2. Challenges and strategies for equity in curriculum innovation
This section presents the challenges faced by countries/jurisdictions attempting to address inequity through curriculum innovation, and the strategies they have adopted to the four main types of curriculum innovations examined: digital curriculum, personalised curriculum, cross-curricular content and competencies, and flexible curriculum. The strategies described are not recommendations, but rather opportunities for countries/jurisdictions to learn from one another, in line with the Education 2030 project’s peer-learning mission1.
Before describing challenges and strategies for each of the four curriculum types, this section will begin reporting on cross-cutting theme ‘coping with uncertainty’. This has been the real case study brought by the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 and 2021; national, regional and local policy makers, school leaders, teachers, students and parents, and other stakeholders had to adapt their curriculum to the realities on the ground as timely as possible, while ensuring equity.
The COVID-19 outbreak in 2020/21 has shed light on and amplified existing inequalities in the education system while providing an opportunity to rethink education, in particular, for vulnerable students. In 2021, at the time of writing, many fear the crisis could wipe out gains from policies that had been effective in addressing achievement gaps. This was the biggest policy concern discussed at the first virtual workshop of the Global Forum of the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 project in May 2020.2 The forum brought together stakeholders including policy makers, teachers, school leaders, academic experts, teacher educators, foundations, social partners, and students. Participants shared by survey responses seven types of curriculum challenges they were facing with regard to remote learning, fully online learning, and other forms of digital curriculum (hybrid learning) (Table 10).
The discussion revealed the following findings on the three major policy concerns, namely, access to learning, quality of learning and student well-being:
Access to learning: Equity issues are not limited to the immediate challenge of whether or not students have access to devices. But access raised longer-term concerns. For example, access to connectivity was a key question, i.e. who should cover or co-finance costs that have long-term budgetary implications. Access to content was an even bigger equity concern as some countries already anticipated larger dropout rates and observed differing approaches between schools for deciding what to teach from the curriculum during the crisis period.
Quality of learning: Concerns referred to the achievement of curriculum objectives in the new learning environment, to which students might struggle to adjust. There were concerns about students’ preparedness for self-directed learning and self-motivation, and their ability to cope with potential disruptions at home that would not be experienced in a school setting (e.g. younger siblings at home, household responsibilities, etc.). The differences in the support for learning received by students during remote learning was also raised. This is a concern as not all students have parents with time and knowledge to help learning at home. Students’ access to teachers who could provide support during distance learning was thus also seen as crucial. Student anxiety about existing examination requirements as well as about grades and marks they would get during remote learning, were seen as potential disruptors for learning.
Student well-being: One of the main areas of concern was that students be provided with the support they need to manage stress and anxiety during the remote learning period. Concerns were also noted on students’ ability to pursue physical activities while at home, their access to medical attention and care when affected by COVID-19, and their ability to keep in touch with their peers and friends during school closure. It was also an important reminder for some countries/jurisdictions that school is not just a place to learn, but also a place to socialise and learn citizenship, and in some cases to be protected, especially for students from vulnerable families.
In a survey, government representatives from the countries/jurisdictions participating in the Education 2030 project identified the following groups of learners as vulnerable during the COVID-19 crisis:
students with special needs (cognitive, physical, social, emotional)
students who are disengaged with schooling, absent or have been considered at risk of dropout
students at risk of domestic violence, child abuse and child neglect
displaced students3
The coronavirus has created a continuously changing reality for students, teachers, parents, policy makers and all related stakeholders. Governments and schools were tested for their agility, flexibility and adaptability in both curriculum design and delivery at high speed, so as to ensure both learning and well-being of all students. Countries’ experiences with the pandemic should be able to suggest lessons learned for countries to better prepare for complex and uncertain future scenarios by making curriculum design and delivery more flexible already under normal circumstances.
The preliminary findings of a Survey on Joint National Responses to COVID-19 School Closures suggest that countries took a wide range of approaches, to ensure equality, equity and inclusiveness in distance education during the pandemic (OECD, 2021[1]). Some took a strategy targeting specific traits of students (e.g. learners with disabilities such as with sign language in online learning programmes, migrant and displaced children by making online learning more accessible, speakers of minority languages by designing learning materials fit for them); targeting areas (e.g. learners in remote areas and learners in urban high-density areas for better access to infrastructure); or targeting socio-economic status (e.g. students with low-income household by offering to take-home rations, and cash-based transfers. Others took a universal approach such as providing subsidised devices for access (PCs or/and tablets), undertaken by the majority of countries; providing flexible and self-paced platforms (Asynchronous learning platforms); or establishing agreements with mobile communications operators/Internet firms to remove accessibility barriers (Figure 12).
Source: (OECD, 2021[1]), The State of School Education: One Year into the COVID Pandemic, https://doi.org/10.1787/201dde84-en
Furthermore, countries have undertaken strategies to address learning gaps when schools re-opened after the first closure in 2020 and, in doing so, many countries have combined strategies targeting vulnerable students. Many provided remedial measures at upper secondary education, as students at this level are expected to pass a national examination as an important transition to higher education. Among such countries, remedial measures focused on students without access to distance learning; students at risk of drop-out or grade repetition; immigrant, refugee, ethnic minority or indigenous students; immigrant, refugee, ethnic minority or indigenous students; and/or students in a vocational orientation. Other countries took an equality approach, such as, remedial measures to reduce students’ learning gaps; adjustments on assessment of gaps in student learning; or remedial measures for all students focusing on transition from one education level to another (Figure 13).
Source: (OECD, 2021[1]), The State of School Education: One Year into the COVID Pandemic, https://doi.org/10.1787/201dde84-en
In addition, the pandemic highlighted that schools are not simply physical buildings where students learn and study. Students themselves reaffirmed the importance of social functions of schools, in particular, coping with the pandemic, as it provided a real situation for students to ask themselves about the purpose and value of going to school for them. Namely, making and keeping friends, navigating through uncertainty and ambiguity, learning to keep oneself and others safe and healthy, managing conflict and overcoming adversity through the pandemic, etc. It also reinforced the idea that schools become a safe space for students’ overall well-being, in particular to vulnerable students, serving their social and psychological needs.
To meet various needs, countries have undertaken varying outreach and support measures, especially for students at risk, including refugees, migrants and displaced children; minorities and speakers of minority languages; other populations at risk; and children with disabilities (Figure 14). More specifically, such measures include “tracking students not returning to schools (e.g. specific measures for students with disabilities in Ireland)” and “adjusted the accessibility of sanitation and hygiene services (e.g. children with specific learning disabilities or other specific disorders not being obliged to wear face masks with special care in the Czech Republic”, “community engagement activities”, “reviewing access policies”, followed by “provision of financial incentives or waived fees (e.g. cash, food or transport or waived school fees)”.
Note: The share of countries calculated includes only countries that responded “yes” or “no” to the question.
Source: (OECD, 2021[1]), The State of School Education: One Year into the COVID Pandemic, https://doi.org/10.1787/201dde84-en
The digitalisation of curriculum content and associated material allows education systems to better customise students’ learning experiences. A digitalised approach can help educators respond and adapt to students’ learning progress, maximising the likelihood that all learning needs are identified and met. The digital curriculum can also be used to reach out to marginalised students, such as those who already dropped out of the education system, by providing remote learning opportunities.
As mentioned earlier, the COVID-19 crisis accelerated the move to digital learning. This section summarises several challenges in the context of the COVID-19 crisis as well as challenges previously present in the countries/jurisdictions that reported them.
Variation in access to hardware and Internet connectivity, for example, can increase rather than reduce gaps in learning between students in different regions or from different socio-economic backgrounds (see the “What does research say?” section of this report). Moreover, the limited capacity of some teachers, students and parents to use the digital curriculum effectively may widen learning gaps between students (Duncan et al., 2007[2]). While these concerns pre-date the COVID-19 crisis, it threw this issue into sharp relief.
As curriculum designers develop digital curriculum content, they must take steps to ensure that all students are equally able to access it. Strategies to effectively implement digital curriculum and tools must thus take equity into consideration to ensure appropriate access for diverse groups of students, parents and teachers.
Challenges
While the potential benefits of a digital curriculum became more apparent in recent years, and particularly salient during the COVID-19 crisis, many countries/jurisdictions face challenges that slow the shift to a digital curriculum. Varying levels of access to hard and soft infrastructure between schools and regions can hinder access to digital curriculum content for some students, further exacerbating existing educational inequalities. There is a recognition gap between governments and schools on “who should cover/finance connectivity” that causes delays and other issues related to Internet access (see Chapter 1 of (OECD, 2020[4]) for a broader discussion of time lags and gaps in curriculum design). In difficult times, as during the COVID-19 pandemic, this can cause confusion and delays in access at a time when Internet access and remote connections are critical for students.
In addition, countries/jurisdictions have reported that students and teachers are not always sufficiently prepared to use digital curriculum and textbooks. Students’ limited competencies in the use of ICT, and also in problem solving and self-regulation may limit their capacity to use digital content effectively (Dweck, 1983[5]). This can be particularly challenging in a context of remote or distance learning, when students’ access to support from their teachers is limited, as during the COVID-19 school closures. Varying access to parental support and digital tools at home can further exacerbate inequities. Children come from diverse backgrounds and may not be fully equipped to participate with digital tools, and their parents may not be able to help.
Varying levels of access to hard and soft infrastructure
As the move towards digital curricula accelerates, disparities in access to hard and soft infrastructure may limit the use of such technology in some regions or schools (see Table 11). For example, Australia, Québec (Canada) and the Russian Federation report that the quality of Internet access in some regions limits the use of digital components of their curriculum. Limited availability of devices such as computers or tablets in schools may also prevent effective use of digital curricula, leading to gaps in learning between students who have access to the digital curricula and those who do not.
Québec (Canada) does not currently approve digital textbooks because of provisions in the Education Act requiring that all students have a personal copy of the chosen textbook. Each student would thus have to have their own digital device (computer, tablet, or mobile phone) to access the digital textbook, which is not possible for the moment. Moreover, certain communities have difficulties accessing technological tools and modernising existing infrastructures, and some areas do not have the infrastructure required to fully develop digital integration.
In recent years, China promoted the digital transformation and upgrading of education publishing to keep up with trends in digitalisation and ensure educational fairness. But there is opposition to this transformation, mainly based on imbalance in the development of regional economies and digitalisation, and the possibility that it will lead to greater inequalities.
