This chapter suggests definitions of key terms to create a common language regarding curriculum flexibility and autonomy. Curriculum flexibility considers how adaptable a curriculum can be to changing educational contexts or different student needs. It is multi-faceted, it can be categorised in varying degrees, and expressed in different ways. This chapter discusses the interplay between these aspects of flexibility, which are fundamental to understanding why and how countries and jurisdictions decide to adapt local decision making. Curriculum autonomy suggests the extent to which different actors can exercise their control and decision-making over curriculum flexibility. The chapter describes who participates in decision-making across system-wide levels, and examines different interpretations and categorisations of autonomy.
Curriculum Flexibility and Autonomy
1. Defining curriculum flexibility and autonomy
Abstract
Approaches to defining curriculum flexibility and autonomy
Educational systems worldwide are seeking to improve outcomes for diverse learners by reforming curricula to set out new and ambitious aspirations for students. The OECD Learning Compass emphasises learners creating new value, resolving tensions and dilemmas, and taking responsibility for their own learning, all of which require the student to reflect on their own actions, as well as those of others. These are referred to as Transformative Competencies in the Learning Compass and are key skills for learners to develop.
It is unlikely that aspirations for such transformative competencies will be met through curricula that are prescriptive or restrictive. They can, however, be achieved through curriculum that encourages flexibility and autonomy. This allows practitioners to design and implement curricula that engage each student in finding a sense of purpose, intrinsic motivation and future aspirations; support them to build a growth mindset, trusting themselves and others; and prepare them to be a self-directed lifelong learner capable of navigating uncertainty and complexity. However, while flexibility and autonomy empower educators to tailor learning experiences to individual needs, there is a risk that without careful oversight, disparities in educational quality and access may arise. Ensuring equity involves providing all students with fair opportunities to succeed, regardless of their background. Therefore, while promoting flexibility and autonomy, efforts must be made to establish guidelines and support systems that uphold equitable educational standards. This balance ensures that strong flexibility and autonomy do not come at the cost of diminished equity, making it a critical consideration for policymakers, practitioners, and learners.
The concepts of “curriculum flexibility” and “curriculum autonomy” are described differently in different contexts. This chapter uses a pragmatic approach to define these terms, with the aim of establishing a common language that enables global dialogue and peer learning.
Curriculum flexibility considers how adaptable a curriculum can be to changing educational contexts or different student needs.
Curriculum autonomy suggests the extent to which different actors can exercise their control and decision-making over curriculum flexibility.
Defining curriculum flexibility
Curriculum flexibility is a complex1 concept, but it is broadly defined as how adaptable a curriculum can be to changing educational contexts or different student needs. Such flexibility or adaptability can occur in three main categories:
1. dimensions of flexibility (goals, content, pedagogy, assessment or instruction time);
2. degrees of flexibility (low, mid or high); and
3. natures of flexibility (to select, adapt, add, remove/reduce or design/co-design), as illustrated in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1. Dimensions, degrees and natures of curriculum flexibility
Source: OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030.
Dimensions of curriculum flexibility
This report acknowledged five dimensions of curriculum flexibility: 1) learning goals; 2) learning content; 3) pedagogy; 4) assessment; and 5) instruction time. This categorisation draws on divisions referenced in a range of curriculum literature and research (Tucker and Morris, 2011[1]; Jonker, März and Voogt, 2020[2]; Sinnema, 2015[3]). While these dimensions can be interpreted or understood differently by stakeholders in different countries and jurisdictions, they are all relevant to policy discussions in many OECD countries (Box 1.1). In practice, countries/jurisdictions often report on the level of autonomy/flexibility given to different school actors over goals and content (combined rather than separately) for the purposes of this report.
Box 1.1. Five dimensions of curriculum flexibility
1. Flexibility in learning goals: flexibility of the “why” of a curriculum, including aspirations, intentions, purposes, objectives and intended outcomes.
2. Flexibility in learning content: flexibility of the “what” of a curriculum, including the subjects, concepts, themes, topics and associated competencies/skills and contexts, and the priorities and relationships between them.
3. Flexibility in pedagogy: flexibility of the “how” of a curriculum, including instructional approaches, learning activities, grouping of students, and selection of materials and resources.
4. Flexibility in assessment: flexibility of the “what” and “how” of curriculum assessment, including assessment standards and guidelines, and how evaluations of learning, development and progression of learners toward learning goals are established.
5. Flexibility in instruction and learning time: flexibility of the “how much of” and “when” of learning, including the amount of learning time and the organisation of time for learning.
Degrees of curriculum flexibility
The degree of flexibility a curriculum has can be measured on a continuum: completely flexible at one end and completely fixed at the other end (Tucker and Morris, 2012[4]). Similarly, curricula can be categorised as having low, medium or high flexibility depending on the specific combination of where each of the dimensions listed above fall on the flexible/fixed continuum (Box 1.2).
Box 1.2. Degrees of curriculum flexibility
Low flexibility: implies high prescription regarding curriculum dimensions, i.e. all general and specific expectations of goals, content, pedagogy, assessment and learning time.
Medium flexibility: describes situations where some curriculum dimensions fluctuate between high and low level of prescription. For example, there might be low flexibility in terms of general and specific goals, content and learning time expectations, but high flexibility regarding pedagogy and assessment.
High flexibility: implies low prescription for a range of curriculum dimensions, general and specific goals, content, pedagogy, assessment and learning time expectations.
Figure 1.2. Distribution of decision-making authority between nation, province or state actors and teachers (N=35)
Number of countries where decisions are taken by given actors
Notes: This is a simplified version of Figure 1.5 (at the end of this chapter), which presents the different actors (nation/state, school, teacher) involved in decision-making on the selection of learning content, learning time, teaching strategies/methods and assessment at ISCED 2 level, categorised in four levels of flexibility. Figure 1.5 also refers to region, municipality and students as decision-makers. In the following countries/jurisdictions, the learning content/goals are not set up at the national level: United States, Wales (United Kingdom), Hong Kong (China).
Source: Future of Education and Skills 2030, E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC, Item 0.4), see Box 1.3 for more information.
Figure 1.2 shows the aspects of curriculum flexibility that governments more frequently delegate to other stakeholders (see Figure 1.5 for a more detailed view on school system actors, including regions, municipalities and students). All 35 countries that responded to the questionnaire reported that teachers have flexibility for making their own decisions, indicating that higher flexibility is granted on decisions about teaching strategies and methods. Meanwhile, the amount of flexibility granted to different stakeholders about decisions on learning content, assessment and learning time varies due to the importance of curriculum entitlement (i.e. rights to education in a form of content).
Box 1.3. The Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC) Overview
The Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC) aimed to provide countries and jurisdictions with an opportunity to learn from each other's experiences in curriculum redesign and to engage in self-reflection regarding their curricular approaches, including visions, educational goals, and expected outcomes for students. This initiative emphasised the diversity of curriculum concepts and redesign strategies across different regions. Designed with an exploratory approach, the PQC featured open-ended questions to capture a wide range of responses without constraining them to predefined categories, resulting in a rich qualitative dataset detailing various narratives of curriculum redesign experiences.
