Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy

Executive summary

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: 

 

system goals	Having a shared vision, purpose and principles that go beyond the specific learning objectives and content prioritised in each subject area or learning area. Clearly setting out curricular goals and specifying the extent or degree of freedom granted to local authorities, school leaders, teachers and students in deciding the “what” and “how” of teaching and learning.
system accountability	Recognition that different factors (inclusive of the intended curriculum and the attained, taught/implemented, experienced, negotiated, perceived and expected curriculum) steer implementation between curriculum prescription and control from the centre; and professional and learner autonomy that enables curriculum flexibility and autonomy at the local level.
system capacity	Building capacity in and across the system to build human capacity and social capital. Supporting teachers’ and students’ well-being. Developing teachers’ competency in curriculum design and assessment literacy.
political and economic context	The extent to which there is political leadership (to guide and support change); sufficient funding (proper budgeting for the resources required) and buy-in from stakeholders.

Key messages

• Curriculum flexibility and autonomy are crucial considerations for policy makers, practitioners and learners, as they enable targeted opportunities for diverse learners and for new developments. They also support a growth mindset in which stakeholders engage with each other to navigate vulnerabilities, uncertainties, complexities and ambiguities.

• Prescriptive or restrictive curricula are unlikely to nurture transformative competencies such as those emphasised in the OECD Learning Compass. Creating new value, resolving tensions and dilemmas, or taking responsibility for their own learning require students and teachers to reflect on their own actions and those of others as well as find a sense of purpose, intrinsic motivation and future aspirations. These kind of values and attitudes can be fostered through curriculum flexibility and autonomy.

• Policymakers and practitioners face tensions and dilemmas in the continuum between curriculum prescription and curriculum autonomy across different layers of a learning ecosystem. A particular concern is the discrepancy between perceived and actual autonomy that teachers and learners have, as well as parental expectations. This is an area where stakeholders need to build common ground and invest in mutual understanding. The degree of flexibility and autonomy granted can change over time and context, as public policy debates convene a wide range of perspectives on the benefits and risks.

• Students and teachers might be more or less encouraged to exercise agency over the content, pedagogy, assessment or time allocation, according to the extent of freedom they are granted. Curriculum flexibility and autonomy take different shapes according to the interplays between natures, degrees and dimensions considered. The approaches are not equally applied across primary and secondary education nor national or state administrations, as the supply and demand of resources adapt to specific needs.

• 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 also empower teachers and school leaders. That is why the conditions of the learning ecosystem play a key role to enable optimal results. 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 largely disconnected from the learning ecosystem. The design of a student-centred, concept-based and competency-driven curriculum is a continuous effort in many countries, and its implementation still requires consistent pedagogies and assessment.

• As curriculum flexibility is a relatively new and under-researched concept, there is significant opportunity to conduct additional research to enhance the understanding and development of these concepts. Notably, the reasoning of current assessment measures would be enriched by evidence on how curriculum flexibility and autonomy affect outcomes for students and teachers. Similarly, exploring the connections between different dimensions of curriculum flexibility and autonomy would be useful to shed light on the optimal mix. More systematic research on the interactions between curriculum flexibility and teacher autonomy would be beneficial to support future curriculum reforms, including concepts such as connected autonomy, and teacher agency, co-agency and collective agency.