In the Russian Federation, differences in the condition of school buildings and their equipment create unequal access to high-speed Internet.
Teacher and student preparedness for using digital curriculum and tools
Countries/jurisdictions note that students and teachers need specific skills in order to use the digital curriculum. Limited digital literacy among teachers and students is a major barrier to the design and use of digital curriculum in some countries/jurisdictions. Issues of digital literacy are particularly pronounced for more complex and interactive curriculum platforms, such as adaptive learning platforms.
Moreover, digital literacy alone is not sufficient for digital curricula to be used effectively. In addition to digital skills, students and teachers need other competencies, such as self-regulation and problem-solving, to make effective use of a digital curriculum.
Viet Nam offers textbooks in electronic and printed versions. However, most teachers and students use only printed textbooks. While the digital curriculum gives teachers and students access to a rich and diverse source of information and promotes students’ self-study competence, it has limitations, such as: 1) the need for modern teaching facilities and equipment; 2) the need for teachers and students to have a standard level of IT skills; and 3) the need for students to demonstrate high self-discipline when using the digital curriculum.
Varying levels of home learning environment such as parental support and digital equipment at home
As many digital curricula promote self-learning or facilitate remote learning, differences in parental support and/or familiarity with digital tools can increase learning gaps, as observed in Korea and New Zealand. In most countries, parents’ engagement in their children’s education is linked to household socio-economic status, contributing to disparities in learning outcomes between children from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds, observed worldwide (OECD, 2019[6])
Differences in home learning environments became particularly salient in the period of school closures during the COVID-19 crisis, when many countries moved to fully digital learning.
In Korea, student access to computers from home is high, at around 75%, and 96.5% of households have Internet access (OECD, 2019[6]). In addition, most Korean parents have cell phones and/or iPads. Therefore, access per se was not a major equity issue during the COVID-19 school closure period. Instead, the problem relates to an educational divide between middle-class parents and working-class parents, due to working-class parents not having time to support their children’s learning at home.
New Zealand’s COVID-19 response and the need to rapidly move to digitally enabled distance learning highlighted the inequitable access to digital technology that was an ongoing issue for New Zealand learners. Responses to this issue had previously been largely locally determined, with schools and charities supporting students to access digital technology according to local needs.
Budget to finance connectivity
There can be a gap in understanding how connectivity should be financed, and who should finance or co-finance it. Frequently, this manifests in a disconnection between national and local authorities. For example, during the COVID-19 crisis, countries/jurisdictions and teachers both reiterated the importance of relationships and recognised the need for students to get connected to teachers and schools via digital devices. However, when it came to access to stable Internet connections at home or at school, teachers and students reported greater concern than government representatives. This suggests difficulties to agreeing on how and by whom the connectivity should be financed, potentially causing delays in recognising true needs and closing that gap.
In order to support learning during school closures, Japan accelerated the implementation of the GIGA school program. The goal of the program is to ensure that each student has access to a computer as well as to a good Internet connectivity both at school and at home. During school closures due to COVID-19 crisis, the Ministry of Education ensured support to low-income households to cover the costs of Internet connection, building on existing subsidies and other programs. Special efforts were made to ensure that final-grade students could have proper access to online learning (6th graders in elementary school and 3rd-year students in junior high school). In order to enable a rapid response to student’s needs, the Ministry of Education supported fast-track procurement by contacting suppliers and ensuring specialist advice to local governments.
Strategies
Since equity issues are at the heart of the design of digital curriculum, a growing number of countries/jurisdictions aim to ensure equal access for all students. This is done by equipping schools with the necessary hardware and providing financial subsidies to schools and students in need. A further approach taken by several countries/jurisdictions designs digital learning platforms to meet individual students’ needs. It includes adaptive content or assessment to tailor learning to students’ individual progress (Zhao and Frank, 2003[7]), and provides alternatives to digital means when it comes to ensuring equity.
Digitalising textbooks, teaching materials, and learning resources can help countries/jurisdictions to provide a wider set of pedagogical tools to teachers and students. Additionally, it can support parents and help reintegrate out-of-school students by providing an alternative to in-school learning.
Finally, preparing for digital learning and teaching as the post-crisis “new normal” can both fulfil an immediate need and address broader equity issues.
Mobilising available resources to provide digital devices and connectivity for all students
Some countries/jurisdictions take active steps to reduce the digital divide between students via equitable access to digital resources and devices. For instance, government-led initiatives in Japan equip schools with the hardware and software students need to engage with the curriculum both at school and home. Hong Kong (China), instead provides one-off grants to schools to enable access. Estonia offers a mix of initiatives, combining annual grants with local initiatives and effective monitoring, to ensure every student uses digital resources to the extent needed. In Singapore, multiple stakeholders, from the government to the private sector, offer initiatives to target the connectivity gap. Subsidising Internet access for socio-economically disadvantaged students is also a strategy to reduce disparities in accessing the digital curriculum. The COVID-19 crisis accelerated use of this strategy in a number of countries/jurisdictions, including New Zealand and Singapore.
Estonian schools offer computer classes, have mobile computer racks to use computers in various lessons, and resort to a bring-your-own device (BYOD) approach. Students feel more comfortable focusing on subject-learning when using their own device instead of simultaneously learning how to properly handle a new device or software. Additionally, yearly grant schemes let schools upgrade their digital infrastructure to enhance IT education (e.g. educational robots, labs). Applicant profiles and competencies are screened to ensure capacity to handle the technical base/teaching methodology. During the COVID-19 crisis, schools lent their computers to students in need. Local initiatives also pair families in need with families having an extra device at home, helping to bridge the access-to-device gap. In addition, in order to ensure that every student uses digital resources to the extent needed, a service was developed to collect digital footprints of students and analyse their alignment with the national curriculum. This provides advanced insight into the usage and effect of the digital curriculum for each student. Usage metrics, coupled with powerful diagnostics and planning tools for teachers, leverage equal access to the digital curriculum.
In December 2019, Japan’s Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology announced a new initiative known as the Global and Innovation Gateway for All School Package (GIGA). GIGA supports individual students to develop optimal learning by providing one tablet per student in all primary and lower-secondary schools by 2023, as well as equipping schools with the necessary network facilities, cloud services, etc. The initiative also includes software to use tablets effectively in the classroom, and provides digital learning materials, examples of learning activities in each subject, teacher training, and support staff. The new National Curriculum Standard was implemented in April 2020. This initiative supports equal learning environments for all students, and is aligned with implementation of the new curriculum.
As part of New Zealand’s COVID-19 response, the locally determined response to gaps and needs was augmented by a national push to address learner access to digital devices and Internet connections. During New Zealand’s lockdown period, the government provided students in high-need areas with over 23 000 laptops and arranged Internet connections for close to 52 000 households. Alongside this, the government works to build teachers’ capability to use digital tools as part of their teaching practice, to ensure that equitable access is accompanied by effective use of digital technology.
Norway took the path of providing grants to strengthen digital education, including for pedagogical digital competencies for teachers, as well as necessary equipment/infrastructure and digital learning resources for schools.
Portugal instituted in April 2020 the Digitisation Program for Schools, within the scope of the Digital Transition Plan. As part of this program, a technological kit consisting of a computer and broadband for Internet access is being distributed to each member of the school community (teachers and students of all compulsory education).
Hong Kong (China) launched its Fourth Strategy on IT in Education (ITE4) in the 2015/16 school year. This strategy aimed to unleash the power of all students to learn and excel by realising the potential of IT to enhance interactive learning and teaching experiences. Under ITE4, schools can implement the Bring Your Own Device policy according to their own pace and context. The Education Bureau disbursed a one-off grant to schools to acquire mobile computing devices, either as an initial development or to supplement existing resources.
Singapore schools from pre-school to Junior College entered into full home-based learning from 8 April to 2 June 2020 as a result of the COVID-19 crisis. At the start of this period, Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) loaned 3 300 tablets and laptops, and over 200 dongles for Internet access to students whose families required financial assistance. Corporate sponsors also provided students in need with free dongles and Internet subscriptions. For example, an Internet and telecommunications service provider sponsored unlimited mobile broadband connections for 550 students from lower-income families who did not have access to broadband at home. Singaporean society also pitched in. For example, a national athlete formed a small-business computer company to collect used laptops locally, and refurbish and distribute them to students in need. Others collated tips and resources to help parents and students cope with home-based learning and work. For students still unable or from environments not conducive to participate in home-based learning, schools were opened to them with teachers to support their learning. As of 15 April 2020, about 12 500 laptops and tablets were loaned out, with 1 200 Internet-enabling devices, including dongles. Low-income families can also apply for subsidised computers and free broadband through the Infocomm Media Development Authority’s NEU PC Plus programme.
New South Wales in Australia has a long-standing practice using technology to offer real-time distance teaching sessions through video conference, phone, lessons via satellite and virtual excursions. It also offers non-real-time teaching practices (e-mail and online learning management systems, such as Moodle) to students in remote regions who would otherwise be excluded from learning (OECD, 2020[3]).
Engaging and supporting parents for digital learning at home
Parental support and/or familiarity with digital tools is crucial to stay on top of students’ learning, preventing or decreasing learning gaps. Some countries, such as Estonia, have successfully involved parents in digital learning platforms and propose seminars to improve digital skills. Others, like Ireland, Portugal and Singapore, provided documents and other information with guidance for parents on developing positive school-home partnerships.
Estonia went through a successful pilot during COVID-19, buying licenses of digital textbook platforms for all stakeholders, including students, school staff, and parents, enabling equal access to all, no matter the autonomous school preferences. Parents were included in the agreement to ensure they are able to provide support to their children by logging in with their own digital identity. Ever since, parents are more involved in the information exchange between schools and homes, moving to the virtual environment instead of ad hoc calls and meetings. Schools also organise various seminars for parents to improve their digital skills.
In Singapore, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ministry of Education (MOE) recognised that home-based learning would be a difficult transition not only for teachers and students, but also parents. As such, MOE set up a website called the MOE Parent Kit and digitally distributed this information to all parents. In it, MOE shares “a few key areas where you can work with your child’s school to develop positive school-home partnerships”4.
In Ireland, the Ministry of Education provided online resources to parents during school closures. Among the materials are several documents providing guidance for parents of children in primary schools on the continuity of schooling. Documents specifically dedicated to parents of children at risk of educational disadvantage and with students with SEN were also provided (OECD, 2020[3]).
