Finding the way through: managing complexity in education policy

Context and the dangers of ‘policy borrowing’

Complexity is inherent in education at state levels. Aligning all the factors that make up an education system – curriculum, pedagogy, resources, funding, teacher training etc. – is a vast and often resistant exercise in cooperation and coordination. In such systems, perfection is never fully attained. To make matters more difficult for those seeking change, education systems can be by nature ‘resilient’, in the sense of ‘springing back into shape’ – the interconnections between all parts of the system harden through routine, compartmentalised thinking and entrenched attitudes, making it stubbornly resistant to modification.

So far, so familiar. But as recent research by Cambridge reveals, international insights can reshape the approach to managing complexity. The ultimate goal is to achieve ‘coherence’, (quoting Tim Oates, Group Director for Assessment Research and Development, Cambridge Assessment) ‘the national curriculum content, textbooks, teaching content, pedagogy, assessment and drivers and incentives are all aligned and reinforce one another.’ For when complex parts are aligned, then the whole system exhibits strength, focus and influence.

So how is this achieved? Crucially, Cambridge warns against the dangers of ‘policy borrowing’ – uncritically adopting the education strategies of high-performing jurisdictions, such as Finland or Singapore, as apparently proven maps for the way that things should be done. While there is much to learn, and indeed implement, from such success stories, international studies by Cambridge and other organisations show that something that worked well in one country can result in disappointment when used in another. Here the crunch factor is context – each country has a unique set of variables and system elements that prevent borrowed policies from clicking neatly into place like the last, satisfying, jigsaw piece. But what the high-performing educators do offer to others is a common process approach: the ‘careful management of the relations between elements of their systems’. Working out the rules behind that ‘careful management’ is, in effect, the golden key to developing education policy that takes charge of complexity. 

Control factors and explanatory factors

Education policy makers have to manage two groups of complexities: control factors and explanatory factors. Control factors are those which it is possible to influence through policy action. The Cambridge research work by Tim Oates plots 14 such factors: Curriculum, Assessment, Pedagogy, National Framework, Governance, Funding, Professional Development, Selection, Accountability, Allied Social Measures, Inspection, Institutional Structures, Institutional Development, and Information and Guidance. All these factors interplay with each other in the complexity model. The skill in steering them into a profitable route for change often comes from targeting specific groups of closely associated and influential control factors, and remodelling their alignment. Karen Kester points particularly to the work Cambridge has done with other strategic partners in developing Curriculum, Assessment and Pedagogy, always adapting to national context and broader control factors: 

‘In both Kazakhstan and Egypt, for example, we have developed teacher training programmes, including training for school principals, to support teachers with new teaching and learning approaches which align to the curriculum content and new forms of assessment. Our work has been different in each country because we have had to take into account the influences of the other control factors. Institutional structures, professional development frameworks and funding, for example, all affect how you can approach teacher training.’

Second, there are the explanatory factors. These affect policy, but are resistant to, or out of the scope of, policy action. Examples include the natural environment, global and domestic economy, political structure and culture. Despite largely sitting outside the control of education policy (although the ultimate output of education can reshape explanatory factors), we all understand that their effects on education can be profound, from the knock-on impact of oil or mineral prices on education budgets through to the effects of seasonal flooding on students’ ability to access schools. But even here, a coherent approach to managing complexity can bear fruit. The influence of explanatory factors can be built into a smart approach to control factors, making the education system less vulnerable to the ups and downs of the context.

Ultimately, the message is a positive and grounded one. And key point to note here is that ‘The challenges of improving education can feel unsurmountable’ and that ‘Context, complexity and resilience are all difficult to address.’ But ultimately, ‘deliberate coherence of control factors and the recognition of explanatory factors provide a grounding for effective strategies.’ By understanding the individual control factors and their points of pressure upon each other, and by putting in place a systematic process for ‘fine-tuning’ these factors, education ministries can indeed manage complexity, turning friction into a more positive and productive energy.