systems education

What Is Systems Thinking in Education? Understanding Functions and Interactions in School Systems

Schools, districts, and classrooms are dynamic environments, full of energy and talent. Managing them calls for creative leadership and teaching approaches. Leaders in education need to anticipate how interconnected aspects of schools interact and affect each other.

Systems thinking in education offers a valuable approach for teachers working to build student engagement. The approach also helps leaders organize schools by harnessing their assets. American University’s EdD in Education Policy and Leadership trains educators to apply systems thinking and other effective leadership approaches to transforming schools for the better.

The Systems Thinking Model

An education system is composed of many interdependent components working together. How well these components operate and interact determines the system’s health.

Education systems at the national, state, and local levels consist of interacting parts, including:

• Laws and regulations
• Funding and funding policies
• Schools and administrative offices
• Teachers and staff
• Books, computers, and instructional materials
• Students, parents, and communities

Those seeking to improve an education system might choose to analyze the system’s parts. In this way, they can identify individual characteristics of each part and evaluate how it functions. While this approach can offer some benefits, it has limitations. It stops short of examining the relationships between the parts.

For example, limited school funding might result in high student-teacher ratios and inadequate supplies for students. These factors then lead to lower levels of student achievement which, in turn, puts further strain on teachers to help their students meet achievement benchmarks, and so on.

Responding to the growing demands placed on US education, solving problems such as achievement gaps, and dealing with shrinking school budgets are significant challenges. To face them effectively, educators need to value their system’s high level of interconnectivity and interdependency.

Applying Systems Thinking in Education

Systems thinking is a mindset that helps educators understand the complex education system in a more holistic way. Teachers and administrators using systems thinking might ask questions such as:

• How might cuts to arts education impact student performance in math?
• How can policies linking teacher salaries to standardized test scores affect a low-achieving school’s ability to attract accomplished teachers?

The goal is to consider several possible scenarios to find solutions to interconnected challenges.

Helping teachers solve classroom management issues, for instance, may involve addressing missing support structures in classrooms, such as a need for special education teachers, or adjusting student schedules to give time and space for children to unwind and release their energy.

As a mindset, systems thinking guides educators to deliver thought-provoking, engaging lessons. It encourages school leaders to coordinate districts and manage schools with improved efficiency. It can also replace piecemeal approaches to implementing policies with organized and systematic approaches that bring success across the board.

Specifically, educators can use systems thinking as a framework to structure classrooms and deliver instruction, while school and district leaders can apply it to their management and organizational styles. Additionally, administrators can use systems thinking as an approach to restructuring educational systems or schools.

Systems Thinking in the Classroom

Systems thinking can be a powerful classroom tool, giving students a participatory role in the learning process. By viewing teaching through a systems thinking lens, educators can help students recognize how seemingly disparate systems interact, identifying meaningful connections in the world around them. This not only deepens students’ understanding of specific subjects, but also strengthens their critical thinking abilities.

For example, teachers at Orange Grove Middle School in Tucson, Arizona, used a systems thinking approach to develop a project that strengthened their students’ abilities to analyze and problem solve. They tasked students with developing plans for a new national park that met specific design requirements: parks needed to be attractive to users, inflict limited environmental harm, and respect an Indian burial ground on the chartered land.

During the process of developing their designs, students discovered connections between the social, ecological, and economic components of the project.

Leadership and Systems Thinking

Systems thinking in education empowers education leaders to align school initiatives, improve instruction, increase efficiency, eliminate waste, and strengthen student outcomes.

For example, by closely monitoring student data, administrators can adjust budgets to allow for the purchase of the instructional materials they need most.

A systems thinking approach lets administrators build systems that do the following:

• Recognize and adapt to changes (technological advances, policy reforms), coordinating with other parts of the system fluidly
• Include mechanisms that allow for self-reflection and self-correction
• Process information quickly and make it available to all parts of the system
• Distinguish between situations that need adjustments and those that need overhauls

Discover How an EdD in Education Policy and Leadership Prepares Education Leaders to Excel

Building collaborative cultures in districts and schools calls for a holistic, innovative approach. Systems thinking in education allows education leaders to not only recognize the relationships between the different components of a school system but also use them to solve problems.

Explore how American University’s EdD in Education Policy and Leadership cultivates the knowledge and expertise leaders in education need to confront obstacles and transform schools.

The Role of Educational Leadership in Forming a School and Community Partnership

Path to Becoming a School District Administrator

5 Effective Principal Leadership Styles

Getting Smart, “Why School System Leaders Need to Be Systems Thinkers”

Journal of School Leadership , “Sources of Systems Thinking in School Leadership”

The Learning Counsel, “What Is Systems Thinking in Education?”

Medium, “How to Practice Systems Thinking in the Classroom”

Systems Thinker, “Revitalizing the Schools: A Systems Thinking Approach”

Systems Thinker, “Systems Thinking: What, Why, When, Where, and How?”

Request Information

We must embed systems thinking in education. Here’s how

Helping students develop systems thinking could transform education. Image:  Photo by CX Insight on Unsplash

.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo{-webkit-transition:all 0.15s ease-out;transition:all 0.15s ease-out;cursor:pointer;-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;outline:none;color:inherit;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:hover,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-hover]{-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;}.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo:focus,.chakra .wef-1c7l3mo[data-focus]{box-shadow:0 0 0 3px rgba(168,203,251,0.5);} Breanne Pitt

Abhinav chugh.

.chakra .wef-9dduvl{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-9dduvl{font-size:1.125rem;}} Explore and monitor how .chakra .wef-15eoq1r{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-size:1.25rem;color:#F7DB5E;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-15eoq1r{font-size:1.125rem;}} Education is affecting economies, industries and global issues

.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;color:#2846F8;font-size:1.25rem;}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-1nk5u5d{font-size:1.125rem;}} Get involved with our crowdsourced digital platform to deliver impact at scale

Stay up to date:.

• To ensure the next generation of decision-makers can tackle tomorrow’s global challenges, we must embed systems thinking into the education system.
• To do this, in collaboration with Trinity College Dublin, the World Economic Forum deployed its Strategic Intelligence platform at a variety of education institutions.
• The recommendations from the pilot could help reignite imagination, creativity and innovation in the classroom, making learning more enjoyable and fulfilling for students.

In today's rapidly evolving world, it is increasingly clear that traditional educational models alone are no longer sufficient to meet the demands of a dynamic global society characterized by accelerating complexity. The integration of interactive digital learning tools holds the key to revolutionizing education and empowering learners of all backgrounds. We live in a time when having a systems perspective on the world around us has never been more important.

Have you read?

Innovative learning solutions to navigate complexity: adapting systems thinking to future classrooms.

For example, taking effective action to address the challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, energy security, and inequality requires an in-depth understanding of the patterns, relationships, interdependencies and trade-offs between them. Approaching these problems from this holistic perspective will generate the kind of sophisticated analysis and understanding that is required, especially in a world increasingly overloaded with information, both real and false.

The World Economic Forum collaborated with Trinity College Dublin to explore how we might go about embedding those necessary systems thinking mindsets into all stages of the education system . The outcome was the development of innovative and practical teaching and learning practices as well as an understanding of changing demands of learners with the onset of more intelligent information and communications systems.

The classroom of the future

Past efforts at educational reform have been largely reactive – always playing catch-up rather than being future-ready. The Fourth Industrial Revolution is only accelerating the pace of change, with the evolution of interconnected digital technologies, a skills-oriented workforce and complex value-creation systems.

The need for educational reform arises when an existing system fails to meet the changing demands of society and learners. However, so far, reforms have often tended to focus on short-term fixes rather than future-proofing the system. To create a more adaptable, flexible and innovative education system, there needs to be a shift from traditional, rigid approaches to more dynamic and responsive ones that can account for the complexities of learning, teaching and a rapidly changing world.

The World Economic Forum was the first to draw the world’s attention to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the current period of unprecedented change driven by rapid technological advances. Policies, norms and regulations have not been able to keep up with the pace of innovation, creating a growing need to fill this gap.

The Forum established the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network in 2017 to ensure that new and emerging technologies will help—not harm—humanity in the future. Headquartered in San Francisco, the network launched centres in China, India and Japan in 2018 and is rapidly establishing locally-run Affiliate Centres in many countries around the world.

The global network is working closely with partners from government, business, academia and civil society to co-design and pilot agile frameworks for governing new and emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) , autonomous vehicles , blockchain , data policy , digital trade , drones , internet of things (IoT) , precision medicine and environmental innovations .

Learn more about the groundbreaking work that the Centre for the Fourth Industrial Revolution Network is doing to prepare us for the future.

Want to help us shape the Fourth Industrial Revolution? Contact us to find out how you can become a member or partner.

We envisage a classroom of the future with a variety of digital tools that can facilitate the systems thinking approach, but for the purpose of our pilot, we deployed the World Economic Forum’s Strategic Intelligence platform at a variety of education institutions globally.

Strategic Intelligence originated from the Forum’s engagement with universities, experts and thought leaders, and its commitment to addressing global challenges through multistakeholder collaboration. The initiative emerged from the Forum’s network of Global Agenda Councils, which brought together more than 1,000 thought leaders from academia, government, international organizations, business and civil society, grouped in expertise-based thematic councils.

To scale this engagement and provide continuous access to the collective intelligence of this broad network of contributors, a dedicated platform and methodology were developed to analyse and address the interconnected global challenges that were at the heart of this network. In the realm of education, this provided several benefits:

Embrace change and adapt to the future

The advent of digital technologies has disrupted various industries, and education is no exception. We find ourselves at a crucial juncture where we must recognize the urgency to embrace change and harness the immense potential of digital learning tools. These tools not only augment traditional pedagogical methods but also provide unparalleled opportunities for personalized learning, collaboration, and accessibility on a global scale.

Personalize learning to empower students

One of the most significant advantages of digital learning tools is their ability to personalize the learning experience for everyone. By leveraging artificial intelligence, adaptive algorithms and data analytics, these tools can tailor educational content to diverse learning styles, abilities, and pace. This customization empowers students to take ownership of their learning journey, fostering a deeper understanding and long-term retention of knowledge.

Expand access and overcome barriers

Education should be a fundamental right, accessible to all, regardless of geographical location, socioeconomic status or physical abilities. Digital learning tools like Strategic Intelligence break down the barriers of traditional classrooms, enabling students worldwide to access quality education remotely. Through online platforms, virtual classrooms and interactive multimedia resources, education becomes borderless, offering equal opportunities for learners in both urban centres and remote communities.

Foster collaboration and lifelong learning

Digital learning tools transcend the boundaries of physical classrooms, fostering collaboration among students, educators and experts from diverse backgrounds. Online forums, video conferencing and interactive learning environments facilitate peer-to-peer engagement, collective problem-solving and the exchange of ideas. Moreover, these tools encourage lifelong learning by providing access to a vast repository of knowledge, resources and interactive experiences, empowering individuals to continuously adapt and grow in an ever-changing world.

How to embed systems thinking in education

While the benefits of digital learning tools are undeniable, we must also address the challenges associated with their implementation. Quality assurance, data privacy and ensuring equitable access are critical considerations that demand continuous attention.

Collaboration between educational institutions, policy-makers and industry leaders is vital to establish robust frameworks that safeguard the integrity and efficacy of digital learning tools, ensuring they are harnessed to their full potential.

Why ethical AI requires a future-ready and inclusive education system

4 trends that will shape the future of higher education, can ai improve education here are 4 potential use cases.

The resulting report of this exploration, Innovative Learning Solutions to Navigate Complexity: Adapting Systems Thinking to Future Classrooms, presents case studies that offer solutions for stakeholders, either as models to replicate or as inspiration to develop new approaches. Additionally, the report highlights the importance of harnessing the power of technology and encourages the use of digital systems thinking tools, such as those available through Strategic Intelligence.

Educators, learners and policy-makers should adopt a constructivist and constructionist approach to learning, which involves actively engaging with and exploring complex systems. This approach fosters curiosity, imagination and innovation, and helps to inspire a lifelong love of learning.

By implementing the strategies and recommendations provided in this report, educational reform can have a profound and influential impact on the next generation of global citizens. While not the focus of this report, it should be noted that the use of generative AI in education has the potential to both hinder and enhance the development of critical thinking, analytical, and problem-solving skills.

Based on the case studies and research presented in the report, we hope that teachers and/or learning institutions consider these recommendations:

– Build educators’ capacity in systems thinking tools and innovative lesson and curricular planning through workshops, training programmes and knowledge exchange loops. These capacity-building efforts could focus on areas like using hybrid intelligence models that merge AI with human expertise.

– Develop and expand college credit or micro-credentials to train young and adult learners to understand and use systems thinking methodologies and tools for developing their skills and jobs.

– Initiate a community of practice and knowledge networks among educators and learners at the regional or city level to scale successful use cases.

– Provide media literacy training programmes for educators, embed cross-curricular media literacy skills using systems thinking frameworks, and encourage a hybrid model where media literacy skills are augmented by technology rather than replaced with technology.

– Shift teaching and training from solution-led to problem-led learning methodologies to encourage critical reflection by emphasizing the need to identify underlying problems before seeking solutions. This approach leads to better decision-making, more effective resource allocation, and increased creativity and innovation.

– Adopt a dynamic approach to learning by restructuring curricula to integrate interdisciplinary projects or discussions, and offer courses that emphasize connections between disciplines instead of promoting traditional, siloed subjects.

– Place less focus on standardized testing to measure student abilities and instead develop practical assessments that measure students’ ability to apply their knowledge and skills in real-world situations through systems thinking methodologies.

