinga et al., 2015[35]; Nieveen and Kuiper, 2012[13]). This is an essential investment to help teachers build their sense of self-efficacy when adapting their practice to the evolving needs of their students. It is recognised that teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy are also more likely than their counterparts with lower self-efficacy to use teaching strategies for cognitive activation (Holzberger and Prestele, 2021[36]). Growing target areas for teachers’ professional development include curriculum design and evaluation expertise, and collaborative and inquiry skills beyond subject matter and pedagogical expertise (Huizinga et al., 2015[35]; Nieveen, 2017[37]).
Additionally, teachers might be reluctant to try new approaches. Figure 3.3 reveals differences across countries in the extent to which staff may resist change. In Portugal, 59% of students are in schools where the principals reported that student learning is hindered by staff resisting change. In Hungary, only 10% of students are in such schools. Literature on organisational change suggests that individuals feel a sense of security from doing things in a familiar way, which is why disrupting well established professional patterns could result in a fear of the unknown. In the United States, for example, the federal legislation “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) required reforming institutional practices. These reforms were, however, met with resistance and led to disagreements regarding their implementation. Rewarding constructive behaviours and creating a sense of urgency could help in overcoming resistance to change (Zimmerman, 2006[38])). This can include recognising and rewarding faculty and staff for implementing changes and sharing information about potential problems, such as through positive feedback at faculty meetings or personal notes from the principal (Zimmerman, 2006[38]) (Marzano, Waters and McNulty, 2005[39]).
Furthermore, teachers might not have enough opportunities to re-think their own pedagogical practices or may not be encouraged to try out innovative approaches that help them shift from a teacher-oriented approach to more student-centred practices. The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) data show that, while teachers still report that the most effective professional development activities are content-driven, the majority of them also recognise the importance of professional development opportunities that help them incorporate new ideas and knowledge, active learning, collaboration and innovation9 into their practice (Figure 3.4). Also, on average across OECD countries, 74% of teachers agree or strongly agree that most teachers in their school are open to change and 78% of teachers report that “most teachers in the school provide practical support to each other for the application of new ideas” (OECD, 2019[10]). Teachers may benefit from more deliberate efforts from policy makers to help raise awareness of the opportunities for increased use of pedagogical flexibility and to encourage peer learning as well as teacher collaboration.
Figure 3.3. Staff resisting change
Percentage of students in schools whose principal reported that student learning is hindered to some extent or a lot by staff resisting change
Source: Adapted from (OECD, 2019[40]), PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives, https://doi.org/10.1787/19963777.
Figure 3.4. Characteristics of effective professional development, according to teachers
Percentage of lower secondary teachers for whom the most effective professional development activities had the following characteristics (OECD average-31)
Notes: Includes teachers who report on the professional development activity that had the greatest positive impact on their teaching in the 12 months prior to the survey. Teachers declaring that none of the professional development taken in the 12 months prior to the survey had a positive impact in their teaching practice were filtered out and are not covered in the figure. Values are ranked in descending order of the characteristics of the most effective professional development activities as reported by teachers.
Source: (OECD, 2019[10]), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, Figure I.5.5.
Limited capacity to identify and share good practices among schools
Countries/jurisdictions consider sharing good practices between schools a particular challenge. As schools are provided with flexibility to innovate on pedagogy, it is incumbent on central or local authorities to identify the most promising practices and develop processes for sharing these across schools. This role as facilitator of peer learning or a knowledge broker can be challenging, given that it requires co-ordination across localities and schools.
In New Zealand, an independent monitoring body (the Education Review Office) is aware of schools delivering high-quality approaches, but these are not widely known or shared among the country’s schools. Therefore, the school governance system, which encourages and supports local decision-making, has not been able to capitalise on what is shown to improve results and engage students in the different contexts in which schools operate across the system.
Norway provides another example of teacher autonomy over pedagogy. The trust given to practitioners in designing and implementing interventions adapted to their schools is seen as contributing to their high level of professionalism and innovation. Even in this context, building evidence-based policies and disseminating best practices selected for maximum impact is a challenge. Municipalities and cities do not always have systems to evaluate schools’ interventions and disseminate best practices. Instead, sharing happens through networks of schools, though the quality of practices shared within these is unclear.
The nature of professional collaboration in schools can either facilitate professional learning within and across schools or offer little opportunity for teachers’ professional growth. Unsurprisingly, professional collaboration is positively related to greater levels of self-efficacy among teachers (Figure 3.5). Teachers might not have sufficient opportunities to learn about and observe innovative practices; indeed, only 9% of teachers report engagement in observation/feedback-based professional learning within one month (OECD, 2019[10]). Lower levels of collaboration also limit identification and sharing of teacher-designed classroom activities, which are a powerful form of learning for teachers (Kuiper, Nieveen and Berkvens, 2013) (Kuiper and Berkvens, 2013[41]).
Furthermore, evidence suggests that the effectiveness of collaborative professional learning significantly hinges on its frequency. Frequent, well-structured collaborative activities are shown to enhance teaching practices more effectively than sporadic or informal collaborations (Múñez et al., 2017[42]). The benefits of a more systematic and structured approach to teacher collaboration are also suggested by international data. TALIS results emphasize that teachers who engage in collaborative professional learning activities at least once a month report better teaching outcomes (OECD, 2020[25]). This regular interaction fosters knowledge mobilization, helps in the continuous development of teaching skills and supports the sharing of innovative practices (OECD, 2020[43]).
Figure 3.5. Teachers’ professional collaboration and self-efficacy
Teachers' self-efficacy level according to the frequency of professional collaboration for the following items for lower secondary education teachers
Source: OECD (2014[44]), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning.
Untapped opportunities to include students in decisions about how they are taught
Pedagogy is a domain where decision-making is consistently given to teachers, as shown in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6. Decision-making across school system actors (N=35)
Number of countries/jurisdictions where decisions are taken by given actors
Notes: These graphs present the different actors involved in decision-making on the selection of learning content, learning time, teaching strategies/methods and assessment at ISCED 2 level categorised in four levels of flexibility.
Source: Future of Education and Skills 2030, E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC, Item 0.4).
While countries/jurisdictions tend to avoid specifying preferred pedagogical styles or favouring one methodology over another in policy positions, there are examples where countries play a decision-making role in concert with teachers. As shown in Table 3.4, teachers take part in the decision-making about the strategies and methods they employ in all of the represented countries/jurisdictions. In some countries/jurisdictions, other actors participate in the pedagogical decision-making process as well. For example:
Nation or state-level actors are partners with teachers in this type of decision-making in British Columbia (Canada), Quebec (Canada), Chile, Costa Rica, Czechia, Hungary, Ireland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Türkiye, India, Kazakhstan, Singapore and Viet Nam; actors at the region level in Costa Rica, Japan, Korea, Scotland (United Kingdom) and India are part of the decision-making process.
In Japan, Norway, India and Viet Nam, actors at the municipality level are part of this joint decision-making process.
Hungary, Ireland, Norway and Scotland (United Kingdom) identify students as actors in pedagogical decision-making, with Hungary, Norway and Scotland (United Kingdom) also indicating schools as contributors in the pedagogical decision-making process.
These findings indicate the variety of arrangements possible in trying to increase participation in the decision-making processes involving pedagogy. In most countries/jurisdictions, teachers partner with government-level actors. That being said, in many countries the school level actors (school leaders and teachers) have full autonomy about decisions related to teaching strategies/methods, such as Australia, Ontario (Canada), Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Sweden, Northern Ireland, Hong Kong (China), and South Africa.
Only a few countries/jurisdictions report including students in their decision-making about teaching strategies/methods, which signal potentially untapped opportunities for more learner-centred pedagogies.
Involving students in the decision-making process could be a concrete way for countries to create a more learner-centred education system (see Chapter 1 for a comparison of school autonomy as a feature of an education system’s governance structure vs. school autonomy that is specific to curriculum decisions; see also “Annex A. Student Narratives on Playful Learning” for ideas about one potential area where students could contribute to co-designing some lessons). However, there is still much to learn from a deeper analysis of these initiatives, especially those involving students as partners in decisions about teachers' pedagogical practices. Key areas to explore include:
the context driving the decision to increase participation by different actors in the decision-making process;
the role of school leaders in facilitating shared decision-making;
teacher preparation for these practices;
student perceptions, reactions and outcomes;
the challenges encountered in developing participatory dynamics.
Table 3.4. Decision-making on teaching strategies/methods
1: Data submitted by researchers not governmental institution.
Notes: These graphs present the different actors involved in decision-making on the selection of teaching strategies/methods and assessment at ISCED 2 level.
m: Data are not available.
a: The category does not apply in the country concerned or economy.
Source: Future of Education and Skills 2030, E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC, Item 0.4)
Limited capacity of teachers and lack of guidance to support professional autonomy
Limited pedagogical competency can be a barrier for teachers to make full use of the flexibility they have. This is particularly the case when the curriculum introduces new approaches to teaching and learning, such as student-centred pedagogies or competency-based learning. The challenge this presents is magnified when teachers have a high level of autonomy over pedagogy but limited guidance and support to make the most of such autonomy.
The need for equitable student learning outcomes is a driver in providing teachers with flexibility to draw on different pedagogical methods, since teachers can adapt their teaching strategies to better meet their students’ needs, potentially enhancing their opportunities to learn. Such flexibility involves curriculum adjustments, accommodations and differentiated practice to ensure that students receive high-quality and relevant learning opportunities (El Khdar, Rguibi and Bouziane, 2019[45]; Tomlinson et al., 2003[46]; Valiandes, 2015[47]; OECD, 2021[48]).
Even with the best intentions, when policymakers and curriculum designers add flexibility to the curriculum and acknowledge the range of pedagogical methodologies available, teachers might not be able to draw on these or adapt their teaching unless they receive training in when and how to employ different and impactful pedagogical methods. The implications of granting such autonomy require that teachers be aware of the range of pedagogical methods and be capable of differentiating their practice to meet the needs of individual students.
Upon introduction of the Junior Cycle Framework in Ireland, the government could already anticipate the need for skill development of the teachers. Changes in teaching methodologies would be required by teachers to ensure the successful execution of flexible education.
Singapore also understood the importance of school leaders and teacher training for successful educational change. In their experience, curriculum leadership and vision in school leaders, and deep professional knowledge in teachers is critical. The latter is important so that teachers can appropriately scope, sequence and scaffold the learning experience for students to bring about meaningful and deep learning. Hence, rather than teach by the sequence of chapters in the textbook, teachers need to be confident in re-ordering topics (when relevant) or to draw on teachable moments, such as a recent local or international event, to bring about purposeful learning. Given the emphasis on developing self-directed learners, teachers need to see themselves more as guides and facilitators than lecturers. To this end, they need to be able to skilfully use different pedagogy to scaffold and design learning, and to know when to gradually release the scaffolds when students are ready.
Indeed, Figure 3.7 shows that in only a handful of countries (Brazil, Colombia, Czechia, Japan, Luxembourg and Qatar) are greater levels of school autonomy positively significantly associated with teachers’ adaptive teaching practices in science. This includes adapting the lesson to students’ needs and knowledge, providing individual help to students having difficulty understanding a topic or task and/or changing the structure of the lesson when most students are finding it difficult to understand (OECD, 2016[49]).
