There is a bit of a snap back happening in education right now.
You can feel it in the conversations, see it in policy, and hear it in the tone. A renewed emphasis on basics. A return to exams. Attendance and work habits being folded back into grades. A growing narrative that student achievement is declining and that schools need to get “back on track.”
In Ontario, we are seeing moves toward mandatory exams and the inclusion of attendance in final marks. In Sweden, the shift is toward textbooks and a reassertion of foundational skills as the primary purpose of school. Australia is hearing prominent calls for a back-to-basics approach in reading, writing, and mathematics, framed around declining national assessment results. And in England, a national curriculum review is underway, explicitly building on what it calls a “knowledge-rich” approach while examining whether current assessments are serving all students well.
The same conversation, across very different contexts.
It is not hard to understand why this is happening.
We are in a moment where the world feels less stable than it has in a long time. AI is accelerating change. Students are more distracted. Engagement feels uneven. The aftershocks of the pandemic are still with us. In that kind of environment, there is a natural pull toward clarity. Toward things we can see, count, and understand.
Exams feel clear. Attendance feels concrete. “Back to basics” feels reassuring.
And in uncertain times, reassurance carries weight.
There is also something deeper underneath this. A sense, for some, that perhaps we have drifted too far. That in trying to broaden what we value in schools, we may have lost focus on the fundamentals. That narrative is gaining traction, and it is one we should take seriously.
Because there is truth in parts of it.
Attendance matters. Foundational skills matter. Engagement matters.
But this is where we need to be careful.
The risk is not that we are paying attention to the basics. The risk is that we begin to narrow our definition of success at the exact moment learning is expanding.
In West Vancouver, we are clear about the importance of strong foundations. Literacy and numeracy are not optional. They remain one of the three key tenets of our work in schools. And we have not shied away from the Foundation Skills Assessment. We see it as a useful reference point for families and a source of data for teachers to inform instruction. A snapshot, honestly taken, that helps us understand where students are.
But we also hold tightly to the idea that you can be pro foundational skills and pro innovation at the same time. These are not competing values. We intentionally connect literacy and numeracy to our work in AI, and to physical literacy, recognizing that learning is cognitive, creative, and physical all at once.
And we hold tightly to “all means all.”
Not just in access, but in success.
That belief matters in this moment, because when systems feel pressure, there is often a quiet shift in who we design for. Measures that feel clear and consistent can begin to advantage the students who already know how to do school well, while creating new barriers for those who need something different to thrive.
That is not the intent. But it can be the impact.
Because while schools are feeling pressure to simplify, the world our students are entering is becoming more dynamic, more unpredictable, and harder to navigate.
AI is a big part of that shift.
Students no longer need school primarily for access to information. They carry that in their pockets. Increasingly, they can generate it on demand.
What they need now is something different.
They need to be able to make sense of information, to question it, to apply it in new contexts, to create with it, and to work with others in increasingly complex environments.
Those are harder things to measure.
And so there is a temptation to double down on what is easier.
Exams. Attendance. Compliance.
Exams are not the problem. But they are not the solution either. We should be careful when the things that are easiest to measure become the things we value most.
Because when that happens, we can unintentionally move away from “all means all,” and toward a system that works very well for some students, and less well for others.
This is where the narrative of declining achievement also deserves a closer look.
There is some truth in the data. In many jurisdictions, including high-performing ones, we have seen dips in international assessments. That should get our attention. But it should not become the entire story.
Because at the same time, systems like ours in British Columbia continue to perform at high levels globally. And perhaps more importantly, schools have taken on a far broader and more complex role than they did even a decade ago.
We are asking more of students.
Not just to recall information, but to think critically, to collaborate, to adapt, and to navigate uncertainty. If our measures remain fixed while expectations evolve, it is not surprising that the story can begin to feel like decline.
So when we say achievement is declining, it is worth asking: declining in what, measured how, and against what expectations?
Globally, the picture is more nuanced than the headlines suggest. Some systems are leaning into structure, standardization, and a renewed focus on foundational skills. Others are pushing further into creativity, agency, and broader competencies. The most thoughtful approaches are not choosing one over the other. They are trying, imperfectly, to hold both.
In British Columbia, we have spent the last two decades moving in that direction. We have worked to build a more balanced understanding of student success, one that values both strong foundations and the ability to think, create, and connect.
That work has not been perfect, but it has been meaningful. And in many ways, it has positioned our system as one others look to.
That is why the current moment matters.
Not because we should ignore the signals we are seeing, but because we should resist the urge to respond by retreating.
There are things we should absolutely strengthen. Literacy and numeracy need continued focus. Attendance matters and needs to be addressed. Engagement is something we should always be working on.
But we do not need to abandon a broader vision of learning to address current challenges. In fact, doing so may leave our students less prepared for the world they are entering, and may move us further from the idea that all students can succeed.
In times of uncertainty, there is a strong pull toward simplicity. Toward clearer measures. Toward more familiar approaches.
That pull is understandable. But it is not always wise. Because the future our students are heading into is not becoming more simple. It is becoming more dynamic, more unpredictable, and more complex.
Our challenge is not to make school feel simpler.
It is to ensure that students leave ready for that reality. Grounded in strong foundations, yes. But also able to think, adapt, create, and navigate a world that will continue to change around them.
For all students.
That is the goal.
And it requires us to resist the easy answers, even when they feel right.
Not a swing of the pendulum, but a commitment to nuance.
The image at the top of this post was generated through AI. Various AI tools were used as feedback helpers (for our students this post would be a Yellow assignment – see link to explanation chart) as I edited and refined my thinking.