Adapting Curriculum to Bridge Equity Gaps

Key Messages

• Digital curriculum, personalised curriculum, cross-curricular content and competency-based curriculum, and flexible curriculum are four types of curriculum innovations, proving myriad new opportunities for bridging equity gaps, if carefully designed and implemented. Currently, countries and schools are facing dilemmas and trade-offs, while at the same time benefiting from curriculum innovations to bridge equity gaps.

• Curriculum designers, school leaders and teachers need to become more aware of diverse needs of students, in particular, those of vulnerable students. Attention should be paid to, e.g. families’ socio-economic backgrounds; family structures; migrant, ethnic or racial, minority, and indigenous background; language(s); geographic location; special education needs (SEN); low performance or under-preparation in prior learning; gifted and talented students with exceptional abilities in learning; gender and sexual orientation. It is also important to recognise the intersectionality between these factors (a student may present any combination of such factors in reality).

• Despite all the diversity in students’ needs, in particular, those of vulnerable students, a standardised “one size fits all” approach to curriculum design does not take into account their different learning needs, prior learning, or learning interests. One effective approach to better understand students’ needs and ensure their learning and well-being in curriculum design and implementation is Design Thinking; it reinforces the important step of empathising by listening to students in the design process of a curriculum. This approach is in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, in particular, Article 12 (respect for the views of the child), 24 (health and health services) and 28 (right to education).

• Social and personal circumstances should not be obstacles to learners’ success, but barriers still exist to make curriculum truly inclusive, e.g. a curriculum that exists only in written form (for teachers with visual and hearing impairments); dominance of written and standardised forms of student assessment. Thus, another approach is Universal Design for Learning (UDL); it supports removing barriers and systematically focusing on the three components of what (content), the why (motivation), and the how of learning (pedagogies and assessment).

• Digital curriculum can remove some barriers to learning so students can learn from home, from refugee camps, from hospitals, from abroad, etc. It can support diverse learners by expanding the possibilities of assistive technology (e.g. screen readers, motion and voice recognition apps, Braille switchers, augmented reality, AI, wearable devices, etc.) and by blending the use of such applications so they can serve special needs students as well as learners. It can help unpack and personalise learning progressions through interactive tutoring systems that provide real-time and frequent feedback to students. It can also support teachers by gathering real data (learning analytics, Big Data) that helps them with early diagnosis of learning difficulties as well as adjusting learning goals to all learners. It can help with engaging unmotivated students or those at risk of drop-out (e.g. games and virtual reality applications). To make these opportunities a reality for all, a combination of public and private investment in enabling mechanisms is of critical importance, e.g. infrastructure (internet connectivity), devices (hard and software), school leaders and teacher training and support, etc.

• Personalised curriculum (especially when coupled with digital curriculum) can allow further adaptations for diverse learners, e.g. individualised learning goals or plans; relevant choice of content and learning activities in accordance with students’ prior knowledge and experience as well as skills and interests. Challenges with this curriculum type include: pressure on students and teachers who still need to prepare for standardised forms of assessment for accountability; misalignment of parental and teachers’ expectations and mindset (e.g. parents’ expectations of standard curriculum or teachers biases about what diverse learners can achieve); difficulty in designing teacher training; costs of implementation when maintaining and valuing human interactions; engaging stakeholders to design culturally responsive curricula etc.

• Cross-curricular content and competency-based curriculum have the potential to support equity goals by empowering all students, regardless of background, to engage in practical and demanding learning experiences. It supports some of the twelve OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Design Principles, such as “Interdisciplinary”, “Transferability” and “Authenticity”. This curriculum type supports the development of interdisciplinary knowledge as well as important transferable competencies (such as critical thinking and problem solving) and provide space and links to the real world, in which the content is current, relevant and applicable to contemporary times. Equity-related challenges include, similar to those with personalised curriculum, false perceptions about a ‘second class’ curriculum when focusing on non-traditional pedagogies and assessment (e.g. inter-disciplinary learning and formative assessment); misalignment with standardised testing; possibility to result in curriculum overload, unless carefully designed; training and support for teachers to design and collaborate with other teachers and people outside school; regional and local variations in capacity to promote equity-related values as a cross-curricular theme; etc.

• Flexible curriculum aims at adapting it to the needs of diverse learners by allowing schools, teachers and students a certain amount of freedom to make specific curricular choices on learning content and goals, pedagogy, assessment, as well as time and place of learning. It supports some of the twelve OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Design Principles, such as “Choice”, “Student agency” and “Teacher agency”. School leaders and teachers are encouraged to find their own purpose of adapting curriculum especially to low-achieving, language and other minority and/or disadvantaged students and support, in particular, vulnerable students to feel a sense of purpose in learning, make informed choice and decision about their own learning, and own their own learning. One of the fundamental dilemmas includes, similar to personalised curriculum, how to reconcile discrepancies in learning (e.g. flexible content, learning time, assessment, etc.) and national/regional standards for accountability.

• Five key lessons learned from unintended consequences countries experienced when tackling time lag issues suggest:

  1. Use Universal Design for Learning as checklist.

  2. Change the paradigm of “learning and assessment” to favour the whole child and person development.

  3. Expect both untapped opportunities and new risks in public-private partnership.

  4. Avoid stigmatising personalised and cross-curricular content and competency-based curricula.

  5. Do not underestimate the resources required to close observable and non-observable equity gaps.