Figure 3.7. School autonomy and adaptive instruction in science lessons
Notes: The socio-economic profile is measured by the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status. Statistically significant differences are marked in a darker tone. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the change in the index of adaptive teaching when the index of school autonomy increases by one unit, after accounting for students’ and schools’ socio-economic profile.
Source: (OECD, 2016[49]) OECD, PISA 2015 Database, Table II.2.25, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-graph14-en.
These findings imply that various conditions need to be in place for teachers to make use of school autonomy for pedagogical flexibility. These can include:
Training for teachers to utilise pedagogical flexibility when granted professional autonomy. This is particularly important as teachers must exercise professional judgement about the type of flexibility and autonomy given to students, too, about their own learning. For example, taking a “student-centred approach” to teaching does not mean giving full autonomy to students or encouraging self-directed learning indiscriminately. PISA data show that teaching practices relying heavily on students taking responsibility for their own learning (called “cognitive-activation strategies”) are generally associated with higher mathematics scores, but this effect is more pronounced in schools with a higher socio-economic status (OECD, 2016[50]). Students from lower socio-economic backgrounds may need more direct support from teachers in order to set foundations for self-directed learning.
In-school collaboration to enhance teachers’ self-efficacy and access to different pedagogies.
Support to manage parents’ perceptions of the role of teachers and students.
Absence of role models and/or limited peer mentoring
Teachers are engaged in professional learning in a variety of forms – formally, non-formally and informally. Professional role models in schools broaden teachers’ understanding and use of different pedagogical methods (Gutierez and Kim, 2018[51]; Hall and Simeral, 2008[52]). Reforms aimed at encouraging flexibility and innovation are successful in schools where peer mentoring is encouraged (Bergen, Engelen and Derksen, 2006[53]; Zwart et al., 2008[54]; Bolhuis, 2006[55]). However, international data show that peer mentoring in schools is far from a dominant practice. Across OECD countries, fewer than 10% of teachers (both experienced and novice) report having an assigned mentor as part of a formal arrangement at their school (Figure 3.8).
The absence of mentorship, along with a lack of preparation for curriculum reform through pre-service training, might represent a greater obstacle for novice teachers. This can result in, for example, an over-reliance on the use of textbooks by teachers who lack the benefit of peers to guide and support the use of alternative and novel methodologies.
Where variation within and across schools occurs as an outcome of teachers’ autonomy, students might receive significantly different learning opportunities. Such an outcome might be expected where flexible and novel pedagogical approaches are not modelled for teachers by peers and where schools lack resources to invest in training (OECD, 2020[25]).
From a policy perspective, it is important that teachers are motivated to explore flexible pedagogy not only for their students’ benefit, but also for their own professional development incentives and their professional identity, using creativity as a teacher. Exploring new pedagogies, such as through action-research, to find the appropriate ones for their students should be understood as an opportunity to explore new ideas and knowledge in their teaching. This will help them to continue being a “lifelong learner/action researcher”.
This is particularly critical for novice teachers in countries that are facing challenges in attracting and retaining a quality teacher workforce. TALIS 2018 results suggest some factors that are related to teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction; they include intrinsic motivation and attitudes to become lifelong learners, a strong focus on induction and mentoring throughout their career, meaningful opportunities for professional learning, and a sense of trust and respect mutually built among all actors of the education ecosystem (OECD, 2020[56]).
In Türkiye, the "Towards 2023 with Our Teachers" project aims to enhance teachers' professional abilities, update their knowledge and skills, and create a student-focused, dynamic learning environment. This project aims to develop teachers into role models who are adept at continuous learning, problem-solving, time management and classroom management. The goal is to make the curriculum more effective, ensure education is current and will meet future needs. As part of this project, about 700 000teachers will be trained to implement the new curricula. These trained teachers will also guide and support a specific group of other teachers in turn. Additionally, the project focuses on improving teachers' professional skills and includes sharing teaching materials online, tailored to specific subjects.
Figure 3.8. Peer mentoring, by teaching experience
Notes: 1. Mentoring is defined as a support structure in schools where more experienced teachers support less experienced teachers.
1. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the percentage of lower secondary teachers who have an assigned mentor.
Source: (OECD, 2019[10]), TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.64, https://doi.org/10.1787/888933932722.
Parents’ perceptions of teacher and student roles, and concerns about “unknowns”
Parents in some countries and communities hold firm views on the purpose and operation of schools, and the role and practices of their teachers. These views, often based on traditional views of education can influence what they accept and anticipate happens, or should happen, in schools.
Teachers’ use of flexible pedagogy might be seen as out of line with parents’ and wider society’s assumptions that teachers impart knowledge while standing at the front of a classroom. In their eyes, curriculum flexibility can seem at odds with required teaching to ensure that children perform well on standardised tests and high-stakes examinations.
From this perspective, parents could feel that there is an unacceptable risk that flexibility could have a negative effect on the education and performance of students. This was a challenge during the curriculum reform process in Portugal (OECD, 2018[21]; Lubienski, 2009[57]). Lubienski (2009[57]) suggests that parents generally prefer schools with proven curricula and pedagogical practices and are suspicious of schools that use autonomy to organise parts of the curriculum according to independent visions and interests. Given this perception, it is not surprising that schools and teachers can feel constrained in using non-traditional pedagogical approaches.
A further tension concerns the increased use of information and communications technology (ICT) in schools in alternative approaches to teaching and learning. The use of ICT to provide students with individualised learning opportunities is well-supported in research findings (Bottino, 2004[58]; Tearle, 2003[59]). Many countries/jurisdictions put digital transformation in education high on the policy agenda, especially since school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic (Box 3.5), while research into its impact on learning outcomes and student well-being (e.g. screen time and eye health, sedentary time and physical health in general, digital addiction, etc.) is still being conducted (Zhao, Hwang and Shih, 2021[60]; Karakose, 2022[61]; Besalti and Satici, 2022[62]; Liu et al., 2021[63]).
Box 3.5. ICT or digital transformation in education as a policy priority in Lithuania
In Lithuania, the government has set a digital education action plan (2021-27) called "Adapting Education and Teaching to the Digital Age". It provides a vision on how to improve digital literacy, skills and abilities across all stages of education. Action axes include the promotion of an effective digital education ecosystem development (strategic priority 1) and the strengthening of digital skills and abilities necessary for the digital transformation (strategic priority 2). In this orientation, the project Digital Transformation of Education (EdTech), which started on September 2022, aims to combat the following challenges:
The development of digital innovations in educational institutions is hindered by pedagogical staff members’ insufficient involvement and lack of digital competences.
Digitalisation of education shows a slow progress while educational institutions lack the necessary hardware and software elements, as well as high-quality digital tools.
The use of data generated by the education system is not efficient. Education information systems have not been sufficiently co-ordinated across all levels.
In response, the EdTech project is developing the following activities:
Preparation and approval of the necessary legal acts and methodological material that would define the minimum and/or achievable technological and digital content use standards.
Implementation of the latest educational technologies in the education sector, creating conditions for the development and testing of digital education innovations (testing innovative technologies in the classrooms so that the innovators could receive feedback to create products that would suit the official programmes).
Strengthening the digital competencies of pedagogical staff members; online training for teachers and IT studies for pedagogical staff members.
Creation of technological solutions, necessary digital teaching and study resources in educational institutions in order to enable personalised distance learning beyond pandemic circumstances.
Providing distance and hybrid teaching/training equipment for educational institutions.
Fostering the culture of innovation.
The EdTech project will also consolidate a platform for online learning, connecting students and teachers from different schools and widening their range of possibilities. Access to the education portal will be given to parents and caregivers, who will be given an open opportunity to familiarise themselves with the content of digital tools and their benefits. The EdTech Centre is planned to become acentre for direct communication and practical questions that may arise for anybody who would like to inquire about the practical processes of the digital transformation, including parents, providing them with individualised replies.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. Focus Group 1 (Lithuania). Irene Raudienė (Ministry of Education and Science).
While views on the use of technology in schools are generally favourable, parents might not be equipped to understand and support pedagogical strategies that employ ICT in innovative and alternative learning contexts (Kong, 2018[64]), such as blended learning approaches, flipped classrooms and immersive learning (Kazu and Demirkol, 2014[65]; Roehl, Reddy and Shannon, 2013[66]; Russell T. Osguthorpe and Charles R. Graham, 2003[67]; Baepler, Walker and Driessen, 2014[68]; Kassner, 2013[69]; Carnahan, 2010[70]; Di Serio, Ibáñez and Kloos, 2013[71])10. Parents’ understanding of methods to integrate digital technologies and pedagogies may be limited, and schools might be required to educate parents about these technologies and selected methodologies to increase understanding and garner support (Kong, 2018[64]).
It is important that schools and teachers receive the support required to manage parental and societal expectations and concerns about these “unknowns”, especially when using technology. Such concerns include personal data protection issues, cyber security, implications for health, and well-being concerns (OECD, 2020[72]).
Educators in Singapore face unique challenges, where parents might oppose the view of teachers as professionals and pedagogical experts, instead perceiving their role as transmitters of knowledge (Lambert, 2001[73]; Lambert, 2001[73]; Sliwka and Istance, 2006[74]). Some parents do not appreciate the spirit and intent of a more active student role in learning, such as self-assessment, taking ownership of learning, solving problems in new and novel contexts, and collaborating with and learning from peers. Parents concerned about this change in teaching might feel that schools are not adequately preparing their children for formal examinations. This lack of understanding and/or appreciation of the changing roles of teachers and students can lead them to question curriculum decisions and teaching strategies. Such views might constrain teachers’ flexibility in adapting their pedagogy and limit their practice to a transmissional model.
Strategies
Table 3.5. Strategies related to flexibility in pedagogy
Reducing prescriptive curriculum content and the frequency of examinations
Another factor that can support or stifle flexibility in pedagogy is the scope of prescribed curriculum. An overly prescriptive curriculum steers practice in specific ways and favours didactic methodologies to “get through” the content. Some countries/jurisdictions lessened the constraints imposed by their curricula and/or external examinations to give schools space to innovate and use pedagogical flexibility.
British Columbia (Canada) reduced the amount of specific and prescriptive content; created concept-based, competency-driven learning standards; and provides additional choice and flexibility in the curriculum for both students and teachers. In addition, the Ministry of Education reduced the number of required provincial subject-area examinations, allowing teachers to engage their students in deeper learning without the need to cover a wide range of content that might otherwise have been assessed through provincial examinations. Rigour is maintained in the curriculum through assessment and reporting of curricular competencies, transferrable critical thinking, and communication skills, as demonstrated in specific learning areas.
Denmark made a decision in 2017 that reduced the prescriptive aspects of the curriculum and removed constraints on teachers’ pedagogy. Prior to this, teachers had to plan and conduct learning experiences in keeping with binding objectives that specified what the students should be able to do, which included demonstrating mastery of competencies in the mandatory subject areas. The decision of 2017 was to deem the objectives as non-binding and increase teachers’ freedom to plan their teaching. While the objectives remain, they offer non-compulsory guidance for consultation.
Trialling and piloting curriculum flexibility in pedagogy
Countries/jurisdictions without a tradition of school autonomy in pedagogy can trial giving schools more flexibility before a broader roll-out is initiated (Box 3.6). This informs countries/jurisdictions about the types of training given or needed, and the financial and technical support needed to ensure that schools are positioned for flexibility in pedagogy to be extended across the system.
