Pedagogical priorities as a professional resource for advocacy coalition building? A Swiss Delphi study on future schooling

Abstract

This paper examines whether pedagogical priorities of four professional groups are consistent enough to inform an advocacy coalition for future schooling. Based on a three-round Delphi study, the analysis compares priorities of teachers, principals, teacher educators, and pre-service teachers regarding “Schooling 2030.” Applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, inter-group differences in priority rankings are examined. Results show strong consensus across all groups regarding sociotechnical and ecological concerns, while some variation emerges regarding scientific, economic, and sociocultural concerns. However, these differences with weak to medium effect sizes do not amount to fundamental disagreement about the agenda for future schooling. The findings suggest favorable conditions for forming an education policy advocacy coalition, though the representativeness limitations of the Delphi panel should be considered when interpreting these results.

Keywords

education policy advocacy coalitions future schooling Delphi method professions

Introduction

The increasing complexity of educational challenges requires broad stakeholder support for effective policy reform, particularly in federal consensus democracies. The Delphi study “Educate Northwest Helvetia” (ENWH) was initiated in 2020 to identify potential common ground among key stakeholders in public education in Switzerland. Initiated by a steering committee representing teachers, principals, teacher educators, and political agencies from the four Swiss cantons comprising the Education Area Northwestern Switzerland, the study examined how public education should adapt to the challenges of digital, economic, sociocultural, and ecological change in the next decade and beyond.

Initial quantitative analyses from the first (N = 707) and second (N = 115) Delphi rounds yielded 12 priorities for Schooling 2030 (Quesel et al., 2025). Building on these findings, this paper examines the degree of shared beliefs among four distinct stakeholder groups: teachers, principals, and teacher educators as established professionals and teacher education students as future professionals. We analyze these perspectives through the lens of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier, 1987), which provides a theoretical framework for understanding how shared beliefs can facilitate policy change.

This paper is structured as follows: We begin by presenting the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the background of politics and education in Switzerland, followed by a section addressing theoretical considerations and empirical findings on expert forecasting. Subsequent sections present the state of the art in Delphi studies on education policy, detail our research design, and analyze inter-group comparisons. After discussing these findings, we conclude by synthesizing key insights and identifying directions for future research.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) assumes that policymaking in modern democracies is strongly influenced by collective actors attempting to translate core beliefs into viable political solutions for contested issues (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018; Sabatier, 1987; Sabatier and Weible, 2007). These core beliefs consist of the “underlying personal philosophy” (Sabatier, 1993: p. 30) of individuals and their basic political values and preferences (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999).

In democratic societies, advocacy coalitions must position themselves in pluralist settings by translating normative core beliefs into political terms (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018; Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, 1993; Weible et al., 2020). Policies are thus shaped through networks combining interest groups, professional communities, government agencies, and political parties, leading to the mobilization of “latent constituencies” (Sabatier, 1993: p. 24) through both informal communication and public appeal.

According to the ACF, political agendas are strongly focused on subsystems such as foreign affairs, fiscal policy, or education, because the differentiation of modern societies requires specific strategies for different political domains. Professional communities are important players in advocacy coalitions because they provide specialized knowledge and skills required for convincing political arguments (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, 1994; Sabatier and Weible, 2007). However, professional communities are not monolithic, as they can include different schools of thought, and experts with similar academic backgrounds can belong to opposing coalitions due to antagonistic values and doctrines (Sabatier and Weible, 2007; Weible et al., 2020). Advocacy coalitions adapt to situational conditions through learning, but this learning is bound to core beliefs and primarily focused on viable solutions rather than the advancement of academic knowledge (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018; Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier, 1993; Weible et al., 2020). Thus, the power of arguments can be diminished by the demands of diplomacy, compromise, and brokerage between different groups (Ansell et al., 2009; Chu et al., 2022).

Research on advocacy coalitions in education policy shows that coordinated activities between teacher unions, school principal associations, and other stakeholders are possible, but the impact of these activities often remains unstable (Lenhoff et al., 2019; Mawhinney, 1993; Mintrom and Vergari, 1996). This instability is caused not only by interventions from opposing coalitions or indifference at the civic constituency level (Ansell et al., 2009; DeBray et al., 2014) but also by unclear preferences within the coalition, leading to inconsistent political efforts (Bentancur, 2016; Kirst, 2007; Welsh and Graham, 2021). While different studies shed light on coordination problems within advocacy coalitions dealing with the intricacies of implementing present-day agendas for public education (Ansell et al., 2009; Lenhoff et al., 2019; Welsh and Graham, 2021), the possibility of using forecasting techniques as tools to shape advocacy coalitions for future education policy remains largely unexplored.

Politics and education in Switzerland

Institutional features and social change

Switzerland’s political system rests on three foundational pillars: federalism, consensus-oriented governance, and extensive direct democratic participation (Emmenegger et al., 2024; Kriesi and Trechsel 2008). Although these institutional arrangements have ensured remarkable political stability since the 19th century, recent developments reveal emerging tensions that may fundamentally reshape the country’s traditionally collaborative approach to policymaking. The rise of political polarization, particularly visible in federal elections and referenda on immigration and European integration, challenges the capacity of Switzerland’s consensus democracy to maintain its effectiveness amid deepening social and political fragmentation (Bochsler and Bousbah 2015; Häusermann and Bornschier 2023).