Targeting lower secondary education (ISCED 2), the questionnaire was organised into four thematic blocks, each delving into different aspects of the curriculum: 1) Contextual information, 2) Current curriculum, 3) Trends in curriculum redesign, and 4) The process of curriculum development, implementation, and monitoring. These sections collectively aimed to map current practices, identify recent trends, and explore the processes behind curriculum development and its ongoing evolution.
Between 2017 and 2019, national coordinators from 33 countries and jurisdictions, supported by academic experts from four jurisdictions, completed this iterative questionnaire. The qualitative responses were analysed through a multi-stage coding process, ensuring comparability while recognising the complexity of each national context. This process included initial coding to identify key themes, mapping responses to these themes, and a final country validation stage to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the data collected.
Unless otherwise specified, examples from countries and jurisdictions that are described in this report come from data collected through the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (E2030 PQC).
Source: OECD (2020[5]). Technical Report: Curriculum Analysis of the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/2-5-supporting-materials/Technical%20_Report_Curriculum_Analysis_of_the_OECD_Future_of_Education_and_Skills_2030.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2024)
Flexibility in learning goals and content
One of the dimensions which is less likely to be highly flexible is that of learning goals and the content used to achieve those goals. There is more often limited flexibility in this area, likely due to concern for ensuring learners’ curriculum entitlement (i.e. rights to education in the form of learning time and content) and that there are no curriculum-based inequities in the goals and content students encounter throughout the curriculum.
For example, the national curriculum of England (United Kingdom) shows low overall flexibility relative to other jurisdictions. Similar to most jurisdictions, it prescribes general goals, such as goals for students to be fluent in the fundamentals of mathematics, be able to reason mathematically and solve problems. It also prescribes specific associated goals, such as to “recognise, find and name a half as one of two equal parts of an object, shape or quantity” (UK Department of Education, 2013[6]), as well as detailing the grade or year levels during which those specific goals must be addressed.
Even with a competency-based curriculum, knowledge (content, concepts) remains a fundamental component (for example, in Australia and British Columbia (Canada)), as certain skills are highlighted as drivers in understanding content and key concepts.
In some countries, while general national curricula remain high in flexibility, flexibility in learning goals and content could be described as medium. For example:
In Australia, the learning content and achievement standards are specified in the curriculum, although jurisdictions, school sectors, school leaders and teachers are able to select their own themes or topics that reflect the local context and meet the learning needs of students attending the school.
In Costa Rica, content is contextualised for schools located in Indigenous territories, and in educational programmes for young people and adults.
In Czechia, the School Educational Programme is the responsibility of a head teacher, who compiles it with a team of school employees, including teachers. Schools and teachers are therefore autonomous to some extent in selecting learning content and structuring subjects.
Teachers in Poland can widen the scope of goals and topics defined in the core curriculum, although they must adjust the curriculum to the needs and capacities of students.
In Argentina there is some flexibility for selecting content, e.g. prioritising specific topics within the curriculum.
Despite high flexibility in learning goals and content being not particularly common, exceptions to this rule are emerging. A few jurisdictions have introduced a high level of flexibility in goals and content, valuing local ownership and decision making in local contexts. However, it is not without its challenges.
The Curriculum for Wales (United Kingdom) shows high overall flexibility. General goals are prescribed, with flexibility for other goals to be added, but the curriculum is flexible in terms of the specific goals associated with these. For example, the general goal of students understanding that “the number system is used to represent and compare relationships between numbers and quantities” (HWB Government of Wales, 2020[7]) is prescribed, but there is flexibility for those working with the curriculum to determine the specific goals relevant to the overarching one. This flexibility is in line with Wales’s principle of subsidiarity for curriculum design, which proposes that the curriculum command “the confidence of all, while encouraging appropriate ownership and decision making by those closest to the teaching and learning process” (Donaldson, 2015[8]).
In other contexts, curriculum flexibility changes over time or in relation to parts of the curriculum. In New Zealand, the 2007 National Curriculum introduced a highly flexible framework within which teachers and leaders are able to make decisions about content and context. The national curriculum requires schools to design local curricula which reflect the needs, interests and priorities of their students, families and the community, in line with the larger national curriculum. Recent calls from a Curriculum, Progress and Achievement Advisory Group in New Zealand recognise the need for increased clarity alongside that flexibility. As that report sets out: “flexibility for local responsiveness is necessary in a system that strives to be inclusive and value diversity. However, flexible curriculum frameworks require those implementing them to be clear about the learning outcomes that cannot be left to chance to avoid local decisions leading to inequitable learning opportunities” (Ministerial Advisory Group, 2019, p. 7[9]). One response is the development of an Aotearoa New Zealand Histories curriculum that is more prescriptive than other elements of the national curriculum had been, while remaining flexible for schools to embed locally-relevant content. This move reduces flexibility and increases prescription to ensure that all learners develop their understanding of New Zealand Histories and the diverse perspectives and experiences involved.
Flexibility in pedagogies
Most jurisdictions report that their curriculum is flexible in terms of the teaching methods, approaches, techniques or strategies those working in schools can use. Therefore, it is closely linked to curriculum autonomy at the teacher level, which is discussed in further detail later in this chapter. Often, that flexibility is tempered with reminders that the methods should serve curriculum policy goals either at a national, jurisdiction or school level.
In British Columbia (Canada), teachers develop and assess required learning standards, including competencies and content, but have autonomy over the methods of instruction in their classroom.
Portugal provides flexibility for teachers to select pedagogical strategies according to the context of the school in line with the Students’ Profile, the National Strategy for Citizenship Education and Learning Essentials, although still using an inclusive approach.
Türkiye allows teachers to determine methods and techniques they will use during the course, under the condition of remaining coherent and consistent with the achievements indicated in the national curriculum.
There is high flexibility in Argentina to select teaching strategies, in accordance with school-level policies.
Typically, such flexibility in pedagogy is driven by the opportunity it allows curriculum users to meet the particular needs of their students: addressing strengths and weaknesses in their progress and achievement, connecting with their interests, using resource materials relevant to them, and considering local conditions, resources and opportunities, and the expertise of teachers.
The role of textbooks in pedagogy
Flexibility in content often involves flexibility in the selection of textbooks, which are often considered part of pedagogies as they can play a key role in driving those pedagogies (Schmidt, 2008[10]). Thus, textbooks also raise important recent policy issues, such as quality assurance and accreditation, digitalisation, and content overload.
In many countries, and especially OECD partner countries, governments are involved, at least to a certain extent, in the development and approval of textbooks and/or learning materials (Table 1.1). This includes providing technical guidelines or obligatory requirements (e.g. Chile, Estonia, Portugal), providing advice and consultations (e.g. New Zealand), issuing accreditations and licences (e.g. Czechia), or providing financial support (e.g. Norway).
