Executive summary
Since the 1990s, repeated waves of national reform and large investments to improve education systems worldwide have expanded access and raised ambitions for learning, however, classroom practice often remains unchanged (Schweisfurth 2013; Tabulawa 2013). Drawing on research from Egypt, India, and Mexico, this synthesis report explores why teaching practice often remains unchanged despite reform efforts, and argues that transforming classroom practice requires more than well-intentioned and well-designed national education reforms. True transformation requires understanding and working with the Invisible Pedagogical Mindsets (IPMs) that shape classroom practice, namely the ways that cultural contexts, education ecosystems, and teachers’ preferred learning theories interact with the proposed reforms to influence what teachers regard as good teaching and what they do in their classrooms. Building on research about policy-practice gaps, teacher sensemaking, and learner-centered reform (Coburn 2001; Datnow et al. 2025; Schweisfurth 2013), this report organizes these insights into a practical framework and tests it against evidence from the three country cases.
Using collaborative mixed-methods research conducted by Research Policy Collaboratives in each country, the evidence shows three recurring themes. First, culture shapes how reforms are understood. Teachers widely support aims such as inclusion, holistic development, and community connection, but they also feel responsible for authority, discipline, and character formation. Reforms that call for more student autonomy and horizontal relationships must be translated into these cultural terms if they are to be credible. Second, ecosystem contradictions undermine reform. Policies that call for active, competency-based learning coexist with assessments that reward recall, rushed or disconnected professional development programs, heavy administrative loads, and weak support from middle-tier actors. Third, teachers’ preferred learning theories reveal sophisticated professional judgment. Most teachers already blend transmission and construction of knowledge. Reforms that present “traditional” and “student-centered” approaches as a binary create unnecessary tension.
Across the three countries, teachers emerge not as barriers to reform but as frontline interpreters who work at the intersection of culture, ecosystem constraints, and learning theories. When reforms ignore these IPMs, they remain symbolic and are often translated back into familiar practices. When reforms are designed with IPMs in mind, change becomes both more feasible and more durable (Ferreyra et al. 2026; Moustafa et al. 2026; Ravindranath et al. 2026).
For policymakers, system leaders, and development partners, this has three main implications.
- Design for translation, not transfer. Before scaling reforms, systematically examine how culture, ecosystems, and learning theories will shape implementation, and build in space for adaptation.
- Align key parts of the ecosystem, especially assessment, materials, time use, and middle-tier roles, so that they reinforce, rather than undercut, the pedagogies reforms promote.
- Treat professional learning and co-design as central to reform, not as add-ons. Invest in sustained, practice-based learning for teachers, create structures for collaboration and coaching, and establish mechanisms for teachers and communities to inform ongoing policy decisions.
Taken together, these steps can help move reforms from policy documents into everyday teaching and learning.
Related Content
Authors
With
-
Acknowledgements and disclosures
We extend our sincere gratitude to our fellow members of the SPARKS Global Network for their invaluable support and feedback over the past two years. For their collaboration and guidance on this project, our heartfelt thanks go to our RPC members in Egypt, India, and Mexico who shaped the country-level research, insights, and discussions.
We are grateful to Dr. Michelle Kaffenberger for her careful review and to our colleagues at the Center for Universal Education, Dr. Brad Olsen and Dr. Emily Gustafsson-Wright, for their roles as reviewer and editor, respectively. We also thank Dr. Anna Farrell and The Other Design Studio for their contributions to editing and design.
Brookings gratefully acknowledges the support provided by the LEGO Foundation. Brookings recognizes that the value it provides is in its commitment to quality, independence, and impact. Activities supported by its donors reflect this commitment.
The Brookings Institution is committed to quality, independence, and impact.
We are supported by a diverse array of funders. In line with our values and policies, each Brookings publication represents the sole views of its author(s).
