Jason McGrath, Doctoral student, School of Education, The University of Newcastle, Australia (Corresponding Author) ; Jason.mcgrath@uon.edu.au
John Fischetti, Pro Vice-Chancellor of the Faculty of Education and Arts at the University of Newcastle, Australia ; john.fischetti@newcastle.edu.au
Abstract
In this paper we present our findings examining the counterfactual research question, “what if compulsory schooling was a 21st century invention?” We share findings from an expert panel that responded to our research question using a modified Delphi process. We share a framework of Future School Elements (FSE) based on a set of agreed consensus statements similar to a classic Delphi approach and present a set of scenarios that describe preferred futures for schooling through a novel extra modified round to the Delphi process. We use backcasting as a way of supporting action in policy and practice towards preferred futures.
Keywords: Delphi method, scenario building, backcasting, compulsory schooling, future school models.
Introduction
The case for rethinking schooling has recently been accelerated by the disruption caused to schooling by COVID-19, with this already leading many to challenge what a framework for future school designs might value (Zhao, 2020). At the same time, there has been a renewed movement to challenge structural racism across the world (Burnett et al., 2020). Many educational scholars (Amsler & Facer, 2017; Brown, 2012; Mills, 2018; Trilling & Fadel, 2009) have proposed radical change in current schooling models. They argue that schooling systems have not changed at the rate needed to respond to a rapidly changing world (Brown, 2012; Sarason, 1996) and that both policy-led and school-led change “is hard, time-consuming and frequently fails to occur” (Woolner, Thomas, & Tiplady, 2018, p. 234).
Thought leaders from across the world have identified current policy that they believe is now obsolete, and new ideas that should be developed to offer a strengths-based focus to the potential of education and schooling. This includes challenging ingrained inequalities, with researchers such as Mirza (2006) arguing that challenging the inherent inequalities within current models of schooling can lead to the realisation of “genuine citizenship” for those presently disadvantaged. Steinberg (2014) has noted that current approaches are too focused on “preventing or treating problems, rather than on optimizing healthy development… we cannot afford to squander this second opportunity to help young people be happier, healthier and more successful” (p. 217). Similarly, Zhao has argued against seeing the difference between children and young people as ‘gaps’, and instead, promotes the concept that education should focus on developing the talents of individual students. Another example relates to developing a collaborative professional culture, illustrated by Hargreaves (2000), who identified a need to focus on building the profession as the preferred response to increasing complexity in society and schools.
The case for obsolescence
Drucker (2007) argued that for the change leader of the 21st century, “the first policy – and the foundation for all the others – is to abandon yesterday” (p. 63). He argued that it makes no sense to focus resources to maintain past aspects that no longer contribute to performance. We need to consider where obsolescence can be achieved to remove practices and policies from the past that are no longer valued, but remain in place because they have existed for many years. Whilst the term obsolescence is more generally used in relation to military equipment, technology and manufacturing (Bartels, Ermel, Sandborn, & Pecht, 2012) it can also be applied to the management of complex systems (Bartels et al., 2012). Although much of the literature has investigated how to ameliorate the problem of obsolescence, our aim is to explore the concept of obsolescence in order to better identify aspects of current schooling that would improve future schooling scenarios if they were removed.
Challenges facing educational leaders include how to achieve substantive change in schooling design when the public has a sense of what schools should “look like” which is difficult to undo (Trilling & Fadel, 2009), and that populations who have been advantaged (socially, culturally, historically, politically and economically) by the current system are less likely to seek change (Amsler & Facer, 2017; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009; Trilling & Fadel, 2009). In addition, the lack of coherence across the various levels of the “system” makes it difficult to create alignment about the direction forward (Elmore, 2016). There has been a general misdirection of policy towards seeking short-term gains as an “educational system” that spreads “best practices”, rather than investing in cultural change that might be “divergent”, “contextual” and more of a ”learning system” (Elmore, 2016, p. 534). Authentic reform requires consideration of many forces such as technology (Fullan & Donnelly, 2013; Phillips, 2019) as well as pedagogy and change knowledge (Fullan & Donnelly, 2013). The current education and schooling landscape is impacted on by globalization (Lee & Gopinathan, 2018), post-modern thinking (Hargreaves, 2000), an increased need for life-long learning (Steinberg, 2014), and the growing impact of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies (Phillips, 2019; Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
Using Foresight and Backcasting as a catalyst for change
Future focused approaches, such as foresight, extend the traditional approaches of organisational planning using hindsight and insight. Governments and inter-government organisations (Dreyer & Stang, 2013; Jenssen, 2010; Miller, 2018; Schmidt, 2015; UNDP, 2018), as well as business (Hartmann & Stillings, 2015), are increasingly developing future based planning that can respond to a rapidly changing world (Hartmann & Stillings, 2015; Jenssen, 2010; Schmidt, 2015). Foresight is linked to development of a knowledge economy (Horton, 1999) and innovation (Horton, 1999; Miles, 2012). Foresight approaches move decision making beyond short-term election cycle thinking by governments to more coherent whole of government approaches (Dreyer & Stang, 2013; Jenssen, 2010; Miles, 2012) that are more inclusive and focus on “governance” rather than “government” (Cagnin, Loveridge, & Saritas, 2011, p. 281).