Table 1.1. Level of government involvement in the development, approval and selection of textbooks (incl. digital textbooks) and learning materials
*: Data submitted by researcher not governmental institution.
Notes:
m: Data are not available.
a: The category does not apply in the country concerned or economy.
Source: Future of Education and Skills 2030, E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC).
In many countries, responsibility for quality assurance is shared between government, schools and municipalities, while very few countries engage in external evaluations in the quality assurance process (e.g. the Focused Education Resources in British Columbia (Canada); an external evaluation agency in Ontario (Canada) and an external evaluation committee in Brazil).
However, when it comes to the selection of textbooks and learning materials for the school and classroom, the government is less involved, paving the way for school and teacher autonomy. In general, government involvement is slightly stronger in textbooks than learning materials; and is more significant for OECD partner countries. The extent of involvement varies from providing suggestions (e.g. Australia providing optional learning materials), to issuing lists of authorised textbooks (e.g. Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Québec (Canada), Brazil, Kazakhstan), to approval of public spending on textbooks (e.g. Czechia).
Digital textbooks
The OECD Education 2030 project (E2030) analysis on digital curricula found that several countries and jurisdictions encourage the development and use of digital textbooks; some have put initiatives in place to develop digital learning materials. There are many different reasons for this, such as exploring new opportunities to close equity gaps (especially for students with special needs), promoting more personalised learning, ensuring effective learning progression across different grades, and supporting digital learning where content, pedagogies and assessment are more integrated (OECD, 2020[11]). Despite these benefits, the cost, accessibility, and lack of social interaction of digital textbooks should be taken into account, to continue promoting students learning and development.
Some countries, including Estonia, have reported that the use of digital textbooks accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, their introduction required careful planning and piloting to ensure these textbooks are successfully integrated whilst addressing key issues such as accessibility, equity, affordability and relevance. Typically, when changing from print to digital resources, both versions are made available for a certain period of time to help ease the transition.
Moreover, quality assurance and accreditation of digital textbooks requires a more complex process than that of paper textbooks. For instance, Lithuania reported that there is a national approval process currently in place for digital textbooks. This is due to a number of reasons, including the widened scope of content, which is made available through interactive features often linked to other types of content; the use of multi-media formats including music and videos; and the blurred distinction between content, pedagogy and assessment, which are all combined in digital textbooks. (OECD, 2020[11]).
This could easily lead to curriculum overload. The E2030 analysis found that textbooks can often cause content overload or contribute to teachers' perception that they do, in the case of particularly large textbooks (OECD, 2020[12]). When given autonomy in the choice of textbooks, it is therefore critical for schools and teachers to be able to choose the right resources to avoid curriculum overload.
These research findings suggest that textbooks play an important role in defining pedagogies closely related to content and assessment. Therefore, it is critically important for governments to ensure that flexibility in pedagogies is used as an opportunity to address different student needs, e.g. by developing relevant resources and tapping into the potential of digital textbooks in particular.
Flexibility in assessment
When it comes to assessment with regards to curriculum implementation, decisions are predominantly made at the school level by teachers and school leaders, but with a strong lead from the government at the national level (Figure 1.5). School-based, classroom and formative assessments are often relatively flexible, particularly in terms of assessing curriculum-related achievement and progress. Conversely, national standardised assessments or other high-stakes examinations outside schools are, by nature, less flexible.
In many jurisdictions, there is a combination of flexibility at a local level, with less flexibility at the system level.
Teachers in Denmark have the flexibility to choose assessment strategies and methods. Assessments can adapt pedagogies to suit students’ needs, however, some assessments are mandatory. For example, 9th-grade students take a school leaving examination and a range of mandatory national tests are used to evaluate students’ learning outcomes from 2nd to 8th grade. The tests take place in the beginning of the school year so as to track the learning outcome of the individual students and the class as a whole and to follow the learning progress on both levels. This means that the education process can be better placed in preparing future lessons in accordance with their strengths, weaknesses and potential at that point3. The test results provide only a snapshot of the learning outcome and teachers are urged to combine the test results with other tools used for evaluation.
In Estonia, the Schools Act sets out the knowledge, skills and experience of students to be assessed on a five-point scale. At stages I-II4, students can be assessed using verbal descriptive feedback, without the use of a grade scale. By the end of stage II, a grade scale is introduced, and verbal assessment is no longer used. Alongside this scale, formative assessment is obligatory to provide feedback on results, and to encourage and guide further studies and future objectives. Schools are free to use any assessment scale at this level and in later school years, but it must support the development of the student. The marks must be transformed to the five-point scale by the end of schooling or when the students leave school.
The curriculum guidelines of Korea outline assessment methods and considerations, but these provide broad guidelines rather than specific regulations. For example, the curriculum documents outline the purpose and direction of assessment by emphasising that assessments are meant to gauge student achievement levels. The results from these assessments should then be utilised to enhance the quality of both teaching and learning. Moreover, it's advised that the chosen assessment method should take into account the subject's nature and characteristics. A diverse range of methods, including multiple choice, descriptive and essay types, interviews, and portfolios, is recommended over relying solely on one type of assessment.
Brazil has standardised national assessments such as the Sistema de Avaliação da Educação Básica (SAEB), which is administered biannually and provides indicators of the quality of Brazilian education and offers subsidies for the elaboration, monitoring and improvement of educational policies based on evidence. SAEB can generate results on a national, state, municipal and school level, but not on a class or student level. Nevertheless, local governments and schools can implement new formative and summative assessments.
Flexibility in learning time
Regarding learning time, decisions are taken by governments at the national level, but also by schools (Figure 1.5). Compared to the three other categories, teachers and students have the least autonomy in this regard, with most countries prescribing learning time within specific constraints.
Curriculum documents in Australia provide an outline of indicative hours of instruction time for learning areas and/or subjects. Jurisdictions, school sectors, school leaders and teachers have the flexibility to vary the allocation to meet the learning needs of students attending the school and to include activities such as peer support, sporting events, and school assemblies. States and territories may set policies that specify minimum time allocations for specific subjects.
The Ministry of Education in British Columbia (Canada) requires yearly instructional time but does not mandate how that time is divided among subject areas.
Korea allows schools to adjust instructional hours within 20% of the respective subject (cluster) – or up to 35% in the case of autonomous schools and designated high schools. Thus, schools can strengthen a well-rounded education by increasing hours for music, art and physical education, or decide to increase the number of hours allocated to certain subjects in the case of low-achieving students.
Nature of curriculum flexibility
To ensure optimal learning experiences and outcomes for students, a curriculum is often less prescribed, leaving “space” for it to be contextualised and customised to suit individual student needs.
Such “space” in a curriculum can be used by school leaders and teachers to choose/select, adapt, add, remove/reduce or design/co-design curriculum elements. (Box 1.4).
Box 1.4. Nature of curriculum flexibility
Choose/select: flexibility to select from suggestions, alternatives or options set out in the curriculum.
