As educational systems worldwide seek to improve outcomes for diverse learners, and revise or reform curriculum policies to set out new and ambitious aspirations for learners, curriculum flexibility and autonomy are now more than ever critical considerations for policy makers, practitioners and learners themselves. This report:
introduces “curriculum flexibility and autonomy” as part of a broader reflection around future-oriented curriculum (Chapter 1).
takes a closer look at what is meant by flexibility and autonomy related to curriculum matters in different countries/policy environments by introducing definitions that provide a shared language used throughout the report (Chapter 2);
takes stock of tensions and dilemmas countries/jurisdictions face when deciding on the extent of autonomy and flexibility given to local school actors in light of their policy goals (Chapter 3);
introduces specific countries/jurisdictions challenges related to flexibility and autonomy over four dimensions of curriculum, i.e. goals and content, pedagogies, assessment and learning time (Chapter 4);
concludes by describing system conditions that can optimise the benefits of curriculum flexibility and autonomy for student learning (Chapter 5, drawing on the findings from previous chapters).
Highlights of each chapter are presented in the sequence.
Following an introduction that situates the issue of flexibility and autonomy in curriculum as one important aspect of any curriculum reform (Chapter 1), Chapter 2 sets out definitions of curriculum flexibility (dimensions, degree, nature) and autonomy. The dimensions of curriculum flexibility include: flexibility of learning goals and learning content; flexibility of pedagogy; flexibility of assessment; flexibility of learning time.
The degree of flexibility on each of these dimensions can vary from low, medium to high, as can the nature of flexibility, the “space” available in the curriculum, to choose from, adapt, add to or remove/reduce content.
When considering these different dimensions, degrees and the nature of curriculum flexibility, the underlying question is “who is deciding the level flexibility allowed for whom?”. Hence the need to understand curriculum autonomy by clarifying “who decides”, “decision-making” power and empowerment. The underlying assumption of “who” mainly refers to “teachers”, while “school leaders” and “learners” are also considered to some degree.
It is also important to distinguish between structural autonomy – the formal delegation of decision-making power to schools (i.e. the organisation of instruction; personnel management; and resource management) and professional autonomy – the capacity, confidence and trust granted to school leaders and teachers to use their decision-making power in ways in which their decisions will enhance students’ learning and well-being.
In Chapter 3, research and the reported experiences in countries and jurisdictions reveal the tensions and dilemmas involved in curriculum flexibility and autonomy. These tensions and dilemmas include for example, shifts in the degree of flexibility and autonomy granted to local school actors reflecting sudden changes in policy concerns and priorities (pendulum swings between curriculum control and autonomy); potential misalignment between the intention of policy makers and the perceived autonomy of teachers and school leaders; as well as constrains to flexibility and autonomy in curriculum design and implementation resulting from rigid accountability measures and high-stakes assessment.
The interplay between flexibility over curriculum goals, content and pedagogy and flexibility on assessment and time allocations and how autonomy is granted and exercised at the local-level results in a range of possible approaches. This is discussed in Chapter 4, which also presents challenges and strategies used by countries and jurisdictions when making decisions about/facing consequences of different arrangements reflecting varying degrees of curriculum flexibility and autonomy.
One example is how to reconcile varying “visions” of the curriculum when responsibility for curriculum goals and content is shared between the central government, local government and/or schools or how to tackle lack of confidence and capacity among teachers and schools in designing locally-based curricula, in assessment literacy, and in being more flexible and innovative in their own practice. Defining principles or a vision at the national level that can guide local decision makers and providing professional learning opportunities for teachers and school leaders in locally-based curriculum development and assessment literacy are some of the strategies used in responding to these challenges.
Chapter 5 concludes the report by presenting key system-level contexts that are likely to successfully influence curriculum flexibility and autonomy. These include:
