The Curriculum Improvement Cycle (CIC) is a systematic review of the Scottish curriculum to ensure it remains up to date and relevant for children and young people. In our latest article Ollie Bray, Strategic Director at Education Scotland, explores the power of co-design in shaping education policy.
What do we actually mean by co-design?
As we start the journey to evolve and review the Scottish Curriculum (the Curriculum Improvement Cycle) we have placed a high value on the importance of co-design in our model for curriculum review. In particular, co-designing with those that work the closest to children and young people, our teachers and practitioners.
To help us achieve our ambition we have been heavily guided by the Scottish Approach to Service Design. The latter is pertinent, because I often think of the curriculum as one of the most important services that we offer to children and young people in Scotland. Let us recall that our definition of curriculum in Scotland is:
“The totality of all that is planned for children and young people throughout their education.”
For full transparency, I am a design fan: Be it Human-Centred Design, Participatory Design, Design Thinking, Co-design, Service Design, and Scottish Approach to Service Design (and yes, before the heckling begins, I know that they are not all the same thing!)
It is also important that you know that my own thinking and practice has been heavily influenced by the early work of Simon Herbert, further shaped by IDEO legends such as David Kelley and Tim Brown and more academically refined through the work of Stanford University including the seminal work of Rolf Faste and more recently the faculty at the Stanford Design-School (more commonly known as “D-School”) and their rather wonderful set of books. Around 2010 my friend and former colleague Ewan MacIntosh helped me link the process of design thinking to education in the UK including the design of learning spaces. You probably already know that some of the most successful companies in the world (including Google, IBM and SAP) integrate design thinking into their workflows. When done correctly I have seen co-design and similar approaches deliver fantastic results both in terms of developing a product or service but also, and importantly, in the implementation of the service (including securing buy-in from users of the service at an early stage).
Despite being a fan, I also worry that in recent years, co-design has become a buzzword in the realm of policy-making. Internationally, and in Scotland, I feel that while it is a term that is increasingly referenced in education policy, it is often misunderstood or misapplied by those who increasingly use it. Of course, the paradox that this creates isn’t just a unique challenge with the phrase “co-design”- I can think of lots of terms in education (for example: “equity”; “empowerment”; “the science of learning”) that, as they become popularised, their original depth and rigour have been diluted, leading to misuse or superficial application in practice. This can undermine their true purpose and reduces the impact of the practices and policies they are associated with.
Understanding why this happens is important and for me it probably boils down to three main things:
Buzzword Effect: Terms such as “design thinking,” “co-design,” and “service design” can lose their meaning when used without genuine understanding or commitment to the process. Too often, individuals (including consultants) and organisations (including governments) claim to engage in co-design simply to appear modern or inclusive. However, those involved in the process quickly see through this, which undermines trust. When this happens, the phrase often becomes dismissed as an empty buzzword, losing its ability to drive meaningful change. This leads to a process that is not co-design.
Widespread Adoption Without Depth: As terms gain traction, they are often embraced by individuals and organisations eager to align with current trends but without fully understanding or committing to the underlying principles. When this happens co-design often just becomes superficial “consultation” or tokenistic engagement rather than genuine collaboration. This leads to a process that is not co-design.
Misalignment of Intent and Practice: True co-design involves power-sharing, deep collaboration, and mutual respect. But if you don’t fully understand what co-design actually is and / or if you don’t know how to facilitate co-design activities then the default becomes “gathering some feedback” or “holding a workshop” without fully integrating stakeholder contributions into decision-making. As a result, co-design is frequently reduced to a term used for any vaguely collaborative activity. This leads to a process that is not co-design.
Co-design goes beyond simply consulting stakeholders; it’s about creating policies with educators, practitioners, and communities, not just for them. It is also about creating and designing the implementation strategy for the policy to thrive.
