e’re in a global learning crisis that had worsened even before the pandemic. In 2015, 53% of all children in low- and middle-income countries suffered from learning poverty, unable to understand a simple written text by age 10. In 2019, global learning poverty rose to 57%. For 2022, experts project 70% of all 10-year-old children can’t understand a simple written text.
The reasons? Manifold and often systemic: undertrained, undervalued, and underpaid teachers, access to education, an education financing gap, a lack of early childhood education, poverty traps, perpetuating existing disparities, and the recent realization that time in school doesn’t equal learning.
How can we solve the learning crisis and create education systems that enable all children to thrive in life? António Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, suggested: “We will not end this crisis by simply doing more of the same, faster or better. Now is the time to transform education systems.”
But what exactly is the difference between education transformation and reform?
“A candle does not become a light bulb through many small improvements,” Dr. Teresa Torzicky, from the Innovation Foundation for Education, once said.
Education reform improves the existing system. It tackles individual problems, such as teacher recruitment, and changes individual inputs, such as updating curricula, laws, and infrastructure. These improvements are often necessary and can improve education systems.
But reform efforts are only the tip of the iceberg, and they don’t change systems. The much larger part, quoting Andreas Schleicher from the OECD, lies beneath the surface and concerns the interests, beliefs, motivations and fears of those involved.
To go beneath the surface, transformation questions the dominant logic of a system by revisiting its current purpose.
Every system has a purpose, the highest objective, a north star—from that, everything else follows. Many of our education systems are rooted in purposes that are not fit for our time.e no longer need entire generations of conforming factory workers. We need a paradigm shift rather than mere reform.
For a paradigm shift, transformation requires we define a purpose, or multiple purposes, that are fit for our time and context and then redesign all system parts to contribute to these new purposes. A shared purpose, an alignment on what a system is for, is critical to system-level change that endures over time. It’s impossible to transform education unless you know where you are headed.
But revealing, redefining, and changing the purpose of a system is easier said than done.
Research from RISE and different studies show leaders often fail to change education systems because they aim to change the visible, lower-leverage elements of a system (resource flows, regulations, metrics) without changing the invisible factors such as the purpose (mindsets, goals, beliefs, and values), and without considering the interrelations of system components.
In a hypothetical example, Sarah leaves school without foundational skills. To improve outcomes, people from Sarah’s national education ministry ask: “What needs to change in this classroom for Sarah to have foundational skills?”
If textbooks are missing, government officials might decide to provide more textbooks. If teachers are undertrained, they might introduce more teacher training.
Yet, this symptom-only thinking neglects that teachers and students are embedded in a larger system. A lack of system thinking often leads to false conclusions about the cause (something I’ve unknowingly done before).
Programmes that fix singular elements might improve some learning outcomes, but without considering the wider system, they are likelydoomedtofail. Education transformation that leads to sustainable system change (not a better candle, but a lightbulb) needs to understand, address, and be coherent about the system’s structures.So do we need to build back better or new systems? There is no dichotomy between reform and transformation. We need both. But we can’t misuse reform to delay transformation. Instead, we must collectively co-define and build upon new purpose(s) for education while improving the existing system.
a global affairs media network
The Difference Between Education Transformation and Reform
Photo by Muneer ahmed ok via Unsplash.
December 11, 2022
We are in a global learning crisis. To solve this challenge and create education systems that allow all children to thrive, we must collectively co-define and build upon new purposes for education while improving the existing system, writes Eva Keiffenheim.
W
e’re in a global learning crisis that had worsened even before the pandemic. In 2015, 53% of all children in low- and middle-income countries suffered from learning poverty, unable to understand a simple written text by age 10. In 2019, global learning poverty rose to 57%. For 2022, experts project 70% of all 10-year-old children can’t understand a simple written text.
The reasons? Manifold and often systemic: undertrained, undervalued, and underpaid teachers, access to education, an education financing gap, a lack of early childhood education, poverty traps, perpetuating existing disparities, and the recent realization that time in school doesn’t equal learning.
How can we solve the learning crisis and create education systems that enable all children to thrive in life? António Guterres, secretary-general of the United Nations, suggested: “We will not end this crisis by simply doing more of the same, faster or better. Now is the time to transform education systems.”
But what exactly is the difference between education transformation and reform?
“A candle does not become a light bulb through many small improvements,” Dr. Teresa Torzicky, from the Innovation Foundation for Education, once said.
Education reform improves the existing system. It tackles individual problems, such as teacher recruitment, and changes individual inputs, such as updating curricula, laws, and infrastructure. These improvements are often necessary and can improve education systems.
But reform efforts are only the tip of the iceberg, and they don’t change systems. The much larger part, quoting Andreas Schleicher from the OECD, lies beneath the surface and concerns the interests, beliefs, motivations and fears of those involved.
To go beneath the surface, transformation questions the dominant logic of a system by revisiting its current purpose.
Every system has a purpose, the highest objective, a north star—from that, everything else follows. Many of our education systems are rooted in purposes that are not fit for our time.e no longer need entire generations of conforming factory workers. We need a paradigm shift rather than mere reform.
For a paradigm shift, transformation requires we define a purpose, or multiple purposes, that are fit for our time and context and then redesign all system parts to contribute to these new purposes. A shared purpose, an alignment on what a system is for, is critical to system-level change that endures over time. It’s impossible to transform education unless you know where you are headed.
But revealing, redefining, and changing the purpose of a system is easier said than done.
Research from RISE and different studies show leaders often fail to change education systems because they aim to change the visible, lower-leverage elements of a system (resource flows, regulations, metrics) without changing the invisible factors such as the purpose (mindsets, goals, beliefs, and values), and without considering the interrelations of system components.
In a hypothetical example, Sarah leaves school without foundational skills. To improve outcomes, people from Sarah’s national education ministry ask: “What needs to change in this classroom for Sarah to have foundational skills?”
If textbooks are missing, government officials might decide to provide more textbooks. If teachers are undertrained, they might introduce more teacher training.
Yet, this symptom-only thinking neglects that teachers and students are embedded in a larger system. A lack of system thinking often leads to false conclusions about the cause (something I’ve unknowingly done before).
Programmes that fix singular elements might improve some learning outcomes, but without considering the wider system, they are likelydoomedtofail. Education transformation that leads to sustainable system change (not a better candle, but a lightbulb) needs to understand, address, and be coherent about the system’s structures.So do we need to build back better or new systems? There is no dichotomy between reform and transformation. We need both. But we can’t misuse reform to delay transformation. Instead, we must collectively co-define and build upon new purpose(s) for education while improving the existing system.
