Paradigm Shifts in Education: An Ecological Analysis

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to analyze educational changes, in particular transformational changes, and suggest a new approach to shift the paradigm in education using an ecological conceptual framework.

Design/Approach/Methods

An ecological analysis of two key factors in education: prescribed curriculum and student autonomy.

Findings

Paradigm shift can happen in schools, but it cannot be imposed by systems and systems typically are unable to propose transformational changes. Such changes should happen within schools, but not affecting the entire school. Thus a “school within a school” approach is proposed with some examples. The small change could affect entire systems from the perspective of panarchy theory.

Originality/Value

This article brings a fresh perspective on making the much needed transformational changes possible in schools. AI partnership, personalized learning, student autonomy, self-determination, and self-directed learning are all fascinating and hopeful ideas that could bring the best education possible for all students. However, implementing these would demand a paradigm shift in schools. Schools are the most resilient social entities, but they are also the organizations easiest to change. For over 200 years, the essence of schooling has not changed, but there have been significant changes in curriculum, textbooks, testing, and pedagogy. Today, we need schools to operate with a different education paradigm to enable students to have more autonomy and control of their learning in order to survive and thrive in the uncertain age of Artificial Intelligence. It seems apparent that the school system has successfully resisted paradigm shifts or transformational changes.

We have entered the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI, particularly generative AI, has rapidly entered everyday life of ordinary people, resulting in unpredictable and uncertain changes (McDiarmid & Zhao, 2022; Zhao, 2023). In education, AI's biggest promise is personalized learning (Harry & Sayudin, 2023; Pataranutaporn et al., 2021; Pratama et al., 2023; Tapalova & Zhiyenbayeva, 2022), but personalized learning requires significant changes in how schools operate (Zhao, 2025). Even the implementation of the traditional definition of personalized learning originating from B. F. Skinner's teaching machine (Watters, 2023) that simply allows students to personalize the process and format of learning requires significant changes in pedagogy, assessment, and how to organize students. A more progressive definition that enables students to discover and develop their strengths and interests (Zhao, 2018a, 2018c, 2023, 2025) would require even more changes because personalization of learning means students have more autonomy and take control of their learning.

Education innovators have always tried to change the system to give students more control (Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Early on, education philosophers such as John Dewey argued for student-centered education and brought about the massive movement of progressive education (Cremin, 1964). Maria Montessori developed the Montessori method that gives students more autonomy (Montessori, 2013). Helen Parkhurst introduced the Dalton Plan that emphasizes student autonomy, independence, and responsibility (Jackman, 1920). Democratic schools represented by Summerhill School in the UK (Neil, 1960) and Sudbury Valley School in the U.S. (Greenberg et al., 2005) also promoted student self-directed learning and democratic governance with students as equal participants of the school community.

In recent years, as understanding of human nature and human learning advances, there is an increase in calls for more student autonomy and self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Wehmeyer & Zhao, 2020). Personalized learning (Bernacki et al., 2021; Shemshack & Spector, 2020), differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2017), and self-directed learning (Garrison, 1997; Morris & Rohs, 2023) have become popular pedagogical ideas to promote more student control of their learning. Technology, such as computers and the Internet, has also been advocated as tools to give students more control of their learning (Shemshack et al., 2021). The emerging artificial intelligence technology gives even more hope that learning can finally be personalized so that students will have quite a lot more control of their learning (Pataranutaporn et al., 2021; Pratama et al., 2023).

Education has changed a lot but it also has not changed (Sarason, 1990; Tyack & Cuban, 1995). Over the last 200 years or so, education has become more formalized with changed curriculum, changed courses, and changed assessments. Teachers have been better prepared with more years of pre-service training and have experienced multiple rounds of pedagogical improvement. Technology has been brought into schools and classrooms and teachers have been required to be technologically competent. New skills such as the so-called 21st Century skills, creativity, and other soft skills have been advocated to be included in school curriculum. But the fundamentals or the “grammar of schooling” have not changed a bit. Most schools still operate in the same way as they did 200 years ago: students sitting in the classroom with classmates of similar age taught by teachers prepared to instill the prescribed curriculum. There is very little that students could decide on their own in schools: The what, how, with whom, and where to learn have all been pre-determined by the school.