In Portugal, curriculum flexibility and autonomy began as an experiment at the beginning of the 2017/18 school year, as part of Curricular Flexibility and Autonomy Project. The pilot project, implemented in more than 200 schools, is monitored by the Directorate General for Education and other central bodies to assess and manage its expansion. The project is also monitored by curriculum experts at the OECD. The new curriculum legislation was passed in 2018, considering the results of the evaluation of the pilot and feedback given by schools, teachers, students and parents. The Curricular Flexibility and Autonomy Law is implemented generally and encompasses upper-secondary education. Some schools decided to go further, managing more than 25% of the curriculum and designing an innovation plan monitored by the regional teams.
Box 3.6. Adaptive teaching practices in Israel
HaBustan, an educational institute in Israel, has developed a pedagogical concept referred to as “schools on the move". It combines existing educational methods with new and original inventions. Students are involved in all aspects of their learning process decision making, with the aim for it to be meaningful and effective.
Schools on the Move
Since its creation, the school has not had a permanent building. As a result, founding members have found creative “roaming” solutions between temporary hosting locations. The educational staff soon realised that the roaming nature of the school itself presents a catalyst for growth and development, enabling new and diverse learning opportunities. A roaming school by choice, students and teachers move every three to four months between various locations within a predetermined geographical radius. The host sites provide a physical space as well as various specialised learning opportunities. So far, the school has been housed in museums, agricultural settlements and a sports complex.
Skills acquisition
Students learn to adapt to different situations and improve problem solving skills, cognitive flexibility, creativity and spatial orientation. The roaming system enables the educational staff to work with students who are anxious about change, flexibility or trying new things, helping them overcome these fears. An individual learning plan is tailored to each student and designed in co-ordination with staff, students and parents. The learning plan combines attainment and development of these skills, which are the basis of their choice of curriculum and other activities. For example, a student who sets a goal in his/her learning plan to learn how to ask for help, will set attainable and measurable targets to work on during math class, in adapting to a new location, preparing for moving to a new site, or while playing with friends.
Getting out of one’s comfort zone
Roaming requires the entire school community to break out of its comfort zone and remain in a place of continuous growth. The need to adapt to changing environments with creative solutions is what strengthens the school community and prevents stagnation. Throughout this process, the staff must constantly develop and adapt to new circumstances. Teaching and evaluation methods undergo continuous review and revitalisation. Staff hold monthly meetings, sometimes together with students and parents, to gain insights and adjust the educational outlook, vision and working methods. In addition, one-on-one pedagogical meetings take place weekly between the school leadership and teaching staff in order to fine-tune their methods. Accordingly, lessons can be tailored to match the specific settings and to offer new courses suited to each environment.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 School Networks – HaBustan “Schools on the Move” – Uri Kuflik (School principal).
Providing technical support, professional learning and guidelines on pedagogy to teachers and school leaders
Countries/jurisdictions use different strategies to broaden and develop teachers’ pedagogical knowledge, understanding and skill. Several countries/jurisdictions enhance teachers’ and school leaders’ pedagogical competency by providing opportunities for professional development as well as guidelines and examples of good practice. The use of online platforms to simplify access and increase the take-up of these opportunities has also been initiated.
Poland enacted several measures enhancing teachers’ capacity to use new technologies while highlighting their right to professional autonomy. The Centre for Educational Development, a state teacher-training institution, prepares paper and digital informative materials and aids, such as scenarios and guidance, and organises workshops and conferences on changes taking place in education. It also manages a digital library offering resources on aspects of curricula, organisation of the schooling process, and information to improve teachers’ knowledge and skills. It also includes training and educational resources to improve teacher’s ICT skills; courses in the development of school infrastructure, and competencies of students and teachers in ICT in Active Blackboard; and training in the use of online tools and digital resources within the Lesson: Enter project.
Sweden aims to increase quality and equality through its national school-development programmes. These initiatives provide in-service training for teachers and head teachers. The programmes consist of materials and online courses to support professional learning. They target different nationally identified development areas, and their use is based on locally-identified needs in schools.
In Hong Kong (China), the Education Bureau notes that it takes time and effort to shift pedagogical practices and approaches to enable learner-centred teaching and student agency, and for schools to apply newly acquired flexibility in practice. As such, since the curriculum reform in 2001, the Education Bureau has been providing continuous professional development programmes. These include key learning and subject areas to build teachers’ pedagogical repertoire at whole-school and subject-area levels, and help curriculum leaders and teachers adapt the central curriculum framework to their schools. Subsequently, in the ongoing curriculum renewal since 2014, self-directed learning was promoted for students to assume more responsibility over their own learning. In addition, learning and teaching resources were developed for teachers’ use, and workshops were provided to disseminate good practices to support teachers in implementing the curriculum.
Referring to the guidelines, teachers may also make their own decisions on teaching methods and strategies. This is largely due to an acknowledgement of the professional capability of teachers and the related degree of autonomy granted.
In the Australian State of Victoria, the Department of Education and Training has introduced a flexible and evidence-based Pedagogical Model designed to enhance student learning by adapting to the diverse needs of each classroom. The model is structured around five interconnected domains: Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate and Evaluate (see Figure 3.9). These are not sequential steps but rather components that teachers can navigate fluidly, allowing them to respond effectively to the varying educational demands of their students. Teachers can engage students with relevant content, explore new ideas, explain concepts in-depth, apply these in elaborate projects, and continually evaluate student understanding. This fluid approach supports instructional adaptability and fosters an environment that is responsive to the specific needs of students, ensuring that education remains both relevant and impactful.
Figure 3.9. Pedagogical Model – Victoria, Australia
Source: Department of Education and Training Victoria, Australia.
Box 3.7. Flexible curriculum solutions for inclusive education in Colombia
Not every student is best served by standard curriculum and school resources. For those at the margins of or outside of the education system, technology may be used to create learning opportunities in more flexible ways. One such example is the AudioClass System (ACS), an innovative educational initiative designed to cater to the unique needs of Venezuelan refugees, migrants and host communities in Colombia. Utilising cutting-edge technology, ACS employs a chatbot to deliver supplementary education to children and youth aged 12-16 who are at risk of dropping out or currently out of school. The programme aims to address the lack of formal curriculum offerings for this vulnerable group, providing remote learning opportunities and support for both students and their teachers. To ensure greater equity, ACS specifically employs low-tech requirements, using audio as the primary medium to accommodate the technological limitations often faced by the target population.
Secondary school learning delivered remotely to students
ACS facilitates the remote delivery of secondary school learning to students facing challenging circumstances. The programme offers a flexible and accelerated 27-week curriculum, delivered via a chatbot interface, where learners can access diverse educational content, ensuring a comprehensive and enriching learning experience. This remote approach empowers students to learn at their own pace, overcoming geographical barriers and granting access to quality education. Additionally, ACS fosters a collaborative learning environment, encouraging students to support and collaborate with one another. The sense of community cultivated enhances their learning outcomes and instils valuable skills like teamwork and empathy, preparing them for success in an interconnected world.
Supplementary tool for teachers and learning facilitators in the classroom
ACS plays a dual role in empowering students and teachers. In the classroom, it serves as a valuable supplementary tool, providing support to educators as they work with students from diverse backgrounds and educational levels. Through it, teachers access resources, interactive aids and up-to-date content, enhancing their teaching methodologies and creating an inclusive learning environment.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. Focus Group 2B - Atish Gonsalves and Sheila Burkhardt (International Rescue Committee).
Revising teacher education to strengthen pedagogical competencies
Several countries/jurisdictions have revised, or are in the process of revising, teacher education to strengthen their pedagogical competencies. This includes changes to learning modules to promote a student-centred approach to pedagogy and more practical training for pre-service teachers in school settings.
Poland is revising the teacher education programmes provided by its higher education institutions to prepare students with the pedagogical skills required for employment in schools. In the interest of preparing teaching graduates, only those higher education institutions that conduct and benefit from the latest research in the field of teacher and pupil education are granted the right to educate pre-service teachers. From October 2019, universities may start a cycle of teacher training for Kindergarten and Classes I-III of primary school within a specific field of study, known as “pre-school and early childhood pedagogy” within the framework of uniform master's studies.
Singapore uses a two-pronged approach to strengthen teachers’ capacity to be reflective and competent professionals who are able to customise curriculum to meet students’ needs. An enhanced teacher-education programme was introduced at the pre-service level with a teaching assistantship, where pre-service teachers learn in school, then discuss the practices they observed and contributed to, for a tighter theory-practice nexus. These in-school experiences supplement practical experience.
Sharing good pedagogical practices across regional governments and schools
Many countries/jurisdictions actively promote professional peer learning across localities and schools. To do so, some countries/jurisdictions have set up network schools, or share best practices using an online platform.
In Australia, where the states and territories are responsible for schools, collaboration and sharing of best practices are facilitated at the national level through the Education Ministers Meeting and jurisdictional representation on national advisory and reference groups. The Australian Education Research Organisation and the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership provide support and dialogue to address common issues associated with the development and implementation of policy and practice.
In Ireland, teachers from different schools meet in clusters to receive continuous professional development. All teachers of a subject area who are involved in classroom-based assessments engage in subject-learning and assessment-review meetings where they discuss their assessments of student work and build understanding about the quality of student learning. Where there is a single teacher of a subject area in a school, the teacher can be supported to participate in a subject-learning and assessment-review meeting at another school to engage in the same peer-learning process.
In New Zealand, Communities of Learning enhance teaching practice and leadership by providing opportunities for collaborative enquiry, knowledge-sharing and extending career pathways for teachers. There are over 200 Communities of Learning to drive common expectations and improve outcomes for learners through the sharing of best practices across the nation.
Portugal provides an example of peer-learning support where teachers have opportunities to work collaboratively, share practices, use new methodologies, promote interdisciplinary work and incorporate extracurricular projects into the curriculum. Regional teams comprising representatives of different departments in the Ministry of Education support and monitor schools, promote regional and national meetings, and support school networks in sharing their practices and undertaking collaborative work. This work has been recognised by schools as effective for supporting them in peer learning. Additionally, an Autonomy and Flexibility website was created and is updated regularly to enable schools and teachers to access and share innovative experiences and practices in their schools.
In Scotland (United Kingdom), Regional Improvement Collaboratives provide consistent arrangements across the country for professional improvement and collaboration, and to share expertise across local authority areas.
Developing parental support for pedagogical flexibility
The engagement of parents as key stakeholders is important when undertaking education policy reform. This is particularly the case when parents hold traditional views of teaching practice that might run counter to the intent and purpose of reforms aimed at granting schools pedagogical flexibility.
Schools in Singapore communicate with parents and other stakeholders regularly through various channels to support them in understanding the direction of education in the country. There are regular touchpoints between the Ministry of Education, parents, and the public to help them understand the innovations occurring in teaching. Regular features on how teachers and students interact during teaching and learning can be found in articles in the Ministry’s Schoolbag: The Education News Site11. In addition, Community and Parents in Support of Schools12 was established to strengthen school-home-community collaboration. Members of this online stakeholder community come from different sectors of society, including parents, academics, individuals from self-help groups, industry, the media and early childhood education. This confluence generates broad and diverse support for reforms associated with pedagogical flexibility.
