Introduction
As governments and other institutions seek solutions to challenges facing education systems, the role of evidence-informed policymaking is becoming more critical. Over the last few years, education experts, researchers, and policymakers have engaged in thought-provoking discussions on the use of evidence, the integration of AI in education, and the evolving role of philanthropy.
The ever-growing body of research on effective education strategies continues to be underutilised, with policymakers and educators struggling to translate complex and often non-relevant findings into actionable interventions to address urgent problems. A study discussed by Sarah Sparks in Education Week reveals a concerning lack of uniformity among leading repositories in their assessment of the efficacy of education programs. This discrepancy in criteria, including variations in outcome measures, sample sizes, and the valuation of randomised controlled trials, can lead to conflicting recommendations for educators seeking evidence-informed solutions.
Recent discussions from the Education Endowment Foundation, Evidence for Education Network and Education.org emphasise that evidence should not only be accessible but also be embedded into policy processes. Traditional approaches, such as publishing research reports and providing policy briefs, are insufficient in driving change. As Noam Angrist and Stefan Dercon put it, simply generating more evidence will not lead to improved education outcomes unless policymakers and educators have the capacity to interpret and apply it. Effective communication strategies, combined with capacity-building efforts, are essential to closing the gap between research and implementation.
This article synthesises insights from recent discussions and reports, highlighting five key themes that are shaping the future of evidence-informed education policy and practice.
The policy lab approach is gaining traction
One promising model gaining traction is the policy lab approach, which aims to institutionalise the use of evidence by embedding research within decision-making structures. Jacobs Foundation’s EdLabs initiative is testing different models of policy labs across Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Switzerland, and Colombia, working closely with national education authorities. These labs focus on co-creating education reforms and interventions with policymakers, ensuring that interventions are contextually relevant and grounded in local realities.
Policy labs have emerged as a promising approach to designing context-specific education reforms, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Unlike top-down interventions, policy labs work closely with local education authorities to co-create and test solutions that address country-specific challenges. A review by the Jacobs Foundation examined the effectiveness of EdLabs across Africa, Latin America, and Europe, highlighting key lessons learned. One major finding was that successful policy labs require strong institutional support and long-term sustainability mechanisms. Without proper funding and government buy-in, many policy labs risk becoming short-term pilot projects that fail to scale, as the MINEDU policy lab demonstrates.
At the same time, a broader ecosystem is emerging to connect global evidence producers with country-based evidence users. Many initiatives supported by Global North partners operate with embedded country teams or advisory units, offering technical expertise and brokering relationships between evidence and policy. Within this system, EdLabs and government evidence units play a vital role in applying international research to local contexts in meaningful ways.
The dilemma of integrating AI in evidence use in education
Yet, just as policy labs evolve to respond to country needs, new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) are rapidly reshaping the landscape of evidence use in education. AI is often promoted as a tool to personalise learning, streamline administration, and expand access—especially in resource-constrained settings. But as pilot programs like the World Bank’s initiative in Edo, Nigeria, have shown, AI’s promise is matched by serious concerns. Issues such as infrastructure gaps, dependency risks, and the potential erosion of human judgment and participation in education decision-making are increasingly pressing.
There is a growing danger that AI will be used to bypass complex reform challenges, offering the illusion of efficiency while sidelining the slow, often difficult process of consensus-building, stakeholder engagement, and systemic change. AI’s ability to synthesise evidence and provide instant recommendations may streamline advisory work, but it also raises urgent questions: Will AI democratise evidence use, or further alienate communities from decisions that affect them? Can it enhance participation from teachers, students, and parents or will it automate away the very deliberation that makes education a public good?
As the education sector experiments with both policy labs and AI-driven tools, we are confronted with a pivotal question: How do we design systems that embed evidence use not only technically, but democratically and sustainably? The future of education reform will depend not just on smart tools or innovative models, but on our ability to align them with the real-world conditions and aspirations of the people they are meant to serve.