As part of a foresight approach we can peer “’from’ or ‘into’ the future’” (UNDP, 2018, p. 20). In this paper, we utilise the former approach, referred to as “backcasting” (Musse, Homrich, de Mello, & Carvalho, 2018; UNDP, 2018), which “emphasises developing preferred futures and working backwards from that to identify the pathway” (Hines, Schutte, & Romero, 2019, p. 3) for action. As concepts about a preferred future are developed they can influence actions in the present towards the preferred future.
Backcasting supports consideration of problems which are complex (Bibri, 2018; Musse et al., 2018). Bibri (2018) has explained how backcasting supports the creation of desirable futures that can achieve generational change:
… backcasting is not concerned with predicting the future; rather, it is a strategic problem-solving framework, in the quest for the answer to how to reach specified outcomes in the future. This involves finding ways of linking goals that may lie more than a generation in the future to a set of steps performed now and designed to achieve that end… In backcasting, one envisions a desirable future endpoint and then works backward to determine what programs would be required to attain that specified future or to construct a plausible causal chain leading from here to there. (pp. 10-11)
We posit that the focus on creating preferred futures through backcasting provides an opportunity to reduce the influence of schooling’s history as a catalyst for new ways of thinking about future models of schooling.
What if compulsory schooling was a 21st century invention?
In this paper we bring together our findings from a broader futures project examining the counterfactual research question, “what if compulsory schooling was a 21st century invention”. We share findings from an expert panel that responded to our research question using a modified Delphi process. Firstly, we present a framework of Future School Elements (FSE) based on a set of agreed consensus statements similar to a classic Delphi (Aichholzer, 2009) approach. Secondly, we present a set of scenarios that describe preferred futures for schooling through a novel extra modified round that was added to the Delphi process.
Through our research, we have developed a framework of 29 Future School Elements (FSE) and five scenarios, and in this paper we examine how futures methodologies can be utilised to create new models of schooling by combining the framework and scenarios. We combine the framework and scenarios to discuss four areas of schooling through a backcasting lens. The four areas of schooling that are discussed are (a) the purpose of schooling, (b) the role of teacher and learner, (c) physical design, and (d) system of schooling. Although backcasting has the potential to step out a set of actions towards a singular preferred future we have chosen instead to focus on sharing a set of alternative, preferred futures for each of the four areas. The preferred futures provide a starting point for different groups to apply the combine knowledge from an expert panel as part of the backcasting process, in ways that would lead to multiple variations.
Rather than the industrial approach to policy setting of the past, we posit the need for more contemporary policy decision making approaches that value context (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2011; Elmore, 2016), and seek more pluralistic (Ball et al., 2011; Elmore, 2016) options based around an understanding of schools and educational systems as complex adaptive systems (Joksimović & Manić, 2018; van der Steen, van Twist, Fenger, & Le Cointre, 2013). This is encapsulated in the metaphor offered by Ansell, Trondal, and Øgård (2017) suggesting the need to adopt a “jazz orchestra” (p. 295) mindset, which indicates more adaptive, flexible improvisation compared with a belief that there are a set number of futures (responses) to choose from that is more aligned to thinking like a “chess champion” (Ansell et al., 2017, p. 295).
Methodology
We used a counterfactual (Jenssen, 2010) research question, “What if compulsory schooling was a 21st century invention?” As part of a review of the literature, we distilled four broad aspects of compulsory schooling to frame our exploration of the research question. These were (a) purpose of schooling (b) role of teacher and learner (c) physical design of schooling, and (d) system design.
To examine our research question, we adopted a modified Delphi process to collect consensus statements in Round Three as well as to support the creation of scenarios in Round Four. The Delphi technique is useful to investigate other future-oriented questions (Aichholzer, 2009; Scapolo & Miles, 2006) and resolve complex problems (Landeta & Barrutia, 2011; Scapolo & Miles, 2006). The Delphi methodology is an iterative process (Geist, 2010; Landeta & Barrutia, 2011) that collects feedback from experts (Aichholzer, 2009). The main features are that experts are anonymous to other participants, there is controlled feedback from the researcher back to the participants during each round, and results are collected in order to provide a statistical group response (Geist, 2010; Landeta & Barrutia, 2011).
Delphi processes include qualitative and quantitative methods (Radeljak Kaufmann, 2016; Tapio, Paloniemi, Varho, & Vinnari, 2011) to develop a version of scenario building (Radeljak Kaufmann, 2016; Tapio et al., 2011). One advantage of using Delphi approaches to support scenario building is increased sensitivity in data analysis to avoid oversimplification in developing the scenarios (Tapio, 2003). Radeljak Kaufmann (2016) shared examples of scenario building that occurs prior to the Delphi process. In other examples, such as “disaggregative policy Delphi” (Tapio, 2003) used cluster analysis (Melander, 2018; Tapio, 2003) as part of its analytical strategy to develop scenarios at the end of the process. In each of the cases the construction of the scenarios was completed by the researchers as part of the analytical process rather than the research participants.
Fuller (2017) provides a definition of the development of scenarios within an anticipatory model as “a strategic planning process that attempts to explore alternative states of being, separated from the present by some temporal movement and from each other alternative by a turn in logic or reasoning” (p. 41). Ramírez and Wilkinson (2016) describe scenario building as a strategic conversation where a situation can be “reframed” (p. 10) to identify new possibilities that can then lead to “reperception” (p. 10) which is the opportunity for people to consider what different options might feel like in order to ascertain opportunities for action.