Challenges and strategies related to flexibility in assessment
Flexibility in curriculum goals, content and/or pedagogy is often associated with some level of flexibility in assessment. This provides consistency in efforts to increase the autonomy of schools and teachers by aligning teachers’ flexibility in the selection of goals, learning content and pedagogical methods with flexibility in the strategies and tools they use to monitor and assess learning. However, as countries/jurisdictions find, empowering teachers to develop their assessment competencies and make use of their professional autonomy can be challenging.
Challenges
Table 3.6. Challenges related to flexibility in assessment
Centralised, high-stakes external examinations and/or school evaluations may constrain teacher autonomy in using flexible assessment practices
Most countries/jurisdictions report that decisions on student assessment are granted to teachers (Figure 3.6). However, accountability measures to keep track of the quality of education as well as equity and fairness in the system can hamper the autonomy to adopt flexible assessment practices at the school and classroom levels.
When all students are assessed on a common set of standards, 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 what and how they assess for formative and summative purposes (Hutchinson and Hayward, 2005[75]; Yin and Buck, 2019[76]; Keleş and Demir, 2021[77]). Often represented as “What gets tested, gets taught”, the way students are assessed and the content or learning objectives that are the focus of assessment often drive what is taught in classrooms (Earl, Hargreaves and Ryan, 2013[78]; Muskin, 2015[79]). Therefore, the balance between formative and summative assessments is often hard to maintain for teachers, in particular in countries where students need to take high-stake examinations, such as high school exit exams or university entrance exams.
According to Burgess and Kennedy (1998[80]), this can lead to the individual learning needs of students being overlooked in favour of content covered in examinations and, when combined with an over-reliance on testing in schools, can have negative consequences for students’ well-being (Abeles and Rubenstein, 2015[81]; Cho and Chan, 2020[82]). These include anxiety associated with increased competition, strained relationships with parents, and sleep deprivation (Minarechová, 2012[83]; Mulvenon, Stegman and & Ritter, 2005[84]; Wren and Benson, 2004[85])
PISA data indicate that many students feel anxious about tests, but that this is not necessarily caused by the frequency of testing. Rather, it is the level of support from schools and teachers, and issues concerning how they will be graded that concern young people (OECD, 2023[86]).
While acknowledging it is hard to find the optimal balance between formative and summative assessment, excessive focus on high-stakes testing can lessen teachers’ and students’ motivation to explore flexibility on assessment practices as new learning opportunities. Instead, this is likely to narrow teaching and learning to a focus on passing tests. Not surprisingly, in a number of countries/jurisdictions, reading achievement in PISA is highly associated with students’ fear of failure (Figure 3.10). This is the case particularly in some Asian contexts, such as Chinese Taipei, Singapore, Macao (China), Hong Kong (China), and Japan (OECD, 2019[40]).
In many of these contexts, the long-lasting influence of the results of the centralised examinations on students’ work and life in general can drive the practice at the school level. This can unintentionally lead teachers to not fully exercise their professional autonomy. Such countries are making efforts to reform high-stake centralised examinations; however, challenges remain.
In Japan, based on the National Curriculum Standards, which are the broadly prescribed standards for curriculum, each school formulates a proper curriculum. This includes consideration of students’ stages of mental and physical development, their individual characteristics, and the circumstances of the school and its local community.
In Singapore, both formative and summative assessments are employed to assess the well-being of students from a holistic perspective. While teachers have the autonomy to design school-based assessments, students are required to sit for formal summative assessments throughout the academic year. National examinations are conducted at the end of each key stage, i.e. primary, secondary and pre-university levels.
Figure 3.10. Fear of failure and average reading performance
Source: OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
Misalignment between the intent of professional autonomy and the actual use of flexible assessment
While reform efforts can encourage teachers to draw on a range of assessment methods, the use of innovative forms might be less than anticipated due to teachers’ preparedness or their own interpretation of the curriculum reform (Clark and Peterson, 1986[87]; Hawthorne, 1990[88]; Smith and Lovat, 1995[89]; Mkandawire, 2010[90]). These can include:
a lack of training in alternative assessment approaches, such as the compilation of student work portfolios, the construction of product or performance criteria, or rubrics and observation charts to assess individuals’ capabilities and progress (Spencer and Hayward, 2016[91]);
reluctance to replace or balance traditional forms of assessment with new, innovative or alternative methods (Gardner et al., 2010[92]; Kirkland and Sutch, 2009[93]; Looney, 2009[94]);
devaluing students’ self-assessment along with a selection of other assessment methods used by teachers – TALIS 2018 Results found that fewer than half of lower-secondary teachers involved their students in evaluating their own progress (OECD, 2019[10]).
Taken together, these factors reflect an educational culture that favours traditional content-centred, rather than competency-based or student‑centred, forms of assessment. Any autonomy learners might be granted is of little consequence when they are assessed in limited ways.
In Hong Kong (China), schools have the flexibility to develop their assessment policies and practices to suit the needs of their students and their own school context. Some schools are already exercising their autonomy in making school-based adaptations of the central school curriculum framework. However, other schools are still not very adept at taking a more active approach to tailor subject curricula, lesson time, or develop diversified modes of assessments to suit the needs of their own students. The main ideas and principles of assessment as well as suggestions on how to conduct assessment in schools, including the development of a school’s assessment policy to promote self-directed learning, are discussed in the Secondary Education Curriculum Guide (2017[95]). Schools are strongly encouraged to adopt “Assessment as Learning”, in addition to “Assessment for Learning” and “Assessment of Learning”, to foster students’ independent learning capabilities. Promoting e‑assessment also enables teachers to capitalise on the advantages brought about by technology in assessment, including the provision of immediate feedback to students and personalising assessment and instruction to meet their individual needs. Even in this favourable environment for school autonomy, however, some reform initiatives, for example Territory-wide System Assessment13, were misinterpreted by some stakeholders as government monitoring and faced some resistance. Admittedly, the prevailing culture of examination orientation had turned efforts from promoting the intended ‘assessment for learning’ to what stakeholders perceive as an ‘assessment of learning’.
Uneven capacity among teachers to use professional autonomy leads to variation in assessment practices
Teachers’ assessment literacy and access to training causes variation in the quality and extent of assessment. This creates issues of fairness and equity, as the focus of students’ performance, the validity and reliability of the data obtained, and the judgements made can differ markedly between schools (or in some cases within the same school). Countries/jurisdictions report that teachers experience difficulties incorporating assessment for learning strategies into their practice and in assessing 21st Century competencies.
In Türkiye, the number of written examinations to be made during the year and the number of project studies to be given are determined by the Ministry of National Education. Teachers are provided with the flexibility to identify their own assessment methods and techniques consistent with the curriculum achievements. However, the level of attainment of the objectives of the curricula is determined by achievement assessment examinations at the local and national levels. In addition, 8th and 12th Grade students are given central exams prepared in accordance with the curriculum. These exams also provide access to a higher education institution. An OECD review of student assessment policies in Türkiye (Kitchen et al., 2019[96]) showed that teachers’ capacity to design and use methods that assess the breadth of students’ learning varied. Findings indicate that teachers prefer short, knowledge-based assessments rather than long, narrative style forms of assessments or tasks where students apply what they learnt to unrehearsed contexts, such as solving real-world problems. Furthermore, teachers do not show consistent understanding of what assessment for learning means and how to use it in their teaching practice. The expected variation in teachers’ forms of assessment is somewhat balanced out by the use of examinations at the local and national level.
In some contexts, variation may be expected by design, which gives teachers and school leaders the authority to make decisions about how to best evaluate the progress of students, along with support and guidance to improve their assessment competencies, thus coupling this anticipated challenge with concrete strategies.
In Québec (Canada), Section 19 of their Education Act entitles the teacher to “select the means of evaluating the progress of students so as to examine and assess continually and periodically the needs and achievement of objectives of every student entrusted to [their]care”. Section 96.15 of the Act states that the principal is responsible for approving “the standards and procedures for the evaluation of student achievement, in particular, how parents are to be informed of the academic progress of their children, in keeping with the prescriptions of the basic school regulation and subject to the examinations that may be imposed by the Minister or the school board”. This flexibility, however, can pose a challenge in terms of consistency of evaluation. Through the Policy on the Evaluation of Learning, the government in Québec (Canada) provides guidance to the educational system on the evaluation of learning achievement.
Strategies
Table 3.7. Strategies related to flexibility in assessment
Defining clear assessment criteria to address uneven assessment literacy among teachers
A flexible curriculum that offers opportunities for teachers to design and administer different forms of assessment that support learning rather than create excessive anxiety or sense of failure can counterbalance the undesired effects of rigid assessment policies. Indeed, while research suggests the reality of the underlying pressure for high achievement and how it can negatively impact students, data also show a number of countries where high student achievement is possible without the burden of fear of failure, such as in Germany, Finland and Estonia. Methods to improve the performance of students while mitigating stress, such as through curriculum flexibility, can indirectly improve student well-being (Cho and Chan, 2020[82]).
Educational assessment policies need to align with broader intentions to improve student learning and well-being. At the same time, they need to both encourage local innovations and ensure consistency and fairness of assessment practice across schools. Striking this balance is a continuous policy challenge for many participating countries.
Some countries/jurisdictions offer examples of their efforts, such as setting out how subjects should be assessed or criteria for marking, types of assessments (such as diagnostic, formative, summative and criterion-referenced), and assessment strategies and tools (such as portfolios, presentations, projects, observation checklists and tests).
British Columbia (Canada) is redeveloping Performance Standards that illustrate and describe proficient critical thinking and communication strategies employed by students in all learning areas. Co-creation with educators found that teachers revise and redevelop their classroom assessment tasks to focus on process and product, to allow students to demonstrate learning multi-modally, and to use the proficiency descriptors to provide meaningful feedback for improvement.
Québec (Canada) uses resource material to guide teachers in their assessment decisions in addition to providing them with training in the assessment of student learning. The province’s Framework for the Evaluation of Learning sets guidelines for the evaluation of students’ attainment in each subject area in the Québec Education Program (QEP). The framework defines the criteria on which the students’ results must be based in each subject area, and the weightings of the competencies are specified to assist teachers in determining the relative performance of students in each subject area.
Finland renewed assessment guidelines and produced specific national assessment criteria for different subject areas. The new curriculum emphasises diversity in assessment methods as well as assessment that guides and promotes learning. The establishment of assessment criteria involved a thoughtful, collaborative process that supports both student learning and equitable outcomes. The assessment criteria are aligned with 21st Century competences (e.g. problem-solving, critical thinking, collaboration, communication, digital literacy) to ensure holistic development (Lavonen, 2020[97]). Besides traditional reports or certificates, feedback is conveyed through various other means on a regular basis, to both students and their guardians. At the end of each school year, students receive a report that includes numerical grades representing their achievement levels in each subject based on predefined targets. To ensure fair assessment, national assessment criteria for the numerical Grade 8 (“good”) have been defined in every subject for Years 6 and 9.
New Zealand offers schools guidance on the tools and approaches that may be used for assessment and the functions that different assessments serve, including guidance on effective assessment practice.14
Providing professional learning to enhance assessment literacy
Benefits arising from granting schools, teachers and students autonomy to decide how their learning is to be assessed include deeper and broader appreciation of the capabilities of individual students, increased student engagement and interest in learning, as well as reduced levels of anxiety.