In Portugal, families with children younger than 12 (who did not return to school until after the summer holidays in 2020) received extra financial support by the government. This support was extended to families with children who suffer from chronic illness or physical impairments, even if older than 12. A document on the role of the Resource Centres for Inclusion (CRI) in supporting families was published on the Apoio às Escolas website. CRI goes home offers strategies and activities for children, young people, and families, with a set of practical guidelines related to psychology, psychomotricity, and occupational, physical and speech therapy (OECD, 2020[3]).
Designing digital platforms to meet individual students’ needs and to support teachers
Countries/jurisdictions are developing online platforms to host the curriculum, related learning materials and assessment tools. The complexity of these digital platforms varies. In some countries/jurisdictions like India, the platforms are a simple repository as a catalyst for collecting open source materials, while in others they are interactive platforms that provide adapted content based on students’ learning progression and needs. Often, as in Québec (Canada), these are designed to provide teachers with materials to organise teaching and learning for their students. Some also target students directly and have an adaptive component that personalises learning to students’ needs, as in Estonia.
Québec (Canada) has a Digital Action Plan for Education and Higher Education that encourages use of digital technology and innovative practices in teaching and learning more generally. The Ministry of Education oversaw the introduction of a platform providing diverse, high-quality digital education resources, which are presented in a user-friendly and evolving environment that simplifies searches for teachers. It could also be easier to monitor students through the data collected via the platform, subject to best practices in security and confidentiality.
To facilitate the personalisation of learning paths, Estonia initiated development of an AI-driven personal learning path infrastructure (https://nation.education), providing standards, services, and data to reduce costs and increase impact of personalisation in education. Data-driven services, backed up with modern AI technologies, support evidence-based decision-making and provide advanced insights and diagnostics for each student in real time. Learning analytics dashboards provide visualisations, which help understand students’ learning behaviour – how they learn, what motivates or inhibits their learning – enabling teachers to intervene prior to drop-out or test failures.
In India, the Department of School Education and Literacy and Ministry of Human Resource Development launched the VidyaDaan Programme: A Remote Learning Initiative Across India in April 2020. The programme uses contributions/donations of educational e-learning resources by educational bodies, and private-sector and individual experts. These resources are made available on the DIKSHA, a digital learning platform that caters to students and teacher learning needs. The VidyaDaan programme also catalysed the creation of various digital learning initiatives (e.g. Swayam Prabha Television Channel, Shiksha Vani students’ e-learning application, E-Pathshala, NROER – an open repository of textbooks and additional resources).
Kazakhstan created an Educational Resource Platform to support teachers in updating the content of secondary education. It is a comprehensive online platform providing methodological support and an opportunity to share experiences through publishing their best work online. The platform currently hosts more than 160 000 items, including methodological materials, short-term plans, didactic and laboratory works, materials on formative and summative assessment, audio and video files, presentations, and many other useful teaching and learning materials in Kazakh, Russian, and English (learning and teaching materials in English are available for upper-secondary education). Using these, teachers organise their teaching process through the application of necessary components, which eases the search for information by specific parts of the subject while planning a lesson. In addition, students and teachers have access to digital textbooks and learning materials approved by Ministry of Education and Science. They also have access to approved digital textbooks and learning materials on a number of websites.5
Making digital textbooks and learning and assessment resources accessible to all students
Many countries/jurisdictions, including Mexico, China, and India develop digital textbooks and learning resources to help reach all students. While the use of these resources became evident during school closures resulting from the COVID-19 crisis, they also help enlarge sources and methods of learning.
Mexico acknowledges that a digital curriculum can be considered an advantage for students with disabilities, since it allows for the use of adapted technologies, and students with sensory disabilities can benefit. However, this results in the need to integrate adapted technologies by type of disability in both teacher training and the equipment of educational centres.
Scotland (United Kingdom) designed assessments during COVID-19 that integrated video and self-assessment. The government gathered and shared advice on practice that supports clarity of instruction, and design and set-up of digital learning environments.
China introduced various policies to encourage digitalisation of teaching materials. The 13th Five-Year Plan for Education Digitalisation, issued by the Ministry of Education, builds a networked, digital, personalised, and lifelong education system. The 2010 document entitled “Opinions on Accelerating the Development of China’s Digital Publishing Industry” proposed that, by 2020, traditional publishing units should complete the digital transformation fuelled by the growing trend toward digitalisation and the concern for educational fairness, as well as the characteristics of a green economy, environmental protection, rich media, relevance, openness and interactivity of digital textbooks. From this perspective, digitalisation has the potential to support multiple levels of education and diversity, and help educators meet personalisation requirements.
India’s National Policy on ICT in School Education, revised in 2012, states that textbooks, guides for teachers and students, question banks, frequently asked questions, laboratory manuals, problem sets, activities, notes, and a variety of other print-based learning resources available in the public domain will be digitised and deployed on national- and state-level web-based digital repositories. The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has initiated the provision of access to all educational content, including e-books through e-portals and mobile apps for schools to NCERT vendors, parents and students. Online learning platforms were launched to enable students and youth to adapt the curriculum to their areas of interest. In addition, some state governments partner with technology-based education organisations to implement Android tablet-based gamified learning solutions that cater to individual student needs, especially for students with special education needs and those referred to remedial classes.
In Kazakhstan a new online platform (Online Mektep) was developed in 2020 to support students during the Covid-19 pandemic and ensure equal access to a high-quality education for all students. The goals of the platform include the creation of a database of digital educational content from grades 1 to 11 in accordance with the State Compulsory Educational Standards (SCES) of the Republic of Kazakhstan, supporting students in distance and personalised learning, and monitoring learning achievements. Content is developed by leading specialists and available in three languages: Kazakh, Russian and English. It is free of charge and it has been approved and recommended by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Taking into account the different levels of achievement and pace of learning, students have the opportunity to study the materials on the platform on their own (in a personalised way). This helps to consolidate the material studied, and to design individual learning schedules. The platform supports the teaching process through a variety of functionalities, such as online exercises in real time, monitoring class progress through lessons and exercises, online chat with the class or with individual students, creating homework, checking and grading, lesson design, statistics and analytics, conducting online lesson in video conference mode, among others.
Continuing the use of print and alternative distribution channels
Sometimes, digital resources might not be the best strategy to enable equitable access to the curriculum for all students. Students might have learning needs that render paper more appropriate. They also might lack the resources to obtain digital access. Thus, some countries/jurisdictions, including Australia, Portugal, New Zealand and Chile, ensure equity by supplementing digital materials with printed materials. Other countries like France, Korea, Colombia and Kazakhstan, increased use of alternative channels such as TV and radio to ensure equity in environments where access to connectivity or devices lacks.
In response to the COVID-19 crisis, the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority facilitated the sharing of digital resources among educational sectors. State and territorial authorities provided schools and systems with online resources and learning programmes aligned with the Australian Curriculum. In some instances, digital material was supplemented or complemented by print materials to ensure continuity and equity of access. Schools and teachers adapted methods and modes of communication, interaction, and instruction in both digital and traditional classroom environments to maintain student engagement and learning.
The French Ministry of Education created and strengthened partnerships with several national media, such as culture- and education-oriented television and radio channels, in order to offer further educational material and reach as many students as possible.
Korea’s agility in expanding education services beyond schooling, to ensure learning opportunities for all students, helped the country cope during the COVID-19 school closures. Korea rapidly deployed online learning platforms, but also quickly co-operated with the Korean Educational Broadcasting System and other telecommunications companies, providing an option for students with difficulties accessing computers or Internet connectivity.
In Portugal, schools, and public and private organisations partnered to provide laptops and Internet access to students from disadvantaged backgrounds. In co-operation with the Post Office Services and the National Scouts Group, a mechanism was implemented allowing students who live far from schools or without access to Internet to receive hard-copy lessons and tasks. Deliveries of homework/assignments on paper to students, and collection and return to teachers were organised (OECD, 2020[3]). The Portuguese Ministry of Education also launched the #EstudoEmCasa educational programme to enrich students’ education during the crisis. This programme, mainly directed at primary students, broadcasts on the public television channel. To enhance this educational resource, a roadmap with nine guiding principles was provided to students, families, and schools with information on the operation of this initiative. Weekly television grids were shared with students, families, and schools in order to plan the viewing of transmissions.
In New Zealand, a new online learning space, hard-copy learning packs, and special television programmes were offered to reach all learners (OECD, 2020[3]).
Besides the creation of online learning platforms and the distribution of computers, the Ministry of Education of Chile distributed printed pedagogical materials to more than 380 000 students in rural schools, disadvantaged areas, and locations with poor Internet connection. In the most remote regions, the Ministry partnered with the national Air Force to distribute needed materials to many students (OECD, 2020[3]).
In Colombia, the government developed an online platform with more than 80 000 pedagogical resources to which low-income families have free access. When these families do not have an Internet connection, they can access the platform without consuming their mobile data (OECD, 2020[3]).
In Kazakhstan digital materials were supplemented with the availability of alternative learning formats. For example, TV lessons on “EL ARNA” and “Balapan” channels, as well as lessons broadcasted through the radio. During school closure teachers had the opportunity to choose the most convenient learning format to achieve the learning objectives defined in the national curriculum.
Using digital curriculum to reintegrate out-of-school students or early school leavers
Some countries/jurisdictions use a digital curriculum to reach students unable to attend school, or who have left the formal school system early. While distance or remote learning is not new, digitalisation of the curriculum simplifies access to the learning content.
In the past, distance learning relied on mailing students textbooks and other paper-based materials needed to engage with the curriculum. Current practices rely more prominently on online platforms. In Japan, for instance, upper-secondary correspondence schools (education through distance learning) use a mix of online learning and face-to-face time with a teacher or tutor to provide guidance to students.
The experience of remote learning during the COVID-19 crisis also underscores potential uses of digital curriculum for out-of-school students and hospitalised children. The opportunity to join virtual classrooms to meet the psychological, social, and informational needs of hospitalised children is being seized, creating a favourable learning environment and decreasing the need to catch up, as well as better re-integration into schools in the future (Kozareva Veronika, 2016[8]) – provided that a teacher can support the process in the hospital (see the Lessons Learned section of this report).
In Québec (Canada), distance education helps meet the needs of students who spend time away from school for a variety of reasons (e.g. enrolment in a sports-study programme, hospitalisation, and travel), are home-schooled, go to school in a remote region, or attend a small school that does not have resources to offer all courses on site.