Can the essence of schooling be changed so that students are given more autonomy to enable self-determination and self-regulation in learning, which is a necessity in the age of AI (Zhao, 2018b, 2023, 2025)? In this article, we use an ecological perspective to analyze why education has not had a paradigm shift and discuss the possibilities of such changes in education. The perspective draws mostly from works of C. S. Holling and colleagues about resilience, adaptability, and transformability of social-ecological systems or the panarchy theory (Gunderson & Holling, 2002; Holling, 1973; Walker et al., 2004).

Panarchy theory is a conceptual framework developed in studies of Social Ecological Systems (SES) (Allen et al., 2014; Gotts, 2007). It is primarily concerned with the resilience, stability, adaptability, and transformability of systems (Holling, 1973; Walker et al., 2004). This framework suggests that a system is composed of many subsystems that are hierarchical, but this hierarchy is different from the traditional hierarchy in that subsystems are nested within upper systems. Panarchy theory emphasizes cross-scale or cross-system linkages through which “processes at one scale affect those at other scales to influence the overall dynamics of the system” (Allen et al., 2014, p. 1).

Curriculum versus student autonomy

The prescribed curriculum is the key to change. Schools have many aspects that form a culture of its own (Sarason, 1990), but everything revolves around the curriculum. Every school's operation starts with a curriculum or a set of curriculum standards, which by and large is determined by the education system within which the school is located. The curriculum occupies the entire school time and dictates the work of teachers and students. The school leaders’ job is to ensure that all required curricula are delivered to students. The teachers’ job is to ensure that the required content is covered in their teaching, and the student's job is to acquire what the curriculum requires.

In order to give students more autonomy, the prescribed curriculum must be changed to include time for students to personalize their learning. But such a change is extremely difficult because learning a prescribed curriculum has always been the norm of schooling since the beginning of the modern schools. Curriculum has been the vehicle for society to determine what students should learn.

Curriculum as the anchor

Modern education, originating from the Prussian era, has evolved into a complex, multi-layered system over 200 years. On the one hand, various elements within the education system—such as policies, teaching methods, assessment approaches, and societal needs—continue to evolve with changes in economics, culture, and technology, exhibiting high levels of dynamism and non-linearity through interactions and feedback. On the other hand, schools, as the direct setting for educational practice, carry society's demands and expectations, serving as the place where curriculum, teaching methods, assessments, and policy execution are implemented. Within the school setting, the curriculum is the anchor connecting various educational elements. It not only presents learning content and resources but also acts as the crucial bridge between the education system and societal needs.

Curriculum is at the center of education for several reasons. First, education is the societal will and wish imposed on individuals by a group of people. It is a reflection of the society's expectation and need of knowledge and skills in members of the society. In the school system, this societal need must be realized in curriculum, which prescribes the society's needed knowledge and skills and thus curriculum is the core vehicle through which society exerts influence on individuals through the education system.

Curriculum carries the needs of the society, making education system the extension of societal desires and the result of societal pressure. The content of curriculum represents the expectations of the society. Particularly under the guidance of national policies and needs of economic development, the curriculum is used to pass on governmental wishes, social values, cultural norms, and specific needs for skills and knowledge. It is through curriculum that the society embeds its needs for skills and knowledge perceived to benefit economic developments, stability of the government, the labor market, and continuation of cultural values. This societal pressure and limitation are best observed in the making and implementation of curriculum standards, which are then forced through standardized tests and educational policies. The curriculum is essentially the process through which societal will is translated into a series of operational procedures.

Second, education is a complex system with many factors interacting with each other and curriculum is the key factor that is closely related to other factors such as teaching methods, assessment standards, education environment, and education policy. Curriculum is not only affected by these factors but also affects these factors through a feedback mechanism. For example, teaching methods are dependent on the content of the curriculum, and teaching practices affect the changes of curriculum. Likewise, the core of assessment design is to measure the level of mastery of the curriculum content by students, but the assessment results will likely cause adjustment to curriculum-based courses. Henceforth, curriculum is at the center of the entire education system, driving the complex interactive feedback within the system.