Another implication of developing teachers’ assessment practice is providing students with meaningful feedback on their performance, achievement and progress. The quality of teachers’ feedback has a significant impact on students’ learning, motivation and engagement (Clarke, 2001[98]; McCallum, Hargreaves and Gipps, 2000[99]; Hattie and Timperley, 2007[100]). In emphasising the importance of feedback as a key to teaching, Hattie and Timperley (2007[100]) observe that feedback has no effect in a vacuum and, rather than informing students about what is correct and what is not, meaningful feedback is about what happens next in terms of teaching and learning. Teachers constrained in their ability to provide meaningful feedback limit the effectiveness of their teaching and the learning potential of students (Muijs and Reynolds, 2001[101]). Initiatives to broaden teachers’ capabilities in the selection and use of different assessment strategies and tools need to embed quality feedback as a component of professional learning and training programmes.
The benefits of flexible assessment are more likely to be realised when:
sufficient training in assessment literacy is provided for school leaders, teachers and students (Engelsen and Smith, 2014[102]);
there is alignment between policy intentions regarding flexibility in assessment and internal and external measures used to monitor and judge students’ progress and achievement (Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, 2023[103]);
testing is used as one of many assessment strategies to determine students’ strengths and areas for development (Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills, 2023[103]).
Increasing flexibility in the selection and use of assessment strategies and tools carries implications. Teachers and students need to be trained and guided in the fundamentals of assessment (Engelsen and Smith, 2014[102]; Koh, 2011[104]) , which involves increasing their assessment literacy to overcome common errors in the selection and application of assessment strategies and the analysis of data (Quilter and Gallini, 2000[105]; Smith et al., 2013[106]). Teachers also need broader technical capabilities regarding the design of assessment tools and resources, such as how to compile portfolios of student work samples and construct product or performance criteria or rubrics and observation charts to assess students’ capabilities and learning progress (Spencer and Hayward, 2016[91]). This is becoming particularly important with the increasing use of advanced technologies for teaching and learning, such as digital and AI-powered tools for assessment of learning (Nguyen and Habók, 2023[107]; Minea-Pic, 2020[108]; Starkey, 2019[109]). The importance of assessment literacy cannot be underestimated. As observed by White (2009[110]), “assessment knowledge and competence can be so influential in (either) encouraging or undermining student learning”.
Recognising the need for professional learning in assessment literacy and the importance of meaningful feedback as key to granting schools and teachers’ autonomy in how student learning is assessed, several countries have made efforts to enhance teachers’ assessment literacy, including providing training opportunities in schools and external seminars (engaging the agencies responsible for conducting examinations and assessment programs), as well as by encouraging peer learning.
In British Columbia (Canada), the assessment system was redesigned to align with the province’s latest curriculum. This was to support a more flexible, personalised approach to learning and measure deeper, complex thinking as foregrounded in the curriculum. The assessment system has three programmes that work together to measure student learning and understanding of subject area content throughout their education: through classroom assessment and reporting; through provincial assessment, which reflects the cross-curricular principles of literacy and numeracy; and through reporting students’ development of curricular competencies, and student self-assessment of the core competencies of thinking, communication, and personal and social interactions. The change ensures that classroom assessment has a higher profile in the province’s schools and classrooms than before. A series of webinars that focus on assessment is included in the support provided for teachers in implementing the new curriculum.
Québec (Canada) provides teachers with specific training in the assessment of student learning. The province provides guidance in various ways. For example, it publishes an Administrative Guide for the Certification of Studies and Management of Ministerial Examinations. The Framework for the Evaluation of Learning provides guidelines for the evaluation of student achievement. For each subject, the framework defines the criteria on which the students’ results must be based.
Portugal’s Maia national research project, monitored by a core team of delegates from the Ministry of Education, higher education and schools, gives teachers (of general and vocational programmes from primary to upper-secondary education) access to quality training in assessment. The project began with the aim of improving teachers’ assessment of student performance, and consequently improving student learning. A key aspect of the project is classroom assessment workshops where teachers have the opportunity to experiment with formative assessment tools and techniques. As part of this process, representatives of the teacher training centres at the school level build teacher capacity, so that each teacher can apply the featured tools and techniques when assessing the learning progress of their students.
Hong Kong (China) enhances teachers’ assessment literacy through continuous professional development programmes organised by the Education Bureau as well as the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, the administrator of public assessments in the territory.
Collecting and sharing examples of good assessment practices to inform schools and teachers
Demonstrating how various approaches work in practice using concrete examples can also be a valuable resource for teachers. This is in addition to providing professional training to teachers on a variety of assessment and evaluation methods, preparing guidance materials and setting up clear criteria to be considered when assessing student learning.
Australia has a bank of annotated student work samples published online for teachers. These examples, which include written, visual, voice-recorded and video outputs, are organised in each subject area and at differing levels of performance, include evaluation of the students’ work in relation to achievement standards, and the tools used by the teachers when undertaking the assessment tasks.
Ireland uses peer learning, where teachers from different schools meet in clusters to receive continuous professional development. Through this initiative, all teachers involved in classroom-based assessments of a subject area engage in subject-learning and assessment-review meetings, where they share and discuss samples of their assessments of student work and build common understandings about the quality of student learning.
Challenges and strategies related to flexibility in learning time
Curriculum flexibility in learning time enables the pace, depth and organisation of teaching to meet the students’ diverse individual learning needs. From an equity perspective, this can also help teachers allocate more instruction time to those students who may need additional time and attention, such as students from vulnerable populations (OECD, 2021[48]).
Across OECD countries, decisions related to instruction time are typically made at the national level, with specifications set out in regulatory and policy documents. This is to ensure equitable access to education for all students, with sufficient time spent in school (often expressed in terms of minimum time) representing opportunity-to-learn and equitable learning outcomes, regardless of the type or location of school or the socio-economic background or circumstances of students.
While countries vary in the range of time allocations recommended for schools, one of the more common forms of autonomy granted to districts, schools and/or teachers is the flexible allocation of instruction time within subject areas and across the curriculum. In fact, 32 out of 35 countries/jurisdictions that took part in the E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign, reported some level of flexibility allocated to schools for decisions regarding learning time, as indicated in Figure 3.6. Flexibility in learning time can be a feasible option through different arrangements. Compulsory flexible curriculum means that compulsory subjects and total instruction time are specified, but not the time to be allocated to each subject (OECD, 2023[111]).
As shown in Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12 , in a handful of countries this is already practiced to a great extent: in Poland, the Netherlands, Italy and Belgium (both the French and Flemish Communities), most – if not all – of the compulsory instruction time benefits from a flexible timetable in primary education (see “compulsory flexible curriculum”). Among these, only the Netherlands, and the Flemish Community in Belgium maintain such flexibility through lower secondary education. In Poland and Italy, no instruction time is allocated to compulsory flexible curriculum at the lower secondary level, and only a small proportion of instruction time is kept flexible in the French Community of Belgium at this level.
In the Netherlands, instruction time for all subjects is allocated by the school (decided by the principal). In some schools, students can spend part of the allocated instruction time on a subject of their choice, according to their capabilities.
In Poland, the first eight years of the education system are structured into two main stages; the first stage, covering Grades I-III of primary education (ISCED 1), focuses on integrated early school education without assigning compulsory instruction time for subjects. On the other hand, in thesecond stage, which includes Grades IV-VIII, covering the 4th year of primary education (ISCED 1) and the 4 years of lower secondary education (ISCED 2), the focus shifts to subject-based education with allocated compulsory instruction time.
Another modality for added flexibility in instruction time becomes more evident in secondary education, namely “compulsory flexible subjects chosen by schools” and “by students”, which is reported by only one country, Iceland, in primary education. This follows the likely emphasis on “basic” and “foundation” knowledge and skills in curriculum at early ages while more options are granted to older students. This allows them the opportunity to better match their own interests and talents while still meeting the requirements for mandatory learning time, following the same logic with the requirements for goals and learning content as discussed earlier.
These examples illustrate the type of choices countries make when considering options for adding flexibility to curriculum through allocation of instruction time.
Figure 3.11. Instruction time per subject in primary education (2023)
In percentage of total compulsory instruction time, in public institutions
Notes: Some subject categories include subjects in different categories. See source table for details.
1. Reading, writing and literature includes social studies and other languages. Mathematics includes natural sciences.
2. Year of reference 2022.
3. Excludes the Flemish Community (Belgium), the French Community (Belgium), Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal.
4. Excludes the last year of primary education (first four years of primary school) for which the instruction time is allocated to specific compulsory subjects.
Countries and other participants are ranked in descending order of the proportion of instruction hours devoted to reading, writing and literature.
Source: OECD (2023[111]), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
Figure 3.12. Instruction time per subject in general lower secondary education (2023)
In percentage of total compulsory instruction time, in public institutions
Notes: Some subject categories include subjects in different categories. See source table for details.
1. Reading, writing and literature includes social sciences. Mathematics includes natural sciences.
2. Excludes the Flemish Community (Belgium), the French Community (Belgium), Ireland and the Netherlands.
3. Year of reference 2022.
Countries and other participants are ranked in descending order of the proportion of instruction hours devoted to reading, writing and literature.
Source: OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
Challenges
Table 3.8. Challenges related to flexibility in learning time
Flexibility risks adding more learning hours to meet specific students’ needs
Different degrees of flexibility in learning time are often offered to schools as a way to compensate for the limited flexibility accorded over goals and learning content. This way, schools that might not be able to choose which subjects or content topics to teach, can instead be granted freedom to decide how much time they allocate to each subject or learning area according to the needs of students.
This flexibility could represent an opportunity for school leaders and teachers, as it allows them room to adapt the curriculum to their context and exercise their judgement and agency on what needs to be prioritised in the curriculum. This is relevant for schools that serve specific segments of the student population. For example, schools that have large proportions of immigrant students can spend more time on acquiring proficiency in the national language(s) as a fundamental capability needed to access the content and objectives in other learning areas.
However, an absence of structural oversight over time allocations can result in students having to “catch up” on curriculum content not covered during the regular school day. Examples of reported catch-up activities include teachers issuing additional or extended homework tasks, remedial studies, extra-curricular activities and private tutoring. These extra demands can overly extend the time students spend studying and reduce opportunities for other important activities, such as spending time with family and friends, engaging in free or organised play, and participating in physical activities. Research on student learning time reveals that having children and young people study for very long hours on a routine basis does not necessarily yield better learning outcomes. In fact, it can be harmful to their health and overall well-being by leading to fatigue, boredom and lack of motivation (Gromada and Shewbridge, 2016[112]). As PISA data reveal in Figure 3.13, quality of learning is more important than quantity (OECD, 2023[86]).
Figure 3.13. Mathematics performance and time spent on learning activities (in OECD countries)
Based on students' reports
Note: OECD countries are ranked in descending order of the score points in mathematics per hour of total learning time.
Source: OECD (2023[86]), PISA 2022 Database.
A recent literature review on the topic suggests that instruction time be optimised by looking at ways to make it more effective (rather than simply longer), which include how to best organise the available time. Some examples include capitalising on times of the day when children tend to be more alert, keeping realistic expectations about how much children can learn through the day, improving classroom management and adapting instruction to different students’ needs (Gromada and Shewbridge, 2016[112]).
