This chapter considers four conditions that have the potential to optimise the benefits of curriculum flexibility and autonomy: 1) system goals, which need to be fully understood by those who exercise curriculum flexibility and autonomy and which should be articulated as clearly as possible; 2) system accountability, which should be carefully implemented to avoid lessening teacher agency, well-being and innovation; 3) system capacity, which includes both human and social capital and which determines collective trust and efficacy; and 4) political and economic context, which shapes the way in which resources are allocated and how stakeholders engage. The chapter considers how these four conditions influence each other and how they help or hinder actors from striking the optimal balance at each layer of the learning ecosystem. Finally, it suggests some areas where additional research could close knowledge gaps.
Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy
4. System conditions that enable optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy
Abstract
Exploring system conditions that enable optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy
Curriculum flexibility and autonomy is a complex policy lever. It can influence students’ learning and well-being, depending on how it is used, for what purpose, to what degree and by whom. When the right balance of flexibility and autonomy is found, it can empower teachers and school leaders.
Chapter 1 introduced definitions that can serve as a common language surrounding curriculum flexibility and autonomy. Chapter 2 identified tensions and dilemmas that policymakers and practitioners face through the pendulum between curriculum prescription/control, and curriculum flexibility/autonomy across different aspects of a learning ecosystem. Chapter 3 set out the interplays between curriculum flexibility and autonomy, and introduced challenges and strategies specific to the four dimensions of curriculum flexibility (goals and content, pedagogies, assessment andasa learning time).
Drawing on findings from the previous chapters, this concluding chapter describes four system conditions that can optimise the benefits of curriculum flexibility and autonomy for student learning:
system goals;
system accountability;
system capacity;
political and economic context.
System goals
System goals in curricula are manifested as a shared vision of principles, a clear purpose of education, and a precise intention for the curriculum under consideration. To ensure optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy, system goals need to be articulated as clearly as possible and be fully understood by those who will exercise that flexibility and autonomy. This section points to three lessons learned about system goals for achieving optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy.
Broadening educational goals
Increasingly, OECD countries and jurisdictions are repurposing and articulating holistic educational goals such as excellence, equity and well-being more clearly when redesigning their curricula. International trends point to the need to revisit, redefine or reaffirm educational goals, stressing the importance of “whole-child/whole-person development” as articulated in the “Declaration on Building Equitable Societies Through Education” adopted on the occasion of the Ministerial meeting of the OECD Education Policy Committee in 2022 with more than 30 countries represented. The declaration calls for international collaboration that supports countries to “Develop a whole-child/person and whole-of-society approach to reimagine education that is fit for the future” (OECD, n.d.[1]).
In a previous curriculum analysis report, OECD E2030 participating countries shared examples of how they align and cascade goals from the macro- to micro-level (i.e., societal goals, educational goals, curricular goals and subject-specific goals), and how this whole-of-system alignment translates into the competencies students need to shape a future where they can achieve those goals. These competencies are presented as “student profiles” that correspond to whole-person development at a micro-level, and a holistic vision of a society at a macro-level (OECD, 2020[2]).
Co-creating a vision of learners for the future
For effective curriculum implementation, teachers and school leaders must be in agreement on the vision of student profiles that a curriculum strives to develop. In countries with a solid culture of teacher autonomy, setting out clear curricular goals enables teachers to exercise their freedom, adapt quickly and adjust their learning content to match. This seems to be the case in Finland, where teachers expect a certain degree of autonomy over content choices and enjoy the role of curriculum designers that such autonomy entails (Erss and Kalmus, 2018[3]).
In contexts that lack a tradition of local autonomy, investment in co-creating and sharing a vision of learners for the future can foster a new educational culture. This was the case in Portugal, which legislated increases in the curriculum flexibility and autonomy granted to schools. Cognisant that regulatory measures are not enough to change mindsets and beliefs about the roles of teachers, Portugal initiated its curriculum renewal with a long and extensive consultation among stakeholders to establish a profile of the learners it envisions for the future. The Students’ Profile by the End of Compulsory Schooling describes the competencies and characteristics Portuguese students should have by graduation (Educação, 2017[4]), and functions as a guiding document for the entire country.
Such student profile guidelines can create synergies across different activities, which can be packaged together, such as teacher professional learning and support programmes. For example, the extent to which teachers are involved in the creation of such a vision and can benefit from curricular autonomy increases the extent to which they will embody it in their practice. They are more likely to adhere to the vision’s intentions, adapt their practice in ways consistent with the curriculum goals, and enjoy a sense of ownership and empowerment due to the new flexibility. This aligns with international research that identifies positive correlations between teachers’ perceived autonomy, self-efficacy and empowerment (Parker, 2015[5]; Usma Wilches, 2007[6]); and is also likely associated with teacher well-being (OECD, 2019[7]).
Accommodating unexpected needs with broader goals
It is important to remember that curriculum flexibility and autonomy is a means, not an imperative or a goal in itself; it should serve the purpose of achieving system goals, such as ensuring entitlements to education and well-being, and providing opportunities for students to reach their full potential.
From time to time, all countries experience events which place additional, often unexpected and competing demands on the educational system. Curriculum flexibility and autonomy can be used as a means to enhance the system’s overall resilience by accommodating unexpected needs in an agile way to achieve the goals. An example at the time of writing is the recent urgent need to accommodate refugee students from Ukraine. In Estonia, existing curriculum flexibility and autonomy enabled the system to address acute student needs in an agile way (Box 4.1).
This particular circumstance also illustrates how broad educational system goals, such as allowing students to learn and develop in a stable environment, are shared across national borders. This goal also demonstrates international solidarity with UN Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education as well as the UN Convention on The Rights of the Child Article 28: Right to Education (UN, 1989[8]).
Box 4.1. Adapting to the needs of Ukrainian students in Estonia
Tartu Annelinna Gymnasium is a bilingual school in Tartu, Estonia, offering education to students whose mother tongue is not Estonian. With their full and partial immersion in bilingual programmes, this school is an example of how curriculum flexibility and teacher autonomy effectively respond to emerging student needs.
162 Ukrainian students from different backgrounds have studied at Tartu Annelinna Gymnasium since 7 March 2022. Since then, the community has been working on providing education, as well as a sense of security and routine, to students, to help reduce stress levels caused by the war in their home country. In doing so, one of the main challenges faced by the city of Tartu has been to integrate students in the local system, while offering them age-appropriate education.
At Annelinna Gymnasium, programmes at every age level are organised to prioritise inclusive pedagogy. For example, at the Primary level, students can join full immersion classes, where subjects are taught only in Estonian and individual assignments are designed to meet students’ needs and interests. For those whose native language is not Estonian, additional Estonian language lessons are available for students to catch up.
At the Secondary level, students can attend both partial and total immersion programmes, studying either in Estonian or Russian. In addition to a regular lessons plan, the school has a special programme, "Estonian Language and Mind” created by a team of six teachers. Estonian Language and Mind includes social studies, music and handicraft classes for non-native Estonian speakers. This programme aims to support the integration of foreign students, in particular Ukrainians, into the school culture and society in general. In the whole country, schools have come to realise that the best way to tackle the language barrier is through subjects that employ a universal language such as art, music and physical education.
Finally, for upper secondary level students, the school offers core subjects (maths, science, social studies) in Russian. Students are also supported by a certified teacher from Ukraine (who is also a refugee) and given access to Ukrainian language classes as well as foreign languages to promote their integration. Besides the formal curriculum, students have access to extracurricular activities inside and outside of school, like trips and sports.
Tartu Annelinna Gymnasium has been opening its doors since the beginning of the war and succeeded in creating a safe and inclusive learning environment thanks to the measures adopted in their programmes, which focused on student integration and well-being. The school ethos is rooted in its core values of openness, courage and tolerance. These established values, together with teacher's autonomy and curriculum flexibility, allowed the school to tackle the unexpected challenges posed by the war, providing good practice in line with the change happening at the national level. For example, the country's latest adoption of a learner-centred focus, as well as of a flexible and decentralised education approach, emphasises the importance of student and teacher agency, in line with the E2030 project.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. Thematic Working Group 3 (Estonia). Hiie Asser and Julia Klochkova, from Tartu Annelinna Gymnasium.
Summary of key actions to consider for system goals
1. Broaden curricular goals, e.g., excellence, equity and well-being, stressing the importance of “whole-child/whole-person development”.
2. Engage practitioners and students themselves in co-creating a future vision of learners or learner/student profiles. Associate autonomy with empowerment, ownership and well-being, establishing communication channels between those to whom autonomy is granted, such as local authorities, school leaders, teachers and students; and building relationships, capacity and trust between these stakeholders.
3. Remember that curriculum flexibility and autonomy is a means, not an imperative or a goal in itself; it can be used as a means to enhance the resilience of the overall system by accommodating unexpected needs in an agile way to achieve these goals.
System accountability
Curriculum flexibility can sit at any point on the continuum between completely flexible and completely fixed (Tucker and Morris, 2010[9]). In practice, even the most flexible curriculum is not entirely free of requirements. By its nature, a formally endorsed curriculum has some degree of constraint or regulation set by the government (or other bodies) for accountability purposes.
As was discussed in Chapter 2 (see Figures 2.3 and 2.4), there is significant variation between countries in terms of how responsibility for decision-making and curriculum design is shared across national and local authorities and school staff. Optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy is dependent on the interactions of all three key elements: system goals, system accountability and system capacity. For example, devolving curriculum responsibility to schools demands curriculum design expertise (system capacity) and appropriate accountability measures (system accountability) to ensure that the curricular goals or a certain set of expected educational outcomes (system goals) are met. This section points to three lessons learned about system accountability for achieving optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy.
Standard-setting and monitoring are key to achieving system goals
Different policy levers can ensure that curricular goals are met. Broadly speaking, there are two accountability approaches policymakers can consider for optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy: standard-setting and monitoring.
Standard-setting
Countries can decide how prescriptive or flexible curriculum should be. The aspects that can be influenced by standard-setting of an intended curriculum include defining curricular goals and standards, content, learning time, pedagogies and assessment (See Chapter 3).
This approach is more likely to sit towards the prescriptive end of the spectrum (more so for learning time and content than pedagogies and assessment, as seen in Chapter 3), particularly where central government has taken more responsibility for ensuring curriculum entitlements and equity for all students by defining curricular dimensions and setting required performance metrics.
Monitoring
Countries put in place a monitoring system when delegating curriculum control from national government to other actors (e.g., local authorities, schools, teachers and learners), and holding them accountable for their curricular choices. In other words, the government sets the standards for schools (i.e., articulates curricular goals, specifies expected standards for processes, outputs and outcomes), and holds schools accountable for site-specific choices to meet the curricular goals, for which monitoring is indispensable.
Monitoring can take various forms by comparing national or state standards (i.e., intended/written curriculum) with the different curriculum aspects listed below (Kuiper and Berkvens (Eds.), 2013[10]):
taught/implemented curriculum (e.g., external inspections as part of school evaluation);
attained/achieved curriculum (e.g., qualifications, national exams and standardised tests to monitor student performance);
experienced curriculum (e.g., student surveys to monitor student learning progression and well-being);
local/negotiated curriculum (e.g., any local or school-level curriculum where the national/state-level curriculum has been adapted at the local level);
perceived curriculum (e.g., teacher surveys to monitor teachers’ understanding of new curriculum goals, the level of autonomy granted and pedagogical knowledge to use curriculum flexibility);
expected curriculum (e.g., surveys of stakeholders such as parents and representatives from the business sector to take stock of their expectations and beliefs about what students should learn).