These political tensions reflect and amplify broader social transformations. While Switzerland maintains comparatively high levels of social cohesion and robust democratic institutions, the country confronts escalating challenges related to social inequality (Chancel et al., 2022; OECD 2025). With foreign nationals constituting approximately 25% of the population, Switzerland’s substantial immigration has generated significant economic benefits while simultaneously creating integration challenges that permeate Swiss society, particularly within its education system (SCCRE, 2023).

Educational federalism and its challenges

Switzerland’s federal structure delegates substantial educational autonomy to its 26 cantons, creating a complex mosaic of educational governance structures (Eurydice 2024; SCCRE 2023). Although basic features of the cantonal education systems are harmonized on the national level, considerable variations persist across cantonal systems in school structures, resource distribution, and assessment practices. This decentralized approach embodies the Swiss political culture’s commitment to subsidiarity and local governance, yet it generates significant coordination challenges when addressing educational inequalities at the national level.

The education system navigates persistent tensions between promoting equal opportunities and maintaining educational excellence (Guichard et al., 2024; Perrenoud and Tulowitzki 2021). Students from immigrant backgrounds, economically disadvantaged households, and linguistically minoritized families experience disproportionately higher risks of educational underachievement, perpetuating intergenerational cycles of inequality.

Regional dynamics in Northwestern Switzerland

The Education Area Northwestern Switzerland (Bildungsraum Nordwestschweiz), encompassing the cantons of Aargau, Basel-Landschaft, Basel-Stadt, and Solothurn, illustrates the multifaceted challenges confronting Swiss education (Ender et al., 2017). This region represents Switzerland’s diversity in microcosm, containing highly industrialized urban centers alongside suburban and rural communities, each with distinct socioeconomic characteristics. The region’s increasing ethnic and cultural diversity generates both opportunities for intercultural exchange and substantial challenges for educational integration.

Implications for coalition building

The convergence of Switzerland’s federal structure, increasing social diversity, and educational challenges creates a complex landscape for advocacy coalition formation. Professional groups operating within this environment must navigate not only pedagogical disagreements but also politically sensitive issues surrounding immigration, cultural integration, and resource distribution. These contextual factors prove essential for understanding how Swiss education professionals might coalesce around shared priorities for schooling in 2030 and a common perspective for the following decades.

Expert forecasting

Experts possess highly trained knowledge in specific domains that enables them to apply problem-solving skills routinely and, to a large extent, intuitively (Bereiter and Scardamalia, 1993; Bourne et al., 2014; Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 2005; Ericsson and Charness, 1994; Montero, 2018). The sophistication of expert minds enables both better judgment and superior performance compared to less experienced individuals (Dreyfus, 2004; Ericsson and Towne, 2013; Grabner et al., 2007), but this does not mean that experts are immune to bias and error. On one hand, research on groupthink shows that interaction between experts in a political decision-making context can provoke tunnel vision, distorted arguments, and disastrous consequences (Janis, 1982; Rose, 2011; Turner and Pratkanis, 1998). On the other hand, research on political prediction shows that adherence to a specific school of thought can impair the ability to make sound prognostic judgments (Tetlock, 2006; Tetlock and Gardner, 2016). Social interaction can enhance forecasting, but this enhancement depends on precautionary measures that prioritize independent thinking and critical evaluation of alternatives over group cohesion and consensus (Sunstein and Hastie, 2015). The cognitive diversity of actors involved in forecasting projects can be an important asset for improving collective judgment (De Oliveira and Nisbett, 2018; Hong and Page, 2004; Sunstein and Hastie, 2015).

When examining complex social systems such as public education, comprehensive stakeholder involvement in foresight studies becomes essential to capture the system’s multifaceted nature and avoid oversimplified and distorted analyses (European Commission, 2024; OECD, 2018; Redecker et al., 2011; Schweisfurth, 2020; UNESCO, 2021). This necessity manifests across multiple dimensions of educational practice and governance.

First, diverse professional roles within education systems bring distinct, sometimes conflicting perspectives to future visioning. School principals, operating from managerial vantage points focused on organizational efficiency and accountability, may prioritize different futures than classroom teachers, whose pedagogical expertise centers on direct student engagement and learning processes (Ala-Mutka et al., 2010; Potyrała et al., 2021; Ralebese et al., 2025; Varpanen et al., 2022). These differing professional lenses can yield divergent preferences regarding desirable educational trajectories.

Second, the teacher preparation ecosystem reveals additional layers of complexity. Academic institutions designing teacher education curricula operate within theoretical and institutional frameworks that may diverge significantly from the lived experiences and future expectations of teacher candidates themselves (Aubusson and Schuck, 2013; Bacher et al., 2024; Biseth et al., 2022; Hanna et al., 2023). This difference between formal preparation structures and emerging professional identities can shape conflicting visions of educational futures.