Lastly, curriculum is the most decisive and widely influential factor in education. Teacher training, teaching methods, and goals of teaching are directly affected by curriculum content and standards. Teachers not only teach the curriculum-prescribed content, but also adjust their teaching methods based on feedback about the curriculum. Students’ paces of learning and class assignments are also arranged based on the difficulty level and order of the curriculum, which means the curriculum largely determines students’ learning pathways and outcomes. Standardized testing is designed based on the curriculum, and the core of assessment is to measure students’ mastery of the curriculum. Assessment results can also affect adjustment and development of curriculum. Decisions at the policy level such as time of instruction and class sizes are often decided based on the efficiency of implementing curriculum.

Two hundred years of efforts to strengthen the prescription of curriculum

As such, the prescription of curriculum has been strengthened over the past 200 years. The Prussian education system established in the 19th century did not allow student autonomy or control over their learning because schooling was a state action to control individuals, to make them the same (Gatto, 2001; Schleunes, 1989). To translate society desires, whatever they may be, curriculum or curriculum standards are developed by the state and applied to all students. Teachers are professionally trained to teach the required curriculum. To make the system more efficient, students are grouped by grade levels, which are largely based on students’ biological age. To ensure the mandated curriculum is taught and learned, standardized testing is applied to all students, and the testing results are used to hold teachers and schools accountable.

The Prussian model introduced the concept of tiered education, with a corresponding state-controlled curriculum. After primary education, students could continue to secondary school if they passed certain exams. Secondary education focused on more specialized subjects, preparing students for university or higher-level professional work. Because not every student could advance to the next tier of education, testing or some forms of admissions criteria based on the curriculum or curriculum standards were used to sort and select students. Thus, mastering the curriculum offered incentives to students and parents who wish to advance in education.

As the system evolved over the past two hundred years, various efforts in education policy, practice, and research have strengthened it. State-mandated curricula or standards have expanded to include more modern subjects or subjects to meet the needs of the changing society. Policies have been enacted to ensure that teachers are better trained to deliver the curriculum. Classes have become more formalized with the maximum number of students predetermined in different countries. Assessments have become more formalized and standardized. Most of education research has been about how to make the system more effective and efficient. As a result, the room for students’ autonomy has become practically non-existent.

The history of teaching the same prescribed curriculum has also shaped a mindset about education, which is that all students should learn the same prescribed content. This mindset has become widespread and dominated our society because standardized tests used to assess if students have mastered the content determine the future of students, income and tenure of teachers, and promotion of school leaders (Emler et al., 2019; Hout & Elliott, 2011; Neal & Schanzenbach, 2010; Yuan & Zhao, 2019). Test scores are also used to judge the quality of teaching methods, teaching materials, and almost all other teaching- and learning-related actions and resources. In addition, parents and students follow the mindset because success in schools has been formalized as the beginning of success in later life.

This mindset is still very strong today. Even the most forward-thinking organizations and scholars in the age of AI are still thinking that the same content should apply to all students. For example, the Partnership for 21st Century Skills, a large organization with the backing of major high-tech companies, proposed a new set of skills and curriculum for ALL students (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2008). The so-called 21st Century skills are essentially the same new skills for every student (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). The UNESCO's education goal for sustainability is to ensure that the same traditional tiered system are available for all students (UNESCO, n.d.).

Curriculum and learners

For the students/learners, the curriculum describes or prescribes what they should learn. In other words, the curriculum is the concrete manifestation of society's will and needs within the education system. It is also intended to serve as the resource provided by society through schools to help learners respond to the demands of the times and societal needs in the future. In the Industrial Age, knowledge, skills, abilities, and credentials became important resources for individuals, and schools delivered these through curriculum and instruction. In the digital age, information has become a key resource for survival, representing not only knowledge and skills but also the pathways and opportunities necessary for learners to gain social recognition, career successes, and achieve self-actualization. In a sense, the curriculum controls students’ learning process and outcomes of their education journey. At the end of schooling, what students are able to do is largely determined by the school curriculum.