Effective scenario building involves developing a smaller number of alternatives (Ramírez & Wilkinson, 2016) so they are memorable for those that will engage with them (Ramírez & Wilkinson, 2016) in order to actively impact of the future by considering elements that can lead to change through decision making (Fuller, 2017; Ramírez & Wilkinson, 2016). Ramírez and Wilkinson (2016) quoted Singaporean Ambassador Chuan Leong’s analogy of scenarios as “bamboo scaffolding”:
… temporary, resilient, and dispensable reframing… Bamboo is flexible; and scaffolding can be put up to support a structure being built for as long as needed, and then taken down once the building (a new conceptual frame, a new conversation) is standing on its own” (p. 162)
Scenarios can include “a description of a possible, probable, desirable or undesirable future” (Melander, 2018, p. 68).
Expert panel
The expert panel included academics, practitioners and policy makers. As well as expertise from within schools, it covered expertise in areas distilled from the literature such as physical design, policy making, Indigenous ways of knowing, equity, assessment and pedagogy. The criteria for inclusion included seeking a cross range of participants in terms of gender, geographical and cultural backgrounds.
Four hundred and twenty invitations were emailed out to experts across the world, and forty-five participants (53.3% female, 46.7% male) accepted involvement in the project by completing round one. Twenty-six participants (57.8%) were academics working in a university, college or educational institute. This included ten professors (three were Professor Emeritus or equivalent) and four people who led or worked in senior leadership positions at educational institutes. Eight participants (17.8%) worked in educational policy. This included two Ministers of Education, two people working in senior Ministry positions, and four Directors of schools. Eleven participants (24.4%) were educational practitioners, and this included six school leaders. All teachers had over ten years teaching experience, with almost all having experience characterised by being invited to present to groups of teachers outside of their school.
Figure 1 shows the spread of current base countries for participants whilst acknowledging that many of the academics work across a number of countries and others have moved from the country they grew up in as part of their work.
Figure 1. Map of base countries for participants in Expert Panel. Map data @2020 Google
Data collection
We conducted four Delphi rounds. In the first round, we asked the expert panel to consider “how schooling might be different” in relation to the purpose of schooling, the role of teacher and learner, physical design of a school, and systems of schooling. We also asked what would be lost if schooling was invented in the 21st century, and to consider the side effects (Zhao, 2018) of the research question. During the first round, each participant had the opportunity to provide up to five responses for the areas they had selected. The responses from the first round were distilled by the researcher into 215 statements and shared with the participants in the second round. For each statement, participants had the opportunity to provide a response using a 9-point Likert scale to identify levels of desirability/ impact and benefits for equity. Participants also used a 3-point scale to rate the level of deviation for “how things could be different”.
In our data collection, it was pre-determined that responses from the expert panel would be analysed to identify where consensus was reached. The measure for defining consensus on the 9-point Likert scales was set a priori using the “Rand criteria… No more than two ratings outside of a three-point range including the median. Valid if rated as 7+ without disagreement” (Diamond et al., 2014, p. 405).
In Round Four of our Delphi, we sought a modified objective by providing an opportunity for participants to create one or more scenarios to describe their preferred future, by using the range of statements developed in the earlier rounds. Participants had access to all 215 statements from Rounds Two and Three to generate their scenario and indicated the elements they would/would not include.
Limitations
Foresight approaches cannot predict the future (Horton, 1999). However, as possible models for the future are created, they can influence decisions we make in the present as we seek our desired futures. Just as organising lines of inquiry on the basis of backcasting may influence how questions about the present are framed, the use of experts as part of the modified Delphi process can be constrained by their thinking (Jenssen, 2010), which makes ideas and scenarios less radical but also more likely to be achieved. Even though we asked the panel to consider what the future could be, they do so from a position of expertise in present and past forms of schooling. Some researchers have raised concerns about the lack of investigation into the Delphi methodology, including risk of poor reliability and validity (Tapio, 2003), and clearly a different panel might come up with different results.
During the expert panel process, consensus was achieved around 23 consensus statements (eight FSE) about ideas from current or past schooling models that should remain in any future models of schooling. In this paper, we focus only on the elements required for change.
Findings and Discussion
The findings were derived from rounds three and four of the modified Delphi.
In Round Three, 70 consensus statements preferred by the expert panel were distilled by the researchers into 29 FSE. The 70 statements include 22 statements (10.2%) where consensus was reached for both equity and impact, 48 statements (22.3%) where consensus was reached for impact, and 45 statements (20.9%) where consensus was reached for equity. Table 1 provides one example of the Three Pillar Framework FSE and linked consensus statements.