Third, professional communities in education are far from monolithic. Within any given role—whether teachers, administrators, or teacher educators—multiple theoretical orientations, pedagogical philosophies, and methodological approaches coexist and compete (Amsler and Facer, 2017; Fullan, 2006). For example, the contemporary push toward personalized learning illustrates this internal diversity: while some educators champion individualized pathways as essential for student agency and engagement (Dumont and Ready, 2023), others argue that excessive personalization risks fragmenting shared educational experiences and allowing students’ immediate preferences to constrain their exposure to challenging or unfamiliar domains of knowledge (Biesta, 2025).

These multiple layers of perspective—across roles, between theory and practice, and within professional communities—underscore why educational foresight studies require deliberately inclusive, multi-vocal approaches to genuinely understand and shape the future of schooling. Delphi studies are a forecasting tool that provides the opportunity to combine independent thinking, cognitive diversity, and collaborative reasoning (Beiderbeck et al., 2021; De Loë, Melnychuk, Murray & Plummer, 2016; Diamond et al., 2014; von Der Gracht, 2012). The basic pattern of these studies begins with a first wave of anonymous individual ratings that are statistically aggregated. Afterward, the results are fed back to the panel of experts in the second wave, providing the opportunity to revise initial judgments (Helmer-Hirschberg, 1967; Linstone and Turoff, 1975, 2011). The revision of judgments can occur through quantitative, qualitative, or combined methods, and the basic two-wave pattern of the Delphi can be extended by additional waves of data collection focused on unclear or contentious findings (Beiderbeck et al., 2021; Linstone and Turoff, 1975; Rowe and Wright, 1999). When interpreting the results of Delphi studies, it must be considered that defining and selecting experts for a panel judging complex human affairs is both an academic and a political issue, because these questions exceed the limits of academic specialization and cannot be reliably broken down into chains of causal reasoning (Baker et al., 2006; Beiderbeck et al., 2021; Devaney and Henchion, 2018).

Since the 1960s, Delphi studies have been conducted in many fields of social research, with education being one of the major topics (Green, 2014), covering areas such as teaching strategies (Praetorius and Charalambous, 2023), skill acquisition of students in teacher education (Baumgartner et al., 2023), enhancement of specific school subjects or topics (Ardies and De Vries, 2023), and possibilities for pedagogical innovation in specific school systems (Valverde-Berrocoso et al., 2023).

Recent Delphi studies on the future of education systems focus on exploring alternative futures and different scenarios (Airaksinen et al., 2017; Duveneck et al., 2021; McGrath and Fischetti, 2021; Nilivaara and Soini, 2024; Quesel et al., 2025; Stylianides and Pashiardis, 2007). From this perspective, the exploration of different pathways of social and educational change is advisable for three reasons:

• Antagonistic political preferences: Education policies fostering equity and inclusion compete with policies promoting a stronger focus on achievement and excellence, and it is uncertain whether a strong and sustainable consensus on educational matters will ever be achieved in modern societies.

• Scarcity of resources: The call for professional autonomy can be undermined by economic crises that reinforce selection mechanisms when resources for disadvantaged groups and special needs education are depleted.

• Interaction of intended and unintended consequences: Tendencies to provide more flexible and open educational structures imply the risk that such flexibilization can undermine social cohesion and deepen the gap between privileged and disadvantaged groups.

Macroscopic Delphi studies on long-term perspectives for educational change take opposing political views on future schooling into account. However, the question of whether opposing professional views can undermine educational change is not sufficiently addressed. A group comparison for the ENWH Delphi study will elucidate this point.

Research design

The ENWH Delphi study combined quantitative and qualitative data collected in a first wave via online questionnaires and in a second wave via audiovisual teleconferencing workshops. For a supplementary third wave, the panel was enlarged by special invitations recruiting focus groups of first-year students in teacher education, senior teachers and principals, school social workers, and experts of vocational education. The recruitment for the basic panel of the Delphi study took the form of an open call communicated via newsletters and mailing lists of cantonal education authorities, professional associations, and the inter-cantonal School of Education. The panel of the first wave involved N = 707 participants with different professional backgrounds and responsibilities in the Education Area Northwestern Switzerland, including a group of education students participating as future co-creators of Schooling 2030. Data of the first wave were collected via online questionnaire from the end of November 2020 to mid-February 2021. The 20 workshops of the second wave took place during a conference in June 2021 which took a hybrid format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the course of the workshops, priorities were revised by real-time online ranking (n = 115). The eight focus group discussions of the third wave were conducted from October to December 2022 partly online and partly locally in person. In both these cases, the repeated revision of priorities (N = 68) took place in advance via an online questionnaire, thus serving as a starting point for the discussion.

The analysis concerning prospects of professional advocacy coalition building for public education centers on four subsections of the original panel: teachers, principals, teacher educators, and students of teacher education. These subsections amount to N = 525 participants, representing approximately 75% of the whole panel.

Several smaller subgroups of experts, such as members of advisory councils and school psychology services, were excluded from the group comparison because these subgroups are too small for statistical comparisons or because they are not directly focused on pedagogical practice. Teachers and principals were selected for the group comparison because they are the main actors in present-day school organization. Teacher educators were selected because they have a key role in the reproduction of the pedagogical workforce. Additionally, students of teacher education were selected because they prepare to shape public schooling in the next decades.

