Case Study IV: Dynamic Symmetry in a London School

Over six months, a series of light‑touch interventions were introduced at a school in London (Years 4–8, ages 8–13) to explore whether “dynamic symmetry” – the deliberate balancing of structure and flexibility – would produce measurable improvements in behaviour, engagement and learning. The work was carried out within normal timetables and existing resources by teaching staff, with no external funding. 

Dynamic symmetry theory suggests that systems work best when they avoid two unhelpful extremes: rigid order on one side and unmanaged freedom on the other. Schools know these extremes well. At one end lies the tightly controlled timetable and rulebook that leaves little room for pupils or teachers to adapt. At the other lies a relaxed, improvisational culture in which expectations drift, workloads fluctuate and no one is quite sure what will happen next.

Between these poles is a narrower zone where structure and flexibility are held in a workable balance. Edge theory gives language to this zone and offers a simple practical discipline for finding and maintaining it: regularly identify one place where more structure is needed and one place where unnecessary control can be relaxed, and then adjust both in small, repeatable steps.

A six‑month exploratory study in a London school for pupils aged eight to thirteen set out to test how far this idea could improve everyday school life without new programmes, extra staff or external funding.

The school experiment

The experiment began with a practical question: could very small, deliberate adjustments in the balance between structure and flexibility make daily life easier to manage and better for pupils? Over six months, staff introduced a series of light‑touch interventions in three domains – classroom conduct, homework and pupil voice – all within existing timetables and resources.

The rule was consistent. Every fortnight, in a defined area of school life, teachers would “tighten” one element and “loosen” one element. Tightening meant making a rule or routine clearer, more consistent or more predictable. Loosening meant removing or relaxing a rule, or creating a small, structured space for variation and choice. The aim was not to add more control or to abandon it, but to carry out fine adjustments at the boundary between the two.

To avoid relying on impressions alone, staff tracked simple indicators: counts of low‑level behaviour incidents, short anonymous pupil surveys and brief staff logs about how much time different routines consumed and how they felt to run. This was not a formal trial, but it was enough to see whether the symmetry approach was producing different patterns from business‑as‑usual.

Classroom conduct: clear expectations, fewer rules

In classroom conduct, two Year 6 classes and one Year 7 class agreed to revise their behaviour framework for a term. Tightening took the form of a small number of shared expectations. Each class agreed three non‑negotiable behaviours, such as listening when someone else was speaking, keeping hands and feet to oneself, and following the first instruction. All teachers working with those groups committed to using the same short script for low‑level corrections and to recording only breaches of these three expectations.

Loosening involved deliberately dropping several minor rules that were seldom enforced and often irritated pupils without contributing much to learning. Fixed seating patterns, certain minor uniform requirements during lessons and similar “fiddly” demands were paused. Within broad limits of safety and practicality, teachers allowed pupils some choice over where they sat or the order in which they tackled independent work.

Parallel classes in the same year groups continued with the existing, more detailed behaviour policy, providing a rough comparison.

Over the term, staff noted that recorded low‑level behaviour incidents declined more clearly in the symmetry classes than in the comparison groups. Teachers reported spending less time issuing repeated warnings and more time giving feedback on work. In short pupil surveys, pupils in the symmetry classes were more likely to say that they understood the rules and saw teachers as fair, even though there were fewer written rules. In staff discussions, a recurrent theme was that agreeing a small set of shared expectations, and then enforcing them consistently, made it easier to be both firm and relaxed. Teachers felt more confident ignoring minor irritations because they knew exactly which boundaries they and their colleagues would insist on.

In dynamic symmetry terms, the classes moved from an over‑complicated form of order towards a simpler, more resilient balance: enough structure to establish a common standard, enough looseness to let relationships and judgement do some of the work.

Homework routines: less volume, more clarity

The second domain was homework, or prep. In Years 5 to 8, one humanities subject and one STEM subject in each year group volunteered for a “dynamic symmetry prep trial” for half a term.

Here, tightening meant restoring clarity around expectations. Prep was set only on specified days each week, with a standard completion expectation explained to pupils and parents. For each task, teachers introduced a short success‑criteria checklist, such as full sentences, evidence from the text or diagram labelled correctly, and committed to providing at least one focused comment linked directly to those criteria.

Loosening meant reducing unnecessary volume and allowing limited choice of format. The number of weekly prep pieces was cut, for example from three smaller tasks to two more meaningful ones. Once a fortnight, pupils could choose how to present their understanding – through writing, a diagram or a short audio explanation – as long as they met the same criteria. Other subjects continued with their previous prep patterns, which typically involved more pieces and less coordinated feedback.