– Equip learners with foresight and scenario-planning skills to explore potential career paths and identify the skills needed to succeed in those careers. This gives students the agency to plan for their futures and stay ahead of emerging trends in the job market.

Traditionally, people have turned to higher education to acquire the knowledge and skills to succeed in the world as it exists. The challenge today is that the world will exist in a radically different way tomorrow and again the day after. Therefore, educating people for reinvention in this fluid context will require the reinvention of the education system itself. Implementing the recommendations, suited, and modified per context, can reignite imagination, creativity and innovation in the classroom, making learning enjoyable and fulfilling for students.

Don't miss any update on this topic

Create a free account and access your personalized content collection with our latest publications and analyses.

License and Republishing

World Economic Forum articles may be republished in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License, and in accordance with our Terms of Use.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

The Agenda .chakra .wef-n7bacu{margin-top:16px;margin-bottom:16px;line-height:1.388;font-weight:400;} Weekly

A weekly update of the most important issues driving the global agenda

.chakra .wef-1dtnjt5{display:-webkit-box;display:-webkit-flex;display:-ms-flexbox;display:flex;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;-webkit-flex-wrap:wrap;-ms-flex-wrap:wrap;flex-wrap:wrap;} More on Education and Skills .chakra .wef-17xejub{-webkit-flex:1;-ms-flex:1;flex:1;justify-self:stretch;-webkit-align-self:stretch;-ms-flex-item-align:stretch;align-self:stretch;} .chakra .wef-nr1rr4{display:-webkit-inline-box;display:-webkit-inline-flex;display:-ms-inline-flexbox;display:inline-flex;white-space:normal;vertical-align:middle;text-transform:uppercase;font-size:0.75rem;border-radius:0.25rem;font-weight:700;-webkit-align-items:center;-webkit-box-align:center;-ms-flex-align:center;align-items:center;line-height:1.2;-webkit-letter-spacing:1.25px;-moz-letter-spacing:1.25px;-ms-letter-spacing:1.25px;letter-spacing:1.25px;background:none;padding:0px;color:#B3B3B3;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;box-decoration-break:clone;-webkit-box-decoration-break:clone;}@media screen and (min-width:37.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:0.875rem;}}@media screen and (min-width:56.5rem){.chakra .wef-nr1rr4{font-size:1rem;}} See all

AI is changing the shape of leadership – how can business leaders prepare?

Ana Paula Assis

May 10, 2024

From virtual tutors to accessible textbooks: 5 ways AI is transforming education

Andrea Willige

These are the top ranking universities in Asia for 2024

May 8, 2024

Globally young people are investing more than ever, but do they have the best tools to do so?

Hallie Spear

May 7, 2024

Reskilling Revolution: The Role of AI in Education 4.0

Why investing in people is essential to revive growth: Key quotes from leaders at the #SpecialMeeting24

Gayle Markovitz and Kate Whiting

May 2, 2024

• High contrast
• Press Centre

Search UNICEF

• Strengthening education systems and innovation

Getting all children in school and learning takes strong, innovative education systems.

Education systems are complex. Getting all children in school and learning requires alignment across families, educators and decision makers. It requires shared goals, and national policies that put learning at the centre. It also requires data collection and regular monitoring to help policymakers identify what’s working, who’s benefiting, and who’s being left behind.

Strong education systems are inclusive and gender-equitable. They support early learning and multi-lingual education, and foster innovations to extend education opportunities to the hardest-to-reach children and adolescents.

Innovation in education

Innovation in education is about more than new technology. It’s about solving a real problem in a fresh, simple way to promote equity and improve learning.

Innovation in education comes in many forms. Programmes, services, processes, products and partnerships can all enhance education outcomes in innovative ways – like customized games on solar-powered tablets that deliver math lessons to children in remote areas of Sudan. Or digital learning platforms that teach refugees and other marginalized children the language of instruction in Greece, Lebanon and Mauritania.

Innovation in education means solving a real problem in a new, simple way to promote equitable learning.

Innovation in education matches the scale of the solution to the scale of the challenge. It draws on the creativity and experience of communities – like a programme in Ghana that empowers local mothers and grandmothers to facilitate early childhood education – to ensure decisions are made by those most affected by their outcomes.

Many innovators are already at work in classrooms and communities. UNICEF collaborates with partners to identify, incubate and scale promising innovations that help fulfil every child’s right to learn.

UNICEF’s work to strengthen education systems

UNICEF works with communities, schools and Governments to build strong, innovative education systems that enhance learning for all children.

We support data collection and analysis to help Governments assess progress across a range of outcomes and strengthen national Education Management Information Systems. We also develop comprehensive guidelines for education sector analysis that are used in countries around the world to drive equity-focused plans and policies.

Our efforts promote transparency , shedding light on education systems so that students, parents and communities gain the information they need to engage decision makers at all levels and hold them to account.

More from UNICEF

Turning trash into building blocks for children's futures

Côte d'Ivoire’s innovative project to transform plastic waste into construction materials for new schools

Using data to improve education in Angola

A digital application, developed with support from UNICEF, aims to bring back children outside the education system

How popularity and fashion promote environmental solutions

High school students in North Macedonia team up to clean up their school.

Children call for access to quality climate education

On Earth Day, UNICEF urges governments to empower every child with learning opportunities to be a champion for the planet

Education Sector Analysis Guidelines: Volume 1 ( English , French , Spanish , Portuguese and Russian )

These guidelines support ministries of education and their partners in undergoing sector analysis and developing education sector plans.

Education Sector Analysis Guidelines: Volume 2 ( English , French , Spanish , Portuguese and Russian )

The investment case for education and equity.

This report analyses the learning crisis and its determinants and makes the case for an increase in funding for education and for more equitable and efficient spending.

Education Data Solutions Roundtable

Explore the Global Partnership for Education’s roundtable to leverage partners’ expertise and improve the availability and use of accurate, timely education data.

Collecting Data on Foundational Learning Skills and Parental Involvement in Education

This methodological paper measures foundational learning skills and parental involvement in education through household surveys.

Ministry of Education & Skills Development

Sign in to start your session :

I forgot my password

Forget Password

• Share with Facebook
• Share with LinkedIn
• Share with Twitter

Insight Note

Applying Systems Thinking to Education: The RISE Systems Framework

Marla Spivack

RISE Directorate

This Insight Note was updated on 27 January 2023. Please access the webpage, Applying Systems Thinking to Education: Using the RISE Systems Framework to Diagnose Education Systems , for the latest version of this Insight.

• Many education systems in low- and middle-income countries are experiencing a learning crisis. Many efforts to address this crisis do not account for the system features of education, meaning that they fail to consider the ways that interactions and feedback loops produce outcomes.  
• Thinking through the feedback relationships that produce the education system can be challenging. The RISE Education Systems Framework, which is sufficiently structured to give boundaries to the analysis but sufficiently flexible to be adapted to multiple scenarios, can be helpful.
• The RISE Framework identifies four key relationships in an education system: politics, compact, management, and voice and choice; and five features that can be used to describe these relationships: delegation, finance, information, support, and motivation.
• This Framework can be a useful approach for characterising the key actors and interactions in the education system, thinking through how these interactions produce systems outcomes, and identifying ways to intervene that can shift the system towards better outcomes.

Introduction

The last 30 years have seen dramatic success in the expansion of schooling access and attainment for children around the world. Education systems in the majority of low- and middle-income countries have become very successful at achieving schooling for all (or nearly all) children. However, they persistently fail to produce learning for all (Pritchett, 2013; World Bank 2018). The World Bank estimates that 53 percent of children in low- and middle-income countries, and nearly 80 percent of children in low-income countries will reach the end of their primary schooling without being able to read a simple text (World Bank, n.d.). Recent analysis also shows that this problem has been getting worse, not better overtime. Analysing repeated cross-sectional data on years of schooling and literacy across 88 countries shows that the “quality” of schooling—defined as the literacy rate of adults with a given level of schooling—was either stagnant or declining in most developing countries between 1960 and 2000 (Le Nestour et al., 2021).

It is not just the poorest and most marginalised who are being left behind. Even children from households among the socio-economic elite in many low- and middle-income countries fail to master the basics (Pritchett and Viarengo, 2021). If the majority of the children in an education system lack the foundational skills needed not only to succeed in higher levels of education but also to reach their full potential as adults, then education systems are failing to deliver on one of their fundamental objectives.

How is it that education systems have succeeded in expanding schooling access and grade attainment, and yet consistently struggle to achieve learning for all? How can governments, donors, and civil society better understand the constraints to the achievement of foundational skills in national education systems and identify priorities for reform? An accurate and comprehensive diagnosis of why education systems persistently deliver poor learning outcomes is the first step in understanding how national education systems can transform into learning systems, capable of delivering high quality education to all.

This essay summarises a framework for understanding education systems that specifies the systems’ components and the ways that those components interact to produce or undermine learning for children. 1

Discussions of systems thinking in education can sometimes induce eye-rolls and groans. It is perceived as too theoretical, the purview of academics who want to develop theories and donors who want to spend money on “capacity building”, far removed from the practical, pressing concerns facing country-level decision makers and implementers.

But systems thinking can be a useful approach to diagnose the problem so that solutions that address the needs of a particular education system can be identified. If too little water is coming out of your tap, increasing the water pressure might seem like an obvious solution. But if the cause of your slow waterflow is a leaky pipe, raising the pressure might just exacerbate the problem. Since education systems are complex, a structured framework for characterising their features can help identify problems and the way towards solutions to overcome them.

To deliver learning for all children, the interactions between teachers and students in tens of millions of classrooms around the world will need to improve. Conventional wisdom asserts that those who wish to be useful to “policymakers” should provide actionable solutions. But an approach that starts with a solution in mind and tries to adapt that solution to fit the context is much less likely to succeed than an approach that starts with a careful definition of the problem and then makes an effort to develop a solution (Andrews, Pritchett, and Woolcock, 2017). Rushing to point to a solution to improve teacher–student interactions ignores the fact that teachers and students are embedded in larger systems that might be the cause of their poor performance and that determine the scope for intervention to improve it.

This essay opens with a discussion of what systems thinking is and how it can be useful in understanding outcomes in service delivery sectors like education. Next, it presents the RISE Framework for understanding education systems. Finally, it illustrates why a systems perspective—and the RISE Framework in particular—are useful for understanding the outcomes in education systems and for moving beyond a description of problems towards a diagnostic understanding of why the problem exists and how it can be addressed. 

Systems thinking

A system is a set of elements that are connected to each other by feedback relationships and organised in a way that achieves a function (Meadows, 2008). Ecosystems are a very familiar example of a system.

Table 1 shows a simplified illustration of the elements, relationships, and functions of the marine ecosystem.

Table 1: Simplified illustration of the components of a system

Source: Author’s illustrative example based on Meadows, 2008

The elements of the system are its visible components, but the crux of the system are the feedback relationships between the elements, which produce the functions, or emergent properties of the system. Often, the functions of the system are not the explicit goal of any individual system’s element (Meadows, 2008). Sun, water, chemicals, plants, and animals all interact to produce the marine ecosystem. But the sun does not shine so the seaweed can grow, and the seaweed does not grow so that it can feed the fish.

Though systems are made up of their elements and the relationships between them, they exist as ontologically distinct “things” from those elements and relationships. Studying the individual animals and plant of the marine ecosystem reveals some useful information, but studying the interactions between the species and how these interactions produce system functions can reveal a great deal more.

Because the system’s properties are produced by interactions between elements, interventions in the system that focus on one element can have unintended consequences. To take a specific example from marine life, in the Pacific Northwest killer whale populations have been steadily rising since the mid 1980s—a victory for conservation of this endangered species. At the same time, though, Chinook salmon populations have been declining. Both species are protected under different provisions of the endangered species act, but provisions of the law only allow for interventions that protect individual species. There are no provisions for interventions to support the ecosystem when both a predator and prey species are designated for protection (Marshall et al., 2015). An element-by-element approach is insufficient in this case; a solution that takes the interactions and the overall system into account is needed.

Systems thinking for education

It can be easy to grasp the connection between the feedback relationships and emergent properties of tangible systems, like that of ocean life, but it can be harder to see these connections in social systems like education. This is why developing a framework for studying education systems that clearly identifies the elements, relationships between them, and resulting system functions is so helpful.

Education systems are made up of elements that include people acting in specific roles, like teachers, students, and parents; organisations, like schools and ministries; and things like classrooms and teaching materials. These elements interact with each other via relationships: the parents send their children to school, the teachers teach the students, the teachers are employed by the school, and the school is managed by the ministry, and so on. As with the economy, the functions are revealed by the results of the interactions among the elements, but they might include: teaching foundational skills, ensuring a minimum number of years of schooling are reached, or socialisation to a national identity.

Table 2: Elements, relationships and functions of an education system

Source: Author

Distinguishing between symptom-only and diagnostic thinking

Medicine is one area where systems thinking is essential. When a person gets sick, their symptoms can be treated one by one, but correctly diagnosing their ailment first is likely to lead to a better outcome.

Table 3 shows a (highly stylised) list of symptoms and treatments for a mystery ailment. Without a correct diagnosis of what is making the patient ill, treating the symptoms might offer temporary relief, but it cannot offer a cure. Moreover, in some cases treating the patient without an accurate diagnosis could lead to prescriptions that do more harm than good.

Table 3: Symptoms and possible treatments of disease

Poorly performing education systems face many problems. Poor teacher training, poor teacher attendance, poor teaching materials, high dropout rates, and poor learning outcomes are all symptoms of a poorly performing education system.

