This is a draft of my next article for the Times Educational Supplement Scotland.  It’s based on a previous post with a good dollop of ideas borrowed from my good friend John Connell.

I reckon one of the greatest challenges facing Scottish education is the way in which people use the third person plural in a negative sense.

Listen to any conversation about education and very soon “they” will emerge as the problem. So teachers will talk about “them” (management), management will talk about “them” (teachers and the local authority) and those in the local authority will talk about “them” (schools and the government).

Of course there are many others groups who can be characterised as “them” - children, parents, IT managers, unions, finance departments, politicians, social workers, doctors, HMI, the media - “if only “they” could do their jobs properly then all would be well”.

By externalising the problem we strengthen our allegiance to our own group - “we need to work together or “they” will ……….” Yet what is fascinating is how it’s possible to move (i.e. through promotion) from being one of “us” to one of “them” and also start to think about those whom were recently your colleagues as “them”. I’m not suggesting here that such language is always used in an adversarial sense but that it demarcates and emphasises the differences between groups.

In many ways it’s natural to refer to any group beyond our own as “them”. So much of our own self-esteem is wrapped up in our social identity where we categorise others and ourselves - often comparing ourselves favourably towards other groups.

Perhaps some of the key drivers for this allegiance mentality are the hierarchies we have built up in Scottish education. Over the years we have evolved rigid and deeply layered hierarchies generating precisely the organizational mindset that promotes the top-down divisions of ‘us and them’

The ‘us and them’ attitude is therefore merely a reflection of the reality faced by most unpromoted teachers in the classroom, for instance, when they look at the phalanx of ‘managers’ piled high above them, both in school and beyond the school.

There is another critical element in this, and that is the almost total disempowerment of classroom teachers that has taken place over the past two or three decades. Teachers simply, in Scotland, no longer have any control over their own destiny to any extent that genuinely recognizes their skills, knowledge and commitment to what they do. People who feel disempowered cannot but help see those who have taken their power away as ‘them’ – no amount of care over use of language will change the structural fact of the situation that teachers find themselves in.

Yet there is hope. Two unique opportunities have aligned themselves in the firmament to challenge the dominant hegemony of multi-layered leadership structures and the “learned helplessness” of the profession. I am, of course, referring to our current and on-going financial crisis in public service delivery, and the Curriculum for Excellence. These two apparently disconnected events provide an imperative for change that has dramatically changed the landscape. In some of my more esoteric flights of fancy I see this moment as our equivalent of the cataclysmic events which wiped the dinosaurs from the face of the earth.

The challenge for us will be to see if we can evolve to survive in our new world. Or will the big beasts attempt to maintain their dominance? Striking out wildly in their titanic death throes at anything or everything within reach?

But what sustains me is my faith in our capacity to face up to reality. To see this as an opportunity to do things in a different way. To create a system which provides people with freedom to make informed decisions underpinned by a mutual interdependence.

Certainly the status quo is doomed. It may take one, two, three, four years or even longer but things are changing. I foresee a time when schools shift back to being rooted in their own communities. Where teachers are interdependent and where we challenge the dominance of “them” and shift to “we”.

Yet before I get too carried away in this euphoria of visioning it’s important to recognise that reality is tempered by a hesitance from all of us to embrace “real” change. Perhaps I should just sit it out for a few years and see if things really do work out as bad as they say things are going to be? Why should I give up the power that I’ve worked so hard over my career to attain? And in a similar fashion why should teachers accept the responsibility for the curriculum which has now been foisted upon them. Why not complain about “them”, sit on their hands, and wait until someone comes up with the great idea of telling them exactly what to do?

Just noticed that Peter Morris’ comment was the 4000th I’ve received since August 2005.  When you think I’ve only written 866 posts that equates to 4.6 comments to every post - which is a very healthy average. 

I find it incredibly useful to receive comments - even if they appear negative - as they help to shape and sharpen my own thinking.  I’m sorry I don’t respond to as many of them as I would like but I will try to rectify that with the next 4000!

I’ll leave the last word with Peter as he captures something about what it is I’m trying to achieve:

“As this is an interactive forum, and as Don identifies in his blog, there is not a single point that aCfE raises for discussion.
I think that it is clear that Don believes all opinions need to be listened to if we are to ensure the greatest amount of support possible in meeting the challenge of implementing aCfE.”