AI holds great promise for enhancing learning outcomes and scaling access to evidence-informed practices, but it also raises critical questions about equity, inclusion, and the centralisation of decision-making power. Philanthropies investing in education must not only fund AI innovation but also play a vital role in shaping ethical and context-sensitive frameworks for its adoption.
New funding strategies
Philanthropy has long been a driving force behind global education initiatives, but recent discussions suggest that funding models must evolve. Traditional approaches, which focus primarily on financial support, are being replaced by more strategic engagement that includes capacity-building, knowledge-sharing, and policy advocacy. Some philanthropic organisations, like the Jacobs Foundation, are shifting from a purely funding role to a more engaged approach, one that promotes long-term sustainability rather than one-off interventions.
However, for such strategic models to be truly effective, funders must also be willing to critically examine their own assumptions. An article in the Stanford Social Innovation Review highlights a persistent challenge in philanthropy: confirmation bias. It argues that many donors tend to favour research that aligns with their existing strategies, rather than embracing findings that might challenge their worldview. To shape sustainable education policies and practices, philanthropic organisations must go beyond engagement and actively seek out disconfirming evidence, using real-world data to refine their approaches and make more informed, adaptive investments.
Cooperation between funders can also be a powerful new approach. The African Education Research Funding Consortium, currently supported by Echidna Giving, convenes several global and local foundations driven by a commitment to better align their funding and support to local, national and organisational agendas. The Friends of Education network of Switzerland-based funders is another example of spaces that promote coordination and cooperation between funders.
However, cooperation can have an unexpected negative effect, too. The think tanks that OTT work with do not always experience funder cooperation as funders would expect them to. For small policy research organisations, a fragmented funder sector can mean more opportunities to fund their work; if all funders agree to focus their agendas, however, many will be unable to secure funding.
These shifts in philanthropic strategy towards more engaged, adaptive, and collaborative models mirror a broader reckoning in the education policy space: that lasting change requires more than just funding or data. The reliance on technical solutions, whether in philanthropy or policymaking, often masks deeper structural and political challenges. Without addressing the institutional realities and systemic inequities that shape education systems, even the most well-intentioned investments or evidence-informed reforms risk falling short. Both funders and policymakers must therefore rethink not just what kinds of evidence they support, but how they engage with the complex, lived realities of those they aim to serve, especially teachers, schools, and local communities.
Rethinking education reforms and priorities
Despite growing global awareness of the learning crisis, many policymakers continue to underestimate its scale and complexity. A Centre for Global Development survey of 601 policymakers across 12 low- and middle-income countries found that most attributed poor learning outcomes primarily to poverty, overlooking deeper systemic issues such as poor teaching quality, weak school management, and broader political dynamics.
Even when additional factors are considered, proposed solutions tend to focus narrowly on technical fixes. For example, increasing education budgets is often seen as a solution, yet evidence shows that more spending alone does not necessarily lead to better learning outcomes. Instead, reforms must be grounded in stronger implementation strategies, improved teacher training, and more effective use of data in decision-making. UNESCO research reinforces this, arguing for a shift in priorities: rather than focusing solely on inputs like spending, governments must invest in teacher development, robust monitoring and evaluation systems, and the routine use of data to guide interventions.
Crucially, reforms are more effective when they engage the voices of teachers themselves. Evidence from the Asia-Pacific region, shared in a report by the Australian Council for Educational Research, demonstrates how teacher insights—rooted in day-to-day classroom experience—can lead to more practical and impactful policies.
However, the continued emphasis on technical fixes and data-driven solutions risks reinforcing a limited view of reform. It fuels an ever-growing demand for evidence, impact evaluations, assessments, and metrics without addressing the structural political, economic, and cultural barriers that impede real change. Despite billions spent on research and evaluations, many findings have little influence on actual policy or spending decisions.
OTT’s work on thorny issues in evidence-informed policymaking aims to tackle these deeper, often overlooked issues. Experts have long cautioned that simply integrating evidence into education policy does not guarantee better outcomes. In the UK, for instance, reading scores have stagnated despite decades of evidence-based reading initiatives. This points to a need for more critical reflection on how evidence is used and misused in educational reform. Rather than treating evidence as a silver bullet, we must understand the political and institutional contexts in which it operates.