One way to think of these symptoms is as potential “proximate determinants” of the low learning outcomes of a particular child. A child might emerge from her basic education without foundational skills because her teachers were not adequately prepared to teach her, because there were inadequate or inappropriate teaching and learning materials in her classrooms, because she dropped out of school, or because of some combination of these and other factors. We could point to any one of these as the “cause” or proximate determinant of her low learning outcomes at the end of primary school (Pritchett, 2015).

To improve outcomes, the interactions between teachers and students have to change. Those who want to help facilitate that change often begin by asking: “What needs to be different about this classroom for the student to emerge prepared?” This line of thinking leads to a focus on all of the symptoms mentioned above. A well intentioned NGO or government official interested in improving outcomes might observe that there are no textbooks in a classroom. Having identified this symptom, they might reasonably think: “There are no textbooks in this school, so we will provide textbooks. Students will be able to study at home now, follow along better in class, and their learning will improve.”

The problem with this symptom-only way of thinking is that it fails to acknowledge that the teacher and student are embedded in a larger system. It doesn’t ask why there are no books in the classroom in the first place. Failing to develop a diagnostic understanding of the problem can lead to a false conclusion about the cause, and to an intervention solution that has little effect on learning (see the example below).

Since education systems in developing countries face so many constraints, symptom-only thinking is tempting. Examples abound of project or programme interventions that look like the “symptom treatments” in the right-hand column of Table 4. Textbooks are missing, so provide them; teachers are absent, so monitor their attendance and enforce it with payment rewards or punishments; students drop out, so provide cash incentives for them to stay in school; and so on. Moreover, the symptom-by-symptom approach is also conducive to the “project dominated” approach to education aid favoured by many donors, making it even more attractive to the sector (Nino-Zarazua, 2016).

Table 4: Symptom by symptom treatment of the education system

All too often programmes are designed to address one of these symptoms, are implemented faithfully, and yet fail to improve learning outcomes. When a programme fails to have the desired impact, it is tempting to look for a devil in the details, some aspect of programme design or execution that could be tweaked to produce better performance. But often the devil is in the system, not in the details (Silberstein, 2020). The programme failed not because of a design flaw, but because of its overall incoherence with the rest of the education system.

One example is a 2009 study of the distribution of textbooks to Kenyan schools. An RCT found no effect of the books on pedagogy or average test scores, but a positive effect on test scores of the best performers. The authors noted that the textbooks were in English and so were inaccessible to most of the students, who could not read English well. The books were the standard government textbooks for this grade level, so the fact that they were in a language that most children could not read reflected the overambitious, elite orientation of the Kenyan curriculum at the time. The intervention was designed under the assumption that lack of resources for textbooks was the constraint to performance in Kenya. But, as the evaluation revealed, the deeper cause of poor performance in the Kenyan system was a curriculum that moved too quickly and left students behind (Glewwe, Moulin, and Kremer, 2009). This type of systemic misalignment is common in education systems in low- and middle-income countries (Hwa et al., 2020).

A second example can be found in a study of a teacher policy reform effort in Indonesia in the early 2000s. The 2005 Teacher Reform Law, as originally proposed, aimed to improve teacher quality by providing financial incentives for teachers to receive higher certifications that were meant to include rigorous external assessment. Pressure from teacher lobby groups diluted the law, and the certification process eventually adopted was a much weaker portfolio submission process and two-week training for those who did not pass. The reform ultimately resulted in the near universal doubling of civil servant teacher salaries (World Bank, 2013; de Ree et al., 2018). Researchers worked with the government to randomise the rollout of these increases so that teachers in a group of treatment schools were able to have higher pay sooner, allowing for an assessment of the effects of the salary increase. They found that while teachers were more satisfied with their jobs, the pay increase had no effect on teacher attendance, subject knowledge, or student learning (de Ree et al., 2018). Changing just one element of teacher’s employment—their salary—without changing anything else about the system that the teachers were embedded in did not change their behaviour.

A final example comes from a more recent study conducted as part of the RISE Programme. In this case a randomised evaluation studied a large-scale management reform meant to improve teacher performance initially implemented in Madhya Pradesh, India, and then scaled to hundreds of thousands of schools nationally. The programme was modelled on state-of-the-art management approaches, and process evaluations revealed it was implemented faithfully. The results? No impact could be detected on any of the performance indicators the study followed: student absence, teacher absence, monitoring and support by managers, or student test scores. The bureaucrats responsible for implementing the programme filled out paperwork and developed plans for improving schools, as they were required to, but when it came to transforming these plans into actions and changes in teachers’ behaviour, the programme broke down. The authors found a “disconnect between the programme’s objectives and how it was actually perceived by those implementing it” (Muralidharan and Singh, 2020, p. 20). In other words, there was an incoherence in the system, not in the details (Silberstein, 2020).

These examples do not prove that providing more textbooks, higher teacher wages, or school improvement plans do not contribute to student learning. Instead, they show that attempts to address these individual problems without considering the wider system are likely to fail.

The shortcomings of the symptom-by-symptom approach underscore the need for a framework that can illuminate the true functions and incoherences of education systems. With a clear picture of these, policymakers can design reforms and interventions that bring the system into alignment with learning objectives.

The RISE Systems Framework

The RISE Education Systems Framework 2 provides the scaffolding for considering the key elements of an education system, the relationships between them, and the ways in which these relationships operate to produce the system’s functions.

The elements are the range of actors who are a part of the system. This includes individuals playing specific roles (described here as groups) and organisations 3 . Chief among them are: citizens; highest executive legislative and fiduciary authorities of the state; education authorities; school leaders; teachers; parents; children; and communities.

Relationships

In considering the relationships between the elements of the system, the RISE Framework draws on the paradigm of a principal-agent relationship. A principal-agent relationship is a model used to describe a situation where one actor (the principal) wants a task accomplished, so they engage another actor (the agent) to complete the task. The principal sets out what is expect of the agent and how the agent will be rewarded for completing the task(s) the principal lays out—in other words, how the principal will hold the agent accountable 4 .

The RISE systems framework assumes four key relationships of accountability in an education system.

Figure 1: Four accountability relationships in the education system

Source: Adapted from Pritchett, 2015

Politics is the relationship between citizens 5 — the principal— and the highest executive, legislative, and fiduciary authorities of the state—the agent .  The citizens can act in their role as the principal in the politics relationship in a number of different ways. These include participating in elections, participating in party activities, and engaging in civil society activities. While the mechanisms through which these activities operate differ between democratic and non-democratic regimes, they are relevant to both (Edsyclopedia, Politics-Delegation). The executive authority of the state is usually embodied in a President, Prime Minister, or other chief executive. The role of the legislative body in education and budget-setting differs across countries, so its importance in the relationship of accountability varies. The fiduciary authority (i.e., organisation(s) within government that make decisions about budget allocations) usually rests in the Ministry of Finance. Since in most countries the Ministry of Finance is tightly controlled either by the executive or the legislature (depending on how budgeting is conducted) the framework groups them together as a joint agent in this relationship. The politics relationship is the starting point of what has been termed “long route of accountability” because, while the ultimate accountability for service delivery originates with citizens, that accountability passes through political leaders and government agencies before reaching the frontline, where services are actually delivered.

Compact is the relationship between the highest executive, legislative, and fiduciary authorities of the state—the principal—and education authorities and organisations—the agent . The principal in the compact relationship is the highest executive, legislative, and fiduciary authority. The organisations and individuals that comprise the agent in the politics relationship are the principal in this relationship. In this way, the principal in the compact relationship acts as a conduit to convey the objectives of the politics relationship to the organisations responsible for delivery of education.

The agents of the compact relationship include the Ministry of Education. In many systems there are other government or non-government organisations that executive, legislative, and fiduciary authorities also delegate education responsibilities to. These can include national curriculum boards, regulatory agencies, or religious authorities who run schools in parallel with the Ministry of Education.

A second set of agents in the compact relationship are private sector actors in the education sector—for example, private schools and private providers of textbooks and other education materials and services. These private actors are another group of organisations, alongside government agencies, responsible for delivery of education. They are often regulated by government and operate with the implicit or explicit permission of government. In this sense, they are an agent of the highest executive authorities.

Management is the relationship between education authorities and organisations—the principal—and school leaders and teachers on the frontline—the agents . In some education systems the management relationship exists within a single organisation—the Ministry of Education. This would be the case if all or most education functions fall under the remit of a single ministry. In others, the relationship is more complicated, with multiple organisations in the “education authority” role, and each with their own set of frontline workers. For example, in some systems there are schools that fall under the authority of the Ministry of Education, and other schools that are managed by a religious authority.

The management relationship also includes interactions on a smaller scale, such as between an individual and their boss (i.e., school leaders and teachers), but the framework emphasises the relationship between the leaders or centre of the education organisation, and the frontline providers. This emphasis on the main centre-frontline relationship is partly because every education system’s configuration of smaller-scale management relationships is unique to how authority and discretion are distributed in that particular context.

Voice and Choice is the relationship between recipients of services, parents, children, and communities—the principal—and the providers of services, school leaders and teachers—the agent . To the extent that there is any power in the voice and choice relationship, this is the direct relationship between parents and community members and the teachers and school leaders who serve their children. Students, parents, and communities can hold schools and teachers accountable for education primarily in two ways: through exercising their voice to exert pressure on a school or teacher to change, or by using exit (i.e., choice) to leave a school or teacher they are unhappy with and select a different one. Parents can form school committees or parent associations to enhance their ability to exercise voice. Parents exercise choice as an individual decision, not intending to have a systemic effect, but the collective choices of many parents to shift from one school to another, or out of the public sector and into private schools, can have significant effects on the education system overall (Edsyclopedia, Voice & Choice). Local communities can also exert pressure on schools via representative local government, village groups, or traditional leaders, who can use their platforms to pressure schools and sometimes also control the provision and use of supplemental funds to schools.

School leaders and teachers are in the particularly challenging position of being accountable to two different principals. They are directly accountable to parents and communities in the voice and choice relationship, but they are also accountable to their supervisors at the school or district level, in the management relationship.

Figure 2: The “accountability triangle”, a graphical illustration of the relationships between the various elements of the system.

Relationship features

There are five features that are helpful for analysing each relationship. These design elements describe the nature of the relationship between the principal and the agent in terms of what the principal asks the agent to do, how the principal equips the agent to do it, and monitors and incentivises their performance.

Delegation  is what the principal wants the agent to do. For example, in the management relationship the Ministry of Education delegates what should be taught to students via the curriculum.

Finance refers to the resources the principal has allocated to the agent to achieve their assigned task. For example, in the compact relationship the Ministry of Finance allocates budget to the education authorities to carry out educational activities.

Information is   how the principal assesses the agent's performance. For example, in the voice and choice relationship parents can gather information about their children’s school experience by asking their children how they feel about school or by reviewing their children’s test scores.

Support  refers to the preparation and assistance that the principal provides to the agent to complete the task. For example, in the management relationship the Ministry of Education may prepare teachers for their job by providing pre- and in-service teacher training.

Motivation  refers to how the principal motivates the agent, including the ways in which the agent’s welfare is contingent on their performance against objectives. This can be extrinsic (mediated by principal) or intrinsic (mediated by agent). For example, in the voice & choice relationship parents or community groups may directly pressure teachers to improve their attendance at school by calling them out in community meetings for failing to do so.

Combining the four key relationships and five features together, as shown in Table 5, produces the RISE Systems Framework.

Table 5: The 5x4 Education Systems Framework

Functions or emergent properties of the system: alignment of relationships and types of incoherence.

Education systems deliver learning when strong relationships of accountability are aligned around a learning objective across their design elements. In other words, systems deliver learning when coherence for learning emerges as a feature of the interactions between the elements of the system (Crouch, 2020).

There are at least two alternatives to a well-functioning system that is coherent for learning: 1) interactions among the elements of the system produce alignment around an objective other than learning; or 2) interactions among the elements of the system produce incoherence (Pritchett and Spivack, forthcoming). 

The coherence or incoherence among the relationships and their features, and the alignment of the relationship around learning or some other objective, can all be thought of as the emergent properties of the system. The emergent properties of the system are the result of the interactions between the elements. Innovation is an emergent property of an economy, just like a fish’s gills colours are an emergent property of an ecosystem. It may seem like there is an “invisible hand” creating the economy or a “mother nature” orchestrating evolution, but these features emerge from system pressures, not from any intentional plan. Similarly, the alignment of the relationships or incoherences in an education system can be outcomes of the system even though they are not intentionally created by any actor in the system.

Alignment of relationships of accountability

The alignment of a relationship of accountability is one of the emergent properties of an education system that the framework can help identify and evaluate. Systems deliver learning when relationships of accountability are coherent around learning objectives, but in many systems relationships are aligned around other objectives.

Examining each relationship of accountability and its features can point towards the overall alignment of the relationship, which may be implicit or different from explicitly stated purposes. An overall alignment can be identified by defining the organisations that comprise each relationship and then asking what delegation, finance, information, management, support, and motivation look like from the perspective of both the principal and the agent in the relationship.

The most common alignment in education systems is alignment for access and attainment. In relationships aligned for access and delegation of objectives, financing of activities, information used to evaluate performance, support to improve performance, and motivation to deliver are all geared towards expanding the number of children in school and the years of school they complete. The alignment for access and attainment in most education systems is evidenced by the rapid expansion in enrolment and grade attainment over the last 50 years.