It is important to note the risks associated with monitoring the attained/achieved curriculum through qualifications, examinations or standardised student assessment. One example of such risks is unintended consequences when such examinations or assessments are used as high-stakes measures. Under such conditions, schools and teachers are more likely to aim towards “teaching to the test”. This risk is particularly high in primary education, where it can limit students' exposure to a broader range of learning opportunities that are crucial for their healthy development and well-being. These aspects of learning are often less easily measured by standardised tests. Indeed, since 2020, Singaporean primary school teachers have been using qualitative descriptors rather than ranks based on standardised test scores to evaluate participation in discussions and homework (Richman-Abdou, 2019[11]).
Another risk is a potential misuse of the results of such assessment. When a purpose is not clearly communicated to or understood by teachers, they may use the results of such assessment simply to pass judgement on the performance of their students, rather than using the results to help their students to improve the quality of their learning. Teachers may need more support to be able to use the data that monitoring standardised student assessment provides to inform classroom teaching and learning (Brill et al., 2018[12]).
An example of policy efforts in this regard, can be found in Japan. The National Assessment of Academic Ability (NAAA) publishes all test items together with explanatory notes for those items, so as to articulate the alignment between curriculum and assessment, i.e., how assessment is designed to measure the intended student outcomes set out in the national curriculum. A report published by the National Institute of Educational Policy Research details the results, together with explanatory notes for teachers to support their understanding of a student's learning status based on their raw responses to the test items. To improve educational support to each student, the Japanese national assessments are intended for all students to take part in. Furthermore, the government provided tablet computers for every student in Japan and developed online platform for learning (MEXCBT), enabling all students to learn and take assessments, including the national assessment, through the platform. With such a common platform and devices set up with specific technical specifications, teachers have access to materials as well as the standardised framework for analysing students’ progress so as to enhance the quality of teaching and learning through the well-structured assessment scheme and a common scale. In 2023, the NAAA was conducted while using MEXCBT in English speaking assessment. More research and practice are needed on the effective use of assessment data in order to maximise the benefits of these innovations and ensure that they effectively support student learning and development.
The literature discusses a variety of impacts that educational assessment can have. For example, it is known that test designs affect students' learning strategy, motivation and achievement (Crooks, 1988[13]; Harkins, 2001[14]). Thus, large-scale assessments should be designed based not only on the measures of validity and reliability, but also on consideration of the social and ethical impact of how the results and instruments are interpreted and utilised (Frederiksen and Collins, 1989[15]; Messick, 1987[16]). At the international level, for example, OECD PISA 2013 Results (OECD, 2013[17]) suggested that students in schools with greater autonomy in resource allocation show better performance in countries where schools account for their results by posting achievement data publicly, but worse in countries where there are no such arrangements. However, other research indicates that the publication of school outcomes could contribute to creating school rankings, which have detrimental impacts on the behaviours of teachers and principals in schools, with consequent negative impact on the learning outcomes of students (Mausethagen, 2020[18]). When designing an assessment and evaluation system, it is of particular importance for policymakers to consider multi-directional consequences, including potential unintended consequences, on both students’ learning and well-being.
Excessive focus on or blind use of accountability can risk lessening teacher agency, well-being and innovation
A common definition of school accountability is the one elaborated by Figlio and Loeb (2011[19]). They define school accountability as “the process of evaluating school performance on the basis of student performance measures”. Many countries use data on student learning outcomes as system efficiency measures. But achieving an approach that has a positive impact on the teaching and learning experience whilst simultaneously meeting system accountability requirements is challenging. Accountability systems can produce perverse incentives, leading to unintended consequences if they are not carefully designed and monitored (Torres, 2021[20]).
The way students are assessed and the content or learning objectives that are the focus of assessment often drive what is taught in classrooms (Hargreaves, Earl and Ryan, 2013[21]; Muskin, 2015[22]; Hargreaves, Earl and Ryan, 2013[21]). As stated by Burgess and Kennedy (1998[23]), “what gets measured, gets treasured”, and “what gets tested, gets taught”. Individual learning needs can be overlooked in favour of content covered in examinations and, when combined with over-reliance on testing in schools, assessments can result in negative impacts on student well-being (Abeles and Rubenstein, 2015[24]; Cho and Chan, 2020[25]).
The importance of context and culture in relation to teacher agency is also illustrated in Singapore. Teachers teach critical thinking as a mere technical skill – following the curriculum and examination requirements – but also see this way of teaching as limited in developing critical thinking skills relevant for life (Lim, 2014[26]).
Educational assessment policies and practices must align with broader intentions to improve student learning, as well as initiatives undertaken to emphasise the professional autonomy of teachers who can promote both the learning and well-being of all students. As discussed in Chapters 2 and 3, high-stakes testing environments impact student well-being. They can lessen student engagement in broader learning experiences and access to opportunities for deeper learning, and instead reduce teaching and learning to a prioritisation of passing tests. Furthermore, students are more likely to experience test anxiety associated with increased competition, strained relationships with parents and sleep deprivation (Minarechová, 2012[27]; Mulvenon, Stegman and Ritter, 2005[28]; Wren and Benson, 2004[29]).
However, curriculum flexibility can improve the performance of students while mitigating stress and improving student well-being (Cho and Chan, 2020[25]). More robust and varied research is needed on the types of methods that can simultaneously support learning outcomes and student well-being, while also meeting the accountability needs of the educational system.
Monitoring broader curricular goals will require a variety of assessments for different purposes, and students need meaningful feedback for better learning and well-being
A curriculum that offers flexibility for teachers to design and administer a variety of assessments that support learning can counterbalance the undesired effects of rigid assessment policies. Research implies that teachers can be better supported to provide more frequent and meaningful feedback on student work than grading, and to support students to become self-directed learners, including how to evaluate their own progress. Teachers who are constrained in their ability to provide feedback not only limit the effectiveness of their teaching but also the learning potential of their students (Muijs and Reynolds, 2005[30]).
Teachers exercise professional autonomy over curriculum flexibility when they use a variety of assessment types to monitor their students’ progress. The assessment types (Box 4.2) are designed for different curricular purposes. In a well-balanced assessment system, the data produced by assessments can be used both to inform teachers’ decision-making on strategies to improve student learning at the classroom level, and to inform policies at the system level for accountability purposes.
Box 4.2. Assessment types
Assessment of learning (summative assessment): standardised testing to measure how well students have achieved intended curricular goals at the end of a unit or a year. This can be at a system level for accountability purposes or for research to inform curriculum change; at a school level, often as part of a school evaluation for curriculum implementation; or at an individual student level, often for selection criteria. Thus, this assessment type is considered high-stakes.
Assessment for learning (formative assessment): frequent and interactive feedback to encourage students to value their learning and aspire to aim higher, with a growth mindset and sense of well-being. This assessment type helps teachers adapt and differentiate their teaching to suit individual students’ needs and feel a sense of agency and efficacy in their teaching. It can be applied at the system level; however, barriers to scaling exist, such as a lack of visibility of the results of this type of assessment, in comparison with summative assessment (OECD CERI, 2008[31]).
Assessment as learning (self-assessment): students assess their own learning outcomes or progression as part of self-directed learning towards curricular goals, exercising learner autonomy in curriculum design/implementation.
While Chapter 3 suggests that teachers have a high degree of autonomy to choose assessment approaches in many countries and jurisdictions, Figure 4.1 shows that the use of “assessment as learning” is much less frequent than that of other assessment types. Recognising the increasing relevance of self-directed learning and self-awareness about students’ own progress, as well as their potential, as indicated in the OECD Learning Compass, it is critical that teachers engage their students in learning to learn. This would include monitoring their own learning with the use of different types of assessment practices themselves. Box 4.3 and Box 4.4 illustrate student experiences on self-directed learning.
Figure 4.1. Share of lower-secondary teachers who “frequently” or “always” use the selected assessment methods in class
Notes: These data refer to a randomly chosen class that teachers currently teach from their weekly timetable.
Values are ranked in descending order of the use of teachers' assessment practices.
Source: (OECD, 2019[7]),TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
Box 4.3. Engaging students in learning to learn
Eliana, a 13-year-old student in Indonesia, uses a variety of methods to revise class material and assess her own progress. Some of these are suggested by the teacher, and others are practices she comes up with herself. One of her teachers encourages her to actively reflect on her progress at the end of every class by asking herself what she learned that day, how she feels and how well she thinks she did in class.
Her teachers also provide physical handouts to help her revise class material. These papers condense 25-page PowerPoint presentations into 3 pages, and Eliana likes that she can physically annotate them. She is conscious of how much time she spends in front of the computer, so she appreciates these handouts that reduce her screen time.
For each unit in her natural science classes, she practices questions from the textbooks and checks the answers with the teacher. However, if the teacher is not available, she checks the answers with her classmates or older students. She finds that older students offer great support as they have already studied relevant material and can help her by drawing on their own experiences with the course.
Before tests, Eliana does online quizzes on Kahoot! or Quizlet made by the teacher or makes mind maps. Mind maps are usually thought of in relation to essay writing, but Eliana uses them in natural sciences for memorisation. They help her to digest the textbook and assess which topics she has the most knowledge about and where she needs to study more.
On a day-to-day basis, she also checks her own understanding and progress in smaller and more subtle practices. She finds that when the teacher asks open questions to the entire class, they help her self-assess even if she is not the one answering. She will try to come up with the answer to the question in her mind and know whether she got it right, even if another student answers. She makes a mental note of questions she gets wrong and approximates how well she has understood the topic, as well as what she needs to review. She also points out how she uses everyday objects to reflect on things she has learned, for instance, for studying biology: “If I see a leaf, I try to identify it; if I see an animal, I will try and group it.”
Eliana places importance on the diversity of practices she uses to review and reflect on her learning. She underlines that she could not select one practice as the most helpful, explaining that it is as if there is an “invisible string” between all these practices and to build a solid understanding of her learning progress, she needs to consult a variety of formal and informal sources.
Source: Interview with Eliana, student, Santa Laurensia Junior High School, Indonesia, July 2022.
Box 4.4. Curriculum flexibility and autonomy for self-directed learning
Soo-a Kim, a 17-year-old Korean student thinks that the biggest goal of the curriculum should be to maximise students’ learning, and that the way to achieve it is to help students develop self-directed learning. She says learning is like pouring water into a bottomless jar: you have to pour water into it every day, otherwise your jar will empty out. According to her, some students fill up their jar water like a machine without thinking, as their teachers and parents tell them to do. Others actively find the answers to problems and study on their own, pouring water on their own. This method is how Soo-a has pursued her education. "I can't say it's always a good thing. My way doesn't guarantee a better score than others. It also takes longer than others. And other students are always filled with some water because teachers and parents pour water instead of them, and the students also do what they say. However, if I'm a little lazy or do not control myself strictly, there's a risk that my jar will be empty." As she has taken initiatives to direct her own learning, some teachers have encouraged Soo-a to become more like other students, especially to ensure good scores on exams.