In order to determine the degree of consent among these groups, AMOS 28 was used for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Estimations are based on a single input matrix; for missing values, a regression imputation approach provided by AMOS was implemented (Arbuckle, 2019).

Results

The three waves of the ENWH Delphi study led to a set of 12 priorities on the level of the whole panel of respondents, corroborated by a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Quesel et al., 2025). According to the CFA, the priorities represent five factors answering concerns of different aspects of social change: sociotechnical challenges, scientific challenges, economic challenges, sociocultural challenges, and ecological challenges.

For the group comparison between teachers, principals, teacher educators, and education students, the CFA was reproduced for each of these subsections of the panel. Figure 1 shows the results for the subsection of teachers (N = 292, Χ²min = 86.929, df = 51, p = 0.001, comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.939, root-mean-square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.049, pclose = 0.508).

Figure 1.

Priorities for Schooling 2030 traced back to initial ratings of teachers (N = 292).

For the group comparison, the multiple indicators, multiple causes (MIMIC) approach was used (Brown, 2015; Jöreskog and Goldberger, 1975). Based on the CFA for the whole panel and the subsections in question, covariates were added to the model to examine their direct effects on the five factors. Using teachers as a reference group, Figure 2 indicates significant differences for principals, education students, and teacher educators. The fit of this model can be regarded as satisfactory (X²min = 156.6; df = 75; p = 0; CFI = .935; RMSEA = 0.046; pclose = .757).

Figure 2.

Priorities for Schooling 2030—MIMIC group comparison with teachers as reference group (N = 525); nonsignificant effects are not displayed for enhanced readability.

The grouping variables for principals, education students, and teacher educators show several significant effects on three of the five latent constructs: scientific challenges, economic challenges, and sociocultural challenges. For sociotechnical challenges and ecological challenges, no significant differences between the groups were found. Compared to teachers, principals assess scientific challenges and economic challenges higher with small, but significant standardized effects of .12 and .1, interpreted akin to Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988, 1992). This should be read as an indication that for the subsection of principals, the latent factor of scientific challenges increases by .12 standardized scores (or standard deviation units) compared to the subsection of teachers. For education students, the model reveals significant differences to teachers for scientific challenges and sociocultural challenges, with standardized effects of .21 and .22, also indicating a small effect size. Assessments by teacher educators result in one significant effect for sociocultural challenges, with .3 indicating a small to medium effect size.

Discussion

Overall, the assessment of concerns and priorities across the four professional groups outlines a common agenda for future schooling. In light of the group comparison, teachers, principals, teacher educators, and education students share the belief that sociotechnical challenges will demand a stronger pedagogical focus on soft skills as a distinctly human domain, and on the social contexts in which digital media originate, are implemented, and used. Similarly, the groups share the belief that ecological challenges will require a stronger focus on transversal competencies that transcend the limits of traditional school subjects, fostering a life-affirming attitude as a mental resource to address environmental problems caused by pollution and ecological devastation, and developing strategies that mediate between economic utilization and preservation of natural resources.

While these priorities reflect broad consensus across all four stakeholder groups, principals diverge notably in their emphasis on specific competencies. In addressing scientific challenges, they prioritize computational thinking and STEM skills more heavily than other groups. Similarly, when confronting economic challenges, principals stress the critical importance of self-organization, team collaboration, and lifelong learning capabilities. This distinctive emphasis reflects the dual nature of educational leadership. Principals navigate between pedagogical imperatives and organizational demands, balancing educational effectiveness with operational efficiency—including the stewardship of public education investments. Their leadership role encourages a data-driven orientation focused on measurable teaching and learning outcomes, without diminishing their attention to school climate and culture (Potyrała et al., 2021; Ralebese et al., 2025). From this managerial perspective, developing scientific and organizational competencies in future workers represents a strategic priority for maintaining economic competitiveness in an increasingly globalized marketplace. These leadership-driven priorities thus bridge immediate educational goals with long-term workforce development needs.

Education students share with principals a higher concern for scientific challenges but do not express greater concern for economic challenges. Instead, they converge with teacher educators in emphasizing sociocultural challenges. Both groups located in higher education advocate addressing these challenges through two primary strategies: promoting equity to counteract the effects of social disadvantage, and cultivating respect and tolerance across diverse cultural communities.

This alignment between education students and their instructors suggests that student priorities reflect important topics addressed in the intended curriculum of teacher education programs (Aubusson and Schuck, 2013; Bacher et al., 2024; Biseth et al., 2022; Hanna et al., 2023). However, this convergence may also reveal a critical perspective gap: those positioned within higher education institutions may view current approaches to inequality and diversity in primary and secondary schools with greater skepticism than practitioners—teachers and principals—who work directly within these systems. However, the effect sizes indicate that these differences between academic and practical viewpoints are a matter of degree and not of principle. But it should be observed that the structural equation modelling relies on cross-sectional data, which cannot capture group dynamics or coalition evolution over extended periods. The Swiss education system’s inherent complexity (Eurydice 2024; SCCRE 2023), combined with diverse professional backgrounds among stakeholders, means that seemingly minor preference differences could crystallize into substantial obstacles when coalitions attempt to formulate and implement a shared agenda. Switzerland’s increasing political polarization further compounds these challenges (Bochsler and Bousbah 2015; Häusermann and Bornschier 2023).