Adapt: flexibility to adjust, contextualise or customise aspects set out in the curriculum to suit the needs, interests or preferences of learners or of the context or setting.
Add: flexibility to include goals, content, pedagogical or assessment approaches beyond what is required, and/or time above minimum allocations.
Remove/reduce: flexibility to include less when a curriculum standard is set as aspirational rather than a required minimum, especially when student well-being is at risk due to curriculum overload.
Design/co‑design: flexibility to create/co‑create or “make” curricula to ensure relevance and instil a sense of ownership and responsibility for implementation.
Choosing/selecting or adapting
Some curricula enable choice and selection by educators. In British Columbia (Canada), the high-level concepts and competencies of study are set by the provincial curriculum, but teachers have a significant amount of flexibility regarding the contexts used to teach these topics. For example, a Social Studies learning standard might require that students learn about revolutions during the 18th and 19th centuries, but teachers can choose which revolutions to study, and the amount of time spent on each. Teachers are encouraged to consider their students’ and community context to personalise learning of larger concepts and competencies.
Other curricula support the adaptation of goals, content, pedagogies, assessment and instruction time. Ireland’s ISCED 25 gives scope for schools and teachers to adapt to the needs of the learners within parameters of the centrally devised curriculum, alongside the expectations it sets out for what schools will teach, their pedagogy and their assessment. Box 1.5 shows more examples of how learners appreciate teachers adapting pedagogies through playful learning; Box 1.6 offers an example of how students welcome an opportunity to choose a topic for self-assessment.
Box 1.5. Playful learning as an example of adapting pedagogies
Sophia, a 17-year-old student from Denmark, believes that playful learning can create a needed sense of purpose and achievement in the classroom. Sophia shares how incorporating games specifically at the end of lessons can significantly improve student engagement: “If you know that what you do in the class becomes part of a game or competition at the end of the class, you have an immediate reason to follow along. When all the knowledge you are learning right now, can also be put to use right now, that is when you feel like the class has a clear purpose. In that way, games can create immediate gratification from learning. You should not have to wait until the end of the year when you do good on an exam to feel gratification from your learning.” Sophia believes that small games and playful exercises can give a small sense of achievement that students need to stay motivated. She also stresses how games teach her to use her knowledge in different contexts and thereby help her become a more agile thinker. For instance, in her German class, they often play “quiz and swap” where the students each get a card with a question. When two people meet they must answer the other’s question before they can swap cards and move on to a new partner. The first to answer every card wins. In this game, Sophia finds that she learns how to use the new phrases and vocabulary she has learned in a real conversation. At the same time, focusing on helping each other out to answer the questions as fast as possible encourages the students to negotiate meaning between them, which is key to learning a new language. For a game to be engaging, she thinks that it needs to make everyone feel like they are participating. On the contrary, she thinks that a bad game allows students to hide themselves away at the corner of the room. Moreover, she emphasises teacher engagement and how teachers can motivate students by being engaged themselves: “a playful teacher is contagious,” she says.
Manuel, an 18-year-old student from Portugal, believes that playful learning can be used to bridge generations and build relationships. At his school, he joined the chess club, where he was taught how to play by the older students until the 7th grade, at which point he started teaching younger students. Not only did he learn how to play chess, but he found the experience of transitioning from a mentee to a mentor formative. He talks about how using play as a peer-learning tool has the potential to build communities. Through the game, students develop relationships not just across grades, but also across schools by participating in inter-municipal and national tournaments. Manuel expresses how peer learning combined with chess helped him develop social and relational skills, which he believes all students should learn. Games can also be the starting point for engaging the entire community in learning. Manuel gives the example of how a project in his community collected traditional outdoor games that children’s parents and grandparents played when they were little. The initiative was run by the school in partnership with the municipal youth department. Over a weekend, a historian led a tour, explaining the history of their city with stops where the old-time games were set up. Manuel still remembers the experience clearly: “it culminated in a day of play between people of different generations and the learning turned out to be much more than just the games”. By using games as a starting point, the whole community was engaged in the school’s history lesson.
Source: OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Student Narratives on Playful Learning.
Box 1.6. Student reflection on assessment
Kelly, a 17-year-old student in Ireland, focuses on the importance of flexibility when it comes to assessment. He finds that he learns better when given a topic to learn about: if the teacher pinpoints what students should learn but gives flexibility in assessing whether they learned it, each student has the chance to learn in their own way and meet the end goal, which is to understand the learning material.
As a final year student, Kelly is particularly fond of the idea of a continuous assessment: projects to build up to a final grade instead of one determinant final examination. He thinks that, with this more flexible approach to assessment, students would be happier and their results as a group would be better.
Source: OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 Student Voices on Curriculum (Re)design /campaign, https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/educationwewant/.
Adding or removing/reducing
Curricula that set out requirements but allow users to supplement them are slightly more permissive. This can be to respond to new demands, such as adding new units or creating subjects (e.g. privacy and data security, as well as consent education in Australia, and entrepreneurship in Poland; health and well-being in Hungary and Ireland; coding/programming in British Columbia (Canada) and Estonia; global citizenship in Mexico and India; environmental literacy in Korea and Norway; media literacy in Hungary and Quebec (Canada), etc. (OECD, 2020[12])), or adding more instruction time to accommodate such demands. In this approach, minimum requirements are set with more freedom to add to the goals, content, and pedagogical or assessment approaches.
However, this approach needs to be carefully considered. While recognising its needs and benefits, policy makers increasingly share concerns that, without careful attention, this approach can invite curriculum overload. Oates (2011[13]) and Rawling (2020[14]) raise the concern that curricula could become a space for competing policy interests on what to include, not purely to exercise professional autonomy, but due to schools and teachers facing pressures from interest groups. For example, Finland reports that overload was observed to be heavier in local curricula than the National Core Curriculum for Basic Education 2004, which had the target of reducing curriculum overload (OECD, 2020[12]). Therefore, curriculum flexibility and autonomy could inadvertently produce curriculum overload if used simply to add more content or instruction time.
This suggests that we must carefully consider the approach of removing/reducing (OECD, 2020[12]) As in Finland, curriculum overload tends to be heavier at the local level when schools and teachers lack guidance on what to remove or prioritise. This requires reflection, given that curriculum overload is likely to remain a major policy concern, particularly given student well-being issues associated with the COVID‑19 pandemic at the time of writing, while recognising the need to recover learning opportunities which were lost during the lockdowns.
Designing/co‑designing
Less common are decisions that allow educators and students to design/co‑design their own curriculum. This relates to “negotiated curricula”; (OECD, 2020, p. 17[15]) the design process involves teachers and students before the curriculum is implemented. It is therefore no longer necessary to raise awareness of the new curriculum once it is introduced. Indeed, “engaging stakeholders to develop shared understanding and ownership of curriculum change” was reported as a successful experience by British Columbia (Canada), the Netherlands and Ontario (Canada) in the OECD E2030 curriculum analysis of 21st century curricula, especially to address the issue of time lag (in (OECD, 2020, pp. 103-104[11])).