While alignment for access and attainment is most common, alignment for other purposes can also be a feature of relationships and systems. These others include:

• Learning: Elements of the relationship of accountability are aligned around learning objectives. Clear learning objectives are delegated. Financing is sufficient and sufficiently flexible to achieve learning objectives. 
• Access and attainment: Elements of the relationship of accountability are aligned around expanding enrolment and grade attainment.
• Socialisation: Relationship is characterised by a socialisation or ideological goal.
• Clientelism: Relationship is characterised by short-term political objectives, education system is deployed as a tool of clientelism.
• Special interests: Relationship is characterised by protection for special interests. Special interest groups, such as teachers’ unions  that have become dominated by partisan priorities, dominate the compact relationship.  Ensuring that their needs are met becomes the primary focus of the relationship of accountability.
• Process compliance. Relationship is dominated by support functions (e.g., human resources, information technology, or procurement) and bureaucratic compliance, focus of the relationship is entirely on process compliance

Relationships may have overlapping or complementary alignments. For example, alignment for socialisation is compatible with alignment for access, as the expansion of an ideological perspective is supported by bringing more children into the school system (Pritchett and Spivack, forthcoming).

Types of incoherence

Incoherence in the system can hinder progress towards learning objectives. The three main types of incoherence can be described in terms of the 5x4 matrix.

Within a column: incoherence between the design elements within a particular relationship of accountability.

For example, within a compact relationship, executive and fiduciary authorities (i.e., the Ministry of Finance) may delegate learning improvements but only ask education authorities (i.e., Ministry of Education) for information on enrolment rates. This means that there is incoherence between what is delegated, and the information used to evaluate the ministry’s performance. This undermines the delegated objective, as ministry officials shift their focus to what is being measured, rather than what is being rhetorically delegated, weakening the overall relationship of accountability (see Table 6).

Within a row: incoherence between the relationships of accountability across one or more design elements.

For example, executive and fiduciary authorities may delegate a focus on access and attainment, but education authorities may try to begin delegating goals around improved learning outcomes. This incoherence in what is being delegated at different levels of the system may cause confusion. It may also result in insufficient finance and support for the learning objectives the Ministry of Education is trying to adopt.

Within-row incoherence is a particular challenge for frontline providers (teachers and school leaders), who are the only actors in the system who are the agent of more than one principal. As a result, they are particularly vulnerable to incoherence due to misalignment between their two principals. 

For example, education authorities may want to change the pedagogical approach in schools. They can delegate this change, finance it adequately, provide support to help teachers adopt it, and collect information about the adoption. However, if parents are opposed to the change they can pressure teachers to stick to the old approach (see Table 7).

Table 6: Examples of column incoherence

Table 7: Examples of column coherence and row incoherence

To explore the concept of incoherence in more depth, it’s helpful to look at a practical example of activities in an education system and analyse the types of incoherence that can stymie success in these activities.

Example of incoherence: Teacher training in a new curriculum or pedagogy

Teacher training programmes are a critical activity through which education authorities support frontline school leaders and teachers, but they often fail to improve learning outcomes. These activities fall within the “Management–Support” cell of the matrix (see the green cell in Table 5). Applying the systems framework can reveal the incoherences at the root of why a seemingly well designed programme can fall short of a goal to improve student learning outcomes.

A recent experience with a teacher training programme in Rwanda offers a real world illustration, which can be used to explore the different types of incoherence that emerge. In 2016, Rwanda undertook reforms in their primary and secondary school curricula, including to a secondary school subject on entrepreneurship. The reform was aimed at and facilitated a more skills-based and student-centred approach to the subject. A non-governmental organisation (NGO) identified training in the new curriculum as an implementation gap and developed a training programme to be deployed in parallel to the curriculum rollout. The programme included in-service trainings, exchange visits to other schools, and outreach and support. While the curriculum was deployed around the country, the NGO training was only deployed to a randomly selected sample of schools, allowing for a quantitative, randomised evaluation of the training’s effects on teacher practices and student learning outcomes alongside a qualitative study of teacher and student perceptions of the new curriculum and training.

The quantitative evaluation found that, two years after the training programme was launched, treatment schools saw a six-fold increase in the use of skills labs—extended sessions for conducting hands-on experiential learning activities—compared to control schools (a 52 percentage point increase). The increased use of skills labs in treatment schools went hand in hand with shifts in teacher pedagogy towards greater “student centredness.” Despite the encouraging indications about the role that the training played in changing classroom practices, the study found no effect of the training on student’s scores on high stakes national exams, nor on tests of financial literacy, entrepreneurship, and non-cognitive skills developed by and administered by the researchers (Blimpo and Pugatch, 2020).

Interviews and focus group discussions conducted with students and teachers alongside the quantitative evaluation offer insights into why a training that succeeded in changing teacher practices in the way that the curriculum change intended, failed to deliver improvements in students’ outcomes. The curriculum reform was not accompanied by exam reform. So while the training did help teachers adopt a more skills-based and student-centred approach, in particular scheduling and holding more skills labs, the overall pressure to teach theory and content, as the old curriculum had emphasised, remained. In interviews and focus groups both teachers and students noted this dissonance. Teachers suggested to interviewers that national exams should be updated to reflect the new curriculum, and some reported that they tried to make changes to internal, school level exams to better reflect the skills-based approach they were now meant to teach. Students in treated schools reported that skills labs and student business clubs (another feature of the new curriculum) were planned and encouraged for Standard-4 and Standard-5 students, but not for Standard-6, the year in which students take national exams, and that that time was used for exam preparations (Anand, 2020).

What incoherences may have undermined the success of the training programme in this case?

Within a column: Incoherence between the design elements within a particular relationship of accountability. The teacher training could have faced a mismatch with the other design elements of the management relationship. The new training could have been incoherent with delegation in the relationship if it were inconsistent with the new curriculum or pedagogy, or if there were insufficient support in general. It could also have been incoherent with the finance of the relationship, if insufficient resources were allocated towards it; with the information of the relationship if the authorities neglected to follow up to determine how the training worked; or with the motivation of the relationship, if teachers and school leaders had little incentive to actively engage in the training or implement the new pedagogy.

This type of incoherence is a prominent feature of this example in at least two ways. First, the business as usual approach of the government offered insufficient support to teachers to prepare for the new curriculum. As a result, the teachers who did not receive the NGO training made significantly fewer changes to their teaching practices than those who received training. Second, the high stakes exams (i.e., information) were not reformed alongside the curriculum, creating an incoherence within the column. Teachers and schools, knowing the importance of exam performance, continued to emphasise the theoretical material that was the core of the old curriculum (Anand, 2020).

Within a row: Incoherence between the relationships of accountability within a particular feature of the relationships. The usefulness of training could have been undermined by misalignments between the relationships of accountability. If the new curriculum or pedagogy featured in the training was inconsistent with executive or fiduciary leaders’ priorities, insufficient resources could have been allocated towards it. Moreover, the inconsistency in delegation could mean that some elements within the ministry were pushing the training while others were unconcerned with it, undermining motivation.

The available analysis in this case does not discuss the role that the Ministry of Finance or executive leaders played in the reform, so it’s not possible to study within-row incoherence in this case.

Across the rows of two relationships, frontline providers. Frontline providers (school leaders and teachers) are the agents in relationships with both education authorities and parents. The usefulness of the training could have been undermined if it was inconsistent with parents’ preferences for their children. If parents are uninterested in, or opposed to the new pedagogy, then even a successful training would struggle to be effective, since teachers would face pressure from parents to forgo the new approach.

The analysis of this case does not include information about parents’ perspectives, but it does include analysis of focus group discussions held with students. It found that students had a positive view of the new curriculum, reporting that it provided them with some skills to start a small business, despite the fact that it was only partially implemented. Notably, many students in the treatment schools specifically mentioned useful things that they learned during skills labs and from student business clubs, neither of which were implemented in many of the control schools. The generally positive view of the new curriculum from the students suggests that incoherence between the management and voice and choice relationships was not a significant cause of incoherence in this case, though without information on parent or community perceptions of the new curriculum it’s difficult to make a come to a definitive conclusion (Anand, 2020).

The Rwanda teacher training example discussed above, like most of the other examples in this essay, shows how incoherences in the education system can hinder programmes’ effectiveness. Overall, education quality has been stagnant or declining in most low- and middle- income countries (Le Nestour et al., 2021), but there are a handful of success cases to look to. Often the roots of successful cases can be traced to the emergence of coherence around learning goals across the system.

Take the case of Vietnam, a system that is widely acknowledged to overperform its peers (in terms of GDP per capita) (Dang et al., 2020). A key feature of the Vietnamese system is a prevalent, nation-wide “all for learning” attitude, demonstrated by high level political commitment to learning from national and party leaders, individual households’ financial commitments to education, and general public engagement in education issues, even in the absence of organised civil society in the education sector present in other developing countries. This reflects a high degree of coherence for learning in delegation and finance across multiple relationships of accountability in the Vietnamese system. This coherence around learning exists alongside other features of the Vietnamese system that could undermine performance, such as incoherent decentralisation and persistent inequalities between groups (London, 2021). The Vietnamese system is far from perfect, but it does perform much better than its peers and coherence around learning objectives is a key feature of this success.

Education systems in many low- and middle-income countries have a long way to go to deliver education of the quality that Vietnamese students enjoy. By providing a structured approach to understanding and analysing the components and interactions of an education system, the RISE Framework can help diagnose the problems their education systems face and consider the best ways to intervene to make meaningful improvement.

Acknowledgements

This note draws broadly on the work, thinking, and discussions of the team of researchers at the RISE Directorate including, Carmen Belafi, Luis Crouch, Yue-Yi Hwa, Michelle Kaffenberger, Clare Leaver, Lant Pritchett, and Jason Silberstein, whose input I am grateful for. I am also grateful to Gautam Anand, Michele Kaffenberger, Todd Pugatch, Lant Pritchett and an anonymous reviewer from Oxford Policy Management for thoughtful comments on an earlier draft. Any remaining errors are my own.

Anand, G. 2019. “Entrepreneurship Education and Teacher Trainng in Rwanda: Findings of the Qualitative Research Study.”

Andrews, M., Pritchett, L. and Woolcock, M.. 2017. Building State Capability: Evidence, Analysis, Action. Building State Capability. Oxford University Press. Accessed March 10, 2021. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747482.001.0001/acprof-9780198747482  

Blimpo, M.P. and Pugatch, T. 2020. Entrepreneurship Education and Teacher Training in Rwanda. Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE). https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2020/052  

Crouch, L. 2020. Systems Implications for Core Instructional Support Lessons from Sobral (Brazil), Puebla (Mexico), and Kenya. Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE). https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-RI_2020/020  

de Ree, J., Muralidharan, K., Pradhan, M. and Rogers, H. 2018. Double for Nothing? Experimental Evidence on an Unconditional Teacher Salary Increase in Indonesia. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol. 133 (2): 993–1039. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx040  

Dang, H., Glewwe, P., Lee, J., and Vu, K. 2020. What Explains Vietnam’s Exceptional Performance in Education Relative to Other Countries? Analysis of the 2012 and 2015 PISA Data. RISE Working Paper Series. 20/036. https://doi. org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2020/036  

“Delegation in Politics.” n.d. Edsyclopedia. Accessed March 9, 2021. https://edsyclopedia.org/Delegation_in_Politics  

Glewwe, P., Kremer, M. and Moulin, S. 2009. Many Children Left Behind? Textbooks and Test Scores in Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. Vol. 1 (1): 112–35. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.1.1.112  

Hirschman, A.O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Harvard University Press.

Hwa, Y., Kaffenberger, M. and Silberstein, J. 2020. Aligning Levels of Instruction with Goals and the Needs of Students (ALIGNS): Varied Approaches, Common Principles. Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE). https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-RI_2020/022

Le Nestour, A., Moscoviz, L., and Sandefur, J. 2021. “The Long-Term Decline of School Quality in the Developing World.”

London, J. 2021. Outlier Vietnam and the Problem of Embeddedness: Contributions to the Political Economy of Learning. RISE Working Paper Series. 21/062. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2021/062  

Marshall, K.N., Stier, A.C., Samhouri, J.F., Kelly, R.P. and Ward, E.J. 2016. Conservation Challenges of Predator Recovery: Conservation Challenges of Predator Recovery. Conservation Letters. Vol. 9 (1): 70–78. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12186  

Meadows, D.H. 2008. Thinking in Systems: A Primer. White River Junction, Vt.: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/ucbk. ark:/28722/h21j9797p  

Muralidharan, K. and Singh, A. 2020. Improving Public Sector Management at Scale? Experimental Evidence on School Governance in India. RISE Working Paper Series. 20/056. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2020/056  

Niño-Zarazúa, M. 2016. “Aid, Education Policy, and Development.” International Journal of Educational Development, Aid, Education Policy, and Development. Vol. 48 (May): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.12.002  

Pritchett, L. 2013. The Rebirth of Education: Schooling Ain’t Learning. Washington: Brookings Institution Press. https://doi.org/10.7864/j.ctt1gpccb8  

Pritchett, L. 2015. Creating Education Systems Coherent for Learning Outcomes. RISE Working Paper Series.15/005. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2015/005  

Pritchett, L. and Spivack, M. Forthcoming. Diagnosing Systems of Education. Pritchett, L. and Viarengo, M. 2021. Learning Outcomes in Developing Countries: Four Hard Lessons from PISA-D.   