Nevertheless, empirical applications of the ACF demonstrate that professional communities serve as crucial stabilizing forces within advocacy coalitions (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier 1994; Sabatier and Weible 2007). These communities provide institutional mechanisms that mitigate potential conflicts through structured academic discourse and negotiation processes (Ansell et al. 2009; Chu et al. 2022). Such professional networks may therefore counterbalance the fragmenting tendencies inherent in Switzerland’s complex educational and political landscape.

Considered as an expression of an “underlying personal philosophy” (Sabatier, 1993: p. 30), the priorities in the Delphi ratings center on the belief that elaborated soft skills combined with basic competencies in hard sciences are key to a future shaped by unconstrained cooperation and sustainable development. Regarding “fundamental policy positions” (Sabatier, 1993: p. 31), the priorities indicate an agenda that does not call for major reforms of education system structures or currently implemented curricula. Rather, the focus on soft skills corresponds to advocacy for a soft policy that secures and enhances margins of professional autonomy. According to such a soft policy, broad and inclusive coalition building is a desirable strategy for Schooling 2030 as it minimizes risks of social polarization. The concerns addressed in the Delphi study demand change, but they do not demand a rupture with current pedagogical practice. However, experiences from other countries (Bentancur, 2016; Kirst, 2007; Mawhinney, 1993; Mintrom and Vergari, 1996) show that avoiding polarization depends heavily on the strength of tolerant cultural traditions as well as stable perspectives for prosperity and public wealth. Whether Swiss federalism possesses sufficient resilience to address these requirements in the coming decades remains an open question. In this regard, the international discourse on personalized learning (Biesta, 2025; Dumont and Ready, 2023) indicates a particular risk: broad political declarations in favor of personalized learning may mask deeper structural disparities, thus avoiding fundamental pedagogical challenges. The most concerning scenario would be the implementation of personalized learning approaches that remain blind to persistent educational inequalities—creating an illusion of progress while perpetuating systemic disadvantages.

In light of the CFA, which traces results of workshops and focus group discussions back to initial ratings, no major conflict between the professional groups is expected. The finding that the views of professionals in public education largely converge on basic principles of future school quality is confirmed by other recent Delphi studies focusing on education systems and policymaking (Airaksinen et al., 2017; Duveneck et al., 2021; McGrath and Fischetti, 2021; Nilivaara and Soini, 2024; Stylianides and Pashiardis, 2007). However, convergence on basic principles does not constitute a concrete framework for action, and successful advocacy coalitions involve not only professional groups but must extend to other stakeholders in politics and civil society (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018; Sabatier, 1987; Weible and Ingold, 2018). The agreement among professional groups can be considered a necessary condition for successful coalition building, but it remains unclear whether the consensus also extends to sufficient conditions for framing public education policy. Thus, in-depth research concerning interactions among actors such as teacher unions, associations of school principals, political parties, and government agencies in the context of Swiss federalism is needed.

Our group comparison faces several important limitations. First, recruiting panelists through an open call, while respecting voluntary participation, implies a high possibility that the sample is unrepresentative of the broader educational community. The inscription of participants based on their interest in emerging education policy and pedagogy creates a panel with pronounced future-oriented perspectives. Consequently, findings are influenced by a self-selection bias and cannot be generalized to reflect the prevailing views of all education professionals and stakeholders.

This selection bias presents both opportunities and risks. While forward-thinking participants can contribute to advocacy coalitions for educational innovation, overly ambitious pioneering may lead to isolation, potentially undermining the impact of their recommendations. Future studies could address this limitation by supplementing voluntary participants with randomly selected representatives from various stakeholder groups, thereby balancing innovation-focused perspectives with possible traditional viewpoints.

A second limitation concerns our operational definition of expertise, which relies solely on participants’ formal professional roles. This approach is minimalistic, as it provides no insight into participants’ actual knowledge depth or skill levels. Future research might address this by establishing two tiers of expertise: an inner circle comprising individuals who meet specific criteria for work experience or academic credentials and an outer circle defined primarily by professional interest and motivation. Nevertheless, within the Swiss public education system, the professional roles of teachers, principals, and teacher educators are themselves governed by stringent formal requirements and academic qualifications, partially validating our status-based approach.

A third limitation involves treating teachers, principals, teacher educators, and education students as homogeneous categories. Multiple factors likely create substantial within-group variation that our analysis overlooks. Educational level (primary vs secondary), geographic context (urban vs rural), and specialization according to academic disciplines and school subjects may all shape participants’ priorities and perceived challenges in distinct ways. Additionally, career stage and generational differences may influence perspectives, with early-career and veteran educators potentially holding divergent views on educational priorities. Future research should incorporate these socio-demographic variables to capture the nuanced differences within each professional category.

Conclusion

The ENWH Delphi study resulted in a set of 12 priorities for Schooling 2030 generated in workshops and corroborated in focus group discussions, which can be traced back via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to the initial independent and anonymous ratings of the expert panel (N = 707). Teachers, principals, education students, and teacher educators were selected as subsections of this panel with regard to key roles and future responsibilities in education systems (N = 525). For priorities addressing sociotechnical and ecological concerns, the multiple indicators, multiple causes (MIMIC) model reveals no significant differences among the groups. For priorities addressing scientific, economic, and sociocultural concerns, principals, teacher educators, and education students differ from teachers as a reference group in some respects, but with small to medium effect sizes indicating varying emphasis regarding these topics rather than major objections to the set of 12 priorities marked by a strong focus on soft skills.