In Ireland, an initiative called iScoil offers early school leavers (age 13-16) an alternative path to learning, accreditation, and progression via an online learning community. Learning is tailored to students’ needs, interests and abilities, and is undertaken by students at home or in a local blended-learning centre. Each student is assigned an online mentor. The initiative receives funding from the state under the What Works initiative, and referrals to the service are made by the Education Welfare Service under Tusla, the Child and Family Agency.
Japan has an established system of upper-secondary correspondence schools. They enrol approximately 5% of all high-school students. In some of these, students can learn online at their own pace by selecting their study time, learning method etc. To ensure the quality of education, the National Curriculum Standard requires these schools to review students’ work and provide feedback and guidance, as well as to ensure a given amount of face-to-face instruction. These high schools include students who have a variety of learning experiences and motivation, including students who are often absent from school, those who have dropped out of regular upper-secondary schools, or are physically unable to go to school due to illness, and those who need flexible school-time arrangements to pursue their passion in sports or cultural activities. They also serve as a safety net for students at a high risk of dropping out. This correspondence system is not allowed in primary and lower secondary schools, given the importance of learning collaboratively with friends at those stages.
Preparing a post-crisis “new normal”
During the COVID-19 crisis, infrastructure, connectivity and devices were made available to students who did not previously have access to them, offering additional possibilities in the post-crisis world. Increased, innovative collaboration between stakeholders, including with the private sector, was also observed, for instance in Canada and Estonia. Also, training to support teachers’ transition to a digital environment, which quickly translated to meet needs during the COVID-19 pandemic, was beneficial to countries such as Hungary, Portugal, and Norway.
In the context of school closures stemming from COVID-19, education systems in Canada delivered education remotely to ensure continuity of curriculum-based study and learning objectives for all students. Distance learning was implemented through a mix of media and channels. This included print-based materials, one-way mass broadcasting (TV and radio), and web-based exchanges using social media or learning platforms, as well as innovative teacher-parent-community arrangements. For example, in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (Canada), school boards, school authorities, the Saskatoon Teachers’ Association, SaskTel, and the non-profit Neducation collaborated to support students and families lacking access to stable Internet or devices to continue learning during school closures. Phones that acted as hotspots were delivered with devices within ten days of schools being closed. The hotspots provided access to permitted sites and were tethered to the devices provided by the school divisions.
In Estonia, educational e-services are systematically co-created via a multi-stakeholder approach including researchers, schools, students, and the private sector, enabling the latter to come up with better services and a business model to allow wider access to services for the population.
In Hungary, during the pandemic, the digital work schedule outside the classroom was supported by previous in-service teacher training courses. In recent years, a significant number of teachers attended courses on the use of digital instruments and methods. However, further development of digital skills for teachers and parents remains a critical task. In public education, in order to assist the implementation of distance learning due to COVID-19, detailed and continuously developed recommendations and guidance were prepared and disseminated through the Educational Authority website.6 Further attention and measures were necessary to provide online access to education for disadvantaged students. Schools offered their infrastructure to students in need. Teachers support learning in innovative ways. They guided students, including via telephone calls or even personal delivery of lessons in smaller groups. This period brought new challenges and solutions for schools and teachers, who experienced how use of digital tools and online communication can facilitate pedagogical work. It is expected that the up-to-date digital technology and methodology will be mainstreamed into normal education from the next school year onwards.
Glow, Scotland’s (United Kingdom) national Intranet for learning and teaching, provides learners and practitioners with industry-standard productivity and collaboration tools at no cost. It also provides professional learning communities and practitioner resource-sharing features, such as the National Numeracy and Mathematics hub.
In Singapore, in mid-2020, six government ministers described, on a special series of national broadcasts7, how Singapore could emerge as a stronger and more cohesive society that is able to survive and thrive after the COVID-19 crisis. One area to receive more support is the acceleration of plans to equip all secondary-school students with a personal laptop or tablet for learning. This will be carried out by 2021, seven years ahead of the schedule.
In Portugal, after the suspension of face-to-face classes in schools due to the pandemic, the main goal of the Ministry of Education was to ensure that every student could continue to learn from their home. For this purpose, the document “8 Guiding Principles for the Implementation of Distance Learning”8 was published, in order to support schools conceiving their strategy and distance learning plans which could better respond to their contexts. The Portuguese Ministry of Education developed the website Apoio às Escolas9 with resources to support schools in distance learning methodologies. A Facebook page was created with information, documents, and suggestions for working with students, as well as a YouTube channel for sharing classes and educational initiatives. Teachers’ associations and scientific associations were involved in the production and sharing of pedagogical and didactic materials from the disciplines of the national curriculum. Contacts were developed with the main educational content publishers in order to expand online resources available to teachers. A digital library model was also developed for teachers to access and share content (OECD, 2020[3]).
To support teachers and parents in this new situation, the Nordic countries shared their e-learning solutions for free. They jointly shared over 40 remote-learning solutions from Estonia, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and Sweden (OECD, 2020[3]).
In collaboration with universities, New Brunswick (Canada) developed an online module aimed at training teachers for culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. It was put in place to support mainstream teachers in gaining skills required to teach English as an additional language to students from migrant backgrounds during school closures (OECD, 2020[3]).
Designing personalised10, differentiated, or individualised curriculum content can address equity concerns by ensuring that the learning needs of a wider range of students are met. Countries/jurisdictions use various forms of personalisation depending on the targeted student population.
Challenges centre around identifying individual student needs, training and bias among teachers, assessment, and budgeting at the school or policy level (Bredtmann, Otten and Vonnahme, 2018[9]; Borgonovi, Ferrara and Maghnouj, 2018[10]). Parental lack of awareness and expectations are also a challenge, potentially impeding access to personalised assistance.
Strategies involve policies and legislation supporting personalised needs. For example, curriculum designers can adapt curriculum content to better meet the learning needs of students at risk of falling behind or students with special educational needs. They can also make the language of curriculum content accessible to a wider group of students. Finally, they can make sure that curriculum content responds to the cultural context of a local community or ethnic minority. Training and appropriate financial/technical support are also critical, to ensure teachers have the necessary tools and students have appropriate expectations.
Challenges
Countries/jurisdictions reported several challenges in designing and implementing personalised curricula, in particular, when identifying the student populations in need of a personalised curriculum and adapting the curriculum accordingly. In some cases, despite a national curriculum or education law that promotes personalisation, schools still design and use one static curriculum for all their students due to lack of teacher preparation for personalising the curriculum.
Biases among teachers and school leaders relating to students’ ability and potential may pressure curriculum designers to use a one-size-fits-all approach (Hosterman and DuPaul, 2008[11]; Borgonovi, Ferrara and Maghnouj, 2018[10]). Parents’ limited awareness and expectations of personalised curricula can also pressure schools and curriculum designers to limit the extent of personalisation.
Furthermore, challenges arise in misalignment between personalised curricula and policies related to student assessment and certification. Ensuring accountability for national or regional standards with the alignment of personalised curriculum content, pedagogies and assessment adapted to diverse groups of students (special needs, immigrant students, students at-risk of drop-out) then becomes a concern.
Finally, insufficient budget planning before launching personalised curriculum can jeopardise its effective use. Managing costs includes not only direct, but also indirect costs associated with the implementation of personalised curriculum; opportunity costs of teachers to ensure teacher well-being; supporting teacher agency so that they can design and manage personalised curricula for all students.
As curriculum designers plan the structure and content of personalised curricula, they must consider the resources available to schools and the possible need to mobilise additional support.
Curriculum adaptation to certain groups of students
Countries/jurisdictions aim to ensure that diverse student populations meet minimum learning standards. To reach this goal, curriculum designers need to accurately identify learning needs and provide guidance to teachers on how to adapt the curriculum to meet them. However, some countries/jurisdictions, including Australia, China, South Africa and Viet Nam report difficulties doing so.
Some countries/jurisdictions, such as Ireland, identify the need to further adapt their curriculum to the learning needs of Indigenous students, those of ethnic or linguistic minorities, and of immigrant backgrounds. Adaptation of the curriculum is necessary to the equity of learning outcomes. For example, without adaptation, students who do not speak the language of instruction at home may face difficulty mastering literacy in that language. Similarly, supplementary language classes may be needed for new-immigrant students.
The Australian Curriculum was designed for all young Australians and can be differentiated to meet the needs of each student. A Review of the Australian Curriculum (2014) identified the need to improve advice on curriculum accessibility for the full range of learners: students with a disability; gifted and talented students; and students for whom English is an additional language or dialect.
British Columbia (Canada) notes that, while the provincial curriculum needs to apply to all learners, teacher resources and tools aligned with the curriculum can further enhance inclusion, equity and the integration of Indigenous perspectives and diverse world views. Furthermore, immigrant and refugee students who do not speak the language of instruction (English or French) face the challenge of learning a new language before they fully engage with content in different areas of learning.
Ireland cites the need to ensure additional support for vulnerable groups – particularly Traveller students and students for whom English or Irish is not the first language – and that all children, particularly in areas of social and economic disadvantage, reach acceptable standards of literacy and numeracy.
In Portugal the law in force offers the possibility of implementing curriculum adaptations for specific groups of students or even individually.
China reports a solid common foundation among its students but insufficient development of students’ individual needs.
South Africa notes that a large percentage of learners lag because teachers are unable to identify barriers to learning (particularly in literacy and mathematics) early enough to address them in a timely manner.
Viet Nam has a national curriculum to help ensure that all students meet a common minimum standard. However, there are challenges in implementing the curriculum, particularly related to students with learning difficulties (including disabilities) and students whose native language is not Vietnamese, and to schools with difficult conditions (especially in disadvantaged areas).
Support for students with special needs
Some countries/jurisdictions, such as Norway and Kazakhstan, report challenges related to identifying and supporting students with special educational needs11. Some countries/jurisdictions noted that SEN support targets only the most acute cases, leaving many students with limited in-school support for learning. Some countries/jurisdictions report a deficit approach12 to the education of students with SEN, which has implications for how these students are supported.
In 2018, Norway established a national group of experts to review its system of support for children and young people with special education needs. The group found that Norway’s system for identifying and addressing needs for support in learning does not help all students. Students who do not meet the criteria for SEN support but are still underperforming in schools receive limited additional learning support (Nordahl, 2018[12]). To address this issue, in 2020, Norway experimented with a differentiated, multi-tier approach to teaching and learning in about 300 schools (Borgonovi, Ferrara and Maghnouj, 2018[10]). In addition, in 2019, the Norwegian Government presented a white paper (Meld. St. nr 6, 2019-2020) on the system of support for children and students with special educational needs. The aim is to improve the capacity of kindergartens and schools to intervene early, when children and pupils encounter difficulties in learning. All schools should have access to teacher specialists in initial training, and all kindergartens and schools should have teachers with formal competence in special education.