Pritchett, L. and Viarengo, M. 2021. Learning Outcomes in Developing Countries: Four Hard Lessons from PISA-D. RISE Working Paper Series. 21/069. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2021/069  

Silberstein, J. 2020. “When the Devil’s Not in the Details: The System Failure of a Large-Scale School Management Reform in India.” RISE Programme. https://riseprogramme.org/blog/system-failure-school-management-reform-india  

“Voice & Choice.” n.d. Edsyclopedia. Accessed March 9, 2021. https://edsyclopedia.org/Voice_%26_Choice  

World Bank. 2013. “Teacher Reform in Indonesia: The Role of Politics and Evidence in Policy Making.”

World Bank Staff. 2003. World Development Report 2004:Making Services Work for Poor People. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

World Bank. 2018. Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. World Development Report. Washington, D.C., Boston, Massachusetts: World Bank, Credo Reference.

World Bank. n.d. “Learning Poverty.” Accessed March 10, 2021. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/brief/learning-poverty  

• 1 This framework builds on, adapts, and expands a general accountability framework for service delivery in the 2004 World Development Report “Making Services Work for the Poor”, adapted to education systems in a 2015 paper by RISE Research Director Lant Pritchett, and further illuminated by research and synthesis as part of the RISE Programme.
• 2 Sometimes referred to as the “5x4”, or the “accountability triangle”.
• 3 The discussion includes “things” or artifacts like teaching materials and classrooms as systems elements. While these can be considered elements of the system, the RISE Framework focuses on principal – agent relationships between individuals or groups and organisations, and artifacts of the system are not included in the framework.
• 4 This is why the RISE Framework is sometimes referred to as the “Accountability Framework”.
• 5 Using the term citizen here is not intended to suggest that the views and needs of non-citizen residents are not important in the politics relationship. Instead, this is partly a term of convenience and partly a term to highlight the importance of electoral politics in many contexts.

Spivack, M. 2021. Applying Systems Thinking to Education: The RISE Systems Framework. 2021/028. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-RI_2021/028

Related content

What we learned from our rise baseline diagnostic exercise, podcast: diagnosing education systems.

• The learning crisis
• Foundational skills
• Teaching and teachers
• Five actions to accelerate progress in learning
• Political Economy - Adoption
• Political Economy - Implementation
• Insight notes
• Working papers
• Learning trajectories
• The RISE Education Systems Diagnostic
• Surveys of Enacted Curriculum
• Education Systems Course
• Community of Practice

• Understanding Poverty

Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER)

Note: This page consolidates all available SABER information, data, instruments/questionnaires, reports, and other documents that have been produced as part of the SABER program (2013-2020).

In the past, there has been widespread agreement that education delivers skills that underpin students’ future learning and lead to greater social and financial mobility, increasing personal incomes and ultimately affecting a country’s economic growth and development. But there was far less agreement on the education policies and programs most likely to create quality learning environments and improve student performance, especially among the disadvantaged.

The Systems Approach for Better Education Results (SABER) was launched by the World Bank in 2011 to help fill this gap. SABER is an initiative to produce comparative data and knowledge on education policies and institutions, with the aim of helping countries systematically strengthen their education systems and the ultimate goal of promoting Learning for All. It allows countries to conduct a thorough inventory of their education policies and institutions based on global best practices, as well as provides decisionmakers and stakeholders at all levels with tools for structured and effective policy dialogue.

What is a systems approach?

The systems approach to education analysis and reform is at the heart of the World Bank’s Education Strategy 2020: Learning for All and the new Education Approach. It recognizes that improving education requires much more than just increasing resources: it requires strengthening all factors that improve learning for all children and youth. This means making sure that the education system’s policies and institutions for governance, accountability, information, financing rules, and school management are all aligned with learning for all. SABER helps define and analyze education systems by identifying and assessing the education policies that matter most in helping countries achieve education results and learning.

SABER 1.0: Policy intent

In each education system area, SABER collected and analyzed policy data in ways that ensure rigorous and cross-country comparability. The foundation for data collection has been a What Matters Framework Paper in each policy area—a thorough review of the global evidence that identifies the policies and institutions that matter most in promoting learning for all. A rubric for assessing progress toward identified goals, along with a questionnaire for collecting policy data, have been part of this framework document.

The data have been collected in-country by local experts for 10 topics or domains (out of a total of 13, given that there are three cross-cutting themes that did not go through the data collection process -in italics below-), and verified through discussions with government counterparts before being used for country reports and made available publicly. This validation has been quite extensive in its engagement of policymakers and stakeholders. 

Learn more: The What, Why, and How of the SABER

Who has applied SABER?

Countries from all regions of the world have applied SABER tools and have used SABER for policy dialogue and reform (see all relevant documents under Publications in the RELATED section). Since its inception, SABER tools have been applied in over 100 countries to assess and benchmark education systems against global best practices, a fundamental step toward meaningful reforms. Countries identify which parts of the education system they want to assess and improve –for example, a government may want to understand what should be done to improve early childhood development– and then they work with the World Bank and other development partners to apply the relevant tools and analyze their related policies and institutions. The tools themselves have been refined over the years, and new ways of analyzing education systems have been incorporated to better capture what is happening in schools themselves.

Transitioning to SABER 2.0

SABER initially focused on assessing how well a country’s education policies and institutions aligned with its education goals, and benchmarked these policies against global evidence of what works to improve learning. Later SABER began developing a framework for measuring and analyzing service delivery at the school level, providing a much-needed feedback loop to help countries hone their policies and institutions to better meet their education goals such as SABER Service Delivery , Teach , and In-Service Teacher Training Survey Instrument (ITTSI) . These efforts resulted in a large body of tools and information to help countries diagnose constraints in education systems. However, scaling up the use of these instruments is difficult and costly. 

SABER 2.0: Measuring learning and its drivers

The release of the World Development Report (WDR) 2018 , the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) , the World Bank’s World Bank's Human Capital Project (HCP ), and the World Bank’s Learning Target , by drawing attention to the global learning crisis, raised the ambition for the measurement agenda on learning and its drivers, and increased the demand for comprehensive, streamlined, and cost-effective instruments that build on the existing SABER tools to measure the drivers of learning, and that can be scaled up to all countries to better identify binding constraints to improving learning, guide policy decisions, and monitor progress on policy efforts to address them. 

To support these priorities, in 2018 the SABER program introduced the following initiatives: 

• The Global Comparability of Learning Outcomes (GCLO) to harmonize existing international, regional, and national learning assessments to make learning data from different assessments comparable across countries by expanding the Harmonized Learning Outcomes (HLO) global dataset, and creating the Global Learning Assessment Database (GLAD) and the Learning Poverty database . The GCLO also served as main input to produce COVID-19 simulations . 
• The Global Education Policy Dashboard (GEPD) to measure and track progress of the key drivers of learning outcomes in basic education around the world at the service delivery, policy, and politics level, with specific attention to their impact on policy dialogue and policy decision making.
• The Education Policy Design Labs (EPDLs) to identify the key constraints to learning and set the priorities for policy intervention and implementation to remove such constraints in a given country. 

The COVID-19 pandemic amplified the global learning crisis that already existed. In this context, these initiatives are even more relevant today as they can facilitate countries’ efforts in response to the pandemic: the GCLO activities and tools within the harmonized learning measurement agenda can be used to either simulate potential learning losses due to the pandemic, or to measure actual learning losses once schools reopen; the GEPD can provide the baseline upon which countries can identify what is needed and the priorities for strengthening as their education systems reopen; and the EPDLs can help prioritize and build shared understanding on how to accelerate learning. 

More information can be found in the SABER Annual Report 2020 .

The SABER Umbrella Facility (SABER-UF) was created in 2013 as a multi-donor trust fund to enable partners and donors to support SABER activities. With SABER-UF support, the World Bank had been able to expand the reach of SABER activities. SABER-UF initially (SABER 1.0: 2013-2018) funded by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID, now renamed FCDO), and later (SABER 2.0: 2019-Present) funded by the Bill and Melina Gates Foundation (BMGF) and UK’s Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO, formally DFID).

Many other partners and donors have also supported the development and application of SABER, including Russia (through the Russia Education Aid for Development, or READ); the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF); the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the Arab League Educational, Cultural and Scientific Organization (ALECSO); the World Food Programme (WFP); the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF); the Netherlands BNP Paribas program; the Korean Trust Fund program; and UNESCO’s Education for All Teacher Task Force. 

With the World Bank’s recent Trust Fund (TF) reform, the SABER-UF has transitioned into the Foundational Learning Compact (FLC) Umbrella TF. The SABER 2.0 initiatives, such as GCLO, GEPD, and EPDLs, will continue to be supported under the FLC Umbrella program. 

Overview: The What, Why, and How of the SABER

Ratings & Data

• Download Rubric Data

Publications

• What Matters Framework Papers
• SABER Country Reports
• Global/Regional Analyses
• SABER Topic Briefs
• SABER in Action Briefs
• SABER Case Studies

SABER Annual Reports

• 2020 (Retrospective)
• 2018 (Retrospective)

Related Links

• Collapse and Recovery: How the COVID-19 Pandemic Eroded Human Capital and What to Do about It
• Global Education Policy Dashboard
• Learning Poverty
• Foundational Learning Compact (FLC) Umbrella
• World Bank Education

How Systems Thinking Applies to Education

Current approaches, systems definitions, open systems, schools as open systems, implications for education.

• the piecemeal, or incremental, approach;
• failure to integrate solution ideas;
• a discipline-by-discipline study of education;
• a reductionist orientation;
• staying within the boundaries of the existing system (not thinking out of the box).

Figure 1. Key Evolutionary Markers

How Systems Thinking Applies to Education - table

• Energy is transformed, and something new is produced.
• A product is exported into the environment.
• The pattern of energy exchange is cyclical; the product that is exported into the environment is the source of energy for repetition of the cycle of activities.
• The system aims to “maximize its ratio of imported to expended energy.”
• The system exhibits differentiation, a tendency toward increased complexity through specialization.
• It interacts with constantly changing (multiple) environments and coordinates with many other systems in the environment.
• It copes with constant change, uncertainty, and ambiguity while maintaining the ability to co-evolve with the environment by changing itself and transforming and the environment.
• It lives and deals creatively with change and welcomes—not just tolerates—complex and ambiguous situations.
• It becomes an organizational learning systems, capable of differentiating among situations where maintaining the organization by adjustments and corrections is appropriate (single-loop learning) and those where changing and redesigning are called for (double-loop learning) (Argyris 1982).
• It seeks and finds new purposes, carves out new niches in the environment, and develops increased capacity for self-reference, self-correction, self-direction, self-organization, and self-renewal.
• It recognizes that the continuing knowledge explosion requires a two-pronged increase in specialization and diversification and integration and generalization.
• It increases the amount of information it can process, processes it rapidly, distributes it to a larger number of groups and people, and transforms the information into organizational knowledge.
• outcomes (broad statements of purpose);
• outcome-related standards;
• benchmarks for each standard against which to measure individual and program progress continuously;
• assessment based on performance compared to benchmarks, not to other students (feedback);
• self-assessment;
• triangulation (use of multiple forms of assessment by multiple assessors to increase the validity and reliability of feedback);
• immediate intervention;
• generative learning (Wittrock 1974);
• reflective practice (Schon 1987, Educational Leadership 1991);
• balanced instructional design (Betts and Walberg, unpublished manuscript);
• varied learning structures (self-directed, one-to-one, small groups, lecture, field study, apprenticeships, mentoring);
• year-round schooling;
• assignment to learning groups based on individual performance, rather than age-grade distinctions;
• intact teams working over an extended period of time (more than one year) to achieve a common goal;
• increased sources of information via telecommunications from school and home, through peer and cross-age relationships, using cooperative learning structures, from video and optical media, supported by fully integrated, interactive computer-assisted instruction through a variety of electronically linked community resources (home, school, work, libraries, recreation centers, health care facilities, churches);
• increased access to information;
• digitized student information and instructional resources, fully accessible via touch-tone phone;
• “electronic books”;
• multilingual resources;
• multimedia delivery (sound, graphics, and/or text options);
• tightly integrated curriculum, instruction, and assessment, such as total immersion second language instruction;
• hierarchy of small, six-to-eight person, self-sufficient, semiautonomous teams (sub-systems).

Ackoff, R. L. (1981). Creating the Corporate Future . New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Ackoff, R. L. (1986). Management in Small Doses . New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning, and Action . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Banathy, B. H. (1991). Systems Design of Education: A Journey to Create the Future . Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Educational Technology Publications.

Betts, F.M., and H.J. Walberg. (Unpublished manuscript). “Improving Student Achievement through Balanced Instructional Design.”

Boulding, K. E. (1956). The Image . Ann Arbor, Mich.: The University of Michigan Press.

Educational Leadership . (March 1991). Theme Issue on “The Reflective Educator.” Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. (1969). “Common Characteristics of Open Systems.” In Systems Thinking , edited by F. E. Emery. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books Ltd.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wittrock, M.C. (1974). “Learning as a Generative Process.” Educational Psychologist 11: 87–95.

Frank Betts has been a contributor to Educational Leadership.

ASCD is a community dedicated to educators' professional growth and well-being.

Let us help you put your vision into action., from our issue.

To process a transaction with a Purchase Order please send to [email protected]

Systems Engineer

• Certifications
• Related Topics

What Is a Systems Engineer? How to Become One, Salary, Skills.

Systems engineers oversee the engineering and management of software, services or products. They are responsible for considering the technical and business details of a system and aim to take a holistic view of a project. Here’s what to know about a system engineer’s salary, needed skills and how to become one.

What Is a Systems Engineer?