Thus, the set of priorities indicates a substantial degree of shared beliefs regarding the agenda for future schooling. However, while the set of priorities meets necessary conditions for advocacy coalition building in public education, the research design of the Delphi study cannot specify whether sufficient conditions for political agenda setting regarding future schooling in the Education Area Northwestern Switzerland are met. This question should be addressed through in-depth research on interactions among different actors such as teacher unions, associations of school principals, political parties, and government agencies.

Turning to pedagogical practice, our Delphi-based approach provides concrete pathways for fostering incremental change at the school level. By identifying shared pedagogical priorities, professional communities can engage in more focused discourse and implement targeted improvements that align with collectively endorsed visions. However, these grassroots initiatives require complementary support from formal political decision-making processes to achieve sustained, system-wide impact. Without such institutional backing, school-level initiatives risk remaining isolated and ultimately ineffective.

The future trajectory of Swiss education policy will largely depend on creating structured opportunities for dialogue among professional groups and broader stakeholder communities. For meaningful systemic change, such discussions must extend beyond professional circles to engage parliamentary committees, cantonal education departments, and the wider public through strategic media engagement and civic discourse. The priorities identified through our Delphi study can serve as a foundation for broader policy dialogue, providing evidence-based recommendations for political discussions and coalition-building efforts. Furthermore, our methodological approach demonstrates potential for adaptation across different institutional contexts. Comparative applications of similar Delphi-designs in various political systems could illuminate how institutional arrangements shape professional consensus-building and advocacy coalition formation, thereby contributing to both theoretical understanding and practical guidance for education policy reform efforts internationally.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Carsten Quesel

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Carsten Quesel is a professor for sociology of education working at the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland. His research focuses on education policy, school evaluation, and school improvement. He holds a Ph.D. and a postdoctoral qualification (habilitation) in social sciences.

Guido Möser holds a Ph.D. in social sciences and economics of the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen. He is managing director of a social research and data analytics company and visiting lecturer for advanced statistics at the School of Education of the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland.

Michael Mittag is a psychologist and lecturer in Child Development Studies at the School of Education of the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland. He focuses on media socialization and the production of instructional videos for teacher education.

References

Airaksinen

Halinen

Linturi

(2017) Futuribles of learning 2030—Delphi supports the reform of the core curricula in Finland. European Journal of Forest Research 5(1): 1.

Ala-Mutka

Redecker

Punie

, et al. (2010) The Future of Learning: European Teachers' Visions. Report on a Foresight Consultation at the 2010 Etwinning Conference, Seville, 5-7 February 2010. Publications Office of the European Union.

Amsler

Facer

(2017) Contesting anticipatory regimes in education: exploring alternative educational orientations to the future. Futures 94: 6–14.

Ansell

Reckhow

Kelly

(2009) How to reform a reform coalition: outreach, agenda expansion, and brokerage in urban school reform. Policy Studies Journal 37(4): 717–743.

Arbuckle

(2019) Amos (Version 28.0). IBM SPSS.

Ardies

de Vries

(2023) A Delphi study on the future of technology education. Australasian Journal of Technology Education 9: 10.

Aubusson

Schuck

(2013) Teacher education futures: today's trends, tomorrow's expectations. Teacher Development 17(3): 322–333.

Bacher

Schreiner

Kraler

(2024) Teacher education students' visions shaping future generations. In: 10th International Conference on Higher Education Advances (HEAd’24), Valencia, Spain, 18–21 June.

Baker

Lovell

Harris

(2006) How expert are the experts? An exploration of the concept of ‘expert’ within Delphi panel techniques. Nurse Researcher 14(1): 59–70.

10.

Baumgartner

Jeisy

Berthold

(2023) From knowledge to performance in physical teacher education: a Delphi study and a pretest for the content validation of the test instruments. Swiss Journal of Educational Research 45(2): 151–163.

11.

Beiderbeck

Frevel

von der Gracht

, et al. (2021) Preparing, conducting, and analyzing Delphi surveys: cross-Disciplinary practices, new directions, and advancements. MethodsX 8: 101401.

12.

Bentancur

(2016) The 'Advocacy Coalitions' of educational policies: conceptual framework and its application to a country case. RETEPE 1: 150–169.

13.

Bereiter

Scardamalia

(1993) Surpassing Ourselves: An Enquiry into the Nature and Implications of Expertise. Open Court.

14.

Biesta

(2025) The future of education in the impulse society: why schools and teachers matter. Prospects 38: 657–668.

15.

Biseth

Svenkerud

Magerøy

, et al. (2022) Relevant transformative teacher education for future generations. Frontiers in Education 7: 806495.

16.

Bochsler

Bousbah

(2015) Competitive consensus: what comes after consociationalism in Switzerland? Swiss Political Science Review 21(4): 654–679.

17.

