Education policy debates often centre on the immediate: what can be achieved within a political term, or what’s feasible in response to a current crisis. But the future of education will be shaped by forces that do not respect policy cycles or institutional silos. Climate instability, artificial intelligence, demographic shifts and profound changes to labour markets all raise difficult questions about the purpose, content and organisation of schooling in the decades ahead.

In this context, foresight approaches offer something that conventional methods often cannot: a structured, participatory way of thinking long term. Rather than predicting the future, foresight helps us explore multiple, plausible futures. It enables decision-makers to test the resilience of policies, identify blind spots and consider the implications of different choices – before they are forced to react.

A recent European foresight study illustrates this well. Conducted by researchers across the continent, including members of the BERA community, the project brought together more than 80 experts (in this case policy officials, researchers and education specialists, with some discussions involving teachers and children) to examine how school systems across Europe might evolve by the year 2040. The aim was not to produce a single roadmap, but to create a set of alternative scenarios that could inform more strategic thinking.

Thinking ahead – not predicting

The study combined horizon scanning, stakeholder engagement and a Delphi process to explore key drivers of change and to codevelop four contrasting futures for schooling. These scenarios were not designed to be exhaustive or definitive. Instead, they function as tools for reflection, each one representing a different way in which values, technologies and policy choices could interact over time. The four scenarios were structured around two central tensions: the degree of standardisation in education systems, and whether societal priorities lean more towards collaboration or competition. The resulting futures included:

• regulated consensus: education is highly centralised and tightly coordinated, with a focus on uniform standards and accountability, but limited space for local innovation.
• creative collective: a more flexible and inclusive system, where schools are supported by collaborative networks and artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted learning, though there is no single model of delivery.
• measured results: a data-driven model dominated by metrics and standardised performance tracking, often at the expense of diversity and pedagogic creativity.
• market of learners: a fragmented system shaped by private providers and edtech platforms, leading to uneven access and growing inequality.

These aren’t predictions, they are provocations. Each one helps surface assumptions embedded in current policy thinking and invites policymakers to consider the consequences of different directions. What trade-offs are we making? Who benefits, and who is left out?

Why foresight matters for education researchers

Foresight is not just for policymakers. It also opens up new possibilities for education researchers. Most traditional research in education is retrospective – it explains what has happened, or what is happening now. Foresight, on the other hand, asks what could happen, and how we might shape those outcomes. It invites us to think differently about uncertainty, not as something to be avoided but as something to be explored. This can be especially valuable when dealing with complex, fast-moving issues such as the impact of AI in schools, or the long-term consequences of climate disruption on educational access and equity.

‘Foresight can be especially valuable when dealing with complex, fast-moving issues such as the impact of AI in schools, or the long-term consequences of climate disruption on educational access and equity.’

Planning for the long term

Another appeal of foresight lies in its capacity to reframe the terms of the debate. Rather than asking, ‘What is likely to happen?’, it asks, ‘What kind of future do we want to bring about, and what decisions do we need to make now to get there?’ This is especially important in education, where policy discussions can quickly become reactive or ideologically entrenched. Foresight creates room for more strategic, longer-term conversations, ones that cut across sectors and encourage deeper reflection on values, priorities and social purpose. By doing this, it also offers a counterweight to short-termism in policymaking. By working with scenarios, policymakers can explore unintended consequences, identify potential tipping points and stress-test their current strategies under different conditions. For researchers, it provides a method for influencing these conversations with rigour and imagination.

A tool for the present, not just the future

Foresight is not a replacement for empirical research but a necessary addition to our methodological toolkit. It offers a way of engaging with complexity that is both systematic and creative. And at a time when the future of education feels especially uncertain, it gives us space to ask different questions, and to involve a broader range of voices in answering them. For researchers and policymakers alike, the task is not to predict the future of schools, but to remain open to possibility, to think strategically about long-term change, and to ensure that education systems are equipped to adapt with care and purpose. Foresight offers one powerful way of doing just that.

To explore the full set of scenarios and learn more about the methodology behind the study, you can read the European Commission foresight report.