Portugal approved a new decree-law on inclusive education. The legal framework for inclusive education (Decree-Law No. 54/2018, 6th July, with the amendments introduced by Law No. 116/2019, 13th September), following a rigorous evaluation process of the past ten years of policies and practices in supporting students with special education needs, establishes the principles and regulations that ensure inclusion as a process which responds to the diversity of needs and capabilities of each and every student, through increased participation in the learning processes and educational community. The methodological approach establishes a continuum of provision for all students according to the universal design for learning and the multi-level approach to access the curriculum. Schools have autonomy to organize flexible curriculum responses to the needs and capacities of their students rather than established student categories based on clinical labels, recognising that every student can learn.
In Kazakhstan, children with special needs and disabilities are taught in separate so-called correctional schools, in special groups and classes in general education schools, and in the children’s homes. But such conditions limit learners’ opportunities to access the full curriculum, interact with other children, and develop the abilities and potential that they share with them. The concept of disability in Kazakhstan is still influenced by the Soviet concept of defectology, which focuses on a person’s particular disability and trains practitioners as specialists in care and correction of that specific disability.
Support for students at risk of leaving school early
Some countries/jurisdictions, including Estonia, Hungary and Singapore, highlighted the challenge of identifying and supporting students at risk of leaving school early. Failure to do so leads to significant disparities in learning outcomes and school completion rates along socio-economic lines, with students from poorer backgrounds more at risk of falling behind or leaving school than their socio-economically advantaged peers.
In Estonia, 3% of students need special support because of their socio-economic status, which can impact whether they drop out. System-wide support includes extracurricular activities, which are mainly offered publicly within or outside of school. At least 60% of Estonian students engage in system-wide extracurricular activities. Youth work, including counselling and other activities, focuses on co-operation with schools to work with young people with low socio-economic background, and those who might belong to the group at risk of dropout in an effort to keep them in school.
In Hungary, students who repeat grades sometimes drop out of school, and there is no system-wide support to provide them with an inclusive educational experience. Assistance at the individual level also lacks among high-skill, talented learners.
In Portugal, in order to reduce school dropout and promote educational success of disadvantaged learners, several actions are in place, such as: i) support measures related to socio-economic conditions in the schools’ locations, within the Priority Intervention Educational Areas Programme (TEIP); the development of typologies of work and the organisation of educational activities in the scope of the Programme for the Promotion of School Success (PNPSE); and School Social Assistance (ASE) for students with a poor economic condition.
Despite high overall achievement, in Singapore 7% to 8% of students begin the first year of formal schooling with limited oral English language skills and lack developmentally appropriate early literacy skills. They are academically not ready for school and are at risk of failing.
Teacher preparedness
While allowing and promoting the personalisation of curricula is an important first step, the approach will only ensure equity if teachers are adequately prepared to undertake personalisation. This is not the case in all countries/jurisdictions, as reported by Estonia, Costa Rica and South Africa.
Estonia finds that the problem implementing personalised curricula is not so much a lack of money, but a lack of shared understanding of what personalised curriculum is and how to implement it.
Costa Rica has two practices for teachers to customise learning to students’ needs: non-significant curricular adaptations and significant curricular adaptations. Non-significant adaptations have to do with adjustments to teaching time, organisation and pedagogy, and they are determined and implemented by teachers. Significant adaptations require modifications of the learning objectives and contents. These shall be timely proposed by teachers and they must be approved by the Committee of Educational Support. However, teachers do not receive adequate training in contextualisation and adaptation of the curriculum to modify their teaching practices.
Few teachers in South Africa are equipped with skills to differentiate and individualise instruction. Students with learning difficulties (including disabilities) are not effectively supported in the classroom, and education support services are inadequate, especially in rural and disadvantaged areas.
Teacher bias
Students of different abilities are at risk of being separated from peers who have more traditional behavioural, or physical, cognitive or developmental paths. Without policies, programmes or legislation to mandate equitable access and services, students may face consequences ranging from implicit bias to outright segregation. Teacher bias, such as towards students from minority backgrounds, is well documented (Tenenbaum and Ruck, 2007[13]; Warikoo et al., 2016[14]). Imprecise policies and procedures could further exacerbate inequities for students from diverse racial/ethnic, gender, or special needs backgrounds.
A number of countries/jurisdictions report that some teachers and school leaders hold strong beliefs about the inability of some students to meet learning standards. Often called deficit models, these beliefs can constrain designing personalised curricula at the school level to ensure that all students achieve their full potential.
Ireland cites the challenge of ensuring that pupils with special needs in mainstream education receive an education that allows them to reach their true potential. Ireland cautions against categorising learners and assigning labels of contested disabilities that may result in lowered expectations for individual children and their learning.
In Argentina, some teachers and principals have a negative mindset regarding the ability to learn of students from disadvantaged populations.
Standardised testing and parental expectations
Parental expectations for their children’s education can hinder the design and implementation of personalised curricula. Some parents, as reported by Hong Kong (China), put pressure on schools to cover all the content in the curriculum, leaving little space for personalisation. This is often due to the pressure of high-stakes standardised examinations which, in many countries/jurisdictions, are not personalised to accommodate all students.
The curriculum in Hong Kong (China) applies to all students in the same age cohort and aims to cater to the full range of the ability spectrum. The original intention of the curriculum was to meet the needs of all students, through curriculum adaptation by teachers to cater for learner diversity. But some schools and parents tend to encourage students to study all curriculum content in both core and elective subjects, which can prove challenging for students who are struggling.
Misalignment with assessment and certification
Countries/jurisdictions such as Estonia report that their assessment systems are not compatible with a personalised approach to learning. In Costa Rica, the certification offered students who receive significant curricular adaptation or customisation is viewed as less legitimate. This creates risks to equity by limiting students’ future prospects.
In Estonia, the current five-grade summative assessment does not encourage personalised learning. But formative assessment principles have been adopted in national curricula since 2010. Teachers are provided with a lot of training to use formative assessment.
In Costa Rica, two practices allow teachers to customise learning to meet students’ special needs: non-significant and significant curricular adaptations Non-significant adaptations affect teaching time, organisation and pedagogy and can be decided by teachers. Significant adaptations also impact learning objectives and contents, and they need to be approved by the Committee of Educational support. However, when students finish their school year, the certification awarded to students with special needs does not have the same validity or offer the same opportunities as certification awarded to students without those needs.
Insufficient budgeting
As curriculum designers develop personalised curricula to meet the learning needs of a wider set of students, they must think about the resources needed at school level to manage and implement these. For example, schools might need funds to hire teacher assistants, trained SEN staff or language teachers. They might also need funding to train teachers on how to personalise teaching and learning to their students. Such funding should be sufficient and stable over time to allow schools to plan.
Wales (United Kingdom) finds that schools and teachers lack the resources to meet the diverse learning needs of all students. Funding programmes are administratively demanding and fail to provide the stability needed to build internal capacity. In addition, the role of support staff engaged in students’ learning is not sufficiently recognised.
Strategies
In a growing number of countries/jurisdictions, it is schools’ responsibility to adapt the national curriculum and develop personalised learning content for all students. To do so, schools need adequate support. Many countries/jurisdictions integrate guidelines on personalised learning into education legislation or into the curriculum itself to help guide schools in designing and managing personalised curricula. Moreover, to empower teachers and schools to design inclusive curriculum content, many countries/jurisdictions align the focus of teacher training and support with personalised curricula.
Countries/jurisdictions target curriculum processes and content to specific student populations. For example, some design curriculum or related interventions for students with special needs. Others offer extracurricular activities to students at risk or design culturally responsive curricula to meet the needs of Indigenous students. Publishing the curriculum in other languages is another strategy to target specific student populations through personalisation.
Supporting schools to develop individual study plans and syllabuses
In many countries/jurisdictions where schools enjoy a high level of flexibility over curriculum design, it is the schools’ responsibility to design personalised curricula to meet the learning and well-being needs of students. Countries/jurisdictions such as Denmark, Estonia, and Finland support schools by a national legislative framework that encourages personalisation (e.g. mandatory in-school time for individualised learning, health and psycho-social support staff, and teacher assistants).
In Denmark, all students must have a plan showing their learning goals, and a meeting with parent(s) is held to discuss the student's academic and social standing. Teaching differentiation ensures that students have the opportunity to reach their learning goals in different ways and at different paces. Supplementary teaching or other professional support can be provided to students who need it. Students who cannot attend school for a long period of time due to illness must be offered teaching at home or at the institution in which they are staying. In addition, help with homework is a mandatory part of the school day, when students get the time and help to immerse themselves and work with elements that they find particularly difficult or exciting.
In Estonia, each school designs its curriculum on the basis of the national curriculum. The school curriculum is the underlying document of teaching and learning in the school. It sets out content choices based on national curricula to adapt to the unique characteristics of the school. The school curriculum focuses on the specifics/uniqueness of the school context and specifies the activities for achieving the expected learning outcomes. The particularities of the school and the region, the wishes of the school staff, parents and pupils, and the available mental and material resources are all taken into consideration in preparing the curriculum. Teachers and other school staff must participate in preparing the school curriculum. The principal’s task is to involve students, parents and representatives of other interest groups.
Finnish legislation guarantees equal education in all parts of the country, and the National Core Curriculum is mandatory. Special-needs education services are available in every basic education school, as are school attendance services. The organisation of these is based on inclusion, and the state gives financial support to education providers. The syllabuses can be personalised and adapted for individual pupils. There are also possibilities for grade-independent studies and flexible basic education, which reduce dropout and prevent exclusion. The student welfare system developed over the last two decades relies on health and social care staff working in co-operation with education staff to help students and their families when they are in difficulty. This multi-professional co-operation is based on law and organised locally, alongside support for learning and school-attendance services. Both forms of support are described in the curriculum. The state also gives financial support to education providers for additional weekly lessons for students from minority backgrounds, in their home languages during their years of basic education. The Basic Education Act and the Finnish National Core Curriculum explicitly state how to provide teaching of religions and ethics.
