OCDE - Ecosystems approach to curriculum change

Please cite this paper as: OECDpublishing OECD (2026-05-14), “Ecosystems approach to curriculum

change”, OECD Education Policy Perspectives, No. 135, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/df1310fd-en OECD Education Policy Perspectives No. 135 Ecosystems approach to curriculum change OECD &) OECDOECD Education Policy Perspectives Ecosystems Approach to Curriculum Change = ‘ ,> , xfi’:fi .E:fl:{m:’l-mfl:ufln &t o -_f__hOECD Education Policy Perspectives Ecosystems Approach to Curriculum Change No 135 @) OECD2| Disclaimers This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law. Note by the Republic of Ttirkiye The information in this document with reference to “Cyprus” relates to the southern part of the Island. There is no single authority representing both Turkish and Greek Cypriot people on the Island. Ttirkiye recognises the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). Until a lasting and equitable solution is found within the context of the United Nations, Ttrkiye shall preserve its position concerning the “Cyprus issue”. Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Tirkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of

Note by all the European Union Member States of the OECD and the European Union The Republic of Cyprus is recognised by all members of the United Nations with the exception of Tirkiye. The information in this document relates to the area under the effective control of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. ttribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Intemational licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this license (https://creativecommons.ora/licenses/by/4.0/). Attribution — you must cite the work Translations —you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid. Adaptations —you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries. Third-party material — the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement. You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one: ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 2026Abstract An ecosystems approach means designing and implementing a curriculum using principles of quality curriculum design, while navigating and responding to the complex dynamics of a variety of concerned and influential parties, to the benefit of student outcomes. Curriculum reform is among the most politically and institutionally demanding forms of education change. This paper argues that reform outcomes depend not only on high-quality and responsible design in the interest of students, but also to a significant extent on the ecosystem in which they are interpreted and enacted. This ecosystem

the benefit of student outcomes. Curriculum reform is among the most politically and institutionally demanding forms of education change. This paper argues that reform outcomes depend not only on high-quality and responsible design in the interest of students, but also to a significant extent on the ecosystem in which they are interpreted and enacted. This ecosystem —aliving web of actors, relationships, routines, resources and infrastructures spanning multiple levels — is always present, whether or not it is acknowledged. Synthesising principles of effective curriculum design, country cases and insights from the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2040 initiative, the paper details ecosystem strategies that improve the odds of success: nonpartisan multi-stakeholder dialogue to build legitimacy; strengthening agency; using collective impact; and aligning pedagogies, assessment and teacher standards with curriculum intent. An ecosystems approach does not simplify reform, but it illuminates interdependencies and strengthens coherence, rigour, focus, trust and adaptive capacity, increasing the likelihood that curriculum designs translate into meaningful learning outcomes. ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 20264] Acknowledgements This Education Policy Perspectives Paper was prepared by the OECD Directorate for Education and Skills under the leadership of Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills, Lucia Dellagnelo, Deputy Director, and Edmund Misson, Head of Innovation and Measuring Progress Division. The publication was authored by Juan David Osses and Joshua Polchar. Preparation was co-ordinated by Alena Frid and Miho Taguma. Analytical and drafting contributions came from Esther Ferreira dos Santos, Hanna Eros, Aynur Gul Sahin, and Gourangi Kumar. Editorial support was provided by Cassandra Morley, and administrative support by Chloe Acas. The OECD extends its appreciation to representatives from participating countries and jurisdictions, as well as to stakeholders from the Education 2040 community, for their valuable engagement and insights. The Secretariat also acknowledges the contributions of external experts, including Ariel Tichnor-Wagner,

and administrative support by Chloe Acas. The OECD extends its appreciation to representatives from participating countries and jurisdictions, as well as to stakeholders from the Education 2040 community, for their valuable engagement and insights. The Secretariat also acknowledges the contributions of external experts, including Ariel Tichnor-Wagner, Jeremy Roschelle, Christian Ydesen, Rikke Duus and Mike Cooray, whose expertise and draft papers helped strengthen the analytical framework and policy relevance of the publication.

ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 2026Table of contents

Disclaimers Abstract Acknowledgements Executive summary 1 Introduction 1.1. Curriculum reform is challenging 1.2. Curriculum change requires informed and responsible design 1.3. Curriculum change happens in a complex ecosystem 1.4. Curriculum change implies a theory of change and a logic model 1.5. An ecosystems approach sets curriculum reform up for success 2 Curriculum ecosystem and transformational change 2.1. What is an ecosystems approach to curriculum change? 2.2. The ecosystem is part of a broader context shaping education 3 Engaging stakeholders for effective curriculum change 3.1. Who is involved? 3.2. Stakeholders play many different roles in curriculum transformation 3.3. Key strategies 4 Alignment challenges 4.1. What is an alignment challenge? 4.2. Aligning pedagogies with curriculum change Aligning assessment with curriculum change 4.3. Aligning teacher education with curriculum change 4.4. Aligning teacher standards and licensing with curriculum change 5 Lessons learnt and what remains unknown 5.1. Pointers for action 5.2. Further research and possible future developments ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 20266] 6 Conclusion 42 Annex A. Case Studies of Ecosystems in Action 44 References 52 FIGURES Figure 2.1. Multiple nested systems 19 Figure 4.1. Change in recent graduates’ sense of preparedness for classroom practice 34

6 Conclusion 42 Annex A. Case Studies of Ecosystems in Action 44 References 52 FIGURES Figure 2.1. Multiple nested systems 19 Figure 4.1. Change in recent graduates’ sense of preparedness for classroom practice 34 Figure 4.2. Content of teacher education and sense of preparedness for teaching 35 Figure 4.3. Coverage of teaching cross-curricular skills in teacher education and sense of preparedness to teach cross-curricular skills 36

ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 2026|7

Executive summary An ecosystems approach means designing and implementing a curriculum using principles of quality curriculum design, while also navigating and responding to the complex dynamics of a variety of concerned and influential parties, to the benefit of student outcomes. Curriculum reform is one of the most politically and institutionally demanding forms of education change. Across OECD systems, implementation often falls short—not because visions are weak or designs are flawed, but because reforms unfold in complex ecosystems where actors, incentives, routines and resources interact in unpredictable ways. As aims broaden (e.g. digital literacy, global competence, social-emotional skills), many systems report perceptions of overload and a time lag between future-ready aspirations and change on the ground. An ecosystems approach does not replace curriculum design and implementation; it aids effectiveness. The approach recognises that relationships across micro, meso, exo, macro and chrono levels continuously shape how curriculum is interpreted, negotiated, taught, experienced and evaluated, and that reform depends on alignment, trust and feedback across the system. Governments’ roles are shifting from central control toward stewardship: setting direction, equity goals and standards while enabling local flexibility. In parallel, curriculum objectives are evolving — transformative competencies and student agency are more explicit, values and culture are deliberately embedded, and well-being is treated as both an outcome and an enabler of learning. Policymakers pursuing curriculum change already have a theory of change, whether conscious or unconscious. Logic models make these theories concrete by mapping inputs, activities, outputs and

embedded, and well-being is treated as both an outcome and an enabler of learning. Policymakers pursuing curriculum change already have a theory of change, whether conscious or unconscious. Logic models make these theories concrete by mapping inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes, clarifying roles, surfacing assumptions and supporting monitoring and evaluation. Used well, they focus implementation and help explain how frameworks, guidance, professional learning, assessment and infrastructure are expected to improve teaching and learning. Stakeholder engagement and partnerships are core system functions. Legitimacy and durability depend on non-partisan dialogue, transparent framing and meaningful roles for teachers and students as co-creators. Collective impact offers one practical way to mobilise co-agency at scale. Public-private collaboration (e.g. with EdTech and publishers) can accelerate alignment when governed for public value, interoperability and ethical data use; misaligned incentives can pull practice toward what is easiest to implement or measure. Reforms increasingly imply pedagogical shifts towards student-centred, inquiry-oriented and competency-based approaches. Common frictions create misalignment: pedagogical lag (reversion to familiar routines when time/support are limited), assessment tension (high-stakes regimes rewarding recall despite competency goals) and structural silos (teacher education, professional learning and standards evolving apart from curriculum). Addressing these requires deliberate alignment of pedagogy, assessment, teacher education and standards, and materials and infrastructure. ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 20268| Pointers for action include: Framing reform as iterative and evidence-informed Engaging strategically to accelerate implementation Pairing inclusive processes with strong design discipline Embracing student and teacher agency Creating coherence so that signals across curriculum, assessment, teacher education, professional standards, materials and accountability reinforce one another. Further inquiry is needed on ecosystem impacts over time, how to bridge life stages (early years to higher/adult learning), how to balance demand-driven pressures, and how to convert broad participation into design quality at scale.