Now I am conscious that I have already made reference to a lot of interconnecting terms including: Design Thinking; Co-Design; Co-Creation; Service Design and the Scottish Approach to Service Design. This terminology can be confusing and can also mean different things to different people and also often has different meaning in different parts of the world and education systems (Andrew Bailey recently introduced me to the concept of “jingle-jangle fallacies” and I think that could probably be applied here).
So, for clarity, at least for this piece, let me try to give a view on how I see some of the interconnections:
- Design Thinking provides a philosophy and toolkit for creative problem-solving, foundational to all the other practices and approaches listed here.
- Co-Design builds on design thinking by involving stakeholders more deeply in the creative process through co-creation.
- Service Design applies these principles and practices to designing holistic services for people and communities (users), focusing on systems and touchpoints.
- The Scottish Approach to Service Design localises service design principles to Scotland’s public services, emphasising collaboration, co-design, and public value as well as equity, inclusivity, and sustainability.
Why is any of this important to the review of Scotland’s Curriculum?
Well, for three reasons.
Firstly, as hopefully the above demonstrates, it shows that we have thought deeply about what co-design actually is. While you might not agree with everything that I have said there should at least be some reassurance in the fact that we are more than aware of the buzzword effect, the dangers of adoption without depth and the issues around misalignment of intent and practice.
Secondly, because we are so committed to co-design as a key part of the process for reviewing and evolving the curriculum in Scotland that, moving forwards, we need to make sure that we try our absolute best to preserve co-design’s true meaning and intent.
We intend to do this by:
- Continuing to Reaffirm Core Principles: Clearly defining co-design as collaborative design where all participants have an equal say and shared ownership of the process and outcomes. Emphasising that co-design goes beyond consultation to active involvement in decision-making.
- Setting Rigorous Standards: Using the guidelines and framework that exist with the Scottish Approach to Service Design as our guiding star for what constitutes authentic co-design (For example: shared power; iterative collaboration; respect for lived experience, recognition of place-based assets). Ensuring that organisations and stakeholders understand the time, resources, and commitment required for genuine co-design.
- Calling Out Misuse: Being proactive in challenging tokenistic or superficial uses of the term, particularly when co-design is claimed but the outcomes don’t reflect genuine stakeholder input.
- Educating, Training and Building capacity: Building awareness of what co-design truly entails through training programs, learning from case studies and examples of interesting practice, aligned to a robust communications and advocacy strategy. Ensuring that the teachers, practitioners and stakeholders who participate in co-design workshops and activities, understand the distinction between co-design and related practices like user-centred design or participatory design.
- Evolving Language Thoughtfully: If co-design continues to be diluted as a term in certain contexts, we will introduce new qualifiers to reclaim the original intent. For example: “co-design in the context of the Curriculum Improvement Cycle (CIC)” and through communications and advocacy ensuring that all who are involved understand the rigour and our expectations behind the process.
Thirdly, there are currently a number of other systems around the world that are in the process of reviewing or just starting to review their curriculum. From what I can tell as an observer many seem to be adopting “top-down” approaches to curriculum review or are contracting “experts” to fix something that is perceived to be not working. I hypothesise that while “top-down” is a quick way of working, the challenge will be the implementation of change because there will be no sense of belonging or ownership and people will simply not feel part of the process.
Also, why would you not review or evolve your curriculum through meaningful engagement with those that work closest to children and young people, our teachers and practitioners? It just makes sense, and we believe that co-design tools and approaches such as those found within the Scottish Approach to Service Design give us a framework to do this in an authentic, purposeful and meaningful way.
You can read more about the tools and approaches allocated with the Scottish Approach to Service Design.
Previous article: Designing a Model for Curriculum Review in Scotland: Part 2
If you are keen to hear and learn more about the Curriculum Improvement Cycle (CIC) you might be interested to listen to the latest Education Scotland Learning Conversations Podcast with Education Scotland Chief Executive, Gillian Hamilton, and myself on the CIC or read this recent article from TESS Scotland – CfE review: ‘Evolving Curriculum for Excellence, not ripping it up’. You can also visit the CIC Web Portal / Glow Blog and from here sign up for the termly eNewsletter.