Bourne

LEJ

Kole

Healy

(2014) Expertise: defined, described, explained. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 186.

18.

Brown

(2015) Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2nd edition. Guilford Press.

19.

Chancel

Piketty

Saez

, et al. (2022) World Inequality Report 2022. World Inequality Lab. Available at: https://wir2022.wid.world/ (accessed 17 September 2025).

20.

Chu

VHY

Law

WWY

Williams

(2022) Advocacy coalitions in rural revitalisation: the roles of policy brokers and policy learning. Environmental Science & Policy 136: 9–18.

21.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

22.

Cohen

(1992) A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1): 155–159.

23.

de Loë

Melnychuk

Murray

, et al. (2016) Advancing the state of policy Delphi practice: a systematic review evaluating methodological evolution, innovation, and opportunities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 104: 78–88.

24.

de Oliveira

Nisbett

(2018) Demographically diverse crowds are typically not much wiser than homogeneous crowds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(9): 2066–2071.

25.

DeBray

Scott

Lubienski

, et al. (2014) Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy 28(2): 175–206.

26.

Devaney

Henchion

(2018) Who is a Delphi 'expert'? Reflections on a bioeconomy expert selection procedure from Ireland. Futures 99: 45–55.

27.

Diamond

Grant

Feldman

, et al. (2014) Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67(4): 401–409.

28.

Dreyfus

(2004) The five-stage model of adult skills acquisition. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24(3): 177–179.

29.

Dreyfus

(2005) Peripheral vision: expertise in real world contexts. Organization Studies 26(5): 779–792.

30.

Dumont

Ready

(2023) On the promise of personalized learning for educational equity. Npj Science of Learning 8: 26.

31.

Duveneck

Grund

de Haan

, et al. (2021) Futures of area-based initiatives in German education: results from a quantitative Delphi survey. European Journal of Forest Research 9: 4.

32.

Emmenegger

Kriesi

Bernauer

, et al. (eds) (2024) The Oxford Handbook of Swiss Politics. Oxford University Press.

33.

Ender

Moser

Imlig

, et al. (2017) Bildungsbericht Nordwestschweiz 2017 [Education Report Northwestern Switzerland 2017]. Institut für Bildungsevaluation. Available at: https://so.ch/fileadmin/internet/dbk/dbk-vsa/VSA/Bildungsbericht_Nordwestschweiz_2017.pdf (accessed 17 September 2025).

34.

Ericsson

Charness

(1994) Expert performance: its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist 49(8): 725–747.

35.

Ericsson

Towne

(2013) Experts and their superior performance. In: Reisberg

(ed) The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Psychology. Oxford University Press, 886–901.

36.

European Commission (2024) Scenarios for the Future of School Education in the EU: A Foresight Study. Publications Office of the European Union.

37.

Eurydice (2024) Switzerland. Brussels: European education and culture executive agency (EACEA). Available at: https://eurydice.eacea.ec.europa.eu/eurypedia/switzerland/overview (accessed 17 September 2025).

38.

Fullan

(2006) The future of educational change: system thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change 7(3): 113–122.

39.

Grabner

Stern

Neubauer

(2007) Individual differences in chess expertise: a psychometric investigation. Acta Psychologica 124(3): 398–420.

40.

Green

(2014) The Delphi technique in educational research. Sage Open 4(2): 2158244014529773.

41.

Guichard

Chimienti

Bolzman

, et al. (2024) When national origins equal socio-economic background: the effect of the ethno-class parental background on the education of children coming of age in Switzerland. Journal of International Migration and Integration 25: 1249–1274.

42.

Hanna

Andre

Zee

(2023) Student teachers' future time perspective and teacher identity: a longitudinal study about students who will become primary school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education 136: 104382.

43.

Häusermann

Bornschier

(2023) Democratic conflict and polarization – healthy or harmful? UBS Center Public Paper #14, Available at: https://www.ubscenter.uzh.ch/en/publications/public_papers/democratic-conflict-and-polarization.html (accessed 17 September 2025).

44.

Helmer-Hirschberg

(1967) Analysis of the Future: The Delphi Method. RAND Corporation.

45.

Hong

Page

(2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101(46): 16385–16389.

46.

Janis

(1982) Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes. 2nd edition. Houghton Mifflin.

47.

Jenkins-Smith

Sabatier

(1993) The dynamics of policy-oriented learning. In: Sabatier

Jenkins-Smith

(eds) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview Press, 41–58.

48.

Jenkins-Smith

Sabatier

(1994) Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Public Policy 14(2): 175–203.

49.

Jenkins-Smith

Nohrstedt

Weible

, et al. (2018) The advocacy coalition framework: an overview of the research program. In: Weible

Sabatier

(eds) Theories of the Policy Process. 4th edition. Routledge, 135–171.

50.

Jöreskog

Goldberger

(1975) Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association 70: 631–639.

51.

Kirst

(2007) Politics of charter schools: competing national advocacy coalitions meet local politics. Peabody Journal of Education 82(2–3): 184–203.

52.

Kriesi

Trechsel

(2008) The Politics of Switzerland: Continuity and Change in a Consensus Democracy. Cambridge University Press.

53.

Lenhoff

Lewis

Pogodzinski

, et al. (2019) Triage, transition, and transformation': advocacy discourse in urban school reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives 27: 32.