By the end of the trial, prep completion rates in the symmetry subjects had risen compared to their own baseline and relative to non‑trial subjects. Teachers reported spending less total time on marking, because they had removed repetitive low‑value tasks and focused on fewer, better‑designed assignments. Pupils were more likely to say that prep helped them learn and less likely to describe it as busywork.

Once again, the key change lay in the pairing. Tightening produced clearer, more predictable expectations and feedback. Loosening reduced noise in the system by cutting excess tasks and introducing a controlled degree of choice, which in turn increased ownership.

Pupil leadership and voice: fixed routines, open agenda

The third domain was pupil leadership and voice. For a term, School Council and form‑time structures were adjusted in Years 4 to 8.

Tightening took the form of a short, non‑negotiable check‑in during weekly form time, in which every boy had the opportunity to say a few words, such as one good thing and one challenge from the week. School Council representatives were elected for a fixed term and given a clear mandate: to gather suggestions from their peers and report back on what had and had not been acted upon.

Loosening involved freeing small pockets of time and agenda space. A short segment of form time every other week was left unscripted, with tutors encouraged to allow pupils to propose topics, ranging from playground issues to charity projects. At School Council, time was moved away from routine announcements and used instead for discussion of two or three concrete proposals per meeting, chosen by the children.

Tutor notes indicated that over the term a wider range of pupils contributed to discussions, and that form time was less dominated by the most confident voices. Several small but significant changes were suggested, debated and implemented within weeks, such as adjustments to break‑time equipment or the trial of a quiet reading space. Pupils began to see a visible connection between speaking up and seeing something change. Tutors also reported that informal pastoral concerns emerged earlier, giving them more scope to respond before issues escalated. Form time, in their words, felt calmer, and there were fewer “surprises”.

Here, dynamic symmetry involved combining fixed relational routines that ensured everyone was noticed with genuine openness in part of the agenda. The structure provided reliability; the looseness enabled real agency.

What the school learned

Taken together, these three strands provide a practical illustration of dynamic symmetry in a school setting. When staff regularly tightened one element of structure and loosened one element of control, in small, deliberate steps, the systems they worked in often became easier to run and more responsive to pupils’ needs. Behaviour improved with fewer but better‑understood rules. Homework became more purposeful with less volume but clearer criteria and feedback. Pupil voice became more constructive when anchored in simple routines yet given real scope to shape decisions.

The study has clear limitations. It was not independently evaluated, and the school has its own particular character and advantages. Comparisons between classes and subjects were informal rather than rigorously controlled. Nonetheless, the pattern is instructive. Applying dynamic symmetry in this modest context did not require sophisticated mathematics, new technology or large budgets. It required a change of habit: looking regularly for one area where structure was too weak and needed strengthening, and one area where control was unnecessarily tight and could be relaxed.

Future work could extend the approach across more schools, introduce clearer comparison groups and track effects on attainment, attendance and longer‑term behaviour. It could also examine staff wellbeing more systematically, since several teachers reported feeling less drained by minor management tasks and more able to focus on teaching.

For now, this London school offers a concrete example of a general principle. In education, as in other complex systems, a small, disciplined practice of tightening and loosening – applied thoughtfully and reviewed often – can move a community away from unhelpful extremes and towards a more stable, adaptable way of working together.

Further Reading

• Arndt, S. S., et al. “A Dynamic Concept of Animal Welfare: The Role of Appetitive and Adverse Internal and External Factors and the Animal’s Ability to Adapt to Them.” Frontiers in Animal Science (2022). Explores welfare as a balance between stability and adaptive capacity, with clear implications for school and classroom environments.
• Sharma‑Wallace, L., Velarde, S. J., & Wreford, A. “Adaptive Governance Good Practice: Show Me the Evidence!” Journal of Environmental Management 222 (2018): 174–184. Reviews how institutions can build feedback and learning into their structures, relevant to school‑level governance and policy cycles.
• Marx, E., Iwan, O., & Wittenberg, E. “Dynamicity Predicts Inferred Temporal Order in Complex Sentences: Evidence from English, German, and Polish.” Cognitive Science 49(2), e13512 (2025). Examines how people use dynamic features of situations to organise events in time, touching on how pupils process and sequence information.
• Langton, C. G. “Computation at the Edge of Chaos: Phase Transitions and Emergent Computation.” Physica D42(1–3) (1990): 12–37. A foundational complexity‑science paper on systems that exhibit rich, adaptive behaviour between order and chaos, providing theoretical background for dynamic symmetry ideas.
• Buller, H., et al. “Beyond the Unitary State: Multi‑Level Governance, Politics, and Cross‑Cultural Perspectives on Animal Welfare.” Animals 14:79 (2024). Discusses multi‑level governance and coordination across sectors, offering useful analogies for thinking about school systems as part of wider educational governance.