Soo-a notes that hardly any students worldwide are free from scores, and she once felt the anxiety that other students feel about scores. "Can I go to a good university? Somewhere like a Korean version of the Ivy League with my score?” In fact, she decided to go to university in a way that did not require a good exam score. She decided to major in violin because she had been playing since she was young and was talented at it. She practiced the violin for more than ten hours every day. One day, about ten months into studying her violin major in preparation for further studies at the university level, she had an important realisation: "There’s nothing I cannot achieve if I do something just like I’m practicing the violin!" After that eye-opening moment, she heard from her violin teacher that her talent for musicality and technique meant she would be able to attend university. Everything for the violin major was set, yet Soo-a made a dramatic decision to quit playing the violin and go back to studying for the traditional university entrance exam. She had six months to prepare for the exam, which is very short considering that some students spend 12 years preparing for that one test.
For some students, it is nearly impossible to get back on track if they deviate even a little from their path or a particular curriculum. However, since Soo-a owned the knowledge she acquired through self-directed learning over the years, she was able to switch studies and keep moving forward on her path to attending university. Additionally, she found an appealing alternative to Korea's university entrance exam: the essay test. The purpose of the essay test is to identify unique and valuable students with creative thoughts, which are not revealed by a score from the traditional university entrance exam. At the time of writing, she was in the process of preparing for the essay test and was enjoying the process. While this test might not appeal to all students, she found it allowed her to apply the competencies she developed through self-directed learning, such as flexibility, adaptability, knowledge and confidence.
She says: “A person who has never fallen is a person who has never walked. Farmers who do not sow seeds cannot reap fruits in autumn. Pedagogy should help students stand up again and walk even if they fall and get hurt. Pedagogy should teach them to go out and sow seeds even if they shed tears." Soo-a believes that the flexibility and autonomy of the curriculum, which allows for innovative pedagogies such as self-directed learning, has the power to ensure that everyone can fill their own jar.
Source: The Voice: Newsletter of the OECD E2030 Student Sphere (2021), Issue 4, August 2021, https://heyzine.com/flip-book/8894b5255d.html; OECD Youth Week event "What Generation Z thinks about school, the curriculum and their future", 23 September 2021, https://oecdcomms-mediahub.keepeek.com/publicMedia?t=pmr6DIn3IC.
While recognising the broader goals of education, it is important to remember the potential risk that certain types of assessments can instil a fear of failure in students. This can threaten their social and emotional well-being (Elliot and Sheldon, 1997[32]), be associated with stress, anxiety, burnout and depression (Conroy, 2004[33]; Gustafsson, Sagar and Stenling, 2016[34]; Sagar, Lavallee and Spray, 2007[35]) and can also be associated with less satisfaction with life.
Furthermore, research indicates that teacher support significantly enhances students' well-being both in and outside of school. For example, Suldo et al. find that social support from teachers is associated with increased well-being (2009[36]) . They also show, along with Guess and McCane-Bowling, that supportive teachers contribute to happier students who report greater life satisfaction. (2009[36]; 2013[37]). (OECD, 2019[38]).
PISA 2018 data show that, in 35 countries and economies, less than 10% of students reported getting feedback on their strengths in every or almost every lesson (OECD, 2019[38]). Meaningful feedback is a cornerstone of learning. In this regard, teachers are encouraged to provide meaningful feedback so students can become aware of their own strengths (Figure 4.2) and avoid creating excessive anxiety, which can have negative effects on students’ learning and well-being.
Figure 4.2. Frequency of teacher feedback on students’ strengths
Percentage of students who reported that "teachers give me feedback on my strengths in this subject”
Note: *Data did not meet the PISA technical standards but were accepted as largely comparable.
Source: (OECD, 2019[38]), PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students’ Lives, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.
Summary of key actions to consider for system accountability
1. Recognise the complex interactions between system accountability, system goals and system capacity.
2. Be mindful of an excessive focus on accountability inadvertently lessening student and teacher agency and well-being, and discouraging innovation.
3. Support teachers to design and administer a variety of assessments for different purposes that support learning. In doing so, teachers are encouraged to learn to provide meaningful feedback and avoid creating excessive anxiety.
System capacity
Chapter 3 highlights insufficient system capacity as a challenge to using curriculum autonomy across all dimensions of flexibility. This often results in variations in the quality of learning across different systems. For optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy, policymakers should broaden the scope of system capacity considered, more specifically by including both human and social capital:
Human capital in curriculum design includes actors with different levels of curriculum autonomy (local boards of education, school leaders, administrators, teachers and students), depending on who is granted flexibility to design or contribute to the making of a curriculum in a country/jurisdiction, as identified in Chapter 1.
Social capital supports those actors in performing to the best of their ability; examples include relational ties, collaboration and trust.
When human and social capital are woven together, they contribute to individual and collective well-being at all layers (See OECD (2019, pp. 26-28[39])). Chapter 3 presents a range of strategies countries undertake to ensure the quality and equity of student learning. These raise standards and build capacity within the school and system (Hopkins, 2013[40]) by developing individual (including both intellectual and social) as well as organisational capital. This section points to three lessons learned about system capacity for achieving optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy.
Human capital
Optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy will require optimal engagement of human capital from various places across the education ecosystem: local authorities, school leaders, teachers and students.
School governing boards and local/regional authorities
Governance matters in terms of whom the responsibility for a curriculum is delegated to and to what extent. In OECD countries, the extent to which school governing boards and local/regional authorities (together) are granted responsibility for curricula varies considerably, ranging from federal states such as Switzerland (48.8%), the United States (44.6%) and Germany (38.1%), to Czechia (1.8%), Iceland (1.4%) and Greece (0.1%).
In Chapter 2, the OECD PISA results showed that students’ performance correlates with decentralised curriculum autonomy (Figure 2.1; (OECD, 2011[41]). Performance correlates to some extent with curriculum autonomy afforded to school governing boards and local/regional authorities – more than to national education authority, although less than to teachers and principals.
Considering complex governance issues, it is important that those responsible for curriculum decisions in school boards and local/regional authorities have the knowledge and resources to support the professional autonomy of teachers and school leaders, while ensuring that students have equal access to quality curriculum experiences in their districts and regions.
School principals’ leadership capacity, confidence and willingness to take risks
Greany and Waterhouse (2016[42]) studied the relationship between school autonomy, school leadership and curriculum innovation in England over a period of 40 years and found no correlation between increased autonomy and the level of curriculum innovation. Their study shows that extensive accountability in terms of high-stakes testing and rigorous school inspection constrains the autonomy of most schools in England. Only school leaders with the capacity, confidence and willingness to take risks use their autonomy to develop innovative curricula.
Suggett (2015[43]) suggests that school and teacher autonomy interact with other elements to improve school and student performance. These include particularly the nature and level of autonomy, the accountability context in which the school operates, and the readiness of school principals and teachers to enact the autonomy granted to them (Caldwell, 2016[44]; Ko, Cheng and Lee, 2016[45]; Suggett, 2015[43]; OECD, 2016[46]). This complex dynamic includes a direct relationship between school and teacher autonomy and student outcomes (Ko, Cheng and Lee, 2016[47]).
Teachers’ agency, design capacity, resourcefulness, confidence and preparedness
It is important that teachers understand the intent of the curriculum, the reasons behind changes, and the principles and values it embodies in order for them to exercise autonomy over a flexible curriculum in a way that is coherent with its vision and goal, going beyond specific learning objectives and content prioritised in each subject or learning area (Erss, Kalmus and Autio, 2016[48]). This suggests that system capacity, especially teachers’ deep and thorough understanding (rather than personal interpretation) of system goals, is critical.
While school-based or local curricula are considered relevant for preparing young people and providing them with opportunities to contribute to society (Leat and Thomas, 2018[49]), developing curricula at this level requires systems to provide capacity-building opportunities for teachers and the development of a culture that supports teachers as curriculum makers. Using levels of flexibility accorded by a curriculum is a contextual matter. In other words, teachers’ practice is influenced by their experience, perspectives, beliefs and capabilities (skills, knowledge and understanding) regarding the curriculum and subject matter. Consequently, the same curriculum is likely to produce variations in teachers’ practices and can result in different learning experiences for students in and across schools (Hattie, 2015[50]). As a result, the curriculum experienced by students might be rich, engaging and relevant for some, but narrow and disengaging for others. The resulting variation raises equity questions across regions, schools and classrooms (Van de Werfhorst and Mijs, 2010[51]; European Commission, 2020[52]), as discussed in Chapter 3.
Teachers who welcome the possibility of designing their own curriculum and are resourceful in doing so are likely to capitalise on the opportunity to offer high-quality learning to their students. Teacher agency depends on the interplay between teachers’ experience, capacity and ambitions regarding the possibilities offered by an innovative curriculum (Priestley et al., 2016[53]). In the context of curriculum reforms in Scotland (United Kingdom) and Cyprus, Priestley et al. found that context matters to achieve agency.
However, teachers who feel intimidated by such demands or lack confidence or capability to use their agency effectively might rely on past practices or curriculum requirements or expectations that are no longer current. Teachers might not use prior experiences, capacity and ambitions if they perceive the innovation context as too difficult or risky. They might even use their agency to resist change. In relation to the implementation of the 2004 Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland (United Kingdom), Priestley and Minty explain:
Assumptions about the role of teachers as agents of change have been shown to be highly problematic; Scottish government policy has tended to focus on raising individual capacity, while not addressing the structural and cultural issues that might constrain or enable teacher agency (Priestley M and Minty S, 2013, p. 42[54]).
Autonomy and responsibility for curriculum decision-making in the classroom can mainly be seen as contributing to the overall well-being of teachers (Liu, Song and Miao, 2018[55]) when they feel empowered rather than uncertain. In contrast, uncertainty and a feeling of unpreparedness can have a negative impact on teachers’ well-being (Benevene, De Stasio and Fiorilli, 2020[56]).
Students as part of human capital to optimise curriculum flexibility and autonomy
The concept of student agency in the OECD Learning Compass for 2030, regards students not solely as the intended beneficiaries of an education system, but also as valuable human capital, contributors and co-constructors of a larger learning ecosystem (OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, 2019[57]).
Students have the conviction, the will and the ability to positively influence their own lives and the world around them, and the capacity to set goals, reflect and act responsibly to effect change (OECD, 2019[39]). They also create social capital through their co-agency in an interactive, mutually supportive and enriching relationship with their peers, teachers, parents and communities. Therefore, students should be considered an asset to enriching class culture and a resource that can contribute to making curriculum flexibility and autonomy optimal for all students.
Nonetheless, there are potential risks associated with school-based curriculum-making from a student perspective, such as the conscious or unconscious influence on students of their parents’ or teachers’ wishes or advice to them (see “Student voice” in the following section).
Social capital
As mentioned earlier, human capital will best contribute to individual and collective well-being when connected to, woven into and supported by social capital, such as relational ties, collaboration and trust. The following section aims to provide some examples of such connections.
Connected autonomy and collaboration for collective efficacy
To use curriculum flexibility in the best interest of each student, teachers should be able to use their autonomy to work in collaboration with others, rather than operating in isolation. This recognises the potential of leveraging social capital (Coleman, 1988[58]; Lin, 2001[59]). Fullan (2020[60]) explains a similar concept as “connected autonomy”; he explains it as “be your own person, work with your peers, and connect upwards to other levels”. He adds that connected autonomy contributes to collective efficacy, but also fuels individual autonomy, and stresses the importance of building trust, collaboration and precision (i.e. being as specific as the context requires), over prescription.