Systems engineers are responsible for coordinating the big picture aspects of software or services, such as schedules, cost and other issues that may arise. Systems engineers can be found in a variety of industries including software development, healthcare and manufacturing. 

What Do Systems Engineers Do?

Systems engineers’ responsibilities can vary widely depending on their industry but some common duties include creating software applications, maintaining operating systems, studying industry trends, weighing risks and developing project strategies. 

Systems Engineer Responsibilities

• Oversee the conception, development, testing and release of software, products or services.
• Manage and organize a project’s timeline to ensure tasks are done in the proper order. 
• Develop and implement software changes and fixes.
• Establish and maintain automated procedures. 
• Manage workflows, risk assessment and optimization for projects.
• Assess the technical features of a project to make sure engineering procedures are operating correctly.

Day-to-Day Responsibilities of Systems Engineer

• Monitor and respond to help requests and bug fixes.
• Monitor and maintain systems to ensure they are running smoothly. 
• Coordinate with software engineers and product teams to continuously deploy fixes to issues. 

Types of Systems Engineers

Systems engineers can be found across many industries, and the type of engineering role depends on the field they are in. Systems engineer expertise can range from electrical, mechanical, chemical, biological or business processes and logistics.

Systems Engineers Within a Company

Systems engineers are typically on an engineering or product team, depending on the structure of the company. This role often involves communicating with both project managers and engineering teams to translate ideas and project goals between the two in order to develop a new system or product. 

Importance of Systems Engineer

Since systems engineers are responsible for laying the groundwork for systems and products from conception to release, they are a crucial part of a company’s product development. A successful system engineer ensures that products and services are made according to operational procedures and are continuously maintained and optimized to provide the best performance. 

What Skills Are Needed to Be a Systems Engineer?

Qualifications to be a systems engineer.

• Ability to approach a project with a big-picture lens. 
• Understanding of people management. 
• Highly organized and detail oriented.
• Strong sense for conflict resolution.
• Strong mathematics background. 
• Ability to communicate complex ideas and systems to key stakeholders.

Systems Engineer Prerequisites

• Systems engineers typically hold a bachelor’s degree in systems engineering. 
• Many systems engineer roles also require a master’s degree in a specialized field such as software systems, transportation or logistics.  

Systems Engineer Hard Skills

• Data analysis.
• Cloud computing.
• IT skills. 
• Coding and programming skills.
• Database management.
• Risk management.

Systems Engineer Soft Skills

• Communication and presentation skills. 
• Troubleshooting skills.
• Organizational skills. 
• Time management. 

Tools and Programs Systems Engineer Use

• Enterprise Architect
• Rational DOORS
• Rational System Architect

How to Become a Systems Engineer

Systems engineer education and experience.

Systems engineers are typically required to have at least a bachelor’s degree in systems engineering or a related field. A master’s degree can help systems engineers train in a specific field or industry to further tailor their experience for the role they want to pursue. 

Systems Engineer Certificates and Courses

• Systems Engineering Professional (SEP) Certification
• (ISC)² Information Security Certifications
• CompTIA Network+ Certification
• Software Engineering Master Certification (SEMC)
• Project Management Certification Training

Systems Engineer Career Path

Many systems engineers begin their career in entry-level roles like network administrator or software engineer. After becoming a systems engineer, someone may hold a more senior position or a specialized title. Some common roles after systems engineer include systems administrator and IT director. 

Systems Engineer Salary and Job Outlook

The outlook for systems engineers is promising, with 21 percent job growth projected from 2021 to 2031. 

The full compensation package for a systems engineer] depends on a variety of factors, including but not limited to the candidate’s experience and geographic location. See below for detailed information on the average systems engineer salary.

Expand Your Systems Engineer Career Opportunities

Branch out and learn coveted skills with Udemy’s online development and engineering courses.

Product Development & Systems Engineering uses a structured yet flexible approach to provide a holistic, solid foundation to the successful development of complex products or systems.

This course will take you step by step through the…

The Python Scapy programming course for network and IT engineers teaches how to perform network scripting and code your own network scripts and tools using Scapy Python combination for different areas like network engineering, network scanning,…

In this course, you'll learn : 

IBM AIX System Administration

AIX offers 99.9% uptime and as compared to LINUX, AIX has proven to be  a far superior OS.

Learns basics commands that are…

The aim of this course is to introduce the student to the area of computer Network Security. This course develops a basic understanding of the algorithms used to protect the flow of information in Computer networks and to understand some of the…

Systems Engineer Certifications + Programs

Prepare for a major career change with Udacity’s online development and engineering certifications.

General Assembly’s Software Engineering Immersive is a transformative course designed for you to get the necessary skills for a coding role in three months. 

The Software Engineering bootcamp is led by instructors who are expert practitioners in their field, supported by career coaches that work with you since day one and enhanced by a career services team that is constantly in talks with employers about their tech hiring needs.

What you'll accomplish

As a graduate, you’ll have a portfolio of projects that show your knowledge of fundamental programming concepts, as well as experience with languages, frameworks, and libraries that employers demand. Throughout this expert-designed program, you’ll:

Create a front-end web application with modern JavaScript frameworks such as Angular or React.

Develop and deploy full-stack applications with in-demand technologies such as Ruby on Rails, Python with Django, and Express with Node.js.

Build secure full-stack applications by leveraging common design and architectural patterns like model–view–controller (MVC) and Representational State Transfer (REST).

Practice version control and collaborative software development with Git and GitHub.

Safely model and store data in SQL and NoSQL databases.

Consume and integrate third-party application programming interfaces (APIs) in an application.

Why General Assembly

Since 2011, General Assembly has graduated more than 40,000 students worldwide from the full time & part time courses.   During the 2020 hiring shutdown, GA's students, instructors, and career coaches never lost focus, and the KPMG-validated numbers in their Outcomes report reflect it. *For students who graduated in 2020 — the peak of the pandemic — 74.4% of those who participated in GA's full-time Career Services program landed jobs within six months of graduation.  General Assembly is proud of their grads + teams' relentless dedication and to see those numbers rising. Download the report here .

Your next step? Submit an application to talk to the General Assembly Admissions team

Note: reviews are referenced from Career Karma - https://careerkarma.com/schools/general-assembly

We have built this course for beginners who have no experience with the Linux system and the command-line interface.

In this course, you'll learn the basics of the command line interface of a Linux server: the terminal and shell (GNU Bash). This course includes an introduction to files and directories in the Linux filesystem.

Careers Related to Systems Engineer

Latest development and engineering jobs, companies hiring systems engineers, most common skills for systems engineer, related software engineering careers.

Along with Stanford news and stories, show me:

• Student information
• Faculty/Staff information

We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.

Image credit: Claire Scully

New advances in technology are upending education, from the recent debut of new artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT to the growing accessibility of virtual-reality tools that expand the boundaries of the classroom. For educators, at the heart of it all is the hope that every learner gets an equal chance to develop the skills they need to succeed. But that promise is not without its pitfalls.

“Technology is a game-changer for education – it offers the prospect of universal access to high-quality learning experiences, and it creates fundamentally new ways of teaching,” said Dan Schwartz, dean of Stanford Graduate School of Education (GSE), who is also a professor of educational technology at the GSE and faculty director of the Stanford Accelerator for Learning . “But there are a lot of ways we teach that aren’t great, and a big fear with AI in particular is that we just get more efficient at teaching badly. This is a moment to pay attention, to do things differently.”

For K-12 schools, this year also marks the end of the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funding program, which has provided pandemic recovery funds that many districts used to invest in educational software and systems. With these funds running out in September 2024, schools are trying to determine their best use of technology as they face the prospect of diminishing resources.

Here, Schwartz and other Stanford education scholars weigh in on some of the technology trends taking center stage in the classroom this year.

AI in the classroom

In 2023, the big story in technology and education was generative AI, following the introduction of ChatGPT and other chatbots that produce text seemingly written by a human in response to a question or prompt. Educators immediately worried that students would use the chatbot to cheat by trying to pass its writing off as their own. As schools move to adopt policies around students’ use of the tool, many are also beginning to explore potential opportunities – for example, to generate reading assignments or coach students during the writing process.

AI can also help automate tasks like grading and lesson planning, freeing teachers to do the human work that drew them into the profession in the first place, said Victor Lee, an associate professor at the GSE and faculty lead for the AI + Education initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning. “I’m heartened to see some movement toward creating AI tools that make teachers’ lives better – not to replace them, but to give them the time to do the work that only teachers are able to do,” he said. “I hope to see more on that front.”

He also emphasized the need to teach students now to begin questioning and critiquing the development and use of AI. “AI is not going away,” said Lee, who is also director of CRAFT (Classroom-Ready Resources about AI for Teaching), which provides free resources to help teach AI literacy to high school students across subject areas. “We need to teach students how to understand and think critically about this technology.”

Immersive environments

The use of immersive technologies like augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality is also expected to surge in the classroom, especially as new high-profile devices integrating these realities hit the marketplace in 2024.

The educational possibilities now go beyond putting on a headset and experiencing life in a distant location. With new technologies, students can create their own local interactive 360-degree scenarios, using just a cell phone or inexpensive camera and simple online tools.

“This is an area that’s really going to explode over the next couple of years,” said Kristen Pilner Blair, director of research for the Digital Learning initiative at the Stanford Accelerator for Learning, which runs a program exploring the use of virtual field trips to promote learning. “Students can learn about the effects of climate change, say, by virtually experiencing the impact on a particular environment. But they can also become creators, documenting and sharing immersive media that shows the effects where they live.”

Integrating AI into virtual simulations could also soon take the experience to another level, Schwartz said. “If your VR experience brings me to a redwood tree, you could have a window pop up that allows me to ask questions about the tree, and AI can deliver the answers.”

Gamification

Another trend expected to intensify this year is the gamification of learning activities, often featuring dynamic videos with interactive elements to engage and hold students’ attention.

“Gamification is a good motivator, because one key aspect is reward, which is very powerful,” said Schwartz. The downside? Rewards are specific to the activity at hand, which may not extend to learning more generally. “If I get rewarded for doing math in a space-age video game, it doesn’t mean I’m going to be motivated to do math anywhere else.”

Gamification sometimes tries to make “chocolate-covered broccoli,” Schwartz said, by adding art and rewards to make speeded response tasks involving single-answer, factual questions more fun. He hopes to see more creative play patterns that give students points for rethinking an approach or adapting their strategy, rather than only rewarding them for quickly producing a correct response.

Data-gathering and analysis

The growing use of technology in schools is producing massive amounts of data on students’ activities in the classroom and online. “We’re now able to capture moment-to-moment data, every keystroke a kid makes,” said Schwartz – data that can reveal areas of struggle and different learning opportunities, from solving a math problem to approaching a writing assignment.

But outside of research settings, he said, that type of granular data – now owned by tech companies – is more likely used to refine the design of the software than to provide teachers with actionable information.

The promise of personalized learning is being able to generate content aligned with students’ interests and skill levels, and making lessons more accessible for multilingual learners and students with disabilities. Realizing that promise requires that educators can make sense of the data that’s being collected, said Schwartz – and while advances in AI are making it easier to identify patterns and findings, the data also needs to be in a system and form educators can access and analyze for decision-making. Developing a usable infrastructure for that data, Schwartz said, is an important next step.

With the accumulation of student data comes privacy concerns: How is the data being collected? Are there regulations or guidelines around its use in decision-making? What steps are being taken to prevent unauthorized access? In 2023 K-12 schools experienced a rise in cyberattacks, underscoring the need to implement strong systems to safeguard student data.

Technology is “requiring people to check their assumptions about education,” said Schwartz, noting that AI in particular is very efficient at replicating biases and automating the way things have been done in the past, including poor models of instruction. “But it’s also opening up new possibilities for students producing material, and for being able to identify children who are not average so we can customize toward them. It’s an opportunity to think of entirely new ways of teaching – this is the path I hope to see.”

How systems transitions can improve sustainable development

Clark, William, et al. Systems transitions research and sustainable development: Challenges, progress, and prospects ,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 120, No. 47, Nov. 2023).

Faculty Authors

William Clark

What’s the issue.

Making development sustainable is a central challenge of our age. The field of sustainability science tries to figure out how interactions of nature and society can support sustainable development. One key goal is figuring out how to restructure complex consumption-production systems. Examples of these systems are production and consumption of food, energy, and mobility. Scientists are studying how transitions in these production-consumption systems can bend development pathways toward sustainability.

What does the research say?

Writing in a special edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scholars Frank Geels of the University of Manchester, Florian Kern of the Institute for Ecological Economy Research in Berlin, and William C. Clark of Harvard Kennedy School bring together insights from experts on system transitions that shape sustainable development. This work weighs how potential solutions might fundamentally shift consumption-production systems. The authors note that radical innovations in small niches can lead to major transitions in large consumption-production systems. The three lead authors call on more than a dozen sustainable development scholars to examine specific innovations and obstacles to progress. These experts look at the drivers and barriers to sustainability in electricity, food, and mobility systems; they also consider larger cross-cutting systems issues. For example, one essay analyzes the British electricity system since World War Two, and the role that increasing concerns about climate change played in generating a more interventionist policy approach to shift electricity production and consumption. These systems changes led to an 86% reduction in emissions from 2006 to 2019. The authors note that political and economic struggles as well as technological advances drove this transition. Another paper analyzes how recent technology advances in energy storage, microgrids, and digitized systems in the United States have helped undermine long-time obstacles to small-scale solar energy development. Other essays look at the adoption of electric vehicles in Norway, the systems issues involved in car-sharing, agroecology in Nicaragua, and the shift to plant-based alternatives to meat production. 