In the age of AI, we live amidst an explosion of knowledge, with abundant information readily available. Information needed to survive and thrive is no longer controlled by a few experts or institutions; instead, ordinary individuals can participate in its production and dissemination. However, schools remain committed to teaching a prescribed curriculum, which, as discussed earlier, limits the information and opportunities students can access and experience. Curriculum not only aims to teach students what is included but also excludes knowledge, skills, mindsets, and perspectives that are not included. Students do not have other time to explore non-curriculum mandated content unless they drop out of school.

This creates a potential conflict. Society's current needs define the curriculum, which guides teaching, assessment, and how students are sorted for credentials. Yet, no one can guarantee that what is deemed important today will remain relevant when students graduate. Moreover, those who determine the curriculum will not be held accountable. In fact, no one would even blame them because time will have passed. This conflict cannot be resolved unless we give more autonomy to students/learners.

A balanced curriculum for student autonomy

The arguments for students’ voice and choice have existed for a long time (Cook-Sather, 2018; Fielding, 2004; Hargreaves, 2004; Mitra, 2008; Savrock, 2008). In recent years, the arguments shifted to personalized learning (Basham et al., 2016; Bernacki et al., 2021; Watters, 2023). The trend is to call for more opportunities for students to have control of their own learning.

But this cannot happen without altering the mandated curriculum, which controls students’ time in schools. The mandated curriculum is almost impossible to change for several reasons. First, educational systems do not innovate and have been trapped in the traditional mindset (Sarason, 1990; Tyack & Cuban, 1995; Tyack & Tobin, 1994; Watterston & Zhao, 2024). They can make changes to strengthen the traditional system by revising the curriculum, but it is almost impossible that they could create more time for students to take control of their learning. Moreover, the society and the public are unlikely to support governmental policies that give students free time in school because they want students to be taught (Tyack, 2007). Second, teachers have been prepared to teach the mandated curriculum. It is unlikely that most teachers are able or willing to not to teach the prescribed content. Third, schools would be at a loss without a prescribed curriculum. They would not know what to do without the prescription or with giving students freedom in schools. Finally, without proper preparation, students and parents would not know what to do with free time in schools. They are used to following the teachers, who follow the curriculum.

However, education must change because of the technological and societal changes that have occurred. In many ways, education has already lost the race with technology (Goldin & Katz, 2008). Human beings are not well prepared to deal with the massive changes brought about by technology and thrive in the new world of uncertainty. The fact that our younger generations are not living a better life than their parents in terms of income, housing, and happiness despite more education (Bialik & Fry, 2019) says that education has failed. A recent article in Newsweek (Blake, 2024) reported the serious crisis: Recently hired Gen-Z employees are fired in high proportions because they do not have the abilities and skills employers want, which was caused by an education that has not prioritized these abilities and skills.

Is it then possible to consider a different kind of curriculum? Since it is impossible or realistically reasonable to demand schools undo their curriculum and let students free in choosing what they want to do and learn, we might consider a split of the curriculum. That is, part of the curriculum is state- or system-controlled and part is given to students. In this balanced curriculum, states or education systems could still deliver their wishes and desires to students through the curriculum or curriculum standards, but students could also have autonomy to self-determine their learning under the facilitation of teachers.

What makes the balance is the dynamic relationship between prescribed curriculum and student autonomy. Currently, schools have 100% control of student learning following the prescribed curriculum. The reverse could be students having 100% control of their learning, including what to learn, how to learn, when to learn, and where to learn. A decrease in curriculum is possibly an increase in student autonomy and vice versa. To achieve a balanced curriculum requires systems, schools, teachers, and students to work together to determine the percentage of time for student autonomy and for the prescribed curriculum.

The balance needs also to be determined by student age, experience with autonomy, ability to manage autonomy, and support they receive to make best use of their autonomy. These are all variables that change with time and place. Younger age students may not be as effective in exercising their autonomy as older students, but it should not be interpreted that they do not want autonomy. Older students may have been “educated” to be fearful or suspicious of autonomy, but it should not be interpreted that they should therefore be deprived of autonomy. They need to have more time and coaching to regain their interest and ability to exercise their autonomy.