Learning and practice are central to optimal curriculum autonomy, for which relational ties matter. Curriculum knowledge and expertise are resources to share among those in a system, influenced by the quantity and quality of relational ties across the system (Daly, 2012[61]). Such knowledge and expertise can be shared among individuals in ways that improve the curriculum, teaching and learning (Daly et al., 2014[62]; Penuel et al., 2010[63]; Spillane and Kim, 2012[64]). As Daly et al. (2014[62]) explain, “teachers who possess higher levels of structural social capital (exchange of resources through their social network position) may have greater opportunity to use and expand their human capital (accumulated knowledge and experience) in improving practice and student learning” (p. 9). Sinnema et al (2021[65]) also find that “individuals who were active advice seekers were more likely to report higher levels of new learning and improved practice”.
A well-designed curriculum demands not only agency but also strong social capital and connected autonomy. Connectedness is vital – given the potential of individual teacher autonomy to create variability, inequities or consciously- or unconsciously-biased judgements – to prevent students from experiencing curriculum overload, or a disconnected or misaligned curriculum. According to Priestley, et al. (2015[66]), teacher autonomy does not simply result in teacher agency. Priestley, Edwards, Millar & Priestley (2012[67]) suggest that educational policy making in the context of curriculum reform needs to take teachers’ engagement into account.
The complex relationship between teacher agency and curriculum reform is clear in a study investigating teachers’ perceptions by Ramberg (2014[68]), which depicts the relationship between teaching practice and the 2006 national curriculum reform in Norway. It found that the overall influence of the reform on teachers’ practices was moderate; however, it was the general orientation towards teacher collaboration and the way school leadership was enacted, which supported the change. It is important to recognise that teacher agency does not automatically translate to teacher autonomy: agency in a larger learning ecosystem can be empowered by autonomy and requires trust and a culture of collaboration penetrating multiple layers of connected autonomy.
Building trust for competency-driven curricula, pedagogies and assessments
While competency-driven curricula are not new, countries and jurisdictions participating in the OECD E2030 analysis frequently report a false dichotomy between knowledge and competencies, with misunderstanding of the concept of competency hindering their efforts to see change taking place in schools (OECD, 2020[2]) The concept covers more than the acquisition of skills, as some might presume. Acquiring competencies involves the fusion of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values to meet complex demands. Moreover, the focus on competencies is not a rejection of knowledge or a focus on skills, but a blending of these along with values and attitudes, as appropriate.
An unintended consequence experienced by some countries and jurisdictions is that school leaders and teachers who use their autonomy to elevate competency-based teaching and learning in their schools have been portrayed as lowering standards or “dumbing down” the curriculum in favour of less rigorous content. Despite efforts to develop and promote student agency, contemporary content and transferrable competencies across subject areas, stakeholders in some countries and jurisdictions insist upon established (but no longer relevant) subject matter and pedagogical methods and assessment practices.
Important lessons from these unintended consequences are the importance of:
dispelling inaccurate notions concerning the nature and purpose of competencies;
reiterating that disciplinary knowledge is and will continue to remain important;
making clear the composite nature of competencies as the fusion of knowledge, skills and dispositions;
demonstrating through early adopters, trials or pilot studies how teachers’ practice is empowered and how students’ learning is enhanced through autonomy and flexibility, as represented in the richness of assessment data obtained;
illustrating how professional autonomy can be used to promote pedagogies and assessment, such as through inquiry-based learning, project-based learning and formative assessment, without compromising the integrity of subject areas.
Formative assessment is a case in point. While policy and reform efforts might encourage teachers to draw on a range of formative and summative assessment strategies and tools, the use of innovative forms of assessment by teachers might be less than anticipated or desired owing to teachers’ preparedness (Clark and Peterson, 1986[69]; Hawthrone, 1990[70]; Mkandawire, 2010[71]) (See Chapter 3).
Another important aspect of the assessment process teachers undertake is providing feedback to students regarding their performance, achievement and progress. The quality of teachers’ feedback has been identified as having a significant impact on student learning, motivation and engagement (AITSL, 2017[72]; McCallum, Hargreaves and Gipps, 2000[73]; Hattie and Timperley, 2007[74]).
Cultural and historical context of teacher perceptions, capacity and trust
Voogt et al. (2018[75]) identified complex interplays between teachers’ perceptions, capacity and trust (Erss, 2018[76]; Erss, Kalmus and Autio, 2016[77]; Wermke, Olason Rick and Salokangas, 2019[78]). They argue that teachers differ in their perception of autonomy across countries, deeply rooted in the cultural and historical context of their education systems:
In Estonia, teachers feel that their national curriculum is somewhat idealistic and lacks sufficient resources for effective implementation. This perception includes inadequate learning materials, insufficient time for preparation and implementation, and a need for professional development to meet curriculum demands. These issues might stem from the rapid transition to a more autonomous education framework without adequate infrastructure and resources to support such autonomy effectively. Teachers are accountable and feel responsible for students’ achievement (output regulation) and expect curriculum guidelines and specifications, while at the same time wanting greater autonomy.
In Finland, within the context of the national core curriculum, teachers experience curricular autonomy to some degree. They endorse the curriculum and do not feel that it is too prescriptive. They feel that their professionalism is trusted by society and that they are granted autonomy over teaching and pedagogy. Halinen and Holappa (2013[79]) also mention the importance of trust as experienced by Finnish teachers, accepting that there are also issues beyond their control.
In Bavaria (Germany), teachers are limited in their curricular autonomy and expect guidelines and specifications about what is required from them (input regulation). They experience little output regulation. Collective approaches are at the heart of decision-making at the school level. Significant control at the school level nonetheless has few formal consequences, though teachers also perceive some control by parents.
In Korea, teachers are granted autonomy but the substance of the curriculum does not change, leaving limited room to exercise this autonomy (Hong and Youngs, 2016[80]).
In the Netherlands, teachers feel they lack control over their work, that their expertise is not taken seriously, and feel like executors instead of designers of education (Maes et al., 2012[81]). However, teachers also do not use the autonomy granted to them due to unclear standards with which they must comply (Kuiper, 2017[82]). Instead, they create clarity by using textbooks as a self-imposed form of prescription.
In New Zealand, curriculum design left completely to teachers is considered highly complex and with a risk of cognitive overload. Teachers might lack the capacity to design the curriculum or do not welcome the extra burden of responsibilities that come with autonomy (Sinnema, 2015[83]).
In Sweden, teachers feel restricted autonomy. They mention pressure and control regarding student achievement. Because of students’ relatively low performance on international standards, this pressure comes not only from within the education system but also from parents, the media, and the research community. This situation is also explained by the marketisation of the school system in which students and parents are seen as customers.
Other studies report the constraints teachers perceive when they reflect on their autonomy, such as overregulation and bureaucracy:
In a research study conducted by academics in Hong Kong (China), it was suggested that autonomy is granted to teachers, but at the same time contested because of the centralised system of monitoring student achievement (Ko, Cheng and Lee, 2016[47]). In this context, teacher autonomy is vulnerable.
Summary of key actions to consider for system capacity
1. Recognise that teacher agency does not mean teacher autonomy. Agency in a larger learning ecosystem can be empowered by and requires trust and a culture of collaboration in multiple layers of connected autonomy.
2. Be aware of opportunities and challenges with structural, professional and learner autonomy.
3. Support professional autonomy to design a student-centred, concept-based and competency-driven curriculum, and implement it with appropriate pedagogies and assessment.
Political and economic context
To design optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy, the political and economic context includes political leadership, funding and stakeholder buy-in. This section points to three lessons learned about managing political and economic context for achieving optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy.
Political leadership
A curriculum is a powerful policy lever to support students in achieving their potential and ensure their well-being. A curriculum is also understood as “a political and social agreement that reflects a society’s common vision while taking into account local, national and global needs and expectations” (UNESCO-IBE, 2016[84]). Previous OECD E2030 curriculum analyses – addressing curriculum overload, embedding values in curriculum, designing a 21st Century curriculum, bridging equity gaps through innovation in curricula – point to the challenges surrounding political leadership for sustaining curriculum change (OECD, 2020[85]) (OECD, 2021[86]; OECD, 2021[87]; OECD, 2020[2]).
Curricula often become a means for delivering social and political agendas. As a result, curriculum change is a politically charged and high-stakes undertaking, and the political economy of curriculum reform can come with high costs for action or inaction (OECD, 2020[85]). All aspects of curriculum flexibility – especially learning goals, content, time and assessments – are subject to political pressure on content (Rawling, 2015[88]; Oates, 2011[89]; OECD, 2020[90]; Australian Primary Principals Association, 2014[91]) or ideological debates over the nature of the curriculum (Moreno, 2007[92]). In the absence of care when delegating curriculum flexibility and autonomy to local authorities, schools and teachers, political pressures can cascade to schools and classrooms. Without awareness and deep understanding, national-level challenges to address political demands and pressures such as curriculum overload and competition among subjects will be reproduced at local and school levels. When introducing curriculum flexibility and autonomy, it is critical to highlight system goals of the curriculum serving the public good and not as a means for political or ideological debate.
Chapter 2 points out that the political environment or policy concerns about the quality of education in schools can often result in sudden changes to the curriculum flexibility and autonomy delegated to local authorities, schools and teachers (Nieveen and Kuiper, 2012[93]; Lundgren, 2013[94]). For sustainable change and stable implementation of curriculum flexibility and autonomy, it is important to remember that curriculum reform cycles are longer than election cycles: 9.5 years on average for regular curriculum reforms for secondary education (OECD, 2020[2]). Impact from optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy requires time. Strong and stable political leadership is critical in effectuating a purposeful accountability system and building system capacity, including human and social capital. According to the OECD E2030 analysis of 21st Century curricula:
If reforms swing from one direction to another, research to measure the real impact of the selected curriculum reform is not possible. This can lead to a need for more research to make the curriculum design more systematic and also to gain trust and buy-in among key actors of the reform to help reduce the time lags in recognition, decision-making, implementation and therefore impact.
OECD (2020[2]) What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
Collinson (2012[95]) suggests that politics and political leaders affect teacher attitudes and values, which are key to implementing curriculum change. Kyriacou (2011[96]) implies the need for proper support mechanisms, especially for teachers, to manage uncertainty and anxiety in the face of local political pressure. Solid and stable political leadership is an enabler for optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy.
Local capacity and funding
It is important to budget resources before embarking on curriculum flexibility to build structural, professional and learner autonomy. When it comes to providing schools, teachers and students with curriculum autonomy and flexibility, there is a need to thoroughly assess and forecast the human and financial resources available that are required to implement reforms.
Reforms can be stifled or curtailed without appropriate budgeting processes and scenario planning. Some countries report that offering students a range of elective courses results in an insufficient supply of qualified teachers, transforming the well-intended goal of granting greater choice into a workforce issue of teacher availability and preparedness.
Unexpected demands or requirements to build capacity in schools can also arise from gaps in the professional capability and preparedness of teachers and school leaders to use professional autonomy and flexibility. Some countries and jurisdictions report that schools and teachers who were given agency showed a tendency to maintain existing practices and programmes rather than respond to local needs, explore innovative approaches and put greater focus on locally determined priority areas, as had been envisaged by policymakers. This was in part due to teachers’ lack of confidence and capability in curriculum design, and a lack of quality leadership in schools for leading school-based curriculum development. It was also due to apparent concern about variations between schools in the quality of the curriculum provided and student learning outcomes, unless conventional programmes were retained.