More from HKS

For more than four decades, professor bill clark has championed sustainability, walking the talk: how students can contribute to the hks sustainability agenda, pursuing sustainability: a guide to the science and practice.

Get smart & reliable public policy insights right in your inbox. 

Advertisement

'An End to Inequality': Author Jonathan Kozol's wish for a more democratic education system

Copy the code below to embed the wbur audio player on your site.

<iframe width="100%" height="124" scrolling="no" frameborder="no" src="https://player.wbur.org/hereandnow/2024/05/16/end-to-inequality-book"></iframe>

On the eve of the 70th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, Here & Now ’s Deepa Fernandes speaks with educator and author Jonathan Kozol about his latest book “ An End to Inequality: Breaking Down the Walls of Apartheid Education in America .”

Book excerpt: 'An End to Inequality: Breaking Down the Walls of Apartheid Education in America'

By Jonathan Kozol

For more than half a century, I’ve been working with young children and their teachers in schools that serve low-income Black and brown communities and, in my books, I’ve underscored repeatedly the nearly total isolation of these children from the mainstream of American society. School segregation, as we know, continues unabated and is presently at its highest level since the early 1990s. The ruling of the Warren court in Brown v. Board of Education is like a ghost of Christmas past. Its legacy and spirit have largely been abandoned.

But segregation, in and of itself, is not the primary subject of this book. We are dealing today not only with a physical divide that is obvious to anyone who spends much time in public schools, but also with a parallel divide between two worlds of pedagogic practice and methods of instructional control: one of them a tightly wired code of discipline and training that is held to be appropriate for children of one class and race, the other with more space and time for children to take some joy in learning as an act of exploration.

The notion that young children of color need a uniquely different course of training than white children because of their allegedly inherent liabilities, or liabilities attributed to parental “failings,” has always been a subtext in arguments presented by those who see no merit in school desegregation and was often heard in Boston when I was in my first year as a teacher in 1964 and 1965. I later described the open expression of these views in the words of school officials when I published Death at an Early Age about the school where I was teaching. I was a young and naïve optimist. I wanted to think that these beliefs would dissipate in time and would be consigned at last to the trash heap of our racist history.

It turns out I was wrong. Over the course of recent decades, these ideas have surfaced once again and have been elaborately revitalized and reified and seemingly legitimized by influential figures at conservative foundations as well as by their counterparts at many universities. School officials in all too many of our urban districts often appear to share the same perceptions of the students in their classrooms.

According to this thinking, Black and Latino children have different ways of understanding what we should expect of them than white and middle-class children do. They come to us, as we’ve been told, with troubled minds and unruly temperaments that cannot be subdued by normal forms of discipline. Different needs require different strategies. The strategy in this case, as I began to hear the latest iteration of this argument emerging, includes a wide array of practices intended to revise the sensibilities of children and to militate against the indulgence of their youthful curiosities, in order to keep them on a straight gray line of march to their next examination. Sitting stiff and silent in the classroom, no impulsive and unscripted questions, many numbered lists of minor misbehaviors and the unpleasant penalties for each, regimens of shaming for those who aren’t “performing up to expectations”—all of these are pieces of the disparate agenda.

So long as it’s accepted that these are the most productive strategies for governing the temperaments of children of a different class and color, any serious attempt at racial integration of our public schools would seem to be foolhardy—and would, indeed, run counter to the interests of those children, as their interests are perceived by those who really do believe they come to us in kindergarten or first grade, or preschool for that matter, as deficient little people. Why go to all the trouble it would take to let them go to schools where six-year-olds can move around the room and scrunch their legs up on their chairs and do not have to live in fear of penalties for looking out the window or whispering or laughing when they think that something’s funny? Why allow them this degree of normal informality, and this opportunity to interact with kids who come from other backgrounds and other racial origins, if all of this is contraindicated by “the data that we have in hand,” as we are told so frequently?

It’s not surprising that the right-leaning institutes in Washington and elsewhere have aggressively promoted these beliefs. These are the same forces, or the latter-day descendants of those forces, that promoted voucher schemes and separatist academies in Southern states in efforts to resist the integration struggles and the rulings of the courts in the days when Dr. King and Thurgood Marshall were alive. The real heartbreaker is that so many otherwise enlightened people appear to find these arguments convincing—or, at least, convenient rationales for leaving poor Black and Latino children where they are, “over there,” in schools that can deliver what they “need.” Would it not be a disservice to these children, according to this logic, to bring them into schools in which the special medicine that’s been prescribed for them is simply not available?

An End to Inequality: Breaking Down the Walls of Apartheid Education in America is a book about that “special medicine”—the targeting of children, on the basis of their economic status and skin color, with a brand of education that is crudely autocratic and, in the worst of cases that I’ve seen, grimly reminiscent of the Era of Eugenics. At a time when democratic values are under fierce assault, too little has been said about this clearly racialized agenda. One class of children is given at least some random opportunities to ask discerning questions, to interrogate everyday realities, and their teachers are not cautioned to suppress and penalize every indication of their often justifiable and serious or sometimes simply whimsical irreverence. Another class of children is not to be permitted the same luxuries.

The idea of a different breed of child who learns and feels and comprehends in wholly different ways than the children of the experts who have drawn this demarcation is an ignorant and dangerous construction. It widens the gulf between the favored and the disempowered. It inculcates unquestioning conformity. It closes the window on the full capaciousness of learning. It does not build on the richness of Black culture or any mix of cultures. It isn’t about culture. It’s about containment. It isn’t good for children, and it’s not good for America.

Why do I use the word “reparations” – a word generally avoided by education writers – in speaking about enabling far more children of color to escape the present system of Jim Crow education? It’s well past time to make good, at long last, on that “promissory note” that Dr. King described on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963. And, as I have argued in this book, one good way we can actually begin is by doing whatever it may take, and spending whatever it may cost, to break the back of the dual system that separates the children in our public schools. The dream that Dr. King repeatedly envisioned was not some kind of cloudy aspiration to be realized in a very distant future. “Now is the time,” he memorably said, “to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the summit path of racial justice.” Any attempt to dilute that dream is a betrayal of his legacy.

Bringing millions of our children across the lines of class and race in beautiful and culturally expansive and richly funded classrooms will, as we’ve seen, cost a vast amount of money, and, for those who are content with the system as it stands, it will cost much more than money: it will cost them the disruption of their shameful equanimity, their routine acquiescence in the suffering of other people’s children.

Those who insist that there are less disruptive and less costly ways to raise the hopes and empower the success of children “over there” are simply blind to history. They’re asking us to place our faith in another round of those same old cycles of reform within the bounds of segregation that have never worked before. They ask us to believe that apartheid education is perfectible.

There is no such thing as perfectible apartheid. It’s all a grand delusion. I will say again what thousands of others—from Thurgood Marshall to Ted Shaw— have tirelessly told us so many times before. Separate is not equal. It never was. It isn’t now. It won’t be in another fifty years. Tests and punishments and scientific measurement and longer lists of incorrect behaviors are not going to “fix” it. Apartheid education isn’t something you can “fix.” It needs to be dismantled. How much longer will it be before enough good people who have “the best intentions” can summon up the ethical audacity to go beyond their good intentions and join us in the struggle to batter down those walls?

Copyright © 2024 by Jonathan Kozol. This excerpt originally appeared in "An End to Inequality: Breaking Down the Walls of Apartheid Education in America," published by The New Press. Reprinted here with permission.

This segment aired on May 16, 2024.

More from Here & Now

Global education: How to transform school systems?

• Download the essay

Subscribe to the Center for Universal Education Bulletin

Emiliana vegas and emiliana vegas former co-director - center for universal education , former senior fellow - global economy and development @emivegasv rebecca winthrop rebecca winthrop director - center for universal education , senior fellow - global economy and development @rebeccawinthrop.

November 17, 2020

• 12 min read

This essay is part of “ Reimagining the global economy: Building back better in a post-COVID-19 world ,” a collection of 12 essays presenting new ideas to guide policies and shape debates in a post-COVID-19 world.

Even before COVID-19 left as many as 1.5 billion students out of school in early 2020, there was a global consensus that education systems in too many countries were not delivering the quality education needed to ensure that all have the skills necessary to thrive. 1 It is the poorest children across the globe who carry the heaviest burden, with pre-pandemic analysis estimating that 90 percent of children in low-income countries, 50 percent of children in middle-income countries, and 30 percent of children in high-income countries fail to master the basic secondary-level skills needed to thrive in work and life. 2  

Analysis in mid-April 2020—in the early throes of the pandemic—found that less than 25 percent of low-income countries were providing any type of remote learning, while close to 90 percent of high-income countries were. 3 On top of cross-country differences in access to remote learning, within-country differences are also staggering. For example, during the COVID-19 school closures, 1 in 10 of the poorest children in the U.S. had little or no access to technology for learning. 4

Yet, for a few young people in wealthy communities around the globe, schooling has never been better than during the pandemic. They are taught in their homes with a handful of their favorite friends by a teacher hired by their parents. 5  Some parents have connected via social media platforms to form learning pods that instruct only a few students at a time with agreed-upon teaching schedules and activities.

While the learning experiences for these particular children may be good in and of themselves, they represent a worrisome trend for the world: the massive acceleration of education inequality. 6

Emerging from this global pandemic with a stronger public education system is an ambitious vision, and one that will require both financial and human resources.

The silver lining is that COVID-19 has resulted in public recognition of schools’ essential caretaking role in society and parents’ gratitude for teachers, their skills, and their invaluable role in student well-being.

It is hard to imagine there will be another moment in history when the central role of schooling in the economic, social, and political prosperity and stability of nations is so obvious and well understood by the general population. The very fact that schools enable parents to work outside the home is hitting home to millions of families amid global school closures. Now is the time to chart a vision for how education can emerge stronger from this global crisis and help reduce education inequality.

Indeed, we believe that strong and inclusive public education systems are essential to the short- and long-term recovery of society and that there is an opportunity to leapfrog toward powered-up schools.

A powered-up school, one that well serves the educational needs of children and youth, is one that puts a strong public school at the center of the community and leverages the most effective partnerships to help learners grow and develop a broad range of competencies and skills. It would recognize and adapt to the learning that takes place beyond its walls, regularly assessing students’ skills and tailoring learning opportunities to meet students at their skill level. New allies in children’s learning would complement and assist teachers, and could support children’s healthy mental and physical development. It quite literally would be the school at the center of the community that powers student learning and development using every path possible (Figure 12.1).

While this vision is aspirational, it is by no means impractical. Schools at the center of a community ecosystem of learning and support are an idea whose time has come, and some of the emerging practices amid COVID-19, such as empowering parents to support their children’s education, should be sustained after the pandemic subsides.

It is hard to imagine there will be another moment in history when the central role of schooling in the economic, social, and political prosperity and stability of nations is so obvious and well understood by the general population.

The way forward

To achieve this vision, we propose five actions to seize the moment and transform education systems (focusing on pre-primary through secondary school) to better serve all children and youth, especially the most disadvantaged.

1. Leverage public schools and put them at the center of education systems given their essential role in equalizing opportunity across society

By having the mandate to serve all children and youth regardless of background, public schools in many countries can bring together individuals from diverse backgrounds and needs, providing the social benefit of allowing individuals to grow up with a set of common values and knowledge that can make communities more cohesive and unified. 7

Schools play a crucial role in fostering the skills individuals need to succeed in a rapidly changing labor market, 8 play a major role in equalizing opportunities for individuals of diverse backgrounds, and address a variety of social needs that serve communities, regions, and entire nations. While a few private schools can and do play these multiple roles, public education is the main conduit for doing so at scale and hence should be at the center of any effort to build back better.

2. Focus on the instructional core, the heart of the teaching and learning process

Using the instructional core—or focusing on the interactions among educators, learners, and educational materials to improve student learning 9 —can help identify what types of new strategies or innovations could become community-based supports in children’s learning journey. Indeed, even after only a few months of experimentation around the globe on keeping learning going amid a pandemic, some clear strategies have the potential, if continued, to contribute to a powered-up school, and many of them involve engaging learners, educators, and parents in new ways using some form of technology.

3. Deploy education technology to power up schools in a way that meets teaching and learning needs and prevent technology from becoming a costly distraction

After COVID-19, one thing is certain: School systems that are best prepared to use education technology effectively will be best positioned to continue offering quality education in the face of school closures.

Other recent research 10 by one of us finds that technology can help improve learning by supporting the crucial interactions in the instructional core through the following ways: (1) scaling up quality instruction (by, for example, prerecorded lessons of high-quality teaching); (2) facilitating differentiated instruction (through, for example, computer-adaptive learning or live one-on-one tutoring); (3) expanding opportunities for student practice; and (4) increasing student engagement (through, for example, videos and games).

4. Forge stronger, more trusting relationships between parents and teachers

When a respectful relationship among parents, teachers, families, and schools happens, children learn and thrive. This occurs by inviting families to be allies in children’s learning by using easy-to-understand information communicated through mechanisms that adapt to parents’ schedules and that provide parents with an active but feasible role. The nature of the invitation and the relationship is what is so essential to bringing parents on board.

COVID-19 is an opportunity for parents and families to gain insight into the skill that is involved in teaching and for teachers and schools to realize what powerful allies parents can be. Parents around the world are not interested in becoming their child’s teacher, but they are, based on several large-scale surveys, 11 asking to be engaged in a different, more active way in the future. One of the most important insights for supporting a powered-up school is challenging the mindset of those in the education sector who think that parents and families with the least opportunities are not capable or willing to help their children learn.