TABLE 1. Example of Future School Elements and Consensus Statements for the role of the teacher and learner
| FSE3 – Develop the multiple roles of teacher to create a better world
Consensus for both impact and equity: “The teacher would be more focussed on teaching skills to create a better world. The teacher would need to know more than just the curriculum: be a researcher, and searcher for possibilities. They need to be willing to learn alongside their learners and model appropriate ways of learning in order to solve authentic problems.” “Expert teachers / facilitators trusted to assist individual students by developing an individual curriculum suited to the needs of that child”. |
| FSE7 – Teacher as “go-between for student growth and development”
Consensus for both impact and equity: “The role of the teacher would be considered with greater reference to making areas of study contextually relevant and connected to community and industry needs.” |
| FSE8 – Teacher as safety net
Consensus for either impact or equity: “Teachers responsible for supporting low-performing students and students who are generally less interested in learning.” “Teacher intervention – sometimes learners need direction more than guidance.” |
| FSE9 – Teacher as broker for learning
Consensus for both impact and equity: “Outcomes are specific, process and pathways are not. Increased autonomy of the learner leading to variety, opportunity and flexibility. The teacher could become more of a ‘broker for learning’ where students use teachers as a resource to facilitate their learning.” |
| FSE10 – Learner chooses, teacher guides
Consensus for both impact and equity: “Learner chooses, teacher guides.” |
| FSE11 – Formative assessment for teacher and student use
Consensus for both impact and equity: “Role of learner with much more responsibility for own learning when appropriate – perhaps through more gamified approaches to formative assessment.” |
| FSE18 – Transformed timetable
Consensus for equity: “The rigid time-table that controls learning and engagement by a bell could be completely transformed. School could be open 24 hours a day, 365 days a week. This may mean different security arrangements.” |
The 29 FSE were organised using an emergent approach into a three pillar framework of pedagogy, policy and structure (Table 2).
TABLE 2. The Three Pillar Framework
| Advice about pedagogy | Advice about structure | Advice about policy |
| FSE4 – Keep knowing students
|
FSE5 – Keep social trust in schooling
FSE6 – Keep a place for co-curricular & extracurricular activities FSE12 – Keep on-site intensification of learning activities and resources |
FSE19 – Keep quality education as a human right
FSE20 – Keep teaching as a valued vocation with autonomy FSE24 – Keep students connected with peers FSE25 – Keep valuing learning for its own sake |
| FSE3 – Develop the multiple roles of teacher to create a better world
FSE7 – Teacher as “go-between for student growth and development” FSE8 – Teacher as safety net FSE9 – Teacher as broker for learning FSE10 – Learner chooses, teacher guides FSE11 – Formative assessment for teacher and student use FSE15 – Two way village |
FSE13 – Eco & physically comfortable design
FSE16 – Physical design for whole child growth FSE17 – Inclusive physical design FSE18 – Transformed timetable FSE29 – Global collaboration |
FSE1 – Reframe purpose of schooling to support democracy, ethics and redress exclusion
FSE2 – Reframe purpose of schooling to learn for life FSE14 – Foresight partnership for physical design FSE21 – Resourcing to value all kids equally FSE22 – Multiple pathways to qualifications FSE23 – Alternate methods of assessing quality work FSE26 – A less hierarchical system, more learner voice FSE27 – Greater response to local communities FSE28 – Community relationships for learning |
In Round Four, 17 participant designed scenarios which were distilled by the researchers into five scenarios indicating preferred options for future models of schooling (Table 3).
TABLE 3. Five scenarios
| Researcher Distilled Scenario Themes | Participant Scenario Headings |
| Scenario 1:
Purpose and Values |
Mind, body and soul
Global activists: Empowered to guide their own learning and their place in the world Values will provide the architecture Schooling to optimise learning and wellbeing for every child |
| Scenario 2:
Equity and Excellence |
Excellence and equity are possible!
A compulsory education system focused on equity and fairness Aspiring towards access for educational excellence for everybody Equality of educational outcomes |
| Scenario 3:
Teacher and Learner |
Learning at the point of instructional need
Learning how to learn Learning to C.R.E.A.T.E. (collaborate, reflect, engage, act, think, be entrepreneurial) Moving towards a ‘school for one’ Evolution of education – skills/ capabilities determining assessment and curriculum options |
| Scenario 4:
Learning Precinct |
Learning precinct – school as one element of a town centre or precinct |
| Scenario 5:
Curious Learner |
The core of new compulsory education
Big changes in compulsory education The ideal model of compulsory education |
For each of the five scenarios developed, a vignette (Stravakou & Lozgka, 2018) was written by the researchers to summarise the scenario from a student viewpoint. Table 4 provides one example of a vignette.
TABLE 4. Example scenario with vignette
| Scenario Two – Equity and Excellence
A vignette that describes how a student might experience the Equity and Excellence scenario: My schooling is very different experience as a first nation’s student to that of my parents (or so they tell me). Understandings about indigenous ways of knowing are a seamless part of experiencing a holistic education that sees personal and cultural growth as a foundation to academic knowledge. All students’ backgrounds are embraced and harnessed as a strength to learning. Learning about different cultures, including language acquisition, is a feature of the curriculum and our school hosts or participates in many shared local community events as well as opportunities to connect globally with other schools and communities. My friend who struggles at school has a tailored program with teachers working to build their knowledge and skills as well as growing their interest in opportunities at school and for post school. Schooling is seen as a connecting force for communities and a strong democracy as well as a human right that governments are responsible for social and economic good. My family and I are currently part of the community voice team at our school that contributes to school, local community and education system sharing of knowledge and development of priorities. I am proud of my heritage and of who I am as a young adult going forward in my learning and life. In the Equity and Excellence scenario, the headings from the four individual participant scenarios focused on how equity could be linked to fairness, equality and excellence. Overall, there were nine statements which all scenarios included. The focus of the statements was on ideas that could be different for the purpose of compulsory schooling (three out of nine statements) and ideas that could be different about the system of schooling (two out of nine statements). The purpose of compulsory schooling would be based on current awareness of the importance of equity and the struggle to ensure all students be provided with equal educational opportunities, rather than naively assuming that everyone in the 21st Century has this opportunity. The purpose of compulsory schooling would pay greater attention to celebrating diversity, and not unintentionally marginalise minority groups or be colour blind to difference. The purpose of compulsory schooling should be preparation for a lifelong learning journey that will enable adaptability in the workforce or further study, integrated with communities and the values of the knowledge economy. The purpose of compulsory schooling would place more emphasis on interdisciplinary knowledge, global and cultural awareness and the importance of being multilingual. Education would remain a collective public responsibility and a basic human right. The system would have a greater focus on supporting democracy, characterised by shared core values in the school community. There would be less top-down management, agreement on basic essentials and the development of policies and support of practices based on evidence, rather than tradition and risk adversity. The role of teacher and learner would continue to value a focus on knowledge acquisition, particularly deep knowledge. Teachers would have specific responsibility for supporting low-performing students and students who are generally less interested in learning. |
The Appendix at the end of the article includes a link to the complete list of FSE and consensus statement and a description of the five participant developed scenarios.