professional standards, materials and accountability reinforce one another. Further inquiry is needed on ecosystem impacts over time, how to bridge life stages (early years to higher/adult learning), how to balance demand-driven pressures, and how to convert broad participation into design quality at scale. Overall, curriculum change is both a design challenge and a systemic, relational, adaptive process; an ecosystems approach can improve the odds that ambitions translate into better learning, well-being and equity.

ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 202619

Introduction Curriculum reform is one of the most politically and institutionally demanding forms of education change. Across OECD systems, redesign and implementation efforts often fall short of expectations, not because of weak vision or technical design, but because of the complex dynamics of the ecosystems in which reforms are implemented. Pressures from societal, economic and technological change have expanded the demands on curricula (for example, to include components such as digital literacy, global competence and social-emotional skills), but adding new content has led to a perception of overloaded curricula without necessarily improving outcomes (OECD, 2020). Many countries have articulated future-ready visions, including digital, personalised, interdisciplinary and flexible curricula, but implementation challenges persist, resulting in a “time lag” in updating curricula to reflect future needs (OECD, 2020yz)). While 21st-century competencies like critical thinking are now common in curriculum goals, change on the ground is slower than desired. 1.1. Curriculum reform is challenging Policies and curricula are not self-implementing. Producing a well-designed curriculum document is only part of the challenge. Achieving desired outcomes depends also on how that curriculum is expected, perceived, negotiated, taught, experienced and evaluated. Governments undertaking curriculum design and implementation have a set of explicit and possibly implicit objectives, or the “intended curriculum”. The extent to which curriculum design and implementation result in achievement of those objectives can be considered a measure of effectiveness. Several governments that have conducted such activities in recent years went on to produce evaluations to determine how

Governments undertaking curriculum design and implementation have a set of explicit and possibly implicit objectives, or the “intended curriculum”. The extent to which curriculum design and implementation result in achievement of those objectives can be considered a measure of effectiveness. Several governments that have conducted such activities in recent years went on to produce evaluations to determine how effective curriculum design and implementation were in their systems. Reflecting on published evaluations and related documents measuring effectiveness, as well as feedback gathered through a survey of government officials participating in the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2040 project (OECD, 20243)), some important findings stand out. Some curriculum changes fall short of the desired effectiveness. It cannot be assumed that curriculum redesign alone will directly result in the intended impacts. This has been evident where curriculum reforms were not followed by gains in student achievement. For example, in Ireland, an evaluation of the secondary mathematics curriculum reform “Project Maths” found “limited effects on performance, with no significant differences” in student achievement in key areas shortly after implementation (Shiel, 2017y)). Another example is Sweden, which introduced multiple large-scale education reforms around 2011, including a new curriculum and grading system. A few years on, the Swedish National Agency for Education reported “a continuing decline in educational results” in core subjects (Skolverket, 2015;5)). Reforms can also fall short when curriculum intent does not translate into classroom practice, known as an “implementation gap” (OECD, 2024)). In such contexts, new priorities may be taught unevenly, or not at all. Some curriculum changes have unintended consequences. For example, Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence (CfE), implemented from 2010, is a national 3-18 curriculum emphasising holistic, futureECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 202610 oriented learning. An OECD-commissioned review (OECD, 20217) found CfE’s vision widely supported and its flexible design conducive to improving student learning. However, as the curriculum was being implemented, various factors such as the generation of a range of guidance and support material combined