Integrating personalised learning in education legislation or in the curriculum
Several countries/jurisdictions, such as Estonia and Norway, report that guidelines to schools on how to develop individual learning plans are provided in legislation or in the curriculum document itself. Such guidance can specify the modalities for organising personalised learning, such as how to organise school time and the level of adjustment of the curriculum allowed. It can also suggest tools to adapt the curriculum to students’ needs.
In Estonia, legislation ensures the right of all students to education. Teaching students with special educational needs is based on the principle of inclusive education. In order to ensure the right to education for all, Estonia recognises the importance of providing students with adapted support based on their needs. An individual curriculum is drawn up for all students with moderate, severe and profound learning difficulties. The student, their parent(s), and support specialists are involved in drawing up an individual curriculum. A school may change or adjust the time, contents, process, and environment of study. In cases where the changes or adjustments substantially increase or decrease the weekly workload or intensity of studies compared to the school curriculum, or where they reduce or replace the learning outcomes provided for in the national curricula, the individual curriculum can be implemented upon recommendation of the external advisory team and with written parental consent (Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu), 2010[15]).
In Norway, the Education Act and the National Curriculum contain a number of guidelines and key values for customised training, as well as instruments to ensure that all students experience improved learning outcomes. Customised training applies to all students, both those who follow mainstream education and those who receive special education.
Aligning the focus of teacher training and support
Some countries and jurisdictions, including Hong Kong (China), Singapore and South Africa, recognise the importance of adequately preparing and supporting teachers to personalise curricula to diverse student needs, and take action to doing so.
Hong Kong (China) made great efforts to help schools understand the importance of learner diversity through curriculum adaptation. This includes training teachers to strengthen their professional capabilities in assessment, literacy and technological, and pedagogical content knowledge, conducting curriculum development visits, and providing school-based support services.
Effective strategies in Singapore include: 1) equipping teachers with theoretical understanding of reading development and pedagogical knowledge and skills to support students with literacy difficulties and disabilities; 2) providing support programmes developed by the Ministry of Education to ensure alignment with the core English instruction programme and relevance of additional support; and 3) supporting teachers through on-the-job coaching and regular monitoring.
South Africa developed Guidelines for Responding to Diversity (2011), as well as the Policy on Screening, Identification, Assessment and Support (SIAS) (2014). Significant effort goes into institutionalising these two strategies through training of teachers and int1roducing Guidelines to Resourcing Inclusive Education, which are meant to strengthen support services. The SIAS guides teachers to develop Individual Support Plans and Schedules for Curriculum Differentiation. Both strategies combat grade retention and support learners promoted to the next grade without meeting all the requirements.
Involving teachers and community partners in curriculum design
Countries/jurisdictions such as British Columbia (Canada) and Saskatchewan (Canada) involve teachers in the design of curriculum content that values equity and inclusion. Such a strategy helps build ownership and educate teachers on the importance of these two values in their teaching. It also helps to ensure that curriculum design is responsive to the challenges of inclusion and equity actually encountered in the classroom.
In British Columbia (Canada), learning partnerships among a diverse range of equity, education, and community partners develop and implement tools, resources, and professional learning to embed the principles of equity and inclusive education in the curriculum.
Curricula in Saskatchewan (Canada) contain a component called the Adaptive Dimension that allows teachers to adjust the learning environment, instruction, assessment, and resources to make learning meaningful and appropriate, and to support student achievement. Saskatchewan also recognises the importance of assisting educators and community partners to develop a deeper understanding of gender and sexual diversity, and to provide safe, equitable and inclusive learning environments for all students, regardless of their actual or perceived differences.
Adapting materials and assessment
To address misalignment between personalisation of curricula, available learning materials, and assessment practices, countries/jurisdictions such as Estonia, Portugal and Poland take steps to adapt assessments and learning materials to cater to diverse needs of students.
In Estonia, SEN students are provided with special conditions for performing standard-determining tests and examinations. As a principle, if a student is offered support in the process of learning, they should also be offered support in the process of assessing learning outcomes. Co-operating with the school, the government strives to be flexible in finding the most suitable way for the student to take the test or examination. At state level, learning materials are developed and provided for students with special educational needs. These are especially suitable for pupils who study under the simplified curriculum, but can also be successfully used in regular classrooms with pupils who study under an individual curriculum, as well as with non-Estonian-speaking students for language learning and vocabulary building. Methodological instructions for teachers using these learning materials are available free of charge. New digital interactive learning materials for SEN pupils are being prepared.
In Portugal, students are entitled to assistive products to access the curriculum and to improve participation. How they are used must be decided according to the individual characteristics of the student. These assistive products/devices are granted by the Ministry of Education.
Poland provides textbooks, educational and exercise materials, and auxiliary books adapted to the educational needs and psychophysical abilities of students with special education needs. It also equips primary-school pupils with textbooks and educational materials in Braille, adapted to the needs of students with a visual impairment, and in Polish Sign Language, for students with a hearing impairment or learning/communication difficulties. The strategy extends to students with intellectual disabilities, autism and aphasia, using alternative communication methods, such as Picture Communication Symbols.
Providing targeted funding and technical support for schools
As curriculum designers develop personalised curricula, they need to plan the right level of resources for schools to manage and implement these curricula. This may be through targeted funding for support to sub-groups of students, as in Ireland, or broader funding allocations, as in Norway. It can also involve putting human resources, such as teaching assistants, psychologists, and health specialists at the disposal of schools.
Countries/jurisdictions use different strategies to adapt the curriculum to the learning needs of SEN students. Finland, for example, uses a continuous approach with various degrees of adaptations based on the student’s profile, while other countries, such as Japan and Norway, provide specific curricula or learning plans to students identified as having special educational needs.
In 2007, Finland introduced a new Special Education Strategy in response to concerns expressed by several municipalities about the increasing number of students referred to Special Education Needs support. This policy was strongly supported by national authorities, who provided financing to municipalities over a period of four years to renew their curriculum, develop guiding documents for schools, and train teachers prior to the change in legislation (Borgonovi, Ferrara and Maghnouj, 2018[10]). The new strategy, fully implemented in 2011, introduced three tiers of support for students at risk of falling behind. Tier 1 is accessible to all students and includes in-class differentiation of learning, remedial teaching, co-teaching with a SEN teacher, and part-time special education support. Organisation of this is at the discretion of the classroom or subject teacher. Tier 2 includes a learning plan for intensified support for students identified by teachers as at risk of falling behind. If Tier 2 is deemed ineffective, a pedagogical evaluation is conducted by a multi-professional team in the school to provide students with the adequate support (transitioning to Tier 3). Tier 3 requires confirmation by the municipality and is regularly monitored by the multi-professional team.
In Ireland, the Delivering Equality of Opportunity in Schools (DEIS) action plan provides support to students at risk of falling behind in their learning or leaving school early. Schools identified as having large concentrations of students experiencing educational disadvantage (defined as impediments arising from social or economic disadvantage that prevent students from deriving appropriate benefit from education) receive targeted funding to adopt a whole-school strategy, as well as specialised programmes such as Reading Recovery, Maths Recovery and the Junior Certificate School Programme. The literacy, numeracy, and attainment levels of marginalised pupils rose significantly since the introduction of the DEIS programme (Kavanagh, Weir and Moran, 2017[16]; Weir and Kavanagh, 2018[17]). Furthermore, Ireland ensures additional support for vulnerable groups, particularly Traveller students and students whose first language is not English or Irish.
In Japan, there are separate curricula for students with difficulties communicating in Japanese, those who are disabled, and those who need special care and assistance due to frequent absences from school. While they are based on general curricula, these separate curricula are extensively customised to the needs of each student.
In Norway, the government allocated approximately EUR 40 million for measures to support vulnerable students disproportionately affected by COVID-19 measures. Among these, EUR 17 million are disbursed to school leaders to help vulnerable students catch up learning losses. The funding was used for initiatives including the establishment of summer schools, the implementation of accelerated education programmes, homework assistance, hiring more teachers, etc. Also, in Norway, students who receive special education have the right to an individual education plan that shows learning objectives and content, and how training is organised.
In the Russian Federation, the 2014 Special Educational Standard for children with special needs and physical impairments sets requirements for the facilities, equipment, clothing, safety procedures, etc. necessary to work with children with mental or physical disabilities for whom adjusted curriculum programmes were developed.
Using extracurricular activities to provide personalised support for students at risk
Some countries/jurisdictions, such as Hungary, use extracurricular programmes to meet students’ learning needs that cannot be adequately addressed during instruction time due to resource constraints.
Many schools in Hungary lack material and human resources. In particular, many schools do not have dedicated teaching assistants to deliver a differentiated curriculum to students who are falling behind. Thus, while the curriculum calls for adapting learning to students' needs, this is rarely done. Instead, some out-of-school programmes help students at risk of dropping out or who have already dropped out.
Involving and engaging stakeholders to design culturally responsive curricula
Both British Columbia (Canada) and New Zealand report engaging Indigenous communities in the design of curriculum content to make sure that it is representative of their needs, values, and aspirations. Often these design requirements are spelled out in policy, as in Saskatchewan (Canada).
British Columbia (Canada) added Indigenous content across the curriculum. Integrating Indigenous perspectives and different worldviews was a fundamental part of the curriculum redesign. The Ministry of Education worked with a number of Indigenous educators and education groups to seek input, review curriculum drafts, and provide feedback. In addition, the Ministry of Education promoted development of education agreements between school districts and local Indigenous groups to enhance education within their districts.
In 2007, Saskatchewan (Canada) implemented mandatory treaty education for students from kindergarten to Grade 12. First Nations and Métis content, perspectives, and ways of knowing are always integrated within the renewed curricula. These are co-constructed, as the ministry engages teacher-writers, First Nations and Métis Elders or Knowledge Keepers, and others to ensure that multiple perspectives are heard and supported in curricula.
In New Zealand, discussions of equity/diversity and 21st-Century learning recognise that the changing global environment requires people to engage and be able to work with people from cultural, religious, and/or linguistic backgrounds or world views different from their own. At a national level, New Zealand offers two parallel curriculum documents: the New Zealand Curriculum for English-medium learning, and Te Marautanga o Aotearoa for Māori-medium learning. Although they come from different perspectives, both start with visions of young people who develop the competencies they need for study, work, and lifelong learning, and will go on to realise their potential. Together, the documents help schools embody the partnership at the core of the nation’s founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi/the Treaty of Waitangi. At the local level, New Zealand encourages schools to work with communities, and especially with local Māori bodies, to develop a school curriculum that reflects the interests and needs of learners, the values and aspirations of parents and whanau (“extended family” in Maori). Boards of trustees, made up of community members, can have significant input into the curriculum, but the extent varies from school to school. The curriculum includes a legal requirement that each board of trustees, through the principal and staff, develop and implement a curriculum for students in years 1-13. They are also required, in consultation with the school’s Māori community, to develop and make known the plans and targets for improving the achievement of Māori students.