In the remainder of this paper, we discuss how the consensus statements, FSE and scenarios can be connected to develop future models of schooling using backcasting as a specific futures approach.
Purpose of schooling
Preferred Future State – The Three Pillar Framework
The expert panel reached consensus on six statements regarding the purpose of schooling that have been summarised into two Future School Elements. The panel identified a desire to “Reframe purpose of schooling to support democracy, ethics and redress exclusion” (FSE1) and to “Reframe purpose of schooling to learn for life” (FSE2).
They suggested that the purpose of compulsory schooling should have as “its central mission as a democratic one: the challenge of living peacefully in plurality and difference and development of moral autonomy and focus on ethics.” Schooling would “celebrate diversity” whilst addressing “unintentional marginalisation” of minority groups, and “would be decolonised, anti-racist and anti-sexist”.
The panel proposed that the purpose of compulsory schooling should be reframed to focus on learning for life. This includes “learning how to learn (metacognition)”; “self -responsibility for learning (personal agency)”; and “optimise personal adaptive capacity and resilience”. These attributes would support workforce goals, allowing learners to be able to respond to the “contemporary and future world”, including being prepared for a “life-long learning journey”.
Preferred Futures for Backcasting
The five scenarios included pathways that can be actioned using backcasting to move between current and future states. In Scenario One this is achieved through developing deep learning opportunities across areas that include creativity, entrepreneurship and personal growth. Scenario Two offers a pathway which seeks to harness Indigenous ways of knowing, strong cultural focuses and multilingualism as the foundation for schooling. The pathway outlined in Scenario Three includes the allocation of funding to redress disadvantage and the use of projects and experts from the local community and/or globally. The pathway from Scenario Four includes opportunities to engage with schooling across the full life cycle, with teachers supporting the mapping out of tailored learning experiences inside and outside of school, which provide opportunity for reflections that can deepen learning and understandings about ways to effectively contribute to democracy. The pathway outlined in Scenario Five supports a learning journey that is based on critical thinking and developing a meaningful life that includes learning to change your mind and to lead a balanced life.
Role of teacher and learner
Preferred Future State –The Three Pillar Framework
The expert panel reached consensus on 20 statements regarding the role of the teacher and learner that have been summarised into seven Future School Elements. The panel outlined ways to “Develop the multiple roles of teacher to create a better world” (FSE3). This includes the “Teacher as ‘go-between for student growth and development” (FSE7) and “Teacher as broker for learning” (FSE9). As a result:
The teacher would be more focused on teaching skills to create a better world. The teacher would need to know more than just the curriculum: be a researcher, and searcher for possibilities. They need to be willing to learn alongside their learners and model appropriate ways of learning in order to solve authentic problems.
An effective teacher would be “recognised as fulfilling different, sometimes changing roles, sometimes at the same time (for example, mentor, content expert, pastoral leader, learning space designer, resource collector)”. Expert teachers would be “trusted to assist individual students by developing an individual curriculum suited to the needs of that child” and “with greater reference to making areas of study contextually relevant and connected to community and industry needs”. The teacher would also be able to support students to respond to 21st challenges, such as the “need to be able to manage distractions in more constant ways than learners of the pre-internet era… to be cognisant of the competing demands for their attention and be active in addressing the impact of competing demands on their learning.”
The expert panel also proposed that more opportunities should be provided for the learner to assume responsibility for the learning process, including the “Learner chooses, teacher guides” (FSE10). The role of the teacher becomes as “the go-between for student growth and development”, which allows learners to “take more responsibility for their own learning by initiating inquiry, searching for solutions using multiple sources.” As a result, “learning would empower students… learners would select and connect with multiple teachers for specific expertise… learning would respond to students’ needs with more choice over tasks by students”.
At the same time as broadening the role of teacher, the expert panel saw a clear role for “Teacher as safety net” (FSE8). This includes teachers being “responsible for supporting low-performing students and students who are generally less interested in learning” and acknowledging that “sometimes learners need direction more than guidance.”