Flexibility to design/co-design goes beyond recognising that teachers will make their own plan from a curriculum, also encouraging teachers and schools to be curriculum makers who shape a curriculum that is “owned” by them, that is centred around working in their contexts, and that is driven by their priorities, worldviews and perspectives about what matters to their learners. Box 1.7 illustrates how students can become co-designers of curricula and learning environments.
While acknowledging many benefits, some countries report that this approach can put teachers and learners – and often parents – in conflict regarding expectations. An “expected curriculum”, defined as part of an education ecosystem (OECD, 2020, p. 17[15]), can vary between teachers, students and parents, as well as amongst teachers themselves.
This is the case when it comes to teaching attitudes and values. For example, India reports “dissonance between teachers’ own values and beliefs and those in the curriculum” when exercising curriculum flexibility and autonomy at a local level (OECD, 2021[16]).
Research also shows that, while parental involvement correlates to better psychological adjustment, life satisfaction and improved general physical health among grown children, parents with unrealistic expectations for their children’s success (often referred to “helicopter parents”) and excessive protection can put harmful emotional and mental pressure on children (Burns and Gottschalk, 2019[17]; Fingerman et al., 2012[18]).
When the nature of flexibility is to design/co-design, schools must be equipped to reconcile tensions and dilemmas, while valuing input from an array of stakeholders, including educators, learners, families and the community. Otherwise, “too many cooks spoil the broth”6. In this approach, curriculum design demands high levels of complex interactions, with the “agency” of different stakeholders reaching “co-agency” and “collective agency”. It also demands curriculum design expertise and accountability.
Box 1.7. Involving students in shaping curricula: Complex Instructions Programmes in Hungary
A defining concept of modern pedagogical thinking is “student agency”, in which learners are not passive receivers of teaching but active and conscious shapers of their own learning and environment. Student agency, in the context of the OECD Learning Compass 2030, is defined as the capacity to set a goal, reflect and act responsibly to affect change (OECD, 2019[19]).
The practice of the Molnár School in Hungary illustrates that the involvement of students in educational innovation processes is not only possible but necessary. The Molnár School uses the knowledge and experience of students when thinking about pedagogical processes. This is reinforced by the practice of Complex Instructions Programmes (Komplex Instrukciós Program, KIP) lessons, the defining element of which is assessment by the students in group learning.
Night of Researchers
Pupils teach board games to university students and lecturers at University of Miskolc
KIP is an alternative and reflexive teaching method created in response to the lack of student motivation perceived by Hungarian teachers. KIP is the result of three years of research to adapt the existing method of Complex Instruction, developed in the 1970’s by Stanford University’s Elizabeth G. Cohen and Rachel Lotan, to the Hungarian context and contemporary curriculum competencies (Hunya, 2016[20]).
At the end of KIP lessons, students evaluate what happened earlier in their group in an analytical way in front of their peers. This means giving feedback on whether their work was successful and enjoyable, and engaging in dialogue with each other and their teacher about the learning processes in their group and the specifics of their work. All students analyse and evaluate the learning process that has taken place, point out which factors helped, and which factors hindered it, and recall moments of communication in the groups.
Educators often use tasks or puzzles created by students in KIP lessons, and the tasks they compile have been used in final evaluations. There is even a KIP lesson where one group of children prepares tasks for the other. Applying tasks invented by children also appears in places like physical education classes. For example, most jumping exercises are invented by the students themselves.
KIP training for Vodafone instructors/trainers to increase retention of new hires
Molnár also uses a form of pedagogical dialogue with children known as “reverse day”, in which children are placed in the role of educators. The experience of reverse days shows that children are able to plan lessons (“the way a class is structured, like a real teacher”) using complex methods such as teamwork. In another example of lesson planning, educators consulted with students on professional issues.
Note: Images by Emese K. Nagy.
Source: Fazekas and Halász, (2019[21]), "A gyakorlatunk a legnagyobb muníciónk", Innovációs folyamatok a ferencvárosi Molnár Ferenc iskolában Innova esettanulmány, [Our practice is our greatest ammunition" - Innovative processes at Molnár Ferenc School in Ferencváros, Innova case study.]
Defining curriculum autonomy
We can better understand the interplay between curriculum flexibility and autonomy by asking underlying questions. For example, who can make autonomous decisions on curriculum flexibility, when taking into account the various aspects of flexibility discussed previously in this chapter? Curriculum autonomy suggests the extent to which different actors (such as boards of education, school leaders, teachers and students) can exercise control and decision-making over curriculum flexibility.
The following section takes a pragmatic, rather than a conceptual, political or ideological, approach to autonomy regarding curricular decisions, answering “who decides” by clarifying decision-making power and empowerment. It first contextualises the question by analysing who makes curricular decisions specifically, in comparison with general decision-making in education. It then illustrates the interpretations and categorisations used when defining autonomy regarding curricular decisions in different countries, across disciplines and by various stakeholders.
Who makes decisions specific to curricula?
When clarifying the nature of curriculum flexibility above (Nature of curriculum flexibility), the underlying assumption of who (chooses, adapts, adds, removes/reduces, designs/co‑designs) was mainly teachers, although school leaders and learners also play a role.
National or state governments delegate decision-making authority for curriculum flexibility to local authorities, schools, teachers and, more recently, students themselves (Erss, 2018[22]; Wermke, Olason Rick and Salokangas, 2018[23]; Voogt et al., 2018[24]; OECD, 2019[25]; Suggett, 2015[26]).
This aligns with the ecosystem approach to curriculum change (OECD, 2020[15]) and the OECD Learning Compass, which places student agency at the centre of the learning framework. Students can be empowered and supported to understand the meaning of autonomy and make informed decisions with regards to where, what and how to learn (e.g. goals, content, pedagogies, assessment and learning time). Fostering competencies such as self-directed learning, a sense of ownership of their learning, and a growth mindset can support learners to thrive and reach their potential.
Compared to the broader context of autonomy in education (Figure 1.3), decision-making about a curriculum paints a slightly different picture (Figure 1.4).
Figure 1.3. Share of decisions taken at each level of government in lower-secondary public education (2017)
Notes: In Estonia, there are only three levels of decision-making: school, local and state. Instead of “multiple levels”, it should be “central or state”. The kinds of decisions considered in this data include items compiled in four broad domains, namely:
The organisation of instruction: bodies determining the school attended, decisions affecting school careers, instruction time, choice of textbooks, choice of software/”learningware”, grouping pupils, assistance to pupils, teaching methods, assessment of pupils’ regular work.
Personnel management: hiring and dismissal of staff, duties and conditions of staff service, fixing of staff, influence over the career of staff.
Planning and structures: creation or closure of a school, creation or abolition of a grade level, designing programmes of study, selection of subjects taught in a particular school, selection of programmes of study offered in a particular school, setting of qualifying examinations for a certificate or diploma, credentialing.