Thanks Peter, and thanks to everyone who has taken the time to leave a thought on my Log.

The BBC’s Politics Show Scotland carried a piece on our evolving ideas for Community Ownership of Schools.  It was headlined as being about Trust Schools and showed two very interesting reflections on Jordanhill School in Glasgow and Ashington Learning Partnership in England.

You can see the programme on BBC iplayer for the next seven days.  You need to scroll along to the last 15 minutes of the show.  Dave Berry, East Lothian Council’s Leader; Keir Bloomer, former Director of Education from Clackmannanshire; and Anastasia De Wall, a social policy analyst from Civitas took part in a studio discussion with Glenn Campbell.

• the flexibility which already exists in the Scottish system - no one argued for a more prescriptive national system
• the combination of breadth and depth offered by the curriculum
• the quality of teaching
• the quality of supporting material that helps teachers to deliver much of the current curriculum
• the comprehensive principle

People argued for changes which would:

• reduce over-crowding in the curriculum and make learning more enjoyable
• better connect the various stages of the curriculum from 3 to 18
• achieve a better balance between ‘academic’ and ‘vocational’ subjects and include a wider range of experiences
• equip young people with the skills they will need in tomorrow’s workforce
• make sure that assessment and certification support learning
• allow more choice to meet the needs of individual young people.

The above description of the genesis of a Curriculum for Excellence is taken from the Purposes and Principles of the Curriculum 3-18 (2004).

Here we are six years later in 2010 and it’s of interest to reflect on the progress that’s been made. I think two key points that are often missed by people when they set out to attack Curriculum for Excellence are contained within the two complementary sentences highlighted * above, i.e. it set out to keep many aspects of our existing curriculum, whilst recognising that there was also a need to better prepare children for a changing world. 

On reflection perhaps the most remarkable thing about Curriculum for Excellence in 2010 is that it does does so closely match our aspirations identified from the 2002 National Debate on Education, informed - as it was - by unions, headteachers, local authorities, parents and academics. Yet so much of the criticism which seems to be now directed towards CfE appears to suffer from a form of collective amnesia, where the original imperative and drivers for change have been conveniently forgotten. Not only that but there are a range of myths which are continually perpetuated - without rebuttal - until they almost take hold in our collective conscousness.  An example of such would be the claim that CfE is committed to the destruction of subject specialisms and subject specific content.

As someone who is currently conducting a series of seminars with East Lothian secondary school subject specialists, where I’ve been highlighting the importance of their subject expertise, I’ve been mystified by claims that subject specialisms are being watered down by CfE. I’d actually argue the other way - in that there is a much greater likelihood that young people can study subject areas in real depth instead of the “mile wide inch deep” approach that often characterised the previous curriculum. 

What we now have is an opportunity to provide real scope to meet the needs of all learners.  The other key dimension which I’m seeing in our schools is a growing intellectual ambition to stretch our children in a way that will give our economy a leading edge in the next 20 years.

Where implementation is at its most successful I see a capacity to build upon the traditional strengths of the Scottish system: hard work; a passion for learning; commitment to high standards; outstanding teaching; and one other which has not been in evidence over the last 30 years in our schools - innovation.  This latter point is so ironic given Scotland’s international reputation for invention.

Certainly if we listen to observers from outwith Scotland we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to take a real lead in world education - yet in our normal fashion we want to “ca the legs frae yon big b*****d”!  It’s as if there exists some self destruct mechanism in the Scottish psyche which needs to undermine and attack anything which is vaguely aspirational.

These attacks appear to take on three different forms:

The first of these is characterised by those who select a singular aspect of Curriculum for Excellence for which there may be reasonable grounds for informed critique.  However, that  singular point is then extrapolated from the specific to the general and in the process an attack on everything under the banner of CfE - which covers the entire 3-18 programme.

The second form of attack is from those who seek to represent the silent majority.  I would refer to these as those who claim to be courageous enough point out that ”the emperor wears no clothes”.  Yet in my experience its actually quite the reverse, in that the real majority are those who support the change but are hampered from speaking up due to that uniquely Scottish characteristic of being scared of being cast as the “classroom sook”.