Solving the global learning crisis requires more than just better data or increased funding. It demands a fundamental rethinking of how evidence is used in education policymaking. While technical solutions have their place, they must be situated within a broader understanding of the political, institutional, and social realities that shape education systems. To make evidence truly impactful, we need to move beyond surface-level reforms and confront the structural barriers that limit progress. This means engaging with the people who implement policy, especially teachers, embracing uncomfortable findings, and being willing to adapt strategies in response to complex, context-specific challenges. Only then can evidence serve as a tool for transformation rather than a justification for the status quo.
More tools and guides for using evidence in education
Building on this need to engage with the structural and political realities of education reform, OTT outlined the value of evidence-use diagnostic tools in policymaking. These tools help policymakers go beyond technical fixes by aligning new initiatives with the institutional and political environments in which they are implemented. More tools and guides have emerged to support this shift, offering practical ways to strengthen the use of evidence while navigating the political and organisational challenges that often hinder reform. These resources mark a growing recognition that evidence-informed policymaking must begin with an honest assessment of the systems it seeks to influence.
- OTT’s OnEdlabs series brings together key insights, case studies, reviews, and evaluations, serving as a platform for researchers, practitioners, funders, and policy labs. Drawing from OTT’s experience, it offers a living repository of evidence-informed advice and resources with a focused learning agenda for those in the field.
- The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) has developed a concise guide to help education professionals navigate the often complex landscape of research evidence. This guide aims to assist educators in discerning trustworthy and relevant sources in an environment where many products are labelled as “evidence,” encouraging a critical assessment of its application in school improvement and teacher professional development.
- UNESCO launched its learning series on evidence use in education. This learning series is designed as peer learning webinars, aiming to address knowledge-policy-practice gaps throughout the policy cycle by bringing together policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and relevant stakeholders to discuss their experiences and learn from each other in using evidence in policy and practice to make change.
- The Early Childhood Education Global Hub is a tool aimed at promoting quality pre-primary education aligned with Sustainable Development Goal 4.2. The hub serves as a resource for policymakers, offering key data insights, an interactive map, and deep-dive country-focused and thematic case studies that advocate for policy changes and investments in early childhood education.
- The Global Schools Forum launched the Evidence Hub on Government and Non-State Partnerships. The hub offers insights and resources for practitioners, policymakers and education leaders aiming to strengthen collaborations with the non-state education sector. It includes toolkits, case studies, and resources for different partnership types
- Education.org has produced a digital white paper on the use of evidence in education. The paper offers a clear set of recommendations for policymakers, practitioners, and funders, outlining how to design, implement, and scale impactful education reforms
Conclusion
The path to meaningful and lasting education reform is neither linear nor purely technical. As this blog highlights, funding, evidence, and innovation, while crucial, must be situated within a broader understanding of the political, institutional, and social contexts that shape education systems. Philanthropy is evolving beyond traditional grantmaking, embracing more strategic roles that include capacity-building, policy engagement, and collaborative learning. Yet for these shifts to be effective, funders and policymakers alike must interrogate their assumptions, welcome disconfirming evidence, and commit to more inclusive, adaptive strategies. Efforts to embed evidence use in policymaking from policy labs to AI-driven tools offer promising innovations. But they also raise pressing questions about power, participation, and equity. Technological advances like AI can enhance access and accelerate insights, but without robust safeguards and inclusive design, they risk deepening existing inequalities and distancing communities from decisions that directly affect them.
Making evidence work for education requires more than just better data or smarter tools. It demands that we confront entrenched power dynamics, elevate local expertise, especially from teachers and students and foster spaces where evidence is used not to reinforce the status quo, but to imagine and realise more equitable futures. Reform is not only about what we fund or how we analyse data; it is about who gets to ask the questions, shape the solutions, and define what success looks like.