oriented learning. An OECD-commissioned review (OECD, 20217) found CfE’s vision widely supported and its flexible design conducive to improving student learning. However, as the curriculum was being implemented, various factors such as the generation of a range of guidance and support material combined to create a perception of overload reported by practitioners (OECD, 20217). Some consequences of curriculum changes are challenging to evaluate. Many desired changes, such as what is taught in classrooms or impact on teacher workload, are difficult to measure reliably and accurately. Changes may take many years to produce effects. In addition, a vast array of other factors can affect the outcomes, including school resources, political changes, students’ lives outside of school (including social media use), and disruptions such as pandemics or disasters. 1.2. Curriculum change requires informed and responsible design Curriculum reform succeeds when design quality is explicit and accountable. Those responsible for curriculum design must anchor decisions in high-quality evidence about how students learn and keep students’ interests at the centre of every choice. In practice, this means applying clear design principles — such as focus, rigour, coherence and transferability — to avoid overload and ensure well-sequenced learning; ensuring alignment so that pedagogy, assessment, teacher education and resources reinforce the curriculum’s aims; and recognising student and teacher agency as enabling conditions for change, not just desired outcomes. Stakeholder engagement is essential for legitimacy and feasibility, but it is a means to improve the product and gain legitimacy, not an end in itself. Ultimately, quality is judged by the taught, experienced and attained curriculum — not only the written framework — with success evidenced in better learning, well-being and equity for students. 1.3. Curriculum change happens in a complex ecosystem Every education system operates as an ecosystem: a web of relationships between teachers, students, institutions, families, policymakers and societal actors. Whether or not policies acknowledge it, the ecosystem is constantly interacting, adapting and exerting influence on how curricula are interpreted and enacted. The curriculum ecosystem extends well beyond formal curriculum documents (the “expected

students, institutions, families, policymakers and societal actors. Whether or not policies acknowledge it, the ecosystem is constantly interacting, adapting and exerting influence on how curricula are interpreted and enacted. The curriculum ecosystem extends well beyond formal curriculum documents (the “expected curriculum”). It encompasses the actors, institutions, cultures, resources and routines that collectively shape what is taught, how it is taught, and how learning is valued. The principles underpinning this interpretation — inter-dependence, co-agency, coherence, and adaptability — frame curriculum not as a standalone artefact, but within a living system that evolves through interaction. Curriculum change and implementation processes are broader than any one organisation, policy or sector. This paper explores how curriculum change can be managed within a living system, not a linear technical process but a collective adaptation requiring alignment, trust and continuous feedback across all levels of the education system. Teachers, students, parents and other stakeholders are not passive recipients of curriculum change, but active agents in development and implementation. Top-down reforms can falter if they provoke apprehension or resistance, or if they sideline teacher professionalism. Students and teachers actively working together can facilitate the success of a curriculum redesign (OECD, 2020p). A shared vision of students as capable co-creators can serve as a platform to shorten reform timelines by motivating stakeholder commitment. Misalignments can lead to unintended consequences. Anticipatory thinking, or identifying where stakeholders might misinterpret or resist changes, is part of a whole-system strategy. ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 2026111 1.4. Curriculum change implies a theory of change and a logic model Ecosystems can be understood, navigated and harnessed to make curriculum reform more successful. This paper develops perspective and empowers the reader, wherever they fit into the education ecosystem, to exercise their agency and be part of positive change. Policymakers undertaking curriculum change already have a theory of change, whether they realise it or not. A theory of change articulates how and why a desired change is expected to happen

education ecosystem, to exercise their agency and be part of positive change. Policymakers undertaking curriculum change already have a theory of change, whether they realise it or not. A theory of change articulates how and why a desired change is expected to happen within a particular context; it connects intentions, actions and outcomes into a plausible pathway (Jones, 2022g)). In curriculum reform, this means making explicit how curriculum goals are expected to translate into changes in teaching, learning and student outcomes, rather than assuming that redesign alone will deliver results. Effective theories of change recognise that curriculum reform operates simultaneously at the individual and the broader contexts in which they work. Curriculum change therefore involves complex interactions between people, practices, institutional structures and enabling conditions, rather than a simple linear sequence from policy to classroom (Dudar, L., S. Scott and D.E. Scott, 2017g)). Evidence from education reform shows that efforts to implement change are more effective when they clarify what needs to happen across the system, not only what needs to change in classrooms. Synthesising research on school improvement, (Fullan, M., 2006(107) identifies core elements of effective theories, including building professional capacity, supporting learning in context, engaging multiple system levels, and sustaining effort over time. Theories of change are used to guide both the implementation and evaluation of curriculum reform. They have been applied to understand why specific curriculum initiatives succeed or falter (Jankvist, Gregersen and Lauridsen, 2021(11) and to analyse broader reform efforts aimed at improving student outcomes (Dudar, L., S. Scott and D.E. Scott, 2017g)); (Fullan, M., 2006(1q). Logic models provide a practical way to make theories of change more concrete. As with theories of change, policymakers have an implicit understanding of the relationships between inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes involved in curriculum change. Logic models are structured tools that map those things out explicitly, offering greater specificity than narrative theories of change. They take the form of visual diagrams that illustrate inputs, activities, resources, outputs and outcomes. In curriculum reform,