In Hungary, flexibility is achieved in two ways at the school level. First, schools have the freedom to choose which subjects to teach within a certain timeframe. Second, rules allow schools to slightly deviate from the main curriculum up to a certain percentage. An individualised learning pathway may also be achieved by way of class/subject differentiation and during thematic days/week. However, flexibility and free choice at an individual level mainly exists in secondary education. Here, students can choose schools and specialisations based on entrance exam performance, alongside the option to select specific subjects in the concluding two years of their secondary education (Grades 11 and 12). The new national curriculum further supports student agency by promoting differentiation and offering a variety of choices in tasks and projects, as well as content during thematic day/week, facilitated within student sub-groups. However, the realisation of these flexible educational strategies faces obstacles such as content overload, regulatory emphasis, and contextual challenges (e.g. under-utilisation of available digital resources, insufficient resource sharing, and traditional teaching mindsets).
Ireland also reports the risk of overcrowding the timetable given the number of changes coming to schools in a short period of time, such as the Framework for Junior Cycle and the Review of Senior Cycle as well as new subjects, for example, Politics and Society. Schools’ capacity to cope with these changes is an area of concern in some instances.
Under-utilisation of flexibility in learning time due to accountability measures and high-stake assessments
While there might be provisions for districts, schools or teachers to vary learning time for a subject area, they are often expected to demonstrate that students meet particular learning outcomes. The “lived reality” referred to by Watson and Supovitz (2001[113]) of the apparent “trade-off” between autonomy granted to schools to make decisions while also being held accountable for meeting student achievement targets is that, by and large, teachers tend to keep uniform time allocations as a way of satisfying performance measures (see the section on “System accountability” in Chapter 4).
A similar tension exists in relation to high-stakes examinations, where subject matter that is not tested is given minimal focus in favour of content covered by examinations. Pedagogical flexibility is similarly affected: Brazil, for example, provides, four hours of class per day on average, of which three are used as instructional time. Given that national and state exams evaluate specific content knowledge and skills, teachers tend to use the instructional time to elaborate on content, sometimes to the detriment of helping students develop their socio-emotional skills.
In India, there is a tendency in classrooms to focus primarily on topics that are likely to be covered in examinations. As a result, subject areas and content that are not typically part of exams tend to be overlooked in the teaching process. The allocation of time and emphasis in classrooms is largely influenced by past examination papers, rather than guided by the official curriculum requirements and the stated educational objectives.
Where countries/jurisdictions specify time allocations for subject (or broader learning) areas, this tends to be indicative rather than prescriptive and assessment types are more likely to influence decisions on learning time, with a belief that more learning time leads to the intended outcomes. However, as the OECD E2030 curriculum analysis on curriculum overload suggests, what matters most for effective learning is the quality of learning time, not the quantity (OECD, 2020[29]).
Making informed decisions about the prioritisation of subject/learning areas
When teachers, schools or local authorities decide to increase learning time for some subject areas within the total hours available, there is an inevitable reduction in the time allocated to other areas.
While the standards (learning objectives or outcomes) might remain across curriculum areas, the time available for students to acquire the relevant competencies (skills, knowledge, attitudes and values) in some areas is reduced. An example where this has impacted teaching and learning in primary schools are the social sciences, where increased time given to other learning areas has been observed to “undermine” the opportunity for students to learn, with social sciences receiving “short shrift” compared to other areas (Fitchett and Heafner, 2010[114]; Fitchett, Heafner and Lambert, 2012[115]).
Another implication relates to the extent to which timing allocation decisions are made according to student needs or local priorities, or other factors that can impact negatively on students’ access to learning in some subject areas. Teachers’ enjoyment of mathematics, for example, has explained the variance in instructional time allocated to this subject area and the consequent quality of learning in early primary-school years (Russo et al., 2020[116]). In the case of secondary schools, factors such as timetable constraints and the perceived importance of the subject area can restrict a student’s learning potential (Prendergast and O’Meara, 2016[117]).
Schools in Korea may adjust the number of instructional hours by up to 20% in each subject area (or broad learning area) considering school conditions and the demands and needs of students, teachers and parents. However, the instructional hours given to physical education and the arts, including music and fine arts, are fixed. Outside of this, schools may implement intensive course offerings per semester or per year to enhance the efficiency of learning. While schools have flexibility to offer elective subjects, allocate times across the subject areas offered, and define assessment policies for the intensive course programmes, some teachers cite difficulties organising teaching and learning time.
In Portugal, misconceptions about reducing curriculum overload have been a concern as stakeholders may think that by reducing curriculum content, the quality of learning might be harmed. How to cope with a paradigm shift from curriculum overload to a core curriculum and from a more teacher-centred methodology to learner-centred approaches in line with increased autonomy at the school level has been a challenge. Establishing an alignment between increased autonomy with external assessment/national exams is similarly a challenge.
Strategies
Table 3.9. Strategies related to flexibility of learning time
Retaining a national framework on learning time
While some countries/jurisdictions devolve responsibility for organising learning time to local or school levels, many either have or are developing frameworks and/or guidelines to ensure that students meet minimum requirements across core subject areas.
While schools and teachers in Finland have flexibility through a curriculum structure that gives considerable scope for local adaptation, it is also recognised that consistency across all schools is needed concerning the time allocated for students’ learning. This is ensured through legislation that defines the allocation of lesson hours between subject areas and classes, and total instruction time (in terms of weekly lessons per year and hours of instruction). Additionally, there are adjustments to total time allocations for specific subject areas based on national policy decisions, such as the introduction of a second official language, increased allocations to core subject areas, and reductions in time for optional subject areas.
In Portugal, although the curriculum framework establishes instruction time references, schools can manage their cross-curriculum work in an integrated way, creating Domains of Curriculum Autonomy (DAC) allocating time from different subject areas.
This model of flexibility contrasts with “full flexibility” identified by the European Commission’s Eurydice report, Recommended Annual Instruction Time in Full-time Compulsory Education (2021[118]). According to their definition for full flexibility, central education authorities do not set minimum instructional hours. Instead, regional authorities, local authorities, or schools have the autonomy to determine the time allocation for individual subjects and grades (2021[118]).
Providing flexibility in learning time by subject/learning areas
Many countries empower schools and local authorities with the discretion to allocate recommended times in and across subject areas and/or at the grade level. This form of autonomy allows educational institutions to tailor education to the needs of students, balancing mandatory and non-mandatory options with local priorities at different stages of schooling. Such flexibility ensures that schools can adapt learning experiences to better meet student needs while adhering to broader educational standards and requirements.
While schools and teachers might have flexibility in how they allocate time to subject areas, instruction time requirements are retained in many countries/jurisdictions. This ensures that quality provisions (i.e. opportunities to learn) are in place across schools and provides guidance on how to best organise learning time.
In Chile and Czechia, around 15% of compulsory instruction time in both primary and lower-secondary education is devoted to subject areas selected by schools (Figure 3.11 and Figure 3.12). Ireland reports that 57% of instruction time in lower-secondary education is devoted to subject areas selected by schools. Iceland, Norway, the Slovak Republic, Spain and Türkiye all show higher flexibility in the selection of subject areas by schools in lower-secondary education than in primary education (between 0-8% in primary education as opposed to between 13-20% in lower secondary education). In Bulgaria, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary and Israel, the opposite trend is observed, with around 7-16% of instruction time in primary education devoted to subject areas selected by schools and only around 3-7% in lower-secondary education (OECD, 2023[111]).
In the European Commission’s framework, this type of flexibility can be referred to as either “horizontal flexibility” or “subject flexibility” (2021[118]). In the case of horizontal flexibility, central education authorities specify the total instructional hours for a group of subjects within a particular grade. Schools or local authorities have the freedom to decide the time allocation for each individual subject. On the other hand, subject flexibility refers to regional or local authorities, or schools, selecting their own subjects, sometimes from a list provided by central authorities, and distributing the instructional time as defined by the central authorities for this purpose (2021[118]).
Providing flexibility in learning time across grades
In some countries/jurisdictions, instruction time for a particular subject is set for several grades or even the whole of compulsory education, without specifically indicating how that time is to be distributed across grades. In essence, schools/local authorities are free to decide how much time is allocated to subject areas in each grade, provided the total instruction time is achieved across multiple grades. This model of flexibility is referred to as “vertical flexibility” in the European Commission’s framework (2021[118]). According to their definition, central education authorities provide the overall instructional hours required for specific subjects across various grades, an entire education level, or the full span of compulsory education. However, they do not dictate how these hours should be allocated within each grade. Instead, schools and/or local authorities have the discretion to determine the time distribution for each grade (2021[118]).
Flexible allocation of instruction time across multiple grades in primary and secondary education is reported by 10 out of 39 OECD countries/jurisdictions, as seen in Table 3.10, although most countries/jurisdictions indicate that this is not the case. Countries/jurisdictions have varying preferences of how to put this model into perspective.
For example Korea grants flexibility to schools in a measured way by introducing the concept of grade clusters and subject area clusters. The use of grade clusters, as proposed by school districts, allows schools to transition from allocating specified hours to subject areas by grade, to hours allocated by grade clusters. This increases the ways in which schools can vary the organisation of classes or groups, such as initiating non-graded or multi-graded systems.
In the Netherlands, children typically attend primary school (which includes Kindergarten) from age four. While attendance in pre-primary (K1, “group 1”) for students under the age of five is not compulsory, enrolment is almost universal. As students transition from pre-primary to primary education (Grade 1, “group 3”), schools are given flexibility in how they arrange learning time. Some schools use their professional autonomy by experimenting with flexible approaches to organising the transition of students from pre-primary to primary grades. Examples include students spending part of the week in “group 1” (K1) and the remainder of the week in “group 2” (K2). Other schools combine “group 1” and “group 2” students in the same class, while in almost all schools, students can enter “group 1” at different points in the school year (Borgonovi, Ferrara and Maghnouj, 2018[119]).
While flexibility in learning time across grades might be available to schools and teachers in some countries as an aspect of broader policy reform related to professional autonomy, it might be the only kind of autonomy offered to schools and teachers in countries where less flexibility is encouraged or permitted in relation to the curriculum content and/or pedagogical choices.
There are important considerations to make concerning flexibility in learning time, including:
the relationship between flexibility in learning times and equitable access to learning for students (opportunity to learn);
differentiation of learning time in response to student learning needs;
and options available for the flexible allocation of learning time.
Table 3.10. Organisation of compulsory general education: Flexible allocation of instruction time across multiple grades (2023)
By level of education, in public institutions
Notes: Students go to school five days a week (six days in some schools in Israel and secondary education in Italy). In some countries, the statutory length of the school day varies within the school week.
Refers to full-time compulsory education and excludes pre-primary education, even if compulsory.
1. For some subjects, allocation of instruction time across multiple levels of education is flexible.
2. Year of reference 2022.
3. Excludes the last year of compulsory education, which can be classified at either the lower secondary or the upper secondary level.
4. Flexible allocation of instruction time across three consecutive grades is applicable for Grades 1, 4 and 7.
5. The number of grades in lower secondary education is three or four, depending on the track. The fourth year of pre-vocational secondary education was excluded from the calculation.
m: Data are not available.
a: The category does not apply in the country concerned or economy.