Resource allocation and use.
Source: OECD (2018[27]), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
Figure 1.4. Share of responsibility for school curricula
Notes: The tasks include responsibility for the curriculum and instructional assessment within the school (establishing student-assessment policies, choosing textbooks, and determining which courses are offered and the content of those courses). The calculation is based on the tasks included in the school questionnaire. Countries and economies are ranked in descending order of the responsibility held by school principals and teachers.
Source: OECD (2016[28]), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
Several OECD countries grant high school autonomy (from 90% to 50%), with a particularly strong lead taken by the Netherlands, followed by Czechia, Latvia, Iceland, Estonia, Australia, New Zealand and Slovenia (Figure 1.3). These findings correspond at least in part to school autonomy over curriculum (represented by principals and teachers), for instance in the Netherlands, New Zealand, Czechia, Iceland, Estonia and Australia (Figure 1.4).
Overall, countries where larger shares of education decisions are made at the school level (such as organisation of instruction, personnel management, planning and structures, and resource management)7 are also those where most responsibility for the school curriculum rests with principals or teachers:
The Netherlands, New Zealand, and Czechia show the highest share of responsibility for curricula assumed by principals and teachers (over 93%). At the other end of the spectrum, Türkiye and Greece grant the lowest levels of autonomy regarding curricular decisions at school level (8% and 3%, respectively), while central governments play a bigger role in decision-making in these two countries (at 80% and 95% respectively).
Similarly, Iceland, Estonia and Australia show a high share of responsibility for curriculum taken up by principals and teachers (at around 80%), corresponding to the generally high share of school autonomy granted (from 60% to 55%).
However, some countries with a lot of autonomy over curriculum may only be minimally involved in other decisions about broader educational planning. This is the case for Japan (90% vs. 41% respectively), Korea (80% vs. 23%), Denmark (76% vs. 51%), Norway (74% vs. 44%), Israel (72% vs. 27%), Italy (71% vs. 42%) and France (69% vs. 37%).
In some countries local or regional authorities have high shares of responsibility for curricula, such as in in Switzerland, where 42% of responsibility rests at the local or regional level, followed by Spain (30%)8, the United States (28%) and Mexico (20%).
In other countries and economies, school boards play a prominent role, as in Singapore, where 40% of responsibility for decision-making rests at school board level, as it does in Colombia (almost 27%).
It is important to note that not all decisions are made at the same level in a country or jurisdiction. Further, governance is in flux along with ongoing reforms. This said, a general picture can be captured at the time of data collection (Box 1.3):
In 11 out of 33 countries and jurisdictions with available data, the central or state authority oversees most decisions (Figure 1.3).
However, the largest share of decisions is made at the school level. For example, the share in the Netherlands is particularly high, with over 90% of decisions taken at the school level. In eight countries, including Australia, Czechia and Estonia, 50% or more of decisions are made at the school level. This is in line with existing research, which shows that countries and jurisdictions increasingly offer curriculum flexibility to schools with a degree of autonomy in certain areas (Kuiper, Nieveen and Berkvens, 2013[29]).
In other countries, the share of decisions made at the school level is low but local authorities have a prominent role. For example, in the United States, being a federal country, decisions are made mainly at the local level (72%), while responsibility rests with schools for only around 16% of decisions. On average, however, regional/sub-regional and local levels have a less prominent position (13% of decisions).
There are differences among federal countries. In Canada, for example, most curriculum, pedagogy and resource decisions are made at the provincial and local level (33% and 52% respectively); the responsibility rests with schools for only around 15% of decisions. There is no federal authority for education in Canada, except for some First Nations schools, and the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC) serves as an intergovernmental body to represent the educational interests of the provinces and territories internationally. On the contrary, in the United States, a national authority (the Department of Education) exists, however, in many states of the United States, boards of education only oversee a city or local area and make decisions regarding curriculum, pedagogy and funding locally.
Decisions involving multiple levels of government are the prevailing pattern in Finland (100%), Hungary (50%) and other countries to a lesser extent, such as Korea (33%), Norway (30%) Estonia (29%) and Denmark (28%).
When it comes to regional/sub-regional level decision-making, it is rather exceptional, with only ten countries granting any autonomy to that level. The list is led by Japan (at 32%), followed by France (26%), Germany, Spain (both at 22%), Türkiye (20%) and Hungary (18%). Korea, Italy, Greece and Czechia are the only other countries that give autonomy to regions/sub-regions, their shares ranging from 16% to 2%.
It should be noted that some decisions are made in consultation with other bodies, or flexibility is left to adjust a national framework to local student needs. In Korea, for example, the central level establishes minimum instruction time for a set of grades, and schools have autonomy to allocate instruction time per grade as they consider appropriate (OECD, 2018[30]).
In all education systems an increasing number of stakeholders are involved in designing, delivering and monitoring education. This complexity challenges decision-makers at every governance level to navigate a dynamic policy environment effectively. Generally, it's recognised that five key elements are crucial for the efficacy of modern complex governance systems: 1) prioritise processes over structures; 2) maintain flexibility and adaptability to change; 3) enhance capacity through stakeholder engagement and dialogue; 4) adopt a holistic system approach; and 5) use evidence and research to guide policy and reforms (Burns and Köster, 2016[31]).
The E2030 curriculum data from 35 participating countries and jurisdictions (Figure 1.5) further specify who makes curricular decisions, i.e. with regards to “learning content”, “teaching strategies/methods”, “assessment” and “learning time” in lower secondary education.
National or state governments retain the decision on content, understandably, for curriculum entitlements (i.e. rights to education in a form of content), so as to ensure equitable Opportunities to Learn (OTL). Chapter 2 addresses such considerations.
Figure 1.5. Decision-making across school system actors (N=35)
Number of countries where decisions are taken by given actors
Notes: These graphs present the different actors involved in decision-making on the selection of learning content, learning time, teaching strategies/methods and assessment at ISCED 2 level categorised in four levels of flexibility. In the following countries/jurisdictions, the learning content/goals are not set up at the national level: United States, Wales (United Kingdom), Hong Kong (China). Please refer to Tables 1.2 and 1.3 for country/jurisdiction details.
Source: Future of Education and Skills 2030, E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC, Item 0.4)
Table 1.2 and Table 1.3 suggest some general patterns with country-specific data:
In all 35 participating countries and jurisdictions with available data, teachers are the predominant decision-makers regarding teaching strategies and instructional methods (Figure 1.5; Table 1.2).
Decisions on assessment are also predominantly made at the school level by teachers (except in Argentina) but with a strong lead from the government at the national level (Table 1.3) in the majority of participating countries and jurisdictions, the government (national or province/state level) also takes part in the decision on assessment (except in New Zealand, Poland and Hong Kong [China]).
In only 11 countries and jurisdictions do students take part in deciding on learning content, and in most of these, they also have a say in forms of assessment.