54.

Linstone

Turoff

(1975) The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison-Wesley.

55.

Linstone

Turoff

(2011) Delphi: a brief look backward and forward. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 78(9): 1712–1719.

56.

Mawhinney

(1993) An advocacy coalition approach to change in Canadian education. In: Sabatier

Jenkins-Smith

(eds) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview Press, 59–82.

57.

McGrath

Fischetti

(2021) The future of compulsory schooling: Participant developed scenarios from a modified Delphi survey. Futures 133: 102818.

58.

Mintrom

Vergari

(1996) Advocacy coalitions, policy entrepreneurs, and policy change. Policy Studies Journal 24(3): 420–434.

59.

Montero

(2018) The elusive concept of expertise: who counts as an expert? Archives de Psychologie 2(5): 1–16.

60.

Nilivaara

Soini

(2024) Alternative futures of Finnish comprehensive school. Policy Futures in Education 22(3): 308–326.

61.

OECD (2018) The Future of Education and Skills: Education 2030. the Future we Want. OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/about/projects/edu/education-2040/position-paper/PositionPaper.pdf (accessed 16 September 2025).

62.

OECD (2025) OECD Development Co-operation Peer Reviews: Switzerland 2025. OECD Publishing.

63.

Perrenoud

Tulowitzki

(2021) Images of educational leadership in Switzerland. In: Normand

Moos

Liu

, et al. (eds) The Cultural and Social Foundations of Educational Leadership. Springer, 141–160.

64.

Potyrała

Demeshkant

Czerwiec

, et al. (2021) Head teachers’ opinions on the future of school education conditioned by emergency remote teaching. Education and Information Technologies 26(6): 7451–7475.

65.

Praetorius

Charalambous

(2023) Drawing on the Delphi technique to explore areas of convergence and divergence among expert opinions in the field of teaching. In: Praetorius

Charalambous

(eds) Theorizing Teaching. Springer, 229–252.

66.

Quesel

Mittag

Moeser

(2025) Educate northwest helvetia: a Delphi study on public schooling in Switzerland. Foresight 27(3): 578–594.

67.

Ralebese

Jita

Badmus

(2025) Perceptions and practices of principals: examining instructional leadership for curriculum reform. Frontiers in Education 10: 1591106.

68.

Redecker

Leis

Leendertse

, et al. (2011) The Future of Learning: Preparing for Change. Publications Office of the European Union.

69.

Rose

(2011) Diverse perspectives on the groupthink theory – a literary review. Emerging Leadership Journeys 4(1): 37–57.

70.

Rowe

Wright

(1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15: 353–375.

71.

Sabatier

(1987) Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: an advocacy coalition framework. Knowledge 8(4): 649–692.

72.

Sabatier

(1993) Policy change over a decade or more. In: Sabatier

Jenkins-Smith

(eds) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview, 13–40.

73.

Sabatier

Jenkins-Smith

(1999) The advocacy coalition framework: an assessment. In: Sabatier

(ed) Theories of the Policy Process. Westview, 117–166.

74.

Sabatier

Weible

(2007) The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In: Sabatier

(ed) Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, 189–220.

75.

SCCRE (2023) Education Report Switzerland 2023. Aarau: Swiss Coordination Centre for Research in Education.

76.

Schweisfurth

(2020) Future pedagogies: reconciling multifaceted realities and shared visions. In: Background Paper for the Futures of Education Initiative No. 26. UNESCO. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000374077 (accessed 16 September 2025).

77.

Stylianides

Pashiardis

(2007) The future of our schools: an example of the Delphi technique in action and the case of Cyprus. International Journal of Educational Management 21(5): 384–406.

78.

Sunstein

Hastie

(2015) Wiser: Getting Beyond Groupthink to Make Groups Smarter. Harvard Business Review Press.

79.

Tetlock

(2006) Expert Political Judgment: How Good is It? How can we Know? Princeton University Press.

80.

Tetlock

Gardner

(2016) Superforecasting: The Art and Science of Prediction. Random House.

81.

Turner

Pratkanis

(1998) Twenty-five years of groupthink theory and research: lessons from the evaluation of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73(2–3): 105–115.

82.

UNESCO (2021) Reimagining our Futures Together: A New Social Contract for Education. UNESCO. Available at: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379707.locale=en (accessed 16 September 2025).

83.

Valverde-Berrocoso

Rivas-Flores

Anguita-Martínez

, et al. (2023) Pedagogical change and innovation culture in secondary education: a Delphi study. Frontiers in Education 8: 1092793.

84.

Varpanen

Laherto

Hilppö

, et al. (2022) Teacher agency and futures thinking. Education Sciences 12(3): 177.

85.

von der Gracht

(2012) Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 79(8): 1525–1536.

86.

Weible

Ingold

(2018) Why advocacy coalitions matter and practical insights about them. Policy & Politics 46(2): 325–343.

87.

Weible

Ingold

Nohrstedt

, et al. (2020) Sharpening advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal 48(4): 1054–1081.

88.

Welsh

Graham

(2021) Why the opportunity school district failed? An examination of coalitions and the politics of school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 43(4): 688–712.