While psychologically, all humans desire autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017), it does not necessarily mean that all humans know how to exercise their autonomy in beneficial ways, especially in situations where proper support, guidance, and facilitation are not available. Giving students autonomy is not to let them free to do whatever they like. While students can decide what they want to learn, that decision is made in specific contexts, which are largely influenced by adult teachers, school leaders, and parents as well as peers. The same is true with how, when, and with whom to learn.

Changing the curriculum can drive transformations in other key elements of the education system. When the curriculum shifts, teachers naturally take on new roles, moving away from mere instructors to becoming coaches, counselors, project managers, and providers of social, emotional, and resource support (Zhao, 2018c, 2022). Likewise, schools will need to adapt to facilitate student autonomy, by revising timetables, reorganizing classes, optimizing facility use, and rethinking assessments. These changes, though significant, are a natural extension of a reimagined curriculum, prompting a fundamental reassessment of long-standing practices.

Panarchy explanation I: Paradigm shifts in education is necessary and possible

Panarchy theory is an ecological conceptual framework that is primarily concerned with the resilience, stability, adaptability, and transformability of systems (Holling, 1973; Walker et al., 2004). This framework suggests that a system is composed of many subsystems that are hierarchical, but this hierarchy is different from the traditional hierarchy in that subsystems are nested within upper systems. In the panarchy framework, “control is not just exerted by larger-scale, top-down processes, but can also come from small scale or bottom-up processes” (Allen et al., 2014, p. 1). Panarch theory emphasizes cross-scale or cross-system linkages through which “process at one scale affects those at other scales to influence the overall dynamics of the system” (Allen et al., 2014, p. 1).

To bring about the necessary changes, to change the unchangeable, to give students more control of their learning, we need to think about transformation and change differently from traditional education reforms. We found the conceptual framework of panarchy and adaptive cycles from ecology very helpful in understanding changes in education.

Hierarchy within the education system

As discussed, the education system has evolved into a complex, multi-layered structure that functions as a subsystem within the broader social system. Schools serve as subsystems of the education system, and classrooms can be seen as subsystems within schools. We can conceptualize classrooms as unit ecosystems within the modern education system. Above the classroom is the grade level, followed by the school, the school district, the state or provincial system, and ultimately the national system, which is embedded in the larger societal and cultural framework. Each classroom functions as a unique ecosystem, but all are shaped by their respective schools, which differ from one another. Schools within a district are influenced by the district, and in turn, they also affect the district. Similarly, districts influence and are influenced by the state or provincial system, and while state systems differ, they are all shaped by and contribute to the national system.

Adaptive cycle within the education system

The adaptive cycle from panarchy theory offers a useful framework for understanding how education systems evolve and adapt over time. This cycle consists of four phases: growth, conservation, release, and reorganization, which can explain the dynamic changes in educational structures.

Growth Phase: Growth is when a system is formed or reorganized. It goes through a short stage of development with rapid exploitation and sequestering of resources. In the context of education, this phase could represent the initial stages of educational reform, such as the introduction of a new curriculum or teaching method, where innovation is high and growth is rapid.

Conservation Phase: As the system stabilizes, it enters a longer period of conservation, during which resources and capital—such as knowledge, policies, or teaching practices—become more fixed. In education, this phase could reflect the standardization of curriculum and teaching methods. However, as the system becomes more rigid, it becomes less adaptable to change, making it harder to respond to external pressures like new technologies or societal shifts.

Release Phase: This phase, whether rapid or gradual, involves the release of accumulated energy and resources from the conservation phase. As the system becomes increasingly rigid, it eventually reaches a breaking point, unable to adapt to changing conditions. In education, from a curriculum perspective, this happens when the prescribed curriculum no longer aligns with the evolving needs of society. With knowledge and information now widely accessible and no longer controlled by a few experts, the outdated curriculum (a result of the conservation phase) triggers a crisis. This misalignment between traditional content and modern demands forces a shift in schools, paving the way for new, more relevant and adaptable curricular approaches to emerge.