There are several lessons from efforts to increase curriculum autonomy and flexibility in schools:
Co‑creation between the governing body and teachers/school leaders helps to create a wave of influence at the implementation level when system capacity exists.
It is important to engage all stakeholders in at least broad consultation, communicate the extent of change proposed and ascertain the level of resourcing required to support the change (considering current resource levels and gaps, and projected needs).
Engagement with teacher education providers helps ensure the supply of teacher graduates is sufficient to meet workforce demand commensurate with the reforms undertaken.
Teachers and schools need support in how to design site-specific curricula through an appropriate balance of professional learning, provision of curriculum development support materials, guidance in organisational development, and collaboration between teachers and school leaders.
Targeted training and professional learning in the construction and management of school-based curricula enable local and contemporary topics, issues and contexts to be addressed while also ensuring that students’ access to essential learning (core concepts and skills) is guaranteed.
Clarity is needed regarding minimum curriculum standards that all students must achieve alongside locally-designed curricula to ensure responsiveness to students’ individual needs, interests and contexts.
A key component in planning the budgetary process of efforts to build structural, professional and learner autonomy is to consider and forecast the full resource implications of the intended reforms, including current and future workforce considerations, professional development and training, structural adjustments in and across schools, and resource acquisition and development needs.
Stakeholder buy-in
Stakeholder buy-in and partnerships are important enabling mechanisms. Teachers are of course the key frontline actors in terms of human and social capital, who optimise curriculum flexibility and autonomy for students. Untapped opportunities in curriculum flexibility and autonomy lie with the students, and with EdTech industries, which remain disconnected from the learning ecosystem.
Teachers
Ko et al. (2016[45]) in their research study in Hong Kong (China) found that the success of innovation aimed at realising student-centred pedagogical practices may not lie in school autonomy as such, but also in the extent to which autonomy is granted to teachers. After all, it is changes in teachers’ practices that are needed to enact curricula that integrate such pedagogies. According to Ko et al. (2016[45]), literature shows stronger teacher effects than school effects of autonomy on student learning.
When teachers in Singapore taught critical thinking as required by detailed syllabi and assessment practices, lower-performing students showed lower motivation and higher resistance because they did not recognise themselves in the approach to teaching (Lim, 2014[26]). Paradis et al. (2017[97]) report that teachers’ dissatisfaction with their perceived autonomy affects their motivation, commitment and the way they adapt their teaching to students. In Singapore, curriculum flexibility is built on a partnership between schools, universities and the government. In the context of a system of standards and accountability, the government creates an environment for experimentation that facilitates educational innovation through collaboration in partnerships.
It is more likely that different stakeholders would accept an aspirational vision for student learning aligned with education goals, which would serve to guide teachers and learners, empowering them to use their autonomy. To manage such complexities and tensions, a model of shared responsibility and partnership has emerged in some countries, built on professional autonomy with pedagogical flexibility.
Finland is often cited as a good example of balance between local autonomy and steering by the national government. Finnish teachers experience curriculum autonomy to some degree while endorsing a national curriculum they consider not overly prescriptive. Finnish teachers feel that society trusts them as professionals and that they have autonomy over their teaching and pedagogical choices. In other words, the curriculum has pedagogical flexibility while offering limited programmatic and organisational flexibility. However, it is accepted that teachers do not have full autonomy over the curriculum because the core is set at the national level.
The Finnish system relies on five concepts (Erss, Kalmus and Autio, 2016[48]; Halinen and Holappa, 2013[79]; Paradis et al., 2017[97]):
1. having a shared national core curriculum;
2. monitoring improvement of the system;
3. state and local funding for projects to tackle educational challenges (e.g. diversity and the impact of ICT);
4. a culture of self‑evaluation throughout the education system;
5. trust in the quality and professionalism of teachers (Halinen and Holappa, 2013[79]; Pyhältö, Pietarinen and Soini, 2018[98]).
Finland achieved curriculum flexibility at the local level by ensuring that a process of shared sense-making between teachers, administrators and specialists exists with stakeholders, giving meaning to their understanding of the curriculum, the boundaries and room for choices to be made. This process of shared sense-making contributes to teachers’ perception of professional autonomy within the boundaries of the curriculum.
In the state of Bavaria (Germany), there is a centralised education system with little flexibility in the curriculum, and teachers accept that they have limited autonomy over its content and goals. Teachers in Bavaria expect the state to set clear guidelines and specifications on what to teach, and they make use of pedagogical autonomy collectively. They feel that collective decision-making on pedagogy and the organisation of teaching and learning, and about student outcomes are important. Hence, they prioritise shared responsibility for student outcomes rather than individual autonomy over the curriculum. In this respect, teachers in Bavaria view their autonomy as a collective responsibility of teachers at the school level (Erss, Kalmus and Autio, 2016[48]).
Learners
Three terms – student choice, student voice and student agency – are used interchangeably at times, leading to misunderstandings, false assumptions and expectations about the level of autonomy granted to learners. But each of these terms have a distinct meaning in research and this analysis. It is therefore not surprising that unintended consequences can result for schools and schooling systems without a clear distinction understood by the stakeholders involved. The definitions for each of these terms are shown in Box 2.3.
These three forms of student engagement involve differing degrees of learner autonomy. Each has unintended consequences reported by countries and jurisdictions, particularly when a clear distinction is not made between them.
Student choice
An unintended consequence of offering students choice when it comes to subject area selection is that students’ selections, course module preferences or planning future patterns of study can be overridden at the school level due to internal structural impediments and/or cultural barriers that limit the options that are actually available (Voogt et al., 2018[75]). An example of when choice is subject to structural limitations is articulated by a student from Kazakhstan regarding her interest in learning a variety of languages, as explained in Box 4.5.
Box 4.5. More language options in the curriculum
Adiya is a 17-year-old student from Kazakhstan at Nazarbayev Intellectual School (NIS). Her school has a trilingual policy, which aims to raise the value of Kazakh as national language and to teach Russian and English, as those languages are recognised internationally. However, fluency in fourth language is still required.
Adiya finds that learning a new language allows her to perceive the world from a variety of perspectives, as new knowledge sharpens the mind, promotes critical thinking, and improves decision-making. She notes a few roadblocks to this idea: it would be ideal if students had a variety of languages to choose from, e.g., 4-5 different language courses such as Japanese, Chinese, French and Spanish, which might spark student's curiosity, but that could be a challenge for the school to offer. Additionally, it might be more exciting for students to learn if their teacher is well-versed in the literature, context and history of the language. Adiya believes that foreign language advancement will give her competitive job options and allow her to participate more freely in a multicultural world. She believes that graduates will be empowered with better knowledge and skills that will enable them to excel in their future fields.
Source: OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Student Voices on Curriculum (Re)design campaign, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/educationwewant/.
The intention of offering student choice might be to accord students a certain degree of decision-making within set parameters, such as when considering elective subject areas within a course structure (e.g., choosing either biology, physics or chemistry as a science course) or modules to study within a suite of offerings. However, countries and jurisdictions find that the student choices can be influenced by factors beyond their individual interests or relevant and purposeful areas of study. These include choices based on examination requirements, subject areas selected by their friends or subject areas perceived to be less difficult (Voogt et al., 2018[75]).
To enable optimal student choice, it is important that steps are taken at both systemic and school levels to ensure:
equity of access for all students by removing barriers that limit or eliminate learning opportunities (OECD, 2021[87]);
that assessment strategies and tools used within and across subject areas are appropriately varied and challenging, and do not have an undue influence on the subject areas or courses favoured by students;
that students receive clear information about the value each subject area has in terms of the competencies acquired by learners and why it is important to choose subject areas of interest to and relevance for them.
Student voice
It is important to engage students and listen to their declared interests and perspectives. Student voice is a way of enabling learners to exercise their opinions or views on issues on decision-making regarding school programmes and operations, inaction from teachers or schools, and on the matters raised or perspectives offered by students.
However, several issues need consideration:
Despite the opportunity this provides in terms of enhanced learner engagement, it is often reported that a lack of follow-through from teachers or schools can result in student voice being perceived as tokenistic and insincere.
Student voice can be misunderstood as “negative” and mistreated as “irresponsible opinion” regarding the value students place on their school experience and the world around them.
In some cultural settings, students might consciously or subconsciously express what they think teachers or parents wish to hear and corresponds to social desirability.
Therefore, it should not be assumed that students’ judgements are based on informed, independent and authentic thought regarding the options available to them. At the heart of this, while a student might genuinely believe their position on a matter is authentic and objective, they can be unaware of how biases in the media, the manipulation of data or polarised views in society influence what they understand to be important and relevant.
When initiating policies and practices that promote student voice it is important that:
structural support is in place to assist students in both identifying and presenting their individual and collective views, concerns and ideas;
there is strong commitment in and across schools to not only provide a platform, but also to respond to issues and matters raised and prioritised by students;
due emphasis is given to engaging students in inquiry-based activities and the acquisition of competencies essential for accessing and analysing different perspectives and claims, such as digital literacy, critical thinking and reflection.
Box 4.6 presents the case of how student voice is included in legislation in Portugal. An example of policy and practice on student/teacher co-creation is also provided by Finnian, a student from Ireland (Box 4.7). Nakai from Ireland shares her views on student engagement in learning (Box 4.8).
Box 4.6. Student voice in Portuguese legislation
Within a process of national consultation, Portuguese students were given the opportunity to have a voice in their education system at the Students’ Voice Conference, held in Leiria in November 2016. At this national event, children and youth from pre-school to higher education had the opportunity to discuss education and provide the Minister of Education with some suggestions to foster transformation in the system.
Students’ Voice thus proved to be a useful means of reflection for future decisions regarding education, and it was presented and replicated with national and international students during the Education 2030 5th Informal Working Group Meeting that took place in Lisbon from 16–18 May 2017. During this international event, it was decided to continue the active involvement of students in their own educational path, through the creation of a Student Agency in Portugal.
In 2018, after a pilot school year on Curriculum Autonomy and Flexibility involving more than 200 school clusters, the Decree-law 55/2018 was issued. This set out the curriculum for primary and secondary education, the guiding principles for the design, implementation and evaluation of the learning process to ensure that every student acquires knowledge and develops the skills and attitudes which contribute to the achievement of the competences outlined in the Students’ Profile by the end of compulsory schooling.
In this legislative document, Article 19 on priorities and core curriculum options states that “schools must foster students’ involvement by defining procedures catering for their ongoing consultation and participation in the design of curriculum options and in the evaluation of their effectiveness in the students’ learning” (DL 55/2018, 6th July, Article 19, Point 16).
As a follow-up to this, schools have created several student networks at the regional level to foster student voices and action on their education (either in a formal or informal approach). There have also been several webinars and meetings at a national level involving students in school decisions and in their educational process.
Currently, there is a Portuguese Schools Network composed of seven anchor schools regarding student agency. This network is comprised of students, teachers and school leaders, in a co-agency approach, with regular meetings and webinars, also in co-operation with the Ministry of Education. This aims to build a vision for innovation in school organisation and management; share experiences and innovative practices within the scope of inclusion, autonomy and curricular flexibility; and promote collaborative work between teachers and among students for transformation and innovation in education.
