t this year’s Davos, global education leaders met and came to consensus on both the need for and goal of a reformed education system: human flourishing. Yet where we still have not agreed is how we get there. Which pieces of the jigsaw fit? What do we add, subtract, or change? And ultimately what path do we take to get there?
Editor’s Note: This piece is part of a short series of reflections from our World in 2050 network of experts about their experiences in Davos, and how it influences their critical work going forward.
The consensus was striking. Attendees broadly agreed that current education systems are becoming rapidly inadequate for a world defined by complexity and uncertainty. A model built for content delivery cannot compete with AI’s relentless advance. A structure designed to sort students by family income and opportunity serves no one in our changing world. The shift we need is from an academic, content–heavy system to one constructed for human flourishing.
Yet consensus on the destination did not translate into agreement on the route. As we debated which pieces of the jigsaw puzzle belong in this new model—creativity, citizenship, collaboration, entrepreneurship, agency, planetary wellbeing—we risked becoming unwilling adversaries, arguing one idea against the other rather than building together. While every suggestion made sense, this kind of internal debate can stall the very transformation we seek.
The issue, I believe, is one of macro–meso–micro. Jumping from the macro to the micro without agreeing on the meso. In this case macro is the goal, micro are the pieces, topics, or subject areas, and meso (which we jumped over) is agreement on the path.
Mindset underpins all of these levels. How one understands or views the purpose of education influences every decision at every level. Many reformers consciously champion human flourishing while subconsciously still treating education as a vehicle for knowledge transfer and job preparation. Until we resolve that tension, our reform efforts will always drift back toward the status quo. Before debating the jigsaw pieces, we must agree on the image we are trying to assemble. Is it a compliant worker? A graduate with a scroll? Or something fundamentally different?
If we agree on human flourishing as the macro then what does that mean for our system’s structures and practices? This meso debate needs to take place next. This way the new system we build will not be based on what we can squeeze and fit in, but rather based on what best fits and makes most sense.
Jumping over this stage puts us at odds and can stall growth, exactly at a time when time is one thing we don’t have.
a global affairs media network
In education reform debate, put the picture before the pieces
Image via Unsplash+
March 2, 2026
After a month to reflect, members of our delegation to this year’s World Economic Forum shared their thoughts on what struck and stayed with them most. For Sean Slade, this was a small but critical flaw in how we talk and think about education reform.
A
t this year’s Davos, global education leaders met and came to consensus on both the need for and goal of a reformed education system: human flourishing. Yet where we still have not agreed is how we get there. Which pieces of the jigsaw fit? What do we add, subtract, or change? And ultimately what path do we take to get there?
Editor’s Note: This piece is part of a short series of reflections from our World in 2050 network of experts about their experiences in Davos, and how it influences their critical work going forward.
The consensus was striking. Attendees broadly agreed that current education systems are becoming rapidly inadequate for a world defined by complexity and uncertainty. A model built for content delivery cannot compete with AI’s relentless advance. A structure designed to sort students by family income and opportunity serves no one in our changing world. The shift we need is from an academic, content–heavy system to one constructed for human flourishing.
Yet consensus on the destination did not translate into agreement on the route. As we debated which pieces of the jigsaw puzzle belong in this new model—creativity, citizenship, collaboration, entrepreneurship, agency, planetary wellbeing—we risked becoming unwilling adversaries, arguing one idea against the other rather than building together. While every suggestion made sense, this kind of internal debate can stall the very transformation we seek.
The issue, I believe, is one of macro–meso–micro. Jumping from the macro to the micro without agreeing on the meso. In this case macro is the goal, micro are the pieces, topics, or subject areas, and meso (which we jumped over) is agreement on the path.
Mindset underpins all of these levels. How one understands or views the purpose of education influences every decision at every level. Many reformers consciously champion human flourishing while subconsciously still treating education as a vehicle for knowledge transfer and job preparation. Until we resolve that tension, our reform efforts will always drift back toward the status quo. Before debating the jigsaw pieces, we must agree on the image we are trying to assemble. Is it a compliant worker? A graduate with a scroll? Or something fundamentally different?
If we agree on human flourishing as the macro then what does that mean for our system’s structures and practices? This meso debate needs to take place next. This way the new system we build will not be based on what we can squeeze and fit in, but rather based on what best fits and makes most sense.
Jumping over this stage puts us at odds and can stall growth, exactly at a time when time is one thing we don’t have.