Reorganization Phase: Following the release, the system enters reorganization, where components are reassembled, creating opportunities for innovation and new combinations. From a curriculum perspective, this phase represents the restructuring of educational practices to meet the demands of a rapidly changing society/technology development. As outdated curricula are discarded, new and more flexible approaches can emerge. This could lead to shifts in how schools operate, the implementation of updated policies, and the adoption of curricula designed to better prepare students for the future. The reorganization phase allows the education system to adapt, innovate, and realign itself with the evolving societal and technological development.

This cycle highlights the need for flexibility and adaptability in education to respond to evolving societal needs and external changes, ensuring that the system remains resilient and future-ready.

Resilience, adaptability, and transformability within the education system

Ecologists describe three key concepts related to socio-ecological systems (SES) that can be applied to education: resilience, adaptability, and transformability (Walker et al., 2004). These concepts help explain how education systems react to change, absorb disturbances, and—when necessary—undergo fundamental transformation.

Resilience of Education Systems: Resilience refers to the system's ability to absorb shocks and continue functioning. The education system has shown considerable resilience by adapting to disturbances while maintaining its core structure. A good example is how it has responded to technological advancements like microcomputers, the Internet, and generative AI. Although these technologies have the potential to transform education, the system tends to incorporate them with minimal disruption.

When new technology emerges, the education system typically reacts in predictable ways:

#1 It introduces the technology to show it is keeping up with trends.

#2 The curriculum is updated to teach students basic technological skills.

#3 Teachers are trained to use the technology in their instruction.

#4 Policies are developed to regulate the use of technology in schools.

The result is that none of the system actions makes much difference in schools other than the increased spending on technology as well as burden on teachers and students (Ginsberg & Zhao, 2023). Ironically, education systems have started banning the use of students’ smart devices in classrooms instead of putting them to good use (Böttger & Zierer, 2024). By and large, technology has not been used to transform education. Instead, it has been absorbed by the education system (Cuban, 1986, 1993, 2001; Papert, 1999; Zhao et al., 2015).

Adaptability in Education: Adaptability is the system's ability to adjust through the actions of its stakeholders—parents, students, teachers, and policymakers. Parents often seek the best schools for their children, and students try to succeed within the system. Teachers and school leaders focus on tasks that the system values, like standardized testing. Policymakers, in turn, create policies that reinforce traditional practices, such as testing in core subjects like math, science, and language (Zhao et al., 2019). While these adaptations try to make the system more flexible, they often strengthen its existing structure rather than encourage innovation.

Transformability in Education: Transformability refers to the ability of the system to completely reinvent itself when necessary. Ecosystems that lack transformability may eventually collapse and disappear. Human civilizations have gone through the same process (Diamond, 2005). In education, with the rapid spread of information and the rise of AI, the traditional curriculum no longer meets the needs of students or society. The current education system may have tremendous resilience and adaptability, but its lacking transformability may eventually cause the system to collapse without reorganization, if actions were not taken.

Panarchy explanation II: A new approach to change

Education operates within a multi-layered system, where innovations affect different levels—from individual classrooms to entire systems. While innovations occur at each level, they often strengthen the system's resilience and adaptability without challenging its deeper structures or giving students more autonomy.

Categories of innovation within the education system

Education has had many innovations, which can be placed into four different categories based on their impact on student autonomy and how they interact with the different layers of the system:

Tiny innovations

These occur at the teacher-student level. Individual teachers may make small adjustments to their teaching methods, allowing select students more control over their learning. While these changes are frequent, they have limited influence on the larger system and typically remain isolated to individual classrooms. For example, a teacher may decide some students already know the content and thus no longer need to listen to the lectures. These students are then given different tasks.

Small innovations

This kind of innovations are typically introduced as a pedagogical or educational program at the school level. A group of teachers or all teachers may have been trained to adopt new instructional approaches or teaching materials. For example, blended learning, personalized learning, or project-based learning (PBL) could be introduced to give students more autonomy. Small innovations have broader impact on more students, but they do not change the curriculum or the distribution of school time to give students more control of their learning; in other words, they still operate within the school's existing structure, with minimal impact on curriculum or policy.