Students from these schools have been regular participants in national conferences and meetings regarding curriculum autonomy and flexibility and are thus developing several competency areas outlined in the Students’ Profile while preparing themselves to engage in a fast-changing world as informed and responsible citizens.
Source: Eulália Alexandre, Deputy Director, Directorate General for Education, Portugal.
Box 4.7. Teacher and student co‑creation
Finnian, an 18-year-old student in Ireland, discusses the importance of student voice, which is at the heart of the work in his school and has been for many years.
"Student voice is embedded into the cornerstone of our school and permeates the teaching and learning across all aspects of our school. I believe student voice is critical in determining what we are learning and how we are learning".
His school focuses on formative assessment, learning intentions and success criteria. Teachers seek student engagement and make changes in their teaching practices as a result of this communication, and teachers share learning intentions with students. Together with teachers, students develop and co-create success criteria, and they provide feedback to move learning forward. Every class is tailored to meet the needs of the students in the class in a way that it never has been before.
Finnian finds that the success of this collaboration has led not only to enhanced student-teacher relationships but also to greater student engagement and interest with course content. Students engage more meaningfully, and with greater interest, when they feel the material being taught is done so in a manner that they feel is personalised to them and their learning styles. He believes that if student voice was heard and acted upon across all areas of the curriculum, then this could foster powerful learning for all, as it has done for him and the students at his school. The focus on student voice has changed the way decisions are made in their school and classrooms for the better.
Source: OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Student Voices on Curriculum (Re)design campaign, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/educationwewant/.
Box 4.8. A student’s thoughts on how to engage students in learning
Nakai, a 16-year-old student in Ireland, shares ideas about how to improve the way students learn: "I think that the students of today learn by doing. By this I mean that if we actively engage with what is going on and can relate to it, we are more likely to have a positive learning experience, and more likely to be able to recall what we have learned".
She finds that there is nothing that affects students more than what is going on around them, and yet many students are unaware of or uninterested in current affairs. Nakai also points to the fact that many students get their news from social media, which provides information that is often anecdotal, poorly researched, exaggerated or untrustworthy. She believes we can tackle this problem while also changing how students learn for the better by integrating current affairs into the curriculum. For example, relating information in textbooks to current events, reading newspaper articles and then discussing them as a class, or watching videos of news channels reporting on today’s events. As a transition year student, Nakai finds that a shift away from textbooks makes for different and more exciting school days. Current affairs teach students about politics, natural disasters, public health and more. There is never a dull moment, and there are always new items to investigate. Nakai believes that this active way of learning benefits students more than reading from textbooks, which tend to focus on very specific areas that do not seem relevant to developing competencies needed to succeed in the real world. "Interest, engagement and enjoyment of the curriculum would be greatly improved through this change in how we learn".
Source: OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Student Voices on Curriculum (Re)design campaign, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/educationwewant/.
Student agency
Granting sufficient autonomy for students to have agency over their learning has implications for learners, teachers and schools. An unintended consequence of promoting student agency is that reforms become hollow promises unless a commensurate level of autonomy and flexibility is granted to teachers and schools. The managerial and structural flexibility needed to put agency into practice is significant and needs to be granted to schools and teachers across curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and time allocation to achieve the intended benefits. Furthermore, teachers must be able to use their professional judgement to determine how core concepts and skills based on the broader goals of the curriculum are to be acquired by students while providing for individual needs and interests.
Another unintended consequence of enabled student agency is the potential for inequity, particularly when some students have had limited prior opportunities to contribute to decisions about their own learning. This means that different individuals and student groups, especially those from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds, will need additional support and guidance from teachers and schools to develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions to make best use of agency (OECD, 2019[39]).
Lessons from student agency initiatives are:
policies that promote and enable learner and professional autonomy and flexibility need to go hand-in-hand at school and system levels;
curriculum structure needs to be sufficiently flexible to avoid locking in specific topics, resources or contexts and open up how students can engage in meaningful, relevant and engaging learning experiences;
students need insights into the scope and depth of various modes of teaching and learning available to them, with monitoring processes to ensure equity of access and opportunity.
One of the most common unexpected consequences for countries and jurisdictions introducing student choice, student voice or student agency is caused when a clear distinction is not made between these ways of engaging learners. In addition to understanding and using the appropriate terminology, countries and jurisdictions must:
specify the scope and limitations of autonomy, and ensure this is communicated to all stakeholders;
recognise the implications for schools in terms of organisational change, and ensure that measures are taken to support the autonomy learners are granted;
monitor how students use their autonomy, to identify and rectify equity and/or access issues.
EdTech industry
One intention of curriculum flexibility and autonomy is to encourage innovation in response to student needs, local contexts and emerging areas of learning. However, without the right incentives, future directions or a well-established conceptual framework for learning and well-being, EdTech might replicate digital versions of current issues with education systems. It is important to transform EdTech towards the aims set out in the OECD Learning Compass, such as valuing and supporting agency and well-being, instead of simply amplifying learning and teaching practices such as “preparing for the test”.
Box 4.9. Ensuring inclusive and flexible education for students with disabilities via technologies
The United Robotics Group (URG) focuses on improving education for young students with autism and hospitalised children by prioritising inclusivity and equality. With the introduction of the NAO humanoid robot, the URG demonstrates how robotics can promote well-being and create a supportive space for diverse learners. Through the HERO Solution program in Italy and the Ask NAO Tablet program in France, the use of NAO is exemplified in enhancing self-expression, exercise participation and interactive communication.
Supporting children with autism
The HERO Solution programme, utilising SoftBank Robotics' NAO robot, plays a vital role in supporting children with autism. By incorporating robotics into education, the programme positively impacts children with autism, as they can find robots less visually overwhelming than interacting with humans, potentially leading to improved communications. As a therapeutic mediator, NAO fosters connections and creates a safe environment for self-expression, providing comfort and reassurance to these children. Specialised schools have developed programmes that enable autistic children to use the robot as a means of expression, encouraging creative communication and promoting emotional well-being. Through interactive exercises and guidance from NAO, children gain confidence, develop motor skills, and take risks in a non-threatening setting, empowering them to actively engage in their own development.
Supporting hospitalised children
The Ask NAO Tablet programme in France addresses the challenge of connectivity and inclusivity for hospitalised children. By utilising the NAO robot as a physical presence in the classroom on behalf of the hospitalised child, the programme creates an inclusive learning environment and ensures that children undergoing medical treatment stay connected with their peers and educational experiences. Tablets connect participants to NAO's visual and auditory interfaces, enabling interactive communication and engagement. Through the robot's eyes and movements, the child can actively participate in classroom activities, both academically and socially, ensuring they remain engaged with their studies and connected to their school community. This innovative approach highlights the importance of well-being alongside academic progress, ensuring that hospitalised children do not miss out on essential educational experiences. NAO acts as an avatar, promoting involvement and equality in the educational experience, allowing every child, regardless of their abilities or circumstances, to learn and thrive academically.
URG believes in the potential of robotics to transform education into more inclusive and student-centred learning. By collaborating with educators, specialists and other stakeholders, technology can be a catalyst for positive change. Through humanoid robots like NAO, educational institutions can pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable future for students with autism and other diverse learning needs. Thus, students can freely express themselves, participate in exercises, and engage in interactive communication. The URG's initiatives in Italy and France showcase the potential of robotics to transform education by prioritising inclusivity and equality, ultimately fostering a nurturing and supportive learning environment for all students.
Source: The OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030. Focus Group 2B (France). Emile Kroëger (United Group Robotics).
New technologies should be solutions for a better future, not part of the problem. Assessing the benefits (e.g., detecting struggling students to help them at an early stage) and risks (e.g., algorithm biases), and seeking new public-private partnerships is important for making EdTech part of the larger learning ecosystem. Furthermore, for innovation in teaching and learning to occur, schools and teachers must take risks and learn from their mistakes, building a healthy school culture that allows and encourages such outcomes.
Community engagement is also crucial to foster innovation in an inclusive manner and enable existing and potential stakeholders to inspire and explore new ideas in partnership with schools, teachers and learners. Private sector engagement is an important mechanism for creating benefits in curriculum provision. Some countries and jurisdictions recognise the private sector as an important stakeholder in curriculum reform. Moreover, as more companies commit to socially responsible behaviours and seek to embed these in their corporate manifestos, the potential benefits for education are significant, particularly in relation to exploring new pedagogical and assessment strategies and tools.
However, some countries and jurisdictions report that an unanticipated consequence of engagement with the private sector can be that companies primarily try to sell their products or approach schools purely for promotional purposes rather than to engage in dialogue and co-creation. While this might be understandable given that the schooling sector presents a large market opportunity for business, it is essential that all parties are committed to mutually beneficial outcomes from public-private partnerships. In the case of schools, this invariably concerns the enhancement of teaching and learning.
It is important that the value of a proposed partnership is stated in terms of what each partner contributes and gains from engaging in an innovative approach to supporting students’ learning and teachers’ work. As stated by the Council for Corporate and School Partnerships (2004[99]), this kind of partnership can be defined as:
…a mutually supportive relationship between a business and a school or school district in which the partners commit themselves to specific goals and activities intended to benefit students and schools. In many cases, a partnership is a win-win situation for all parties. In addition to improving the education experience, the business partners will frequently realise benefits as well, such as enhanced goodwill and a stronger presence in the community. (p 3)
In its guidance to businesses and schools, the Council lists 18 steps as a roadmap for successful public-private partnerships (Box 4.10).
Box 4.10. Establishing public-private partnerships in education
Getting started
1. Determine if your school or students have unmet needs and whether forming a business partnership to meet those needs would enhance the student experience.
2. Identify and research potential partners.
3. Understand your core values.
4. Draft a partnership proposal and present it to your potential partner.
Laying the foundations: Developing the partnership’s core values
1. Have a frank discussion about values, goals and needs.
2. Assess the impact of partnership on the academic, social and physical well-being of students.
3. Define short and long-range goals of partnership, including expected outcomes.
4. Collaborate with your partner to identify activities that meet the goals of all involved.
5. Align activities with education goals and school and district goals.
Implementation: Translating values into action
1. Ensure that partnership activities are integrated into school and business culture.
2. Ensure that the partnership provides opportunities for students, teachers and business employees to interact with each other and at community, school and business sites.
3. Establish a formal (and written) management structure with specific individuals assigned to manage partnerships to ensure accountability, provide quality control and monitor alignment with partnership goals.
4. Provide training for all involved parties.
5. Secure explicit support and buy-in for the partnership throughout the school and business, at all levels.
6. Provide the opportunity for the community to review and contribute.
7. Construct internal and external communication plans and communicate regularly about intended and actual outcomes of all activities.
8. Ensure that both parties are publicly and privately recognised for their contribution.
Evaluation: Determining strengths, weaknesses and future directions
1. Based on the definitions of success determined earlier, conduct regular evaluations that include data collection and analysis to determine accomplishments, strengths and weaknesses of the partnership.
Source: The Council for Corporate & Social Partnership (2004[99]), A how-to guide for school-business partnerships.
Summary of key actions to consider for managing political and economic context
1. Properly budget resources before embarking on curriculum flexibility reform to build structural, professional and learner autonomy.