Few opportunities are created for students to participate in decision-making. The data shows that in only a few countries students are invited to make decisions on important aspects of their learning:
Only 2 countries make room for students to participate in decisions on learning time, which tends to be regulated by the government and the schools (Japan and Scotland).
Only 4 countries report involving students on decisions regarding teaching strategies/methods, which affects their learning directly (Hungary, Ireland, Norway and Scotland).
In a slightly greater share of these countries, students take part in decision-making regarding learning content (11) and assessment (8). This leaves a lot of room for many countries to consider how to get students more involved in these key aspects of their learning process.
Table 1.2. School and teacher autonomy to decide on teaching strategies/methods and assessment
1. Data were submitted by researchers and not by a governmental institution.
2. Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. As decisions are being made at the "region" level, answers to the column "nation/state" are not applicable.
Notes: This table presents the different actors involved in decision-making on the selection of learning content and teaching strategies/methods at ISCED 2 level.
m: Data are not available.
a: The category does not apply in the country concerned or economy.
Source: Future of Education and Skills 2030, E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC, Item 0.4)
Table 1.3. School and teacher autonomy to decide on assessment and learning time
1. Data were submitted by researchers and not by a governmental institution.
2. Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. As decisions are being made at the "region" level, answers to the column "nation/state" are not applicable.
Notes: This table presents the different actors involved in decision-making on the selection of assessment and learning time at ISCED 2 level.
m: Data are not available.
a: The category does not apply in the country concerned or economy.
Source: Future of Education and Skills 2030, E2030 Policy Questionnaire on Curriculum Redesign (PQC, Item 0.4)
Different interpretations and categorisations of autonomy
Recent literature on autonomy regarding curricular decisions often uses different terminology and taxonomies:
Greany and Waterhouse (2016[32]) proposed to distinguish two concepts of structural autonomy and professional autonomy (Voogt et al., 2018[24]).
More recently, research attempts to make a distinction between student autonomy, choice, voice and agency, as well as a distinction between individualistic autonomy and connected autonomy.
This section examines the terminology and categorisations used in different countries, across disciplines and among varied stakeholders, which will be further elaborated and explained in subsequent chapters of this report.
Structural autonomy and professional autonomy
Greany and Waterhouse (Greany and Waterhouse, 2016[32]) define structural autonomy as the formal delegation of decision-making power to schools with respect to the organisation of instruction, personnel management, planning and structures, and resource management. Professional autonomy refers to the capacity, confidence and trust granted to school leaders and teachers to use the decision-making power in ways that enhance their students’ learning and well-being.
Professional autonomy suggests teachers, as competent human capital with rich social capital, can optimise structural autonomy. Optimal use of curriculum autonomy relies on both the perceptions held by school leaders and teachers (e.g. views of the power, control, authority and permission they have regarding the curriculum dimensions) and the actions that arise from those views. It also relies on the expectations society holds for school leaders and teachers (e.g. societal views of the role of teachers, societal views of the importance and prestige of teacher education programmes in post-secondary institutions, societal views of teacher evaluation and/or large-scale assessments such as evaluating teacher efficacy vs. student learning).
Autonomy regarding curricular decisions connects to issues of professionalism, with an assumption that less flexible, more prescriptive curricula put teachers’ autonomy at risk, and in turn de-professionalise them (Briant and Doherty, 2012[33]). With more autonomy on curricular decisions, educators are perceived as capable professionals with high levels of competency, while less autonomy can become associated with a technician-oriented view of educators.
Autonomy and agency
Voogt, et al. (2018[24]) find that, while autonomy and agency both refer to empowerment, research distinguishes between the two:
Autonomy emphasises freedom from control, while agency relates to taking the initiative to transform current practice (Engeström Yrjö, 2005[34]). Erss et al. (2016[35]) highlight a distinction between freedom to do something (agency) and freedom from constraints (autonomy), or the notions of positive and negative liberty as the freedom to do something versus freedom from constraints. Agency implies that “actors always act by means of their environment rather than simply in their environment [so that] the achievement of agency will always result from the interplay of individual efforts, available resources and contextual and structural factors as they come together in particular and, in a sense, always unique situations” (Biesta and Tedder, 2007, p. 137[36]). Agency is informed by prior experience, future-oriented and enacted in (the limitations and potential of) current practice (Priestley et al., 2016[37]).
Learner autonomy and agency are seen both as a means and an end in education. As an educational end, some countries and jurisdictions set out the characteristics of an autonomous learner (e.g. self-directed, self-motivated, confident, curious, responsible, reflective, or self-aware) as part of future student profiles and outcomes expected by the end of schooling, so that the student can continue to be a lifelong learner after graduation. Partly accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, a growing number of countries articulate the importance of self-directed learning, so that learners can understand the meaning of “learner autonomy”. Learner autonomy suggests making informed decisions regarding where, what and how one learns, and taking responsibility for and ownership of one's learning. It is supported by the concept of every child’s equal right to education, in particular opportunities to learn through an inclusive and equitable, quality curriculum that can address learners’ current as well as their future potential needs (OECD, 2021[38]; UN, 1989[39]; UN, 2015[40]). (See Chapter 4 for the distinction between learner autonomy, agency, voice and choice.)
Teacher autonomy and agency. Both autonomy and agency are necessary concepts in understanding teacher professionalism and teaching practices. For instance, teachers may be able to design their activities autonomously, but their creativity may be limited by centralised control and time pressure caused by the content of the curriculum, which can be overwhelming. For example, curriculum flexibility might be high for goals but low for content, leading to the issue Erss highlights: flexibility in one dimension with teacher agency might be constrained by lesser flexibility and autonomy in another dimension.
Individualistic autonomy and connected autonomy
Professional autonomy relates to the space and freedom from regulation teachers and school leaders have. However, autonomy does not exist in isolation. Professional autonomy implies being one’s own person and making one’s own professional judgements and decisions, while it also requires connection and learning from, for example, peers, parents, communities and sometimes students (illustrated as “co-agency” in the OECD Learning Compass); otherwise, autonomy would not get stronger or be empowering. Professional autonomy implies multi-dimensional aspects, i.e. contributing to and learning from the group and making responsible decisions about the curriculum – be that a school curriculum or a teacher’s own classes – as an act of “collective agency”.
Munby and Fullan refer to such “joined-up” effort to achieve system-wide impact as “connected autonomy” (Munby and Fullan, 2016, p. 10[41]). A balance needs to be achieved between complete freedom from any regulations and complete incorporation into a group. Mutual respect, trust and confidence-building with others and in oneself are critical in exercising professional autonomy.
Autonomy regarding curricular decisions relies on the capacity, confidence and trust to make informed decisions that can enhance students’ learning and well-being, as defined above. To better understand different dimensions of professional autonomy, it can be helpful to compare the concepts of autonomy, agency, and connected autonomy (see Chapter 4).