Large innovations

Large innovations typically happen at the system level. System level policymakers can implement policy changes to demand changes at schools, which demand teachers to change in their classes or lower-level subsystems of the system. For example, a system issues policies to demand all students take standardized tests every year and the test scores are reported publicly, which is what No Child Left Behind (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 2002) did in the United States. Other examples of large innovations include national changes of textbooks and curriculum standards. However, these innovations tend to reinforce control over the curriculum rather than foster student autonomy, operating from the top down and limiting flexibility at lower levels. So far, no education system has placed student control or autonomy as innovation priority.

Transformational innovations

These innovations aim for fundamental change, offering students significantly more control over their learning. There have been quite a few such innovations, including the Montessori method, the Dalton plan, the Waldorf school, and the Democratic school. They all aim to change the school curriculum to allow students to have more autonomy, even though the level of autonomy each of the innovation gives to students varies. These innovations have been largely rejected by the system. These transformative innovations have been typically operated in private schools and have had little opportunity to be exposed to the general public. Moreover, standardized testing and accepted opinion of educational excellence (e.g., test scores) have not judged them to be excellent education (Nicotera & Stuit, 2017).

Enabling transformational innovations

Student autonomy and curriculum control exist in opposition—when one grows, the other shrinks. For real transformation, the curriculum must shift to allow more student autonomy, but the system resists this change. The education system is good at absorbing innovations that strengthen it. Innovations that challenge the system or aim to increase student autonomy are often rejected. No system is eager to reduce curriculum control, but transformation is necessary. More importantly, this change cannot be limited to a few private or special schools—it must happen in public education to benefit all students.

Panarchy theory shows that transformation doesn’t need to happen all at once. Change can start within subsystems—small, autonomous learning environments within schools. These subsystems could allow students to personalize their learning, giving them more control, while teachers shift to roles as facilitators and coaches.

Back to adaptive cycle, the innovation begins at the growth phase within a classroom or school but has the potential to influence larger layers, including the school, district, state, or national system. If the innovative subsystem grows and proves successful, it can gradually impact the larger system. Eventually, like an invasive species in an ecosystem, these subsystems can spread, transforming the education system over time.

Rather than transforming entire schools at once, new subsystems can be introduced within schools. The innovation would start in a new subsystem within a school. The new subsystem's education would be drastically different from the traditional school. Its curriculum is to be personalized by students (Zhao, 2018a, 2018c), so it allows students to explore, discover, and develop their own talents and interests (Zhao, 2016a). The pedagogy is not driven by lectures. Instead, it is to facilitate a process through which students learn to find and refine problems and develop solutions so that they turn their own unique talents into contributions to others (Zhao, 2025). In the new subsystem, students use AI as a partner extensively in their learning. Teachers’ role changes into coaches, facilitators, and socio-emotional supporters. Students in the new subsystem should all be interested in the new education. They choose to follow the method instead of being forced into it.

When the new subsystem starts, it is in the “exploitation” phase of the adaptive cycle. It should grow quite rapidly with more resources and energy than the traditional school. If the subsystem survives, it will exert influence on the upper-level system, in this case, the school, because it is within the same panarchy. The innovation travels upward and could spread to other schools and the entire system.

Conclusion: Education systems are complex, dynamic, and multi-layered. Transformation must start small, focusing on anchor element/factor, and gradually expand through the layers. Though resilience and adaptability often block deeper structural change, transformability becomes essential. The adaptive cycle—growth, conservation, release, and reorganization—provides a pathway to shift the education paradigm step by step.