In Costa Rica, the curriculum for indigenous students includes subjects to ensure the teaching of indigenous languages and cultures: Ngäbere language, Boruca language, Bribri language of Buenos Aires, Bribri language of Sulá, Cabécar language of Buenos Aires, Cabécar language of Chirripó, Cabécar language of Sulá, Maleku language, Terraba language, Chorotega culture, Huetar culture, Ngäbe culture, Terraba culture. Boruca language is being revitalised and the Terraba language is in process of being saved from extinction.
Publishing the curriculum in multiple languages
To ensure equity in learning, countries/jurisdictions publish the curriculum in multiple languages, either partially (e.g. some grades or subjects) or entirely. The curriculum can be published in minority heritage languages, as is the case in Finland, Norway and Hungary, or others to facilitate integration of recent immigrant students. The availability of curricula in multiple languages makes it possible to have different languages of instruction to accommodate the learning needs of different student populations. As research shows, this is particularly important in the early years of learning, when instruction in the mother tongue plays an important role in the acquisition of fundamental literacy and numeracy skills.
In Finland one of the basic principles is to ensure that the same opportunities to education are available irrespective of students’ ethnic origin, age, socioeconomic status or place of residence. With funding from the state, municipalities can provide instruction preparing for basic education to all pupils of compulsory age and pre-primary (6-year-olds) whose knowledge of Finnish or Swedish isn't sufficient for instruction in a basic education group. The goal of the instruction preparing for basic education as stated in the national core curriculum is to support the student’s development and integration into Finnish society and also to provide the necessary language skills to attend basic education. In the education of migrant students, particular emphasis is given to the sufficient command of Finnish or Swedish. Migrant students are entitled to get instruction in Finnish/Swedish according to the syllabus Finnish or Swedish as a second language, instead of Finnish or Swedish as a mother tongue. The municipalities can apply for funding for organising this instruction. If, for some reason, the school does not offer instruction in Finnish or Swedish as a second language, the pupils participate in the mother tongue and literature classes, which will be modified to meet the needs of each individual student. In addition to learning Finnish or Swedish, all pupils must be able to maintain and develop their own mother tongue. The objective is functional bilingualism and strengthening the student’s intercultural identity. The curriculum also includes guidelines for teaching Sámi, Romani and sign language. Instruction in mother tongue for pupils with a migrant background is provided as instruction complementing basic education by means of a separate state subsidy.
Hungary reports that, although the language of instruction is Hungarian for the majority of schools, students of ethnic minorities can access instruction in another language in both pre-primary education and schools where there are more than eight students of a given ethnic minority. The curriculum is available in German, Croatian, Slovak, Serbian, Greek, Bulgarian, Roma, Boyash, Ruthenian, Romanian, and Slovenian.
In Norway, the revised national core curriculum that came into effect in 2020 was translated into Sami and English. The Sami curriculum (an alternative curriculum for students of Sami background) is also available in both Sami and Norwegian. Some subject curricula are also written in both the Norwegian written languages Bokmål and Nynorsk, but others are written in just one of them.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Mexico shared both information on prevention and learning materials in Spanish and Indigenous languages through the National Institute of Indigenous Languages, part of the Ministry of Culture. By the beginning of April 2020, 61 interpreters and translators, and nearly 140 learning tools (audio, video, maps, etc.) were available in Spanish and most of the Indigenous languages spoken in the country.
Content to foster cross-curricular competencies is a powerful tool for advancing the values of equity and diversity in schools. Indeed, equity, inclusion and diversity are typically embedded in the curriculum as content across subjects rather than in a specific subject. Such an approach helps students and teachers exercise these values throughout the school day and perceive different moments at school as learning opportunities for equity, inclusion and diversity. This approach can also mitigate curriculum overload (see (OECD, 2020[18])), and alleviate time lags as the curriculum may be adaptable across content areas (see (OECD, 2020[4])). Research shows that teaching values such as respect, diversity and inclusion in schools can help students become more empathetic and show greater kindness to one another (see the What does research say?” section of the Values report (OECD, forthcoming[19])).
Cross-curricular content can also embed local, regional or indigenous values in the curriculum. In many cases, this is done by giving schools or local governments the opportunity to adapt their curriculum to better fit the local context. In some countries, indigenous values and content are introduced in the national curriculum with the goal of ensuring that all students are exposed to these values, regardless of the school context.
Challenges
Countries/jurisdictions face challenges as they aim to design cross-curricular content to promote values of equity and inclusion. Some report limited capacity to design cross-curricular content that can promote minority or indigenous values. Without a strategy to take into account a wide range of competencies, countries/jurisdictions recognise the risk of stigmatising and segregating some students.
Variations in capacity to promote minority or indigenous values as a cross-curricular theme
National curricula in many countries/jurisdictions aim to respond to the needs of ethnic minorities and Indigenous communities, and actively promote their values and culture. However, schools’ awareness and capacity to design and manage a school curriculum that embodies these ideals may vary.
Australia’s cross-curriculum priority, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures, is designed to ensure that Australia’s First Peoples see themselves in the curriculum. It is also designed so that Australia’s First Peoples participate in the curriculum and all Australian students participate in reconciliation, respect, and recognition of the world’s oldest continuous living culture. However, geographic remoteness, along with a range of socio-economic factors, contribute to the challenges of realising this goal.
Strategies
Countries/jurisdictions report that they aim to create shared responsibility for equity by articulating in the curriculum that equity is an overall goal of education. In order to make this goal operational, countries/jurisdictions provide practical guides and examples of mainstreaming diversity and equity-oriented values as a cross-curricular priority.
Articulating equity as a goal of education
In order to ensure that the value of equity is both taught and modelled in schools, several countries/jurisdictions explicitly articulate it as a core value to embed across the curriculum. For example, Estonia articulates values of “honesty, compassion, respect of life, justice and human dignity” as cross-curricular themes. Similarly, Hong Kong (China) and Singapore put the value of respect of others at the centre of curriculum design.
Estonia explicitly articulates core values in its curriculum. These include general human values related to equity, such as “honesty, compassion, respect for life, justice, human dignity and respect for self and others”, as well as societal values such as “liberty, democracy, respect for mother tongue and culture, patriotism, cultural diversity, tolerance, environmental sustainability, rule of law, solidarity, responsibility and gender equality”.
Hong Kong (China) places priority on values as part of the Hong Kong school curriculum, including those related to equity, such as “respect for others, responsibility and integrity, and care for others”.
Singapore places core values at the centre of curriculum design, including “respect, responsibility, resilience, integrity, care and harmony”.
Mainstreaming diversity and equity-oriented values into curriculum
Some countries/jurisdictions provide clear guidelines in their curriculum documents on how schools model and teach values of diversity and equity. Having such guidelines in the curriculum document helps ensure that values promoted by the curriculum are central to the teaching and learning process.
As an example, the Australian curriculum website contains materials to support student diversity and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Histories and Cultures as a cross-curricular priority. These materials include illustrations of practice and advice for schools.
More country experiences will be reported in the forthcoming thematic report on ‘values in curriculum’.
Giving schools and local authorities flexibility over the curriculum can address equity issues by taking students’ and communities’ needs into account in the curriculum. Given their proximity to the students and communities they serve, schools and local education authorities are positioned to design content that is context-specific and respectful of local culture and needs. While research on the impact of flexible curriculum is limited, some studies show that such an approach can benefit students’ learning and well-being, particularly for gifted students, SEN students, and students with disabilities. However, a flexible curriculum having positive effects requires both strong curriculum design and strong management capacity at local and school levels.
Challenges
A flexible curriculum approach can lead to variation in how a curriculum is delivered across schools and localities. It can result in variations in the quality of learning between students, based on where their school is located and their socio-economic background, making this an equity issue (Donlan, 2016[20]; Pegg and Panizzon, 2007[21]). This variation can result from varying levels of investment by regional or local government to support flexible curricula.
Regional and local variation in the use of flexible curriculum to ensure quality of learning
A number of countries/jurisdictions, including Finland and Québec (Canada) report that curriculum flexibility in learning content can lead to difficulties ensuring that all students meet national standards. Similar issues have been observed in the United States.
Finland aims to offer good educational opportunities and the best possible education for all children, regardless of their family background, the place where they live, or personal characteristics. However, challenges include regional/municipal differences in providing education.
When Québec (Canada) decentralised responsibility to schools in 2001, the intention was for local bodies to meet community needs and expectations more effectively. Québec’s Conseil supérieur de l’éducation observed that, at the primary level, there was no consensus on schools being able to make local choices. For some groups, including administrators, devolution led to the launch of projects based on students’ needs and characteristics. The teachers’ unions saw them as a source of inequality in educational service delivery. However, the Conseil supérieur de l’éducation decided that flexibility should be maintained. At the secondary level, the sought-after diversification led to problems organising programmes in some schools, especially small schools. To address the challenges related to curriculum flexibility the ministry of education has implemented a number of measures to mitigate these issues such as provision of teacher training, creation of partnerships, a shared platform, etc.
In the United States, because the curriculum is developed locally, there may be no continuity between school districts, even within the same state. Local control over education decisions means that the federal government does not determine required content. Therefore, it is nearly impossible to ensure a consistent coherent, focused and rigorous curriculum system-wide.
Local decisions on investment in teaching and teachers
In high-autonomy contexts, such as Finland and Brazil, ensuring that schools are able to design and implement a flexible curriculum is a challenge in states and cities with fewer human and financial resources to invest in education.
In Finland, some studies show relatively wide variations between schools in different parts of the biggest cities, with learning outcomes related to the socio-economic background of the city districts. Adequate investment to support teaching and teachers may not be possible there, even while they are in other areas of the country.
In Brazil, levels of investment in education vary between states and at local levels across the country (e.g. differences in teacher salaries and teacher training). This is despite constant efforts from the federal government to provide financial and technical support through programmes such as the Fund for Maintenance and Development of Basic Education and Promotion of the Teaching Profession.