Several specific changes to school and classroom practice were identified. A new curriculum focus at the systems level would provide more “interdisciplinary teaching approaches” whereby “syllabus is linked to the student interest/projects, rather than directing the activity… curriculum would become exploratory not prescriptive: problem centric not curriculum prescribed” (FSE10). “Formative assessment for teacher and student use” (FSE11) would expand the use of formative assessment for use by both teacher and student (FSE11), including through gamified approaches. A more radical idea from the expert panel would see exploration of a “transformed timetable” (FSE18) whereby “the rigid time-table that controls learning and engagement by a bell could be completely transformed… school could be open 24 hours a day, 365 days a week, with implications for security and other arrangements to be reconsidered”.
Preferred Futures for Backcasting
In Scenario One, the pathway describes opportunities for teachers to work alongside student teams and with other teachers who are working on similar projects with their students. The learner focuses on wellbeing and academic development, which includes a focus on discovering their individual potential and nurturing the passions they would like to cultivate. Scenario Two describes a pathway which embraces students’ background, heritage and culture as a strength in learning to cultivate learning and personal growth. At the same time, tailored programs offer support to students who struggle at school and who may need increased teacher led support. The pathway outlined in Scenario Three has a focus on a curriculum with equal focuses on literacy, numeracy, physical development, creativity, practical skills and the capacity to be adaptive and to interact successfully with other community members. Teachers hold various roles including offering subject expertise, or as mentor to support the mapping of learning experiences for students, which could take place within the school, local community or international context, or as a safety net providing more teacher led intervention and support for students who struggle with schooling.
The pathway outlined in Scenario Four is similar to Scenario Two. However, it includes a focus on reflecting on experiences to deepen learning. It also includes developing students’ curiosity around what they do not already know. The pathway outlined in Scenario Five utilises Socratic approaches to teaching and learning that build on student passions and develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Learning is ‘chunked’ with students working sometimes alone, sometimes online and sometimes with peers and adults. Capstone projects are the basis of end of stage assessment, which includes a series of connected assessment steps over the year and culminates in an exhibition of learning.
Physical design
Preferred Future State – The Three Pillar Framework
The expert panel reached consensus on 10 statements regarding the physical design of schools that have been summarised into four Future School Elements. The panel identified features for the physical design of schooling including being “Ecologically and physically comfortable” (FSE13) and “Inclusive physical design” (FSE17). Schools would be designed to reflect best practice to meet the “physical”, “emotional” and “learning” requirements of students. There is a “need to think about inclusion and diverse learners”, which should include the availability of “time-out spaces” and a “home base for students, especially with disability”. A feature of school design would be to promote “Physical design for whole child growth” (FSE16). School design would pay “more attention to environments providing opportunities for physical development of children” and “support the health of children by promoting physical activity, interaction with nature and other beneficial activities” including “places and devices for sport activities and outdoor games”.
The panel identified the “removal of isolated classrooms” which would lead to and be a response to “redesigned pedagogy”. They also envisioned the opportunity for a “Foresight partnership for physical design” (FSE14) that would embed “foresight facilitation and place visioning of the school regularly within the school community (staff, learners, community partners)”. The purpose would be to explore ways “to intentionally improve the school’s built environment and ecological sustainability” and to harness the school community as part of developing “a clear intention for their context – specific pedagogy of place – how local connections, cultures and characteristics of place are a resource for learning and sustainable living” and “the design of the school as a part of local community-educational environment including also the area around the school, roads and traffic maps to and from school buildings.”
Preferred Futures for Backcasting
In Scenario One, the pathway describes a focus on comfort, inclusive design and access to specialist facilities. There is also a strong connection to the natural environment and utilisation by the community as a hub. In Scenario Two the school is designed to host and participate in local community events, as well as connect globally with other schools and communities. The pathway in Scenario Three is similar to Scenario Two, but ensures that opportunities accessed within the local community and globally can be replicated within the school in some way for struggling students. The pathway in Scenario Four would include spaces for teachers to work with individual and small groups of students, as well as providing rich learning experiences. The pathway in Scenario Five would provide spaces for Socratic seminars which might typically be in circles. There would also be spaces that allow students to develop diverse, high quality capstone projects.
System of schooling
Preferred Future State – The Three Pillar Framework
The expert panel reached consensus on 13 statements regarding the system of schooling that have been summarised into eight Future School Elements. The panel identified the importance of the system of schooling addressing equity issues through funding to ensure “Resourcing to value all kids equally” (FSE21). This would involve redistribution of funding “to lessen equity disparities between schools” and providing “greater resources to schools with greater levels of disadvantage” with the policy aim to “allow for all kids to be equally valued with respect to resourcing.”
The panel outlined a system of schooling that takes advantage of both local and global opportunities. This includes “A less hierarchical system, more learner voice” (FSE26) as well as a “Greater response to local communities” (FSE27) and focus on harnessing “Community relationships for learning” (FSE28). They identified that systems would achieve “a less hierarchical structure” through “increased communication between decision makers and practitioners” and seeking “input and advice directly… via strategies such as community consultation”. The panel envisioned improved schooling systems being “developed with consideration of learner voice” and valuing “the importance of linking all the moving parts together to achieve enhanced impact”.