2. Make the distinction between student agency, student voice and student choice clear to stakeholders.
3. Steer EdTech industries towards co-creating to meet future demands, which should fit the broader purpose of education, instead of reproducing what exists today in a digital form, as a mere response to today’s existing market demands.
Ecosystem views on conditions affecting curriculum flexibility and autonomy
It is important to stress that the four system conditions described above (system goals, system accountability, system capacity, and political and economic context) interact with and influence each other. Thus, ensuring an appropriate balance between these four conditions is needed in order to maximise the benefits of curriculum flexibility and autonomy.
Figure 4.3 and Table 4.1 represent how the aforementioned conditions for optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy influence each other and support or hinder actors from striking the optimal balance in a learning ecosystem at each layer of the learning ecosystem (i.e., microsystem, mesosystem, ecosystem and macrosystem, see Table 4.1) (OECD, 2020[90]).
Teacher agency is crucial if curriculum reforms are to be implemented successfully. However, the differences between individualistic and ecosystemic views of agency should be noted: individualistic views of agency focus only on the capacity of individuals, while ecosystemic views of agency add “the conditions by means of which agency is achieved” (Priestley et al., 2015[66]) They highlight the need to consider cultures and structures alongside building capacity and capability, given that curricula are steeped in societal contexts. Therefore, the system conditions to be set out should be understood as the means by which agency at all levels in an ecosystem (teachers, students, school leaders and others) should be achieved.
Furthermore, teachers and school leaders need to be empowered as agents of change, drawing on their professional expertise. However, Priestley, Biesta, Robinson (2015[66]) explain that “teachers granted autonomy may simply fail to achieve agency as they, for example, habitually reproduce past patterns of behaviour, or as they lack cognitive and relational resources. Conversely, agency may be shaped and enhanced by policy that specifies goals and processes, enhancing the capability of teachers to manoeuvre between repertoires, make decisions and frame future actions”.
A good example of an ecosystemic approach to the role of curriculum and system capacity (including social capital) is illustrated by Finland, where the national core curriculum involves a complex, open and inclusive process of creation. The curriculum development was a society-wide project with input from a range of stakeholders and a goal of making all stakeholders “experts” in the curriculum: “The curriculum work is seen as an ongoing dialogue and learning cycle that helps professionals in the education field identify the issues to be improved and promote the commitment of all stakeholders in the curriculum process. The curriculum also sets the agenda for education at a societal level; its core purpose, objectives and principles.” (Lähdemäki, 2018, p. 399[100]).
Figure 4.3. Ecosystem conditions for optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy
Source: OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030.
Table 4.1. Interaction between conditions for optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy at various ecosystem layers
Source: Developed by OECD E2030, adapted from: Sinnema, C. (2015) “Balance in curricular autonomy: the role of system conditions”; the OECD E2030 curriculum (re)design overview brochure; the ebb and flow of curricular autonomy: D. Wyse, L. Hayward, & J. Pandya (Eds.); (Sinnema, 2015[83]) “Balance between local freedom and national prescription in curricula”; OECD E2030 series of curriculum analysis reports (2020, 2021).
Knowledge gaps
Curriculum flexibility is a relatively new and under-researched concept. Areas where additional research could enhance the relevance and quality of the current literature are:
Refining the definition and dimensions of curriculum flexibility. The concept of curriculum flexibility can be understood in different and conflicting ways. For example, the term is often used interchangeably with “individualised” or “personalised” learning. This can mean a curriculum that is able to easily respond to societal change, rather than being fixed. This publication presents five dimensions of curriculum flexibility commonly identified at the global level: 1) goals, 2) content, 3) pedagogies, 4) assessment and 5) learning time. Further consensus on the definition of curriculum flexibility and its dimensions can advance discussions about the rationale, operationalisation and assessment of the impact of curriculum flexibility on teaching and learning.
Showing how curriculum flexibility and autonomy affect outcomes for students and teachers. While data from the 2006 PISA assessment showed a correlation between school curriculum autonomy and student performance (Huang, 2009[101]), concerns were expressed in terms of equity, with data from PISA tests spanning 2000–2009 indicating that autonomy affects student achievement positively in developed and high-performing countries but negatively in developing and low-performing countries (Hanushek, Link and Woessmann, 2013[102]). Additional research could assist in understanding the impact of increased flexibility on different populations of students in different countries, such as students from disadvantaged backgrounds or low-performing students, and identifying strategies to mitigate negative outcomes. Research on the impact of curriculum flexibility and autonomy on student well-being is scarce despite student well-being becoming a more and more articulated system goal. In general, more research on the use of assessment data would be helpful to analyse its various effects on students and teachers.
Understanding how the dimensions of curriculum flexibility affect each other. Research on the five outlined areas of flexibility highlights the considerations and conditions conducive to translating policy into practice. More insight is needed into the implications of combining some or all of these dimensions of flexibility, to evaluate the benefits, opportunities and possible negative impacts in terms of achievement, equity, engagement, teachers’ job satisfaction, and teachers’ and students’ well-being.
Exploring connections between curriculum flexibility and autonomy. Despite considerable literature on school and teacher autonomy, few studies have been undertaken on the autonomy that teachers have over specific aspects of the curriculum. Little is known about how a balance between curriculum flexibility and school and teacher autonomy looks in practice. Shedding light on the scope and extent of autonomy and flexibility applied in varying degrees in different schooling contexts could help determine the appropriate mix or optimal degree to support policy reforms aimed at improving student learning, teacher efficacy and the well-being of both.
Assessing social capital and conditions for optimal curriculum flexibility and autonomy. An important research finding is that the enactment of curriculum flexibility depends on how teachers and schools use their autonomy. Literature demonstrates that building a culture of trust and self-evaluation between national authorities, schools and teachers is essential for teachers to use curriculum flexibly as intended. However, it remains unclear how to achieve this across cultural and institutional contexts. Insight into this would help policy makers understand how a culture of trust is established between stakeholders and the contribution this can make to implementation of curriculum flexibility.
Developing more systemic research on the interactions between curriculum flexibility and learner and teacher autonomy. Much of the research on curriculum autonomy looks at professional autonomy for teachers and schools. Student-centred approaches to curriculum design and implementation are increasingly visible both on political agendas and in recent literature. However, systemic research is still missing on the interactions between curriculum flexibility and learner autonomy in different student-centred approaches. This publication summarises emerging categorisations and research. However, more systemic and concerted efforts are required to inform policies and practices in curriculum design. This should include more precise research on interactions between curriculum flexibility and teacher autonomy, including more recent concepts such as connected autonomy, and teacher agency, co-agency and collective agency.
References
[24] Abeles, V. and G. Rubenstein (2015), Beyond measure: Rescuing an overscheduled, overtested, underestimated generation, Simon and Schuster.
[72] AITSL (2017), Australian Professional Standards for Teaching, https://www.aitsl.edu.au/australian%02professional-standards-for-teachers/standards/list.
[91] Australian Primary Principals Association (2014), School Autonomy in Primary Education, https://appa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/APPA-School-Autonomy-Report.pdf.
[56] Benevene, P., S. De Stasio and C. Fiorilli (2020), “Editorial: Well-Being of School Teachers in Their Work Environment”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01239.
[12] Brill, F. et al. (2018), “What Impact Does Accountability Have On Curriculum, Standards and Engagement In Education? A Literature Review National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) What Impact Does Accountability Have On Curriculum, Standards and Engagement In Education? A Literature Review”, http://www.nfer.ac.uk (accessed on 26 April 2022).
[23] Burgess, P. and S. Kennedy (1998), What Gets Tested, Gets Taught; Who Gets Tested, Gets Taught: Curriculum Framework Development Process, Mid-South Regional Resource Center.
[44] 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.
[25] 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, p. 104694, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104694.
[69] Clark, C. and P. Peterson (1986), Teachers’ Thought Processes, Macmillan & Co LDT.
[58] Coleman, J. (1988), “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94, pp. S95-S120, https://doi.org/10.1086/228943.
[95] Collinson, V. (2012), “Sources of teachers’ values and attitudes”, Teacher Development, Vol. 16/3, pp. 321-344, https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2012.688675.
[33] Conroy, D. (2004), “The Unique Psychological Meanings of Multidimensional Fears of Failing”, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Vol. 26/3, pp. 484-491, https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.3.484.
[13] Crooks, T. (1988), “The Impact of Classroom Evaluation Practices on Students”, Review of Educational Research, Vol. 58/4, https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543058004438.
[61] Daly, A. (2012), “Data, Dyads, and Dynamics: Exploring Data Use and Social Networks in Educational Improvement”, Teachers College Record, Vol. 114/11, pp. 1-38, https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211401103.
[62] Daly, A. et al. (2014), “The Critical Role of Brokers in the Access and Use of Evidence at the School and District Level”, in Using Research Evidence in Education, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04690-7_3.
[4] Educação (2017), Students’ Profile by the End.
[32] Elliot, A. and K. Sheldon (1997), “Avoidance achievement motivation: A personal goals analysis.”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 73/1, pp. 171-185, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.171.
[76] Erss, M. (2018), “‘Complete freedom to choose within limits’ – teachers’ views of curricular autonomy, agency and control in Estonia, Finland and Germany”, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 29/2, pp. 238-256, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1445514.
[3] Erss, M. and V. Kalmus (2018), “Discourses of teacher autonomy and the role of teachers in Estonian, Finnish and Bavarian teachers’ newspapers in 1991–2010”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 76, pp. 95-105.
[77] Erss, M., V. Kalmus and T. Autio (2016), “‘Walking a fine line’: Teachers’ perception of curricular autonomy in Estonia, Finland and Germany”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 48/5, pp. 589-609, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2016.1167960.
[48] Erss, M., V. Kalmus and T. Autio (2016), “’Walking a fine line’: Teachers’ perfeptions of curricular auttonomy in Estonia, Finland, and Germany”, Journal of Curriculum Sutdies, Vol. 48/5, pp. 589-609.
[52] European Commission (2020), The Education and Training targets, https://op.europa.eu/webpub/eac/education-and-training-monitor-2020/en/chapters/chapter2.html#ch2-3.
[19] Figlio, D. and S. Loeb (2011), School Accountability, Elsevier B.V.
[15] Frederiksen, J. and A. Collins (1989), “A Systems Approach to Educational Testing”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 18/9, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018009027.
[60] Fullan, M. (2020), Leading in a culture of change, Jossey-Bass.
[42] Greany, T. and J. Waterhouse (2016), “Rebels against the system”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/7, pp. 1188-1206, https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-11-2015-0148.
[37] Guess, P. and S. McCane-Bowling (2013), “Teacher Support and Life Satisfaction”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 48/1, pp. 30-47, https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513514604.
[34] Gustafsson, H., S. Sagar and A. Stenling (2016), “Fear of failure, psychological stress, and burnout among adolescent athletes competing in high level sport”, Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, Vol. 27/12, pp. 2091-2102, https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12797.
[102] Hanushek, E., S. Link and L. Woessmann (2013), “Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 104, pp. 212-232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2012.08.002.
[21] Hargreaves, A., L. Earl and J. Ryan (2013), Schooling for change : reinventing education for early adolescents (3rd.), Falmer Press, https://www.routledge.com/Schooling-for-Change-Reinventing-Education-for-Early-Adolescents/Earl-Hargreaves-Ryan/p/book/9780750704908 (accessed on 5 May 2022).