Strategies
Recognising that a flexible approach can promote equity, countries/jurisdictions report providing schools and local authorities with flexibility in curriculum content, pedagogy, assessment, and school organisation to better meet the needs of students. Such strategies often need to be accompanied by providing local authorities and schools with guidelines and technical support to design quality curriculum content.
Allowing for flexibility, in particular, for students from linguistic minorities
Diverse strategies can support students from a linguistic minority background. Flexibility in practices might best support their needs, which can vary considerably, ranging from the need for full translation to assistance with punctuation or idioms. In British Columbia (Canada), teachers can have a range of practices rather than a prescribed curriculum for working with linguistic-minority students.
In British Columbia (Canada), flexibility within the curriculum and multiple entry points for learners allow teachers to offer a range of instructional practices for students who do not speak English or French. This also holds true for students with diverse abilities. The Ministry of Education does not create a specific curriculum for English Language Learners or students with diverse abilities, but the expanded flexibility within the curriculum allows teachers more options to teach a range of diverse learners.
Adapting curriculum for low-achieving students
Low-achieving students might be served best not by the set curriculum, but by flexibility to meet their interests, skills and needs. Several countries/jurisdictions, such as Japan, China and Hong Kong (China), give schools the flexibility to add or create original subjects to meet students’ needs. In others, like Norway, students demonstrate competencies in multiple ways.
Japan’s curriculum aims to ensure equity across the country by making all schools follow one coherent National Curriculum Standard. All students are expected to acquire the competencies stipulated in the national standard. However, as some students are not able to achieve the goals expected in the curriculum, high schools have many options: 1) they can add and/or create original subjects to fit these students’ achievement levels and/ or interests; 2) they can choose to have these students repeat a grade (this option is rarely used); 3) they can rearrange learning time to adjust to students’ learning needs; 4) they can teach topics usually taught at lower school levels (e.g. provide education at lower-secondary level for upper-secondary students who have difficulty understanding the stipulated content); and 5) they can offer more time to learn certain content (e.g. provide 3 credits for a subject whose standard number of credits is 2 ).
In Norway, students can reach the same competence objectives in different ways. Subject curricula offer flexibility at the local level to select content, teaching strategies, working methods, and organisation to reach the same competence objectives. It is also possible for individual schools to customise how they work with progression and assessment for learning. Students should take an active part in planning, implementing, and evaluating teaching and learning practices. These should be aligned with students’ abilities and aptitudes, and should provide all students with challenges they can master to move forward. Good classroom management and insight into the school/class learning environment are essential.
China gives local governments and schools the right to develop courses independently to meet the individual needs of students. It finds that three-tier curriculum management (national, local, and school levels) is effective to demonstrate the characteristics of schools and develop education tailored to local conditions, which can promote educational equity.
In Hong Kong (China), the school curriculum as recommended by the Curriculum Development Council and adopted by the Education Bureau is an open framework with flexibility that allows schools to develop their own curricula to suit a wide range of contexts at various levels and cater to learner diversity, including not only low achievers but the full spectrum of students.
Encouraging schools to be flexible and proactive to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, e.g. the use of individual educational plans
Individual education plans can be provided for more students than those identified as having special needs. In Viet Nam, education plans can be used for students from disadvantaged backgrounds, whereas in France, initiatives such as Learning Holidays, provide support for students lagging behind.
France has developed the Learning Holidays initiative after school closures due to COVID-19, allowing students to use the summer holiday period for new experiences, reinforcing learning and solidarity for vulnerable students. The initiative, targeting one million children, uses the summer holidays to close learning gaps and address students’ drop-out risk, relying on summer camps, day leisure centres, and several schools remaining open during the summer, in partnership with local authorities and social welfare associations.
In Portugal, school autonomy, curriculum flexibility and internal participation models have been consolidated with the new curriculum framework approved in 2018. The new curriculum framework offers greater autonomy and flexibility in how schools manage curricula, thus consolidating their ability to combat inequalities and construct a digital society. Likewise, the ongoing decentralisation process has made it possible to transfer various powers to municipalities regarding the management of infrastructure and facilities, human resources, social support and curricular enrichment activities, more adapted to the regional/local circumstances. Equity and inclusion of diversity in educational goals became central to all students, regardless of the reasons behind their disadvantaged situations. Leaving no one behind within compulsory education is a national priority and for that reason schools: i) are given the opportunity to manage up to 25% of the curriculum, fostering interdisciplinary and collaborative work, PBL methodologies and fostering deeper learning respecting every school specific context; ii) can, according to their autonomy and flexibility, manage more than 25 % of the curriculum aiming at the implementation of innovation plans to be validated by the Ministry of Education. Viet Nam guides localities and schools to be flexible and proactive in developing individual education plans, increasing the amount of education to ensure standard implementation for the disadvantaged students.
References
[10] Borgonovi, F., A. Ferrara and S. Maghnouj (2018), “The gender gap in educational outcomes in Norway”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 183, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f8ef1489-en.
[9] Bredtmann, J., S. Otten and C. Vonnahme (2018), Linguistic diversity in the classroom, student achievement, and social integration, https://doi.org/10.4419/86788911.
[20] Donlan, J. (2016), “Splicing the divide: A review of research on the evolving digital divide among K–12 students”, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, Vol. 48/1, pp. 16-37, https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2015.1103147.
[2] Duncan, G. et al. (2007), “School readiness and later achievment”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 43/6, pp. 1428-1440, https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.
[5] Dweck, C. (1983), “Motivational processes affecting learning”, American Psychologist, Vol. 41, pp. 1040-1048.
[15] Estonian Parliament (Riigikogu) (2010), Basic Schools and Upper Secondary Schools Act (Põhikooli- ja gümnaasiumiseadus), Riigi Teataja (State Gazette) RT I 2010, 41, 240, https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/530062020003/consolide.
[11] Hosterman, S. and G. DuPaul (2008), “Teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms in ethnic minority students: Bias or behavioral difference?”, School Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 23/3, p. 418, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012668.
[16] Kavanagh, L., S. Weir and E. Moran (2017), The evaluation of DEIS: The lives and learning of urban primary school pupils, 2007 to 2016, http://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/DEIS-report-2017.pdf.
[8] Kozareva Veronika (2016), Using Virtual Classroom in Support of Children in Hospitals.
[12] Nordahl, T. (2018), INKLUDERENDE FELLESSKAP FOR BARN OG UNGE, Expert group for children and young people with Special Education Needs, Oslo, http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/inkludering-barn-unge/files/2018/04/INKLUDERENDE-FELLESSKAP-FOR-BARN-OG-UNGE-til-publisering-04.04.18.pdf.
[1] OECD (2021), The State of School Education: One Year into the COVID Pandemic, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/201dde84-en.
[18] OECD (2020), Curriculum Overload: A Way Forward, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/3081ceca-en.
[3] OECD (2020), The impact of COVID-19 on student equity and inclusion, http://www.oecd.org/education/strength-through-diversity/OECD%20COVID-19%20Brief%20Vulnerable%20Students.pdf.
[4] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[6] OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume I): What Students Know and Can Do, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5f07c754-en.
[19] OECD (forthcoming), Values in the Curriculum (title TBC).
[23] Oxford English Dictionary (n.d.), “Travelling people”, Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, https://www.oed.com/ (accessed on 21 April 2021).
[21] Pegg, J. and D. Panizzon (2007), “Inequities in student achievement for literacy: Metropolitan versus rural comparisons”, The Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, Vol. 30/3, pp. 177-190, https://search.informit.com.au/documentSummary%3bdn=772932320480156%3bres=IELHSS.
[13] Tenenbaum, H. and M. Ruck (2007), “Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis.”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 99/2, pp. 253-273, https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.253.
[22] Wallace, S. (2015), A Dictionary of Education, Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/acref/9780199679393.001.0001.
[14] Warikoo, N. et al. (2016), “Examining Racial Bias in Education”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 45/9, pp. 508-514, https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x16683408.
[17] Weir, S. and L. Kavanagh (2018), The evaluation of DEIS at post-primary level: Closing the achievement and attainment gaps, http://www.erc.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Weir-Kavanagh-2018-DEIS-post-primary.pdf.
[7] Zhao, Y. and K. Frank (2003), “Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective”, American Education Research Journal, Vol. 40/4, pp. 807-840, https://doi.org/10.3102%2F00028312040004807.
Notes
← 1. Examples reported in this section from Northern Ireland (United Kingdom), the United States, Brazil and India should not be considered the official views of the government since they were submitted by independent researchers, not government officials.
← 2. Proceedings from the Global Forum in May 2020 will be made available on https://www.oecd.org/education/2030-project/global-forum/previous-events/
← 3. This may include travelling people, i.e. those that are members of a community traditionally having an itinerant way of life (Oxford English Dictionary, n.d.[23]).
← 4. https://www.moe.gov.sg/parentkit
← 5. Including https://mhelp.kz/skachat-elektronnye-uchebniki-kazahstan/; bilimland.kz; opiq.kz, and others.
← 6. https://www.oktatas.hu/kozneveles/ajanlas_tantermen_kivuli_digitalis_munkarendhez.
← 7. Each speech provided a different angle on how to overcome the Covid-19 crisis. They are available on the following links:
https://www.gov.sg/article/pm-lee-hsien-loong-overcoming-the-crisis-of-a-generation;
https://www.gov.sg/article/minister-lawrence-wong-living-with-covid-19;
https://www.gov.sg/article/senior-minister-teo-chee-hean-resilience-in-a-changing-external-environment; https://www.gov.sg/article/minister-chan-chun-sing---making-a-living-in-a-covid-19-world; https://www.gov.sg/article/senior-minister-tharman-shanmugaratnam-a-stronger-and-more-cohesive-society;
https://www.gov.sg/article/dpm-heng-swee-keat-emerging-stronger-together.
← 8. https://www.dge.mec.pt/sites/default/files/roteiro_ead_vfinal.pdf
← 9. https://apoioescolas.dge.mec.pt/
← 10. Other terms for personalised curriculum used by countries/jurisdictions include differentiated curriculum and individualised curriculum.
← 11. As discussed in the What does research and international data say? section, special education needs (SEN) students include students with learning disabilities, physical impairments and mental health conditions.
← 12. A perspective which attributes failures such as lack of achievement, learning, or success in gaining employment to a personal lack of effort or deficiency in the individual, rather than to failures or limitations of the education and training system or to prevalent socio-economic trends (Wallace, 2015[22]).