In order to be more responsive to local communities, “school systems should allow schools more freedom to respond to their local communities and lessen the high stakes, yet narrow, nature of accountability measures.” In order to harness opportunities to support learning by utilising community assets, “concepts like entrepreneurial ventures for students, links to community, mentorships and connections to universities would be valued and included as part of the student timetable and assessment schedule” and “the system would have stronger links to industry at a local and systemic level”. According to the panel, “a school invented today could make more use of parental involvement, input from local businesses, and be a central community hub for resources and gatherings” to “create that village that we so often refer to when we talk about raising children.” The “positive impact of globalisation” would also be harnessed through “Global collaboration” (FSE29) by “a sharing of good practice at the international level” and through the “use of technology to enable pairing of schools across borders”.
The system of schooling would consider ways to develop “Multiple pathways to qualifications” (FSE22) and “Alternate methods of assessing quality work” (FSE23). The panel envisioned “different pathways to exit qualifications with better articulation of options for students to gain qualifications and less stigmatising of ‘alternative’ pathways” which might lead to “qualifications that are more complex and ‘follow the student’, not determined so heavily by a single exam or task/ set of tasks.” They identified value in options that were competency based, including “measurement of the competencies and where students stand in relation to them would be clear” and where “students would not need to pass courses to earn a diploma, but instead demonstrate they have the competencies” and those who drop-out “could return at any time to earn a diploma by demonstrating competencies”. The panel also identified options “for adults to acquire qualifications for career aims so not by age or stage but by need” and the “ability of teachers/ schools to award micro certifications that are globally recognised and can allow students to construct qualifications, including what extracurricular activities are taken into account in learning process.”
Preferred Futures for Backcasting
Most of the scenarios focus on governments maintaining responsibility for the funding and operation of schooling for all students. Many of the scenarios also refer to utilising local and international opportunities, which would require new system-wide policies. Scenario Two provides a pathway where the system values provision of quality education as a human right that provides social and economic benefits; different families contribute to community voice teams in order to strengthen school and community achievement and to develop priorities.
Conclusion
Mills (2018) has argued that researchers need to think carefully about how educational research can challenge the concept that there is limited or no opportunity to develop alternative futures for our society, whilst examining offerings of utopias as both opportunities to achieve social justice or offerings that may actually lead to dystopias. If, within a month as a response to COVID-19, schools and universities across the world moved most teaching and learning to online platforms relatively seamlessly- although the quality in some cases may be less than ideal – there is enormous potential to develop alternative futures for schooling at this time.
The ideas agreed by the expert panel describe a preferred future for compulsory schooling that includes redressing exclusion and addressing equity. It provides an opportunity to unleash student talent as the first step, and then to provide a safety net of support for students and other standardisation that might be required. It opens up the roles of the teacher and learner far beyond the concept of one teacher to one classroom container full of students. It also strengthens the place of school within a community, whilst also opening up global opportunities.
Utilising foresight approaches to identify preferred futures provides us with a platform to backcast a pathway to that future from the present in a way that reduces the ability of the past to resist change. Seeking opportunities to achieve greater obsolescence is a counter-intuitive way of thinking, but one that can create more space for the future. Rather than seeking to dismiss all that is old, we have attempted to truly build on the current and past formulations of schooling in ways that honour the best new thinking and a very different world that already exists today. Rather than stepping out a single path to the future, we have shared a framework and scenarios developed by the expert panel that can open multiple pathways towards a preferred future, one which is contextual and recognises schooling as a complex adaptive system.
References
Aichholzer, G. (2009). The Delphi method: Eliciting experts’ knowledge in technology foresight. In A. Bogner, B. Littig, & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 252-274). London: Springer.
Amsler, S., & Facer, K. (2017). Contesting anticipatory regimes in education: exploring alternative educational orientations to the future. Futures, 94(November), 6-14. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.01.001
Ansell, C. K., Trondal, J., & Øgård, M. (2017). Governance in turbulent times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). How schools do policy : Policy enactments in secondary schools. Florence, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Bartels, B., Ermel, U., Sandborn, P., & Pecht, M. G. (2012). Strategies to the prediction, mitigation and management of product obsolescence (Vol. 87). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Bibri, S. E. (2018). Backcasting in futures studies: a synthesized scholarly and planning approach to strategic smart sustainable city development. European Journal of Futures Research(1), 1. doi:10.1186/s40309-018-0142-z
Brown, J. S. (2012). Learning in and for the 21st Century. Paper presented at the CJ Koh Professorial Lecture Series No. 4, Singapore. http://hdl.handle.net/10497/13633
Burnett, A., Moorley, C., Grant, J., Kahin, M., Sagoo, R., Rivers, E., . . . Darbyshire, P. (2020). Dismantling racism in education: In 2020, the year of the nurse & midwife, “it’s time.”. Nurse Education Today, 93, 104532-104532. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104532
Cagnin, C., Loveridge, D., & Saritas, O. (2011). FTA and equity: New approaches to governance. Futures, 43(3), 279-291. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2010.11.006
Diamond, I. R., Grant, R. C., Feldman, B. M., Pencharz, P. B., Ling, S. C., Moore, A. M., & Wales, P. W. (2014). Defining consensus: A systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 401-409. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002
Dreyer, I., & Stang, G. (2013). Foresight in governments–practices and trends around the world. In EUISS Yearbook of European Security (pp. 7-32). Paris: European Union Institute for Security Studies.
Drucker, P. F. (2007). Management challenges for the 21st century. Saint Louis: Routledge.