Source: OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
Reconceptualising learning time and adjusting schedules, driven by online learning
Students need sufficient instruction time to engage with the curriculum, their teachers and one another, and to gain skills, knowledge and competencies. However, there is no set way to allocate instructional time. Although school schedules are often set on a traditional agrarian calendar, a variety of models and schedules are implemented internationally.
With online and digital instruction, learning time can also be reconceptualised as learning undertaken outside of a traditional classroom setting. This can address issues of student well-being, such as when learning leaves little time for recreation or family.
Hong Kong (China) exemplifies the reconceptualisation of learning time through its Fourth Strategy on IT in Education (ITE4), which promotes personalised and self-directed learning via digital resources and online platforms. By adopting the flipped classroom model and ensuring robust IT infrastructure, students can learn at their own pace beyond the traditional classroom. Professional development for teachers enhances the effectiveness of this approach, creating a balanced educational environment that prioritises student well-being.
In Singapore, learning time is reconceptualised through the integration of online learning platforms. The Singapore Student Learning Space (SLS), launched in 2018, is a cornerstone of this approach, offering students curriculum-aligned resources that support self-directed learning and flexible scheduling. This platform allows students to learn at their own pace, enhancing engagement and catering to diverse learning needs. Coupled with continuous professional development for teachers and the emphasis on 21st Century Competencies, Singapore's education system ensures that students are prepared for future challenges while benefiting from a balanced, holistic education.
References
[81] Abeles, V. and G. Rubenstein (2015), Beyond measure: rescuing an overscheduled, overtested, underestimated generation.
[68] Baepler, P., J. Walker and M. Driessen (2014), “It’s not about seat time: Blending, flipping, and efficiency in active learning classrooms”, Computers & Education, Vol. 78, pp. 227-236, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.006.
[2] Ben-Peretz, M. (1975), “The Concept of Curriculum Potential”, Curriculum Theory Network, Vol. 5/2, p. 151, https://doi.org/10.2307/1179278.
[53] Bergen, T., A. Engelen and K. Derksen (2006), “The Quality of Coaching in Relation to the Professional Development of Teachers”, in Competence Oriented Teacher Training, BRILL, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087903374_008.
[62] Besalti, M. and S. Satici (2022), “Online Learning Satisfaction and Internet Addiction During Covid-19 Pandemic: A Two-Wave Longitudinal Study”, TechTrends, Vol. 66/5, pp. 876-882, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00697-x.
[55] Bolhuis, S. (2006), “Professional Development between Teachers’ Practical Knowledge and External Demands: Plea for a Broad Social-Constructivist and Critical Approach”, in Competence Oriented Teacher Training, BRILL, https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087903374_015.
[119] Borgonovi, F., A. Ferrara and S. Maghnouj (2018), “The gender gap in educational outcomes in Norway”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 183, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f8ef1489-en.
[58] Bottino, R. (2004), “The evolution of ICT-based learning environments: which perspectives for the school of the future?”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 35/5, pp. 553-567, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0007-1013.2004.00413.x.
[80] Burgess, P. and S. Kennedy (1998), What Gets Tested, Gets Taught Who Gets Tested, Gets Taught:, http://aww.ihdi.uky.edu/.
[103] Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills (2023), It’s Our Future - Independent Review of Qualifications and Assessment: report.
[16] 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.
[70] Carnahan, C. (2010), “Immersive Learning in K-12 Schools: Success and Limitations”, Proceedings of SITE 2010--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference.
[82] Cho, E. and T. Chan (2020), “Children’s wellbeing in a high-stakes testing environment: The case of Hong Kong”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 109, pp. 104-116.
[87] Clark, C. and P. Peterson (1986), “Teachers’ Thought Processes.”, Handbook of Research on Teaching, Vol. 3, pp. 255-296.
[98] Clarke, P. (2001), “Feeling compromised - the impact on teachers of the performance culture”, Improving Schools, Vol. 4/3, pp. 23-32, https://doi.org/10.1177/136548020100400304.
[23] Department of Education and Skills (2015), Framework for Junior Cycle, https://ncca.ie/media/3249/framework-for-junior-cycle-2015-en.pdf.
[71] Di Serio, Á., M. Ibáñez and C. Kloos (2013), “Impact of an augmented reality system on students’ motivation for a visual art course”, Computers & Education, Vol. 68, pp. 586-596, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.002.
[8] Dilkes, J., C. Cunningham and J. Gray (2014), “The New Australian Curriculum, Teachers and Change Fatigue”, Australian Journal of Teacher Education, Vol. 39/11, https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2014v39n11.4.
[78] Earl, L., A. Hargreaves and J. Ryan (2013), Schooling for Change, Reinventing Education for Early Adolescents.
[14] Earl, L. et al. (2003), Final Report of the External Evaluation of England’s National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies. Executive Summary: Final Report. Watching & Learning 3., Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED472213.pdf.
[45] El Khdar, A., S. Rguibi and A. Bouziane (2019), “The Need for Educational Equity through Multimethodology and Differentiation in the Moroccan EFL Classroom”, Vol. 16, pp. 33-47, https://doi.org/10.15584/sar.2019.16.3.
[102] Engelsen, K. and K. Smith (2014), “Assessment Literacy”, in The Enabling Power of Assessment, Designing Assessment for Quality Learning, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5902-2_6.
[118] European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2021), Recommended Annual Instruction Time in Full-time Compulsory Education in Europe – 2020/21, Publications Office of the European Union, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/93721c2c-d7ba-11eb-895a-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
[114] Fitchett, P. and T. Heafner (2010), “A National Perspective on the Effects of High-Stakes Testing and Standardization on Elementary Social Studies Marginalization”, Theory & Research in Social Education, Vol. 38/1, pp. 114-130, https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2010.10473418.
[115] Fitchett, P., T. Heafner and R. Lambert (2012), “Examining Elementary Social Studies Marginalization”, Educational Policy, Vol. 28/1, pp. 40-68, https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904812453998.
[30] Fullan, M. (2018), Surreal Change: The Real Life of Transforming Public Education, New York: Routledge.
[92] Gardner, J. et al. (2010), Developing Teacher Assessment.
[112] Gromada, A. and C. Shewbridge (2016), “Student Learning Time: A Literature Review”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 127, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm409kqqkjh-en.
[51] Gutierez, S. and H. Kim (2018), “Peer Coaching in a Research-Based Teachers’ Professional Learning Method for Lifelong Learning: A Perspective”, Alberta Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 64/2, pp. 214-221.
[52] Hall, P. and A. Simeral (2008), Building Teachers’ Capacity for Success: A Collaborative Approach for Coaches and School Leaders.
[100] Hattie, J. and H. Timperley (2007), “The Power of Feedback”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 77/1, pp. 81-112, https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
[88] Hawthorne, R. (1990), “Analyzing School-Based Collaborative Curriculum Decision Making”, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision.
[36] Holzberger, D. and E. Prestele (2021), “Teacher self-efficacy and self-reported cognitive activation and classroom management: A multilevel perspective on the role of school characteristics”, Learning and Instruction, Vol. 76, p. 101513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101513.
[95] Hong Kong Education Bureau (2017), Secondary Education Curriculum Guide - Assessment Literacy and School Assessment Policy - Booklet 4, https://www.edb.gov.hk/attachment/en/curriculum-development/renewal/Guides/SECG%20booklet%204_en_20180831.pdf.
[35] Huizinga, T. et al. (2015), “Fostering teachers’ design expertise in teacher design teams: conducive design and support activities”, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 26/1, pp. 137-163, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2014.990395.
[75] 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.
[61] Karakose, T. (2022), “Assessing the Relationships between Internet Addiction, Depression, COVID-19-Related Fear, Anxiety, and Suspicion among Graduate Students in Educational Administration: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis”, Sustainability, Vol. 14/9, p. 5356, https://doi.org/10.3390/su14095356.
[69] Kassner, L. (2013), A review of literature mix it up with blended learning in K-12 Schools, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED548381.pdf (accessed on 20 October 2022).
[65] Kazu, İ. and M. Demirkol (2014), “Effect of blended learning environment model on high school students’ academic achievement”.
[77] Keleş, Ö. and C. Demir (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.
[93] Kirkland, K. and D. Sutch (2009), “Overcoming the barriers to educational innovation”, Bristol: Futurelab..
[96] Kitchen, H. et al. (2019), OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Student Assessment in Turkey, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5edc0abe-en.
[104] Koh, K. (2011), “Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional development”, Teaching Education, Vol. 22/3, pp. 255-276, https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.593164.
[12] Ko, J., Y. Cheng and T. Lee (2016), “The development of school autonomy and accountability in Hong Kong”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/7, pp. 1207-1230, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-10-2015-0145.
[64] Kong, S. (2018), “Parents’ perceptions of e-learning in school education: Implications for the partnership between schools and parents”, Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, Vol. 27/1, pp. 15-31.
[17] Kuiper, W. and J. Berkvens (eds.) (2013), Curricular balance based on dialogue, cooperation and trust – The case of Finland, SLO.
[41] Kuiper, W. and J. Berkvens (2013), Editorial introduction, SLO.
[122] Lage, M., G. Platt and M. Treglia (2000), “Inverting the Classroom: A Gateway to Creating an Inclusive Learning Environment”, The Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 31/1, pp. 30-43, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220480009596759.
[73] Lambert, P. (2001), Policy steering in and out of schools, University of Sydney.
[97] Lavonen, J. (2020), “Curriculum and Teacher Education Reforms in Finland That Support the Development of Competences for the Twenty-First Century”, in Audacious Education Purposes, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41882-3_3.
[15] Leat, D., K. Livingston and M. Priestley (2013), “Curriculum deregulation in England and Scotland - Different directions of travel? | Request PDF”, in Kuiper, W. and J. Berkvens (eds.), Balancing Curriculum Regulation and Freedom across Europe, SLO, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263766435_Curriculum_deregulation_in_England_and_Scotland_-_Different_directions_of_travel (accessed on 8 April 2022).
[63] Liu, J. et al. (2021), “Student Health Implications of School Closures during the COVID-19 Pandemic: New Evidence on the Association of e-Learning, Outdoor Exercise, and Myopia”, Healthcare, Vol. 9/5, p. 500, https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare9050500.
[94] Looney, J. (2009), “Assessment and Innovation in Education”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 24, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/222814543073.
[57] 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.
[1] Marope, M. (2017), “Reconceptualizing and Repositioning Curriculum in the 21st Century A Global Paradigm Shift”, IBE-UNESCO..
[39] Marzano, R., T. Waters and B. McNulty (2005), School leadership that works: From research to results.
[99] McCallum, B., E. Hargreaves and C. Gipps (2000), “Learning: The pupil’s voice”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 30/2, pp. 275-289, https://doi.org/10.1080/713657145.
[83] Minarechová, M. (2012), “Negative impacts of high-stakes testing”, Journal of Pedagogy / Pedagogický casopis, Vol. 3/1, pp. 82-100, https://doi.org/10.2478/v10159-012-0004-x.
[108] Minea-Pic, A. (2020), “Innovating teachers’ professional learning through digital technologies”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 237, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3329fae9-en.