change, policymakers have an implicit understanding of the relationships between inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes involved in curriculum change. Logic models are structured tools that map those things out explicitly, offering greater specificity than narrative theories of change. They take the form of visual diagrams that illustrate inputs, activities, resources, outputs and outcomes. In curriculum reform, they can clarify how resources such as curriculum frameworks, professional learning, guidance materials and assessment changes are expected to contribute to outcomes. Logic models allow policymakers to articulate expected pathways of change; for example, how teacher professional learning is expected to influence classroom practice, and how those changes are expected to improve student learning over time (McLaughlin and Jordan, 2015(12); (Melle, 2016/13)). They also help identify indicators for monitoring progress and evaluating whether reforms are unfolding as intended (Chen et al., 2018141). Logic models can be particularly useful for stakeholders working together across different organisations, as it allows them to reach a consensus on shared aims and see how different stakeholders may be involved during different steps of the process (Fielden et al., 200715)). 1.5. An ecosystems approach sets curriculum reform up for success Taken together, developing a theory of change and a logic model sets up the process of curriculum change for greater success. The following sections of this paper examine what the theory of change and logic model should contain. This is the sixth and culminating paper in a series of publications on curriculum redesign and implementation. Together, they view curriculum design and implementation efforts as systemic, ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 202612) transformational and intentional. They argue for curriculum reform and implementation to be guided by a future-oriented vision, scoped to avoid overload and to focus on essential competencies, carried out with multi-level stakeholder engagement, and managed through strategies that build trust and capacity. Section 2 of this paper considers why an ecosystems approach matters and what is at stake. It situates curriculum reform within the direction of travel across OECD systems, drawing on the Learning Compass

multi-level stakeholder engagement, and managed through strategies that build trust and capacity. Section 2 of this paper considers why an ecosystems approach matters and what is at stake. It situates curriculum reform within the direction of travel across OECD systems, drawing on the Learning Compass schools (OECD, 2019+¢1) and Teaching Compass (OECD, 2025(17)). It maps how countries are responding to emerging demands and introduces the curriculum ecosystem as a framing device to support dialogue about complexity, trade-offs and shared responsibility, setting the foundation for a common language for curriculum change. Section 3 examines who is involved, focusing on engaging stakeholders as agents of change. It examines how curriculum change is shaped by the actions and interactions of multiple stakeholders across the system. It focuses on understanding the system: who does what, where influence sits, and how stakeholders can be engaged effectively. It also explores collective impact as a practical approach to coordinating action across actors and levels, highlighting how agency and co-agency can be developed to support sustained change. Section 4 is about how creating coherence across the system contributes to success. It addresses alignment challenges that commonly undermine curriculum reform, including between curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and teacher education. It examines how misalignment across these elements can dilute reform intent and identifies strategies that countries use to create reinforcing signals across the system, enabling curriculum change to translate into consistent practice. Section 5 turns to the “so-what”, offering lessons learnt and implications for policy and practice. It synthesises knowledge from across the paper, focusing on what has been shown to work, the barriers that persist, and how policymakers can address them. It distils practical insights about how an ecosystems approach to curriculum change can improve the alignment and effectiveness of curriculum change for better educational outcomes and better futures. This paper is supplemented by an Annex ‘Case Studies of Ecosystems in Action’, showcasing examples of effective mobilisations of multiple actors in curriculum reform contexts, as well as reflecting the stakeholder engagement process that supporting developing the content and analysis in the paper itself.

better educational outcomes and better futures. This paper is supplemented by an Annex ‘Case Studies of Ecosystems in Action’, showcasing examples of effective mobilisations of multiple actors in curriculum reform contexts, as well as reflecting the stakeholder engagement process that supporting developing the content and analysis in the paper itself. ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH TO CURRICULUM CHANGE © OECD 2026113 2 Curriculum ecosystem and t