Elmore, R. (2016). ‘Getting to scale…’ it seemed like a good idea at the time. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 529-537. doi:10.1007/s10833-016-9290-8
Fullan, M., & Donnelly, K. (2013). Alive in the swamp: Assessing digital innovations in education. London: Nesta.
Fuller, T. (2017). Anxious relationships: The unmarked futures for post-normal scenarios in anticipatory systems. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 124, 41-50. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.07.045
Geist, M. R. (2010). Using the Delphi method to engage stakeholders: A comparison of two studies. Evaluation and program planning, 33(2), 147-154. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.06.006
Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four Ages of Professionalism and Professional Learning. Teachers & Teaching, 6(2).
Hargreaves, A. P., & Shirley, D. L. (2009). The fourth way: The inspiring future for educational change. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Hartmann, D., & Stillings, C. (2015). Using scenarios in multinational companies across geographic distances – a case from the chemical industry. Foresight, 17(5), 475-488. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/FS-11-2014-0076
Hines, A., Schutte, J., & Romero, M. (2019). Transition Scenarios via Backcasting. Journal of Futures Studies, 24(1), 1-14. doi:10.6531/JFS.201909_24(1).0001
Horton, A. (1999). A simple guide to successful foresight. Foresight, 1(1), 5-9. doi:http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1108/14636689910802052
Jenssen, S. (2010). Municipal visions: Reflexive futures between paradigm and practice. Futures, 42(4), 345-354. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.11.020
Joksimović, L., & Manić, S. (2018). Exploring Education and Education Reforms from the Complex Systems Point of View. Istraživanje Obrazovanja I Obrazovnih Reformi Sa Stanovišta Kompleksnih Sistema, 56(1), 1-15.
Landeta, J., & Barrutia, J. (2011). People consultation to construct the future: a Delphi application. International Journal of Forecasting, 27(1), 134-151. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijforecast.2010.04.001
Lee, M. H., & Gopinathan, S. (2018). Fostering Economic Competitiveness, National Identity and Social Equity Through Education Reforms: The Cases of Singapore and Hong Kong. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalisation and Education Reforms: Paradigms and Ideologies (pp. 181-203). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Melander, L. (2018). Scenario development in transport studies: Methodological considerations and reflections on delphi studies. Futures, 96, 68-78. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2017.11.007
Miles, I. (2012). Dynamic foresight evaluation. Foresight, 14(1), 69-81. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14636681211210378
Miller, R. (2018). Transforming the future: anticipation in the 21st century. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.
Mills, M. (2018). Educational research that has an impact: ‘Be realistic, demand the impossible’. Australian Educational Researcher (Springer Science & Business Media B.V.), 45(5), 569-583. doi:10.1007/s13384-018-0284-9
Mirza, H. S. (2006). ‘Race’, gender and educational desire. Race Ethnicity and education, 9(2), 137-158. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320600696623
Musse, J. d. O., Homrich, A. S., de Mello, R., & Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Applying backcasting and system dynamics towards sustainable development: The housing planning case for low-income citizens in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production, 193, 97-114. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.219
Phillips, F. (2019). 50 years of TF&SC. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143, 125-131. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.03.004
Radeljak Kaufmann, P. (2016). Integrating factor analysis and the Delphi method in scenario development: A case study of Dalmatia, Croatia. Applied Geography, 71, 56-68. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.04.007
Ramírez, R., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Strategic reframing. In: the oxford scenario planning approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sarason, S. B. (1996). Revisiting” The culture of the school and the problem of change”. New York: Teachers College Press.
Scapolo, F., & Miles, I. (2006). Eliciting experts’ knowledge: A comparison of two methods. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(6), 679-704. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.03.001
Schmidt, J. M. (2015). Policy, planning, intelligence and foresight in government organizations. Foresight, 17(5), 489-511. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/FS-12-2014-0081
Steinberg, L. (2014). Age of opportunity: Lessons from the new science of adolescence: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Stravakou, P. A., & Lozgka, E. C. (2018). Vignettes in qualitative educational research: Investigating Greek school principals’ values. Qualitative Report, 23(5), 1188-1207.
Tapio, P. (2003). Disaggregative policy Delphi. Using cluster analysis as a tool for systematic scenario formation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 70, 83-101. doi:10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00177-9
Tapio, P., Paloniemi, R., Varho, V., & Vinnari, M. (2011). The unholy marriage? Integrating qualitative and quantitative information in Delphi processes. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78, 1616-1628. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.016
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, California: John Wiley & Sons.
UNDP. (2018). Foresight Manual: Empowered Futures for the 2030 Agenda. Singapore: UNDP Global Centre for Public Service Excellence.
van der Steen, M., van Twist, M., Fenger, M., & Le Cointre, S. (2013). Complex causality in improving underperforming schools: a complex adaptive systems approach. Policy & Politics, 41(4), 551-567. doi:10.1332/030557312X655800
Woolner, P., Thomas, U., & Tiplady, L. (2018). Structural change from physical foundations: The role of the environment in enacting school change. Journal of Educational Change, 19(2), 223-242. doi:10.1007/s10833-018-9317-4
Zhao, Y. (2018). What Works May Hurt—Side Effects in Education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Zhao, Y. (2020). Silver Lining for Learning: Conversations about Reimagining Education in Times of Crisis. Retrieved from http://zhaolearning.com/2020/03/19/silver-lining-for-learning-conversations-about-reimagining-education-in-a-time-of-crisis/