[14] Harkins, S. (ed.) (2001), Multiple perspectives on the effects of evaluation on performance: Toward an integration., Springer Science & Business Media.
[50] Hattie, J. (2015), “The applicability of Visible Learning to higher education.”, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, Vol. 1/1, pp. 79-91, https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000021.
[74] 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.
[70] Hawthrone, R. (1990), “Analyzing School-Based Collaborative Curriculum Decision Making”, Journal of Curriculum and Supervision.
[80] Hong, W. and P. Youngs (2016), “Why are teachers afraid of curricular autonomy? Contradictory effects of the new national curriculum in South Korea”, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Vol. 36/sup1, pp. 20-33, https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2014.959471.
[40] Hopkins, D. (2013), “Exploding the myths of school reform”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 33/4, pp. 304-321, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.793493.
[101] Huang, M. (2009), “Classroom homogeneity and the distribution of student math performance: A country-level fixed-effects analysis”, Social Science Research, Vol. 38/4, pp. 781-791, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.05.001.
[47] 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.
[45] 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.
[82] Kuiper, K. (2017), “Reflection, writing, and transformative learning for college teachers”, Journal of Transformative Learning, Vol. 4/2, https://jotl.uco.edu/index.php/jotl/article/view/182/133.
[10] Kuiper, W. and J. Berkvens (Eds.) (2013), Balancing curriculum regulation and freedom across Europe.
[79] Kuiper, W. and J. Berkvens (eds.) (2013), Curricular balance based on dialogue, cooperation and trust – The case of Finland, SLO.
[96] Kyriacou, C. (2011), Teacher stress: From prevalence to resilience.
[100] Lähdemäki, J. (2018), “Case Study: The Finnish National Curriculum 2016—A Co-created National Education Policy”, in Sustainability, Human Well-Being, and the Future of Education, Springer International Publishing, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78580-6_13.
[49] Leat, D. and U. Thomas (2018), “Exploring the role of ‘brokers’ in developing a localised curriculum”, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 29/2, pp. 201-218, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1445513.
[26] Lim, L. (2014), “Critical thinking and the anti-liberal state: the politics of pedagogic recontextualization in Singapore”, Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 35/5, pp. 692-704, https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2014.927173.
[59] Lin, N. (2001), Social Capital, Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511815447.
[55] Liu, L., H. Song and P. Miao (2018), “Navigating individual and collective notions of teacher wellbeing as a complex phenomenon shaped by national context”, Compare: a journal of comparative and international education, Vol. 48/1, pp. 128-146.
[94] Lundgren, U. (2013), Balancing Curriculum Regulation, http://www.cidree.org/fileadmin/files/pdf/publications/YB_13_Balancing_Curriculum_Regulation_and_Freedom.pdf#page=270.
[81] Maes, F. et al. (2012), “Evidence-based Education”, TIJDSCHRIFT VOOR LERARENOPLEIDER, Vol. 33/1, pp. 12-19.
[18] Mausethagen, S. (2020), Redefining public values: data use and value dilemmas in education, https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1733744.
[73] 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.
[16] Messick, S. (1987), “VALIDITY”, ETS Research Report Series, Vol. 1987/2, https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2330-8516.1987.tb00244.x.
[27] 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.
[71] Mkandawire, S. (2010), “Impediments to Curriculum Implementation in Learning Institutions”, African Higher Education Review, Vol. 8/2, pp. 1-15.
[84] Mmantsetsa Marope (ed.) (2016), What makes a quality curriculum?Current and Critical Issues in Curriculum and Learning, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/in/documentViewer.xhtml?v=2.1.196&id=p::usmarcdef_0000243975&file=/in/rest/annotationSVC/DownloadWatermarkedAttachment/attach_import_7a36cb54-1044-443b-88da-66c2a0fb7df9%3F_%3D243975eng.pdf&locale=en&multi=true&ark=/ark:/48223/pf0000243975/PDF/243975eng.pdf#%5B%7B%22num%22%3A88%2C%22gen%22%3A0%7D%2C%7B%22name%22%3A%22XYZ%22%7D%2C68%2C346%2C0%5D (accessed on 26 April 2022).
[92] Moreno, J. (2007), “The Dynamics of Curriculum Design and Development: Scenarios for Curriculum Evolution”, in School Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective, Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5736-6_12.
[30] Muijs, D. and D. Reynolds (2005), Effective Teaching: Evidence and Practice, SAGE Publications Ltd.
[28] 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://doi.org/10.1207/s15327574ijt0501_4.
[22] Muskin, J. (2015), Student Learning Assessment and the Curriculum: issues and implications, http://www.ibe.unesco.org/sites/default/files/resources/ipr1-muskin-assessmentcurriculum_eng.pdf.
[93] Nieveen, N. and W. Kuiper (2012), “Balancing Curriculum Freedom and Regulation in the Netherlands”, European Educational Research Journal, Vol. 11/3, https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2012.11.3.35 (accessed on 4 August 2023).
[89] Oates, T. (2011), “Could do better: using international comparisons to refine the National Curriculum in England”, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 22/2, pp. 121-150, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2011.578908.
[87] OECD (2021), Adapting Curriculum to Bridge Equity Gaps: Towards an Inclusive Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6b49e118-en.
[86] OECD (2021), Embedding Values and Attitudes in Curriculum: Shaping a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aee2adcd-en.
[90] OECD (2020), “Curriculum (re)design A series of thematic reports from the OECD Education 2030 project OVERVIEW BROCHURE”.
[85] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.
[2] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[38] 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.
[7] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/888933931943.
[39] OECD (2019), “Well-being 2030 Action OECD FUTURE OF EDUCATION AND SKILLS 2030 A SERIES OF CONCEPT NOTES”, http://www.oecd.org. (accessed on 26 April 2022).
[46] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
[17] OECD (2013), “How resources, policies and practices are related to education outcomes”, in PISA 2012 Results: What Makes Schools Successful (Volume IV): Resources, Policies and Practices, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264201156-5-en.
[41] OECD (2011), “School Autonomy and Accountability: Are They Related to Student Performance?”, PISA in Focus, No. 9, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k9h362kcx9w-en.
[1] OECD (n.d.), Declaration on Building Equitable Societies Through Education, OECD/LEGAL/0485, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0485 (accessed on 30 July 2024).
[31] OECD CERI (2008), Assessment for Learning Formative Assessment, OECD, https://www.oecd.org/site/educeri21st/40600533.pdf.
[57] OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 (2019), Conceptual learning framework - Student agency for 2030.
[97] Paradis, A. et al. (2017), “Canadian and Finnish upper-secondary school mathematics teachers’ perceptions of autonomy”, Pedagogy, Culture & Society, Vol. 26/3, pp. 381-396, https://doi.org/10.1080/14681366.2017.1407957.
[5] Parker, G. (2015), “Teachers’ Autonomy”, Research in Education, Vol. 93/1, pp. 19-33, https://doi.org/10.7227/rie.0008.
[63] Penuel, W. et al. (2010), “The Alignment of the Informal and Formal Organizational Supports for Reform: Implications for Improving Teaching in Schools”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 46/1, pp. 57-95, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353180.
[54] Priestley M and Minty S (2013), “Curriculum for Excellence: ’A brilliant idea, but. . .’”, Scottish Educational Review, Vol. 45/1, pp. 39-52.
[53] Priestley, M. et al. (2016), “The teacher and the curriculum: exploring teacher agency.”.
[67] Priestley, M. et al. (2012), “Teacher Agency in Curriculum Making: Agents of Change and Spaces for Manoeuvre”, Curriculum Inquiry, Vol. 42/2, pp. 191-214, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873x.2012.00588.x.
[98] Pyhältö, K., J. Pietarinen and T. Soini (2018), “Dynamic and shared sense-making in large-scale curriculum reform in school districts”, The Curriculum Journal, Vol. 29/2, pp. 181-200, https://doi.org/10.1080/09585176.2018.1447306.
[68] Ramberg, M. (2014), “What Makes Reform Work?–School-Based Conditions as Predictors of Teachers’ Changing Practice after a National Curriculum Reform”, International Education Studies, Vol. 7/6, https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n6p46.
[88] Rawling, E. (2015), “Curriculum change and examination reform for geography 14–19”, Geography, Vol. 100/3, pp. 164-168, https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2015.12093972.
[11] Richman-Abdou, K. (2019), https://mymodernmet.com/singapore-abolishes-exams/.
[35] Sagar, S., D. Lavallee and C. Spray (2007), “Why young elite athletes fear failure: Consequences of failure”, Journal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 25/11, pp. 1171-1184, https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410601040093.
[83] Sinnema, C. (2015), “The ebb and flow of curricular autonomy: Balance between local freedom and national prescription in curricula”, in Wyse, D., L. Hayward and Pandaya Jessica (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment, Sage, London.
[65] Sinnema, C. et al. (2021), “When seekers reap rewards and providers pay a price: The role of relationships and discussion in improving practice in a community of learning”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 107, p. 103474, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103474.
[64] Spillane, J. and C. Kim (2012), “An Exploratory Analysis of Formal School Leaders’ Positioning in Instructional Advice and Information Networks in Elementary Schools”, American Journal of Education, Vol. 119/1, pp. 73-102, https://doi.org/10.1086/667755.
[43] Suggett, D. (2015), “School autonomy: Necessary but not sufficient”, Evidence Base: A journal of evidence reviews in key policy areas, Vol. 2015/1, pp. 1-33.
[36] Suldo, S. et al. (2009), “Teacher Support and Adolescents’ Subjective Well-Being: A Mixed-Methods Investigation”, School Psychology Review, Vol. 38/1, pp. 67-85, https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2009.12087850.
[99] The Council for Corporate & School Partnerships (2004), A HOW-TO GUIDE FOR SCHOOL-BUSINESS PARTNERSHIPS, https://www.reseaureussitemontreal.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/How_to_Guide_Cocacola.pdf.
[20] Torres, R. (2021), “Does test-based school accountability have an impact on student achievement and equity in education?: A panel approach using PISA”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 250, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0798600f-en.
[9] Tucker, R. and G. Morris (2010), “Anytime, anywhere, anyplace: Articulating the meaning of flexible delivery in built environment education”, British Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 42/6, pp. 904-915, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01138.x.
[8] UN (1989), 11. Convention on the Rights of the Child, https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=IV-11&chapter=4&clang=_en (accessed on 4 August 2023).
[6] Usma Wilches, J. (2007), “Teacher Autonomy: A Critical Review of the Research and Concept beyond Applied Linguistics”, Íkala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, Vol. 12/18, pp. 245-275, https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=255020488010.
[51] Van de Werfhorst, H. and J. Mijs (2010), “Achievement Inequality and the Institutional Structure of Educational Systems: A Comparative Perspective”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 36/1, pp. 407-428, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102538.
[75] Voogt, J. et al. (2018), “Education and Skills 2030 : Curriculum analysis”, 8th Informal Working Group Meeting (IWG).
[78] Wermke, W., S. Olason Rick and M. Salokangas (2019), “Decision-making and control: perceived autonomy of teachers in Germany and Sweden”, Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 51/3, pp. 306-325, https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1482960.
[29] 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.
[66] Wyse, D., L. Hayward and J. Pandya (eds.) (2015), The teacher and the curriculum: Exploring teacher agency, SAGE Publications.