References
[36] Biesta, G. and M. Tedder (2007), “Agency and learning in the lifecourse: Towards an ecological perspective”, Studies in the Education of Adults, Vol. 39/2, pp. 132-149, https://doi.org/10.1080/02660830.2007.11661545.
[33] Briant, E. and C. Doherty (2012), “Teacher educators mediating curricular reform: anticipating the Australian curriculum”, Teaching Education, Vol. 23/1, pp. 51-69, https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2011.620605.
[17] Burns, T. and F. Gottschalk (eds.) (2019), Educating 21st Century Children: Emotional Well-being in the Digital Age, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7f33425-en.
[31] Burns, T. and F. Köster (eds.) (2016), Governing Education in a Complex World, Educational Research and Innovation, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en.
[8] Donaldson, G. (2015), Successful futures: Independent review of curriculum and assessment arrangements in Wales, Welsh Government., Cardiff.
[22] 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.
[35] 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.
[21] Fazekas Ágnes and Halász Gábor (2019), ““A gyakorlatunk a legnagyobb muníciónk”, Innovációs folyamatok a ferencvárosi Molnár Ferenc iskolában Innova esettanulmány, [Our practice is our greatest ammunition“ - Innovative processes at Molnár Ferenc School in Ferencváros, Innova case study.]”, https://nevtud.ppk.elte.hu/dstore/document/1897/A%20Moln%C3%A1r%20%28Mester%29%20-%20Esettanulm%C3%A1ny%20%282018.10.05%29.pdf (accessed on 11 April 2022).
[18] Fingerman, K. et al. (2012), “Helicopter Parents and Landing Pad Kids: Intense Parental Support of Grown Children”, Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 74/4, pp. 880-896, https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1741-3737.2012.00987.X/ABSTRACT.
[32] Greany, T. and J. Waterhouse (2016), “Rebels against the system: Leadership agency and curriculum innovation in the context of school autonomy and accountability in England”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 30/7, pp. 1188-1206, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2015-0148.
[20] Hunya, M. (2016), “NORTH-HUNGARY CASE STUDY”, PPMI.
[7] HWB Government of Wales (2020), Mathematics and Numeracy, https://hwb.gov.wales/curriculum-for-wales/mathematics-and-numeracy/.
[2] Jonker, H., V. März and J. Voogt (2020), “Curriculum flexibility in a blended curriculum”, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.4926.
[29] Kuiper, W., N. Nieveen and J. Berkvens (2013), Curriculum regulation and freedom in the Netherlands - A puzzling paradox, CIDREE yearbook.
[9] Ministerial Advisory Group (2019), “Strengthening curriculum, progress, and achievement in a system that learns A report by the Curriculum, Progress, and Achievement Ministerial Advisory Group”.
[41] Munby, S. and M. Fullan (2016), “Inside-out and downside-up”, Reading: Education Development Trust..
[13] 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.
[38] OECD (2021), Adapting Curriculum to Bridge Equity Gaps: Towards an Inclusive Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/6b49e118-en.
[16] OECD (2021), Embedding Values and Attitudes in Curriculum: Shaping a Better Future, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/aee2adcd-en.
[15] OECD (2020), “Curriculum (re)design A series of thematic reports from the OECD Education 2030 project OVERVIEW BROCHURE”.
[12] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.
[5] OECD (2020), Technical report: Curriculum Analysis of the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/2-5-supporting-materials/Technical%20_Report_Curriculum_Analysis_of_the_OECD_Future_of_Education_and_Skills_2030.pdf (accessed on 17 July 2024).
[11] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[19] OECD (2019), , https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/teaching-and-learning/learning/student-agency/Student_Agency_for_2030_concept_note.pdf.
[25] 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).
[30] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
[27] OECD (2018), “Sources, Methods and Technical Notes”, in Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-36-en.
[28] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
[37] Priestley, M. et al. (2016), “The teacher and the curriculum: exploring teacher agency.”.
[14] Rawling, E. (2020), “Curriculum change and examination reform for geography 14–19”, Geography, Vol. 100/3, pp. 164-168, https://doi.org/10.1080/00167487.2015.12093972.
[34] Rückriem Georg (ed.) (2005), Developmental work research: expanding activity theory in practice — University of Helsinki, Lehmanns Media, Berlin, https://researchportal.helsinki.fi/en/publications/developmental-work-research-expanding-activity-theory-in-practice (accessed on 3 May 2022).
[10] Schmidt, W. (2008), “TIMSS International Curriculum Analysis and Measuring Educational Opportunities”.
[3] 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.
[26] 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.
[4] Tucker, R. and G. Morris (2012), “By design: negotiating flexible learning in the built environment discipline”, Research in Learning Technology, Vol. 20/0, https://doi.org/10.3402/rlt.v20i0.14404.
[1] Tucker, R. and G. Morris (2011), “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.
[6] UK Department of Education (2013), Mathematics programmes of study: key stages 1 and 2.
[40] UN (2015), SGD4, United Nations.
[39] UN (1989), Convention on the rights of the child (1989) Treaty no. 27531, United Nations, https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/1990/09/19900902%2003-14%20AM/Ch_IV_11p.pdf.
[24] Voogt, J. et al. (2018), “Education and Skills 2030 : Curriculum analysis”, 8th Informal Working Group Meeting (IWG).
[23] Wermke, W., S. Olason Rick and M. Salokangas (2018), “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.
Notes
← 1. Different countries use the term “curriculum” differently. Thus, it needs to consider different terms that may be interpreted as “curriculum”. This is important particularly in understanding curriculum flexibility because different actors at different levels make different curricular decisions, e.g. course of study, programme, syllabus, timetable or schedule.
← 2. Learning materials are resources that a teacher may use in teaching and learning situations to help achieve desired learning objectives and to facilitate the teaching and learning process. These include lectures, readings, multimedia components, and other resources– the list of these varies depending on the country.
← 3. Students must complete tests in: Danish with a focus on reading in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th grade; Mathematics in the 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade.
← 4. Stages I-II correspond to approximate age of 7-12 years old https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-education-systems/estonia/organisation-single-structure-education.
← 5. ISCED is the international classification for organising education programmes and related qualifications by levels and fields. ISCED Level 2 refers to Lower Secondary Education. https://datatopics.worldbank.org/education/wRsc/classification.
← 6. OECD E2030 participants from Asia shared that “too many captains will steer the ship up a mountain”.
← 7. The OECD (2018[30]) defines four domains as key to decision-making in education: 1) organisation of instruction (student admissions, instruction time and grouping of students); 2) personnel management (hiring and dismissal of teaching staff and principals, duties and conditions of service of teaching staff and principals, and salary scales of teaching staff and principals); 3) planning and structures (design of programmes of study, selection of programmes of study taught in a particular school, choice of subjects taught in a particular school and definition of course content); and 4) resource management (allocation and use of resources for teaching staff and principals).
← 8. This has changed with the new educational law that was passed in December 2020 in Spain. Regional authorities are responsible for 50% of the curriculum in areas with two official co-languages and 40% in the rest of the regions.