5. Embrace the principles of improvement science required to evaluate, course correct, document, and scale new approaches that can help power up schools over time

The speed and depth of change mean that it will be essential to take an iterative approach to learning what works, for whom, and under what enabling conditions. In other words, this is a moment to employ the principles of improvement science. 12 Traditional research methods will need to be complemented by real-time documentation, reflection, quick feedback loops, and course correction. Rapid sharing of early insights and testing of potential change ideas will need to come alongside the longer-term rigorous reviews.

Adapting the scaling strategy is especially challenging, requiring not only timely data, a thorough understanding of the context, and space for reflection, but also willingness and capacity to act on this learning and make changes accordingly.

Related Content

Homi Kharas, John W. McArthur

Anthony F. Pipa, Max Bouchet

Kemal Derviş

Emerging from this global pandemic with a stronger public education system is an ambitious vision, and one that will require both financial and human resources. But such a vision is essential, and that amid the myriad of decisions education leaders are making every day, it can guide the future. With the dire consequences of the pandemic hitting the most vulnerable young people the hardest, it is tempting to revert to a global education narrative that privileges access to school above all else. This, however, would be a mistake. A powered-up public school in every community is what the world’s children deserve, and indeed is possible if everyone can collectively work together to harness the opportunities presented by this crisis to truly leapfrog education forward.

• This essay is based on a longer paper titled “Beyond reopening schools: How education can emerge stronger than before COVID-19” by the same authors, which can be found here: https://www.brookings.edu/research/beyond-reopening-schools-how-education-can-emerge-stronger-than-before-covid-19/ .
• ”The Learning Generation: Investing in Education for a Changing World.” The International Commission on Financing Global Education Opportunity. https://report.educationcommission.org/report/ .
• Vegas, Emiliana. “School Closures, Government Responses, and Learning Inequality around the World during COVID-19.” Brookings Institution, April 14, 2020. https://www.brookings.edu/research/school-closures-government-responses-and-learning-inequality-around-the-world-during-covid-19/.
• “U.S. Census Bureau Releases Household Pulse Survey Results.” United States Census Bureau, 2020, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020/household-pulse-results.html .
• Moyer, Melinda Wenner. “Pods, Microschools and Tutors: Can Parents Solve the Education Crisis on Their Own?” The New York Times. January 22, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/parenting/school-pods-coronavirus.html.
• Samuels, Christina A., and Arianna Prothero. “Could the ‘Pandemic Pod’ Be a Lifeline for Parents or a Threat to Equity?” Education Week. August 18, 2020. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2020/07/29/could-the-pandemic-pod-be-a-lifeline.html.
• Christakis, Erika. “Americans Have Given Up on Public Schools. That’s a Mistake.” The Atlantic. September 11, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/10/the-war-on-public-schools/537903/.
• Levin, Henry M. “Education as a Public and Private Good.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 6, no. 4 (1987): 628-41.
• David Cohen and Deborah Loewenberg Ball, who originated the idea of the instructional core, used the terms teachers, students, and content. The OECD’s initiative on “Innovative Learning Environments” later adapted the framework using the terms educators, learners, and resources to represent educational materials and added a new element of content to represent the choices around skills and competencies and how to assess them. Here we have pulled from elements that we like from both frameworks, using the term instructional core to describe the relationships between educators, learners, and content and added parents.
• Alejandro J. Ganimian, Emiliana Vegas, and Frederick M. Hess, “Realizing the promise: How can education technology improve learning for all?” Brookings Institution, September 2020, https://www.brookings.edu/essay/realizing-the-promise-how-can-education-technology-improve-learning-for-all/.
• “Parents 2020: COVID-19 Closures: A Redefining Moment for Students, Parents & Schools.” Heroes, Learning, 2020. https://r50gh2ss1ic2mww8s3uvjvq1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/LH_2020-Parent-Survey-Partner-1.pdf . 
• “The Six Core Principles of Improvement.” The Six Core Principles of Improvement. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. August 18, 2020. https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/our-ideas/six-core-principles-improvement/ . 

K-12 Education

Global Economy and Development

Center for Universal Education

Amna Qayyum, Claudia Hui

March 7, 2024

February 1, 2024

Elyse Painter, Emily Gustafsson-Wright

January 5, 2024

Student found with firearm by new weapons detection system at Mesa High School

A student at Mesa High School was found with a firearm Wednesday morning while attempting to go through a new weapons detection system to enter the school.

The student "at no time threatened another student or staff member with a gun," according to district spokesperson Jen Snyder. The student was arrested.

It was the first day Mesa High School had implemented the weapons detection system, which consists of free-standing pillars that students walk through to enter school.

Weapons detectors are essentially metal detectors marketed as less invasive and quicker than detectors used in airports and prisons. In certain settings, they can detect specific metals known to be in weapons so that students don't have to remove innocuous metal items like keys, belts, and cell phones.

Mesa Public Schools voted in November to place the detectors, which cost about $20,000 each, at entrances to the district's high schools . It was a response to incidents that had taken place the prior year. Six firearms were found across the district's schools during the 2022-23 school year.

In the statement, Snyder described the weapons detection system as "another layer" to the district's security measures. The goal is to deter anyone from bringing weapons onto campuses, she said.

The detectors were piloted at Skyline High School before being implemented at Red Mountain and Mountain View. They were placed at Mesa High School on Wednesday and at Westwood on Thursday. Dobson High School will implement them on Monday, Snyder said. They'll be used at graduation.

According to Snyder, the student found with a firearm will be disciplined according to the district's discipline procedures. The district's student code of conduct notes that expulsion is required when a student brings a firearm to school. According to Arizona law, a school district must expel a student "who is determined to have brought a firearm to a school within the jurisdiction of the school district" for at least one year, though districts may modify the requirement on a case-by-case basis.

Reach the reporter at [email protected] .

Gazans strive to study as war shatters education system

• Medium Text
• Learning and literacy were source of pride in Gaza
• Many schools, universities struck during war
• Some displaced Gazans now learning in tents

'LIFESAVING ACT'

Sign up here.

Reporting by Dawoud Abu Alkas in Gaza, Nidal al-Mughrabi and Aidan Lewis in Cairo, Saleh Salem in Doha; Writing by Aidan Lewis; Editing by Nick Macfie

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Thomson Reuters

A senior correspondent with nearly 25 years’ experience covering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict including several wars and the signing of the first historic peace accord between the two sides.

World Chevron

Kenyan lawyers and their opposition party have asked a court to hold the government in contempt for a planned police deployment to Haiti, their filing to the court showed.

New York City Council

• Interactive Map
• Legislation
• Press Releases

NYC Council Calls for Maintaining Investments for Early Childhood Education System and Programs that Support Students’ Recovery from Learning Loss

May 15, 2024

Mayor’s FY25 Executive Budget failed to fully reverse cuts to early childhood education, student support programs

City Hall, NY – Ahead of the City Council’s Executive Budget hearing by the Committee on Education, with the Committee on Finance, the Council called for funding restorations and deeper investments into the early childhood education and student support programs, many of which were previously supported by expiring federal COVID-19 stimulus funds.

The education budget priorities were outlined by the Council in its Preliminary Budget Response released in April, but several remained completely or partially unfunded in the Mayor’s Fiscal Year 2025 Executive Budget.

Early Childhood Education

The Council has called for:

• The Mayor’s Executive Budget separately maintained $92 million in expiring federal stimulus funds for 3-K operating costs
• Commitment of $60 million to expand full-day/full-year seats to better meet families’ needs
• $10 million in new funding for 3-K marketing and outreach ($3.5 million of which was included in the Mayor’s Executive Budget)
• $96 million to replace expiring federal stimulus funds for preschool special education ($81 million was included in the Mayor’s Executive Budget).
• $25 million in baselined funding to support expanding the reach of Promise NYC, which provides childcare vouchers for undocumented children and families that are ineligible for other programs.

District 75 Programs

The Council has called for the restoration and baselining of the $3 million cut to District 75 programs that provide highly specialized instructional support to students with special needs. Given increasing Carter Case expenditures and the increase in other due process cases related to special needs services and education, there is a greater need for schools to provide quality special education services. The lower-than-expected spending used to justify this cut was due to vacancies in District 75 teaching positions and other special education-related positions. To fulfill the exigent need for the provision of special education services, the Administration should be hiring for these positions rather than cutting spending based on anticipated future vacancies.

Restorative Justice

The Council has called for $22 million to restore the $12 million in expiring federal funds and provide an additional $10 million to expand current programming. Restorative Justice programming and coordinators help teach students how to manage their emotions and deescalate conflict. It has also served as an alternative to punitive discipline and suspensions, which are linked to a greater likelihood of future involvement in the justice system.

School Food

The Council is calling for an additional $60 million for the school food program, including $17 million to restore cafeteria staff headcounts to pre-pandemic levels and at least $3 million to fund nutrition committees in schools. After initially cutting $60 million from school food funding in the November Financial Plan, the Administration announced a partial $25 million restoration in March.

Mental Health Continuum

The Council has called on the Administration to baseline $5 million for the Mental Health Continuum, a cross-agency partnership between the Department of Education, NYC Health + Hospitals and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene that provides mental health support to students in-person and virtually. In April, the Administration announced 16 new school-based mental health clinics would be funded $3.6 million in funds from the Continuum but the Executive Budget provided no allocation for the Continuum in Fiscal Year 2025 and beyond.

School Based Nurses

The Council has called for the restoration and baselining of $65 million to replace expiring federal stimulus funds and maintain nurses for over 130 schools and 70,000 students.

Youth Peer Support Program

The Council has called for $15.3 million to fund a youth peer support program that would utilize a school-based peer-to-peer model to empower young people between the ages of 14 and 24 years old to recognize and reduce stigma of mental health illness and support fellow students dealing with mental health challenges.

Student Success Centers

The Council has called for the restoration of $3.3 million to continue Student Success Centers that create partnerships between community-based organizations and high school campuses. They serve as critical opportunities for high schools to build a system of support that can improve students’ success in the college admissions processes. Expiring federal stimulus funds supported Student Success Centers in high schools.

Immigrant Family Engagement

The Council has called for the restoration of $4 million to continue supporting improved engagement between schools and immigrant families by providing school information and updates in families’ native languages.

Title VI Coordinators

The Council has called for an additional $4.4 million to hire one Title VI coordinator in each of the city’s 32 school districts to address acts of bias within schools and re-establish the Division of School Culture in the New York City Department of Education (DOE). Recent incidents of hate involving students and teachers in the city’s public school system have led to the initiation of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) on possible Title VI violations by the DOE. Considering the gravity of the investigation and the numerous incidents that have taken place during this school year, this is an important step that should be taken by the City. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides protections against discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any institution or program that receives federal funding from ED.    

“New York City students are recovering from historic, pandemic-era learning loss that requires additional support through critical education programs,” said Speaker Adrienne Adams . “The Council has consistently called for funding commitments to these vital initiatives that were at risk due to expiring federal stimulus funds. While the Administration’s commitment of more than $500 million to replace some of the expiring federal funds was a step forward, there is more work to be done to restore tens of millions of dollars for education programs that students and families need. Education must be a top budget priority for our city, and we will continue to push for the investments our children and communities deserve.”

“Investments in education programs and associated supportive programs for students save us, and make us, money in the long run,” said Council Member Justin Brannan, Chair of the Committee on Finance . “Our kids deserve our support, which is reason enough to make sure they have every opportunity to grow, learn, and thrive in our school system. But investing in education isn’t only the right thing to do, it’s also the fiscally responsible thing to do. Today’s students will inherit our city, so investments in education today are investments in New Yorkers’ health, wealth, public safety, and culture of tomorrow.”

“With the loss of billions in federal funds, it is imperative the City invests in maintaining funding for early childhood education, preschool special education, community schools, school food programs, restorative justice initiatives, and beyond in the Adopted Budget,” said Council Member Rita Joseph, Chair of the Committee on Education . “The mayoral administration must recognize the paramount importance of these areas for our students and the promise of giving them a high-quality education, regardless of their background or circumstances.”

“While the Mayor’s proposed budget makes important investments in education, there are still critical education programs on the chopping block,” said Annie Minguez Garcia, Vice President of Government and Community Relations at Good Shepherd Services, on behalf of the Emergency Coalition to Save Education Programs . “From restorative justice practices and the Mental Health Continuum, to 3-K and preschool special education, to community schools and immigrant family communication, to Student Success Centers, these are initiatives and services that students and school communities can’t afford to lose. We appreciate that the City Council called to restore funding for each of these programs in its response to the preliminary budget and want to ensure the final budget includes funding to sustain these vital supports.”

• Frequently Asked Questions
• Press Photos

Recent Press Releases

• NYC Council Votes to Increase Transparency of the Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (PACT) Program’s Impact on NYCHA Residents May 16, 2024
• NYC Council Calls for Funding Restorations and Investments in CUNY ahead of Higher Education Executive Budget Hearing May 15, 2024
• NYC Council Announces New Law is in Effect to Support Small Businesses by Eliminating Unnecessary Regulations and Fines May 15, 2024
• NYC Council Calls for Maintaining Investments for Early Childhood Education System and Programs that Support Students’ Recovery from Learning Loss May 15, 2024
• NYC Council Calls for Deeper Investments in Affordable Housing to Prevent Lower Production in Coming Year ahead of Housing and Buildings Executive Budget Hearing May 14, 2024

Press Release Archives