[90] Mkandawire, S. (2010), “Impediments to curriculum implementation in learning institutions”, African Higher Education Review, Vol. 8/2, pp. 1-15, http://dspace.unza.zm/handle/123456789/6958.
[27] MOES, M. (2021), Our teachers, https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/our-teachers (accessed on 29 November 2022).
[22] MOES, M. (2021), Singapore Curriculum Philosophy, https://www.moe.gov.sg/education-in-sg/our-teachers/singapore-curriculum-philosophy.
[101] Muijs, D. and D. Reynolds (2001), Effective teaching: Evidence and practice, Paul Chapman Publishing, London.
[84] Mulvenon, S., C. Stegman and G. & Ritter (2005), “Test anxiety: A multifaceted study on the perceptions of teachers, principals, counselors, students, and parents”, International Journal of Testing, Vol. 5/1, pp. 37-61, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327574ijt0501_4 (accessed on 21 October 2022).
[42] Múñez, D. et al. (2017), “Preschool Teachers’ Engagement in Professional Development: Frequency, Perceived Usefulness, and Relationship with Self-Efficacy Beliefs”, Psychology, Society, & Education, Vol. 9/2, p. 181, https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v9i2.655.
[79] Muskin, J. (2015), “In-Progress Reflections No. 1 on Current and Critical Issues in the Curriculum and Learning: Student Learning Assessment and the Curriculum: Issues and Implications for Policy, Design and Implementation”, IBE-UNESCO.
[107] Nguyen, L. and A. Habók (2023), “Tools for assessing teacher digital literacy: a review”, Journal of Computers in Education, Vol. 11/1, pp. 305-346, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40692-022-00257-5.
[37] Nieveen, N. (2017), Schooleigen curriculumontwikkeling en voorwaarden voor succes, [School-specific curriculum development and conditions for success], SLO, http://downloads.slo.nl/Documenten/gta-schooleigen-curriculumontwikkeling-en-voorwaarden-voor-succes.pdf.
[13] 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.
[124] Novak, G. (2011), “Just‐in‐time teaching”, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Vol. 2011/128, pp. 63-73, https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.469.
[111] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[7] OECD (2023), Equity and Inclusion in Education: Finding Strength through Diversity, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9072e21-en.
[86] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[48] OECD (2021), Adapting Curriculum to Bridge Equity Gaps: Towards an Inclusive Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6b49e118-en.
[11] OECD (2021), Positive, High-achieving Students?: What Schools and Teachers Can Do, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3b9551db-en.
[24] OECD (2021), Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future, Implementing Education Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bf624417-en.
[9] OECD (2020), “Curriculum (re)design”, A series of thematic reports from the OECD Education 2030 project, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/contact/brochure-thematic-reports-on-curriculum-redesign.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2024).
[29] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.
[4] OECD (2020), Lessons for Education from COVID-19: A Policy Maker’s Handbook for More Resilient Systems, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0a530888-en.
[28] OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en.
[43] OECD (2020), Professional collaboration as a key support for teachers working in challenging environments, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c699389b-en.
[25] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
[56] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018: Insights and Interpretations, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/TALIS2018_insights_and_interpretations.pdf.
[72] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[40] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
[10] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[21] 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.
[120] OECD (2018), Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy in Portugal - an OECD Review.
[50] OECD (2016), Equations and Inequalities: Making Mathematics Accessible to All, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264258495-en.
[49] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
[44] OECD (2014), TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en.
[121] Paniagua, A. and D. Istance (2018), Teachers as Designers of Learning Environments: The Importance of Innovative Pedagogies, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264085374-en.
[117] Prendergast, M. and N. O’Meara (2016), “Assigning mathematics instruction time in secondary schools: what are the influential factors?”, International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, Vol. 47/8, pp. 1137-1155, https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739x.2016.1192231.
[105] Quilter, S. and J. Gallini (2000), “Inservice teachers’ assessment literacy and attitudes toward assessment.”, The Teacher Educator, Vol. 36/2, pp. 115-131.
[66] Roehl, A., S. Reddy and G. Shannon (2013), “The Flipped Classroom: An Opportunity To Engage Millennial Students Through Active Learning Strategies”, Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences, Vol. 105/2, pp. 44-49, https://doi.org/10.14307/jfcs105.2.12.
[67] Russell T. Osguthorpe and Charles R. Graham (2003), “Blended Learning Environments: Definitions and Directions”, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, Vol. 4/3.
[116] Russo, J. et al. (2020), “Exploring the relationship between teacher enjoyment of mathematics, their attitudes towards student struggle and instructional time amongst early years primary teachers”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 88, p. 102983, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.102983.
[18] 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.
[3] Schmidt, W., H. Wang and C. McKnight (2005), “Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 37/5, pp. 525-559, https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027042000294682.
[19] Shawer, S. (2010), “Classroom-level curriculum development: EFL teachers as curriculum-developers, curriculum-makers and curriculum-transmitters”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 26/2, pp. 173-184, https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TATE.2009.03.015.
[74] Sliwka, A. and D. Istance (2006), “Parental and Stakeholder ’Voice’ in Schools and Systems”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 41/1, pp. 29-43, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3435.2006.00244.x.
[106] Smith, C. et al. (2013), “Assessment literacy and student learning: the case for explicitly developing students ‘assessment literacy’”, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 38/1, pp. 44-60, https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2011.598636.
[89] Smith, D. and T. Lovat (1995), Curriculum: Action on reflection revisited.
[34] Soysal, Y. and S. Radmard (2016), “An exploration of Turkish teachers’ attributions to barriers faced within learner-centred teaching”, Educational Studies, Vol. 43/2, pp. 186-209, https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2016.1248903.
[91] Spencer, E. and L. Hayward (2016), “More Than Good Intentions: Policy and Assessment for Learning in Scotland”, in Assessment for Learning: Meeting the Challenge of Implementation, The Enabling Power of Assessment, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0_7.
[109] Starkey, L. (2019), “A review of research exploring teacher preparation for the digital age”, Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol. 50/1, pp. 37-56, https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2019.1625867.
[123] Strayer, J. (2012), “How learning in an inverted classroom influences cooperation, innovation and task orientation”, Learning Environments Research, Vol. 15/2, pp. 171-193, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-012-9108-4.
[59] Tearle, P. (2003), “ICT implementation: what makes the difference?”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 34/5, pp. 567-583, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0007-1013.2003.00351.x.
[46] Tomlinson, C. et al. (2003), “Differentiating Instruction in Response to Student Readiness, Interest, and Learning Profile in Academically Diverse Classrooms: A Review of Literature”, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, Vol. 27/2-3, pp. 119-145, https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320302700203.
[47] Valiandes, S. (2015), “Evaluating the impact of differentiated instruction on literacy and reading in mixed ability classrooms: Quality and equity dimensions of education effectiveness”, Studies in Educational Evaluation, Vol. 45, pp. 17-26, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2015.02.005.
[31] Van den Akker (2018), Developing curriculum frameworks: A comparative analysis., Dublin: NCCA.
[32] Van den Akker, J. and W. Kuiper (2008), Research on models for instructional design, Handbook of research for educational communications and technology.
[26] Vescio, V., D. Ross and A. Adams (2008), “A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 24/1, pp. 80-91, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004.
[6] Vincent-Lancrin, S., C. Cobo Romaní and F. Reimers (eds.) (2022), How Learning Continued during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Global Lessons from Initiatives to Support Learners and Teachers, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bbeca162-en.
[113] Watson, S. and J. Supovitz (2001), “Autonomy and Accountability in Standards-Based Reform”, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Vol. 9, p. 32, https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v9n32.2001.
[33] Weimer, M. (2013), Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice, John Wiley & Sons.
[5] Whalley, B. et al. (2021), “Towards flexible personalized learning and the future educational system in the fourth industrial revolution in the wake of Covid-19”, Higher Education Pedagogies, Vol. 6/1, pp. 79-99, https://doi.org/10.1080/23752696.2021.1883458.
[110] White, E. (2009), “Are you assessment literate? Some fundamental questions regarding effective classroom-based assessment”.
[85] Wren, D. and J. Benson (2004), “Measuring test anxiety in children: Scale development and internal construct validation”, Anxiety, Stress & Coping, Vol. 17/3, pp. 227-240, https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800412331292606.
[20] 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.
[76] 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.
[60] Zhao, L., W. Hwang and T. Shih (2021), “Investigation of the Physical Learning Environment of Distance Learning Under COVID-19 and Its Influence on Students’ Health and Learning Satisfaction”, International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, Vol. 19/2, pp. 77-98, https://doi.org/10.4018/ijdet.20210401.oa4.
[38] Zimmerman, J. (2006), “Why Some Teachers Resist Change and What Principals Can Do About It”, NASSP Bulletin, Vol. 90/3, pp. 238-249, https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506291521.
[54] Zwart, R. et al. (2008), “Teacher learning through reciprocal peer coaching: An analysis of activity sequences”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 24/4, pp. 982-1002, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.003.
Notes
← 1. It is important to note that the strategies in this chapter are neither recommendations nor an exhaustive list. They rather build on available OECD data and data collected through the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC) or were indicated in the research, as part of the OECD 2030 peer-learning process.
← 2. At the ISCED 2 level.
← 3. TMOA – Central to Te Marautanga o Aotearoa is the Treaty of Waitangi. Arising from the Treaty are the following overarching principles to guide school-based curricula. These principles are built on a belief that the learner is at the centre of all learning. The principles reflect and affirm the identity of the learner, and of Māori-medium schools. The principles also guide teaching and learning in schools. Schools should embed these principles into their teaching and learning programmes. These principles support the learner, school and whānau (extended family) to achieve their full educational potential: the learner is the centre of teaching and learning; the learner has a high level of personal awareness; the learner achieves their potential; school, whānau (extended family), hapū (subtribe or clan), iwi (tribe) and community will work together; environmental health is personal health.
← 4. The Māori language and its customs.
← 5. Whānau is often translated as ‘family’, but its meaning is more complex (including physical, emotional and spiritual dimensions). Whānau is based on a Māori and a tribal world view. It is through the whānau that values, histories and traditions from the ancestors are adapted for the contemporary world. (The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, TeAra.govt.nz)
← 6. The three tracks on the teaching career ladder in Singapore are: Teacher Track; Leader Track and Specialist Track
← 7. Measurement-evaluation and digital developments related to the public education framework, development and renewal of innovative educational organisation procedures (2021)
← 8. Academy of Singapore Teachers, The English Language Institute, https://academyofsingaporeteachers.moe.edu.sg/elis
← 9. TALIS (2019[10]) considers the following definition of innovation in teaching: a problem-solving process rooted in teachers’ professionalism, a normal response to addressing the daily changes of constantly changing classrooms (Paniagua and Istance, 2018[121]).
← 10. Alternative names for flipped classrooms include “inverted classrooms” (Lage, Platt and Treglia, 2000[122]), “inverted learning” (Strayer, 2012[123]) and “just-in-time teaching” (Novak, 2011[124]).
← 13. TSA (Territory-wide System Assessment): a low-stakes assessment for feedback to inform learning and teaching in Chinese, English, and Mathematics at the end of Key Stage 1 (Primary 3), Key Stage 2 (Primary 6), and Key Stage 3 (Secondary 3), resulting in territory-wide and school-level feedback.
← 14. Available online at http://assessment.tki.org.nz/.