Examples

In 2019, Chongqing Number Eight Secondary School began to create a new subsystem of education within one of its schools, Hongfan Middle School in China. In collaboration with YEE Education, an organization dedicated to changing the education paradigm to enable students to have more control of their own learning, Hongfan selected about 120 students from more than 200 students who have expressed interest in the new education paradigm to form two classes. The new paradigm is called Innovation, Creativity, and Entrepreneurship Education (ICEE), which has three basic principles: personalization of learning to enable students to learn to discover and develop their own unique strengths, product-oriented learning to teach students to find and solve problems worth solving, and global campus to help students learn with, from, and for anyone anywhere on the globe with technology (Zhao, 2012, 2016b, 2016c, 2016d).

ICEE took about one third of the entire school curriculum. In ICEE, students gained a lot more autonomy and control of their learning than their peers. They learned to become more independent, curious, creative, entrepreneurial, and collaborative. They have developed solutions to challenging problems under the theme of “Taking Chongqing to the World.” ICEE is a three-year program, running through the middle school journey for these students.

Since the first cohort of ICEE students in 2019, a similar group of students has been added each year. ICEE has now six cohorts of students in Hongfan. The ICEE teachers have also grown to be more than 12. More importantly, Hongfan began to spread the concepts of ICEE to other students. Non-ICEE students have been offered ICEE programs to a lesser extent (fewer hours each week) since the third year of ICCE's establishment.

As ICEE students began to graduate from the middle school and enter high school, Chongqing Number Eight Secondary School, which recruits most of Hongfan's graduates, began to offer ICEE classes for those interested. After a year of ICEE class establishment, the high school also began to offer ICEE programs to all its students, again, with less time devoted to ICEE each week.

The spread of ICEE did not stop at Chongqing Number Eight Secondary School. Through conferences and school visits, many school leaders learned about the ICEE program and showed interest in establishing their own subsystem within their schools. Two schools in Beijing began the pilot two years ago. However, such an establishment requires strong leadership support and deep understanding of the importance of providing students the opportunity to control their own learning. The two experiments in Beijing ended after one-year experiment.

Similar programs have been tested in other locations. In collaboration with the Mitchell Institute of Victoria University in 2016, the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals organized 10 secondary schools in Victoria, Australia, and the New South Wales Secondary Principals’ Council organized 11 secondary schools in New South Wales to offer a program that emphasized personalization and product-oriented learning. During this 1-year experiment, all schools formed teams of school principals or deputy principals, one to two teachers, and about five to ten students. The primary work was for students to learn to identify problems worth solving and develop solutions. Students in each school worked on identifying problems they believed to be meaningful and they came to agreement through discussions and debates. The problems included, for example, building sculpture in school gardens, designing and developing boxes for plants, designing and developing a new library, redesigning weekly student meetings, designing promotion materials for milk, and designing new dairy products (Anderson et al., 2017). Similar programs have also been tried in independent schools in South Australia (Zhao et al., 2019). But all these programs were in addition to the traditional curriculum or extra curricular.

All Saints College, an independent school in Perth, Western Australia, started with adding entrepreneurship programs for interested students as an after-school activity, which led students to create solutions for local businesses. As the interest grew, the school decided to open a new school while maintaining the traditional school. The new school is called the Studio School ¹ and was opened in a new location. Another Australian independent school, the Scots College in Sydney, has also created a new entity, which we call school-within-a-school, called ScotsX as a new subsystem.

Summary

We are not sure if all subsystems can survive and thrive, but it is one approach toward transformation in the traditional education system. New, especially transformative, ideas must have a chance to first survive and then be tested by the public. It is just like a transformative new technological product, which must first have a chance to be brought to market so customers have a chance to experience with it. It must be on the market long enough for enough customers to have a chance to decide whether to buy it.

Transformative education ideas often do not have a chance to be introduced and experienced by potential parents and students. School reforms have often taken the entire-school approach, meaning that when a school decides to adopt new programs, the entire school changes. Since a school in one community often monopolizes the community, parents and students, who often have a diversity of interests, do not have a chance to experience different paradigms of education. And since the dominant education system rejects transformative innovations, new paradigms of education rarely enter the system to be tested.

The approach we advocate in this paper follows an ecological framework. Hopefully, the panarchy of the education system makes it possible for subsystems to survive, thrive, and influence other components of the system. Eventually, we hope the entire system transforms.