{"id":1434,"date":"2024-11-27T13:59:15","date_gmt":"2024-11-27T13:59:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.glowscotland.org.uk\/glowblogs\/cices\/?p=1434"},"modified":"2024-11-27T13:59:17","modified_gmt":"2024-11-27T13:59:17","slug":"the-power-of-co-design-in-shaping-education-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.glowscotland.org.uk\/glowblogs\/cices\/2024\/11\/27\/the-power-of-co-design-in-shaping-education-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"The power of co-design in shaping education policy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What do we actually mean by co-design?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

To help us achieve our ambition we have been heavily guided by the Scottish Approach to Service Design.<\/a> 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<\/a> is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cThe totality of all that is planned for children and young people\u202fthroughout their education.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

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!)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

It is also important that you know that my own thinking and practice has been heavily influenced by the early work of Simon Herbert,<\/a> further shaped by IDEO<\/a> legends such as David Kelley<\/a> and Tim Brown<\/a> and more academically refined through the work of Stanford University including the seminal work of Rolf Faste<\/a> and more recently the faculty at the Stanford Design-School<\/a> (more commonly known as \u201cD-School\u201d) and their rather wonderful set of books<\/a>. Around 2010 my friend and former colleague Ewan MacIntosh<\/a> 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Despite being a fan, I also worry that in recent years, co-design<\/em> 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. <\/strong>Of course, the paradox that this creates isn\u2019t just a unique challenge with the phrase \u201cco-design\u201d-  I can think of lots of terms in education (for example: \u201cequity\u201d; \u201cempowerment\u201d; \u201cthe science of learning\u201d) 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Understanding why this happens is important and for me it probably boils down to three main things:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Buzzword Effect: <\/strong>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<\/strong> co-design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Widespread Adoption Without Depth<\/strong>: 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 \u201cconsultation\u201d or tokenistic engagement rather than genuine collaboration. This leads to a process that is not<\/strong> co-design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Misalignment of Intent and Practice<\/strong>: True co-design involves power-sharing, deep collaboration, <\/strong>and mutual respect<\/strong>. But if you don\u2019t fully understand what co-design actually is and \/ or if you don\u2019t know how to facilitate co-design activities then the default becomes \u201cgathering some feedback\u201d or \u201cholding a workshop\u201d 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 <\/strong>co-design.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Co-design goes beyond simply consulting stakeholders; it\u2019s about creating policies <\/strong>with<\/em><\/strong> educators, practitioners, and communities, not just <\/strong>for<\/em><\/strong> them. It is also about creating and designing the implementation strategy for the policy to thrive.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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<\/a> recently introduced me to the concept of \u201cjingle-jangle fallacies\u201d<\/em><\/a> <\/em>and I think that could probably be applied here).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

So, for clarity, at least for this piece, let me try to give a view on how I see some of the interconnections:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n