The final category of attack comes from those who claim to be “agnostic”.  This is probably even more corrosive that the previous two as it is based upon an assumption that we will judge the success of CfE once it has been completed.  Yet the reality is that CfE is a dynamic development and needs to be continually developing if it is to truly meet the needs of children in a society that is in itself ever changing. 

The bottom line here is that no one is suggesting that Curriculum for Excellence is a ”fully formed” solution for Scotland’s education system. No one I speak to would suggest that there are not there are many things that need to improve.  Yes - we need more clarity in some areas.  Absolutely we need continuing support for implementation.  But the reality is that I’d rather be where we are now, than where we were in 2000 faced with a moribund curriculum, disconected assessment systems, static levels of atttainment,  disempowered teachers and, most importantly, disengaged learners.  What we must constantly remind ourselves and others is that CfE - for the first time in our history - is tackling the entire curriculum for children and young people aged 3-18.  The scale of the endeavour is mind numbing - which makes it all the more remarkable that such progrees has been made to date.

We stand on an exciting threshold but it needs more people to start to speak up for the positives - without the need to preface their comment with an apology or some qualifying statement. My greatest fear is for the children whom we teach.  For the risk is not so much that Curriculum for Excellence is implemented , but rather that it isn’t implemented.

As a parent of two boys who went through the previous curriculum I would be deeply distressed if I thought that the profession was not courageous enough to make the changes that were so obviously necessary. 

In my own small way I’ve decided to commit my energies to promoting Curriculum for Excellence, not in a mindless, slavish, all accepting manner - but through a strong personal commitment to the principles and direction of travel we have embarked upon for the sake of our children and the profession to which I belong.

My only hope that this will give others the confidence to stand up and speak up for the changes taking place in the classrooms which are making the education process such an exciting and worthwhile experience for so many children and young people.

                                                             N.B. This post is currently work in progress

Interesting link to an NHS  website exploring High Quality Care for All which quotes an extract from that report that Strategic Health authorities “will have a new legal duty to promote innovation.”

They go onto define innovation as follows:

“… too often innovation has been defined narrowly, focusing solely on research, when in fact innovation is a broader concept, encompassing clinical practice and service design. Service innovation means people at the frontline fi nding better ways of caring for patients – improving outcomes, experiences and safety. In this country, we have a proud record of invention, but we lag behind in systematic uptake even of our own inventions.” [High Quality Care for All, pg 55]

Given Scotland’s proud record for invention perhaps we should be emboldened to see public service innovation - particularly in education - as a duty, as opposed to a threat?

“It’s a Postcode Lottery” is a recurring term used to highlight any difference in provision of services between one area and another. 

The underlying assumption in all such cases is that this ”lottery” is unfair and that services should not be dependent upon the ”luck” of where one happens to live, i.e. they should be exactly the same throughout the country.  I’d started to tease this out in a recent article entitled “Uniformity or Diversity” and wanted to explore this concept a little further. 

“Postcode lottery” is, without exception, employed as a disparaging term.  Here are just a few headlines to demonstrate this:

• Women denied IVF on NHS ‘by postcode lottery’
• Postcode lottery of Down’s syndrome screening revealed
• School admissions: still a postcode lottery?
• Vulnerable pupils face postcode lottery in classroom
• Warning of ‘postcode lottery’ in education

All of the above use the term “postcode lottery” as shorthand for something which is unfair and can only be rectified by a change to situation where provision is identical - regardless of where you live.  But what if you were to take the opposite perspective, i.e. begin to see variation and diversity as a strength - not a weakness?

You see my problem lies with the fact that things are different from one community to another.  Things have never been identical.  Just because things are different doesn’t mean that they have to be worse - just as we mustn’t think that just because things are identical that they must be automatically better.

I’ll exemplify this using two secondary schools in an authority.  They are both allocated an identical amount of money through a formula allocation. The only way the authority could avoid being accused of creating a “postcode lottery” would be to give each school definitive guidance on how every pound was to be spent in each of the schools.  All of the following (and much more) would have to be identical: the curriculum, the times for each subject identical, the quality of teachers, the extra curricular activities, the discipline system, menus for lunches, the subjects to be taught at all levels, pupil support systems, etc, etc.  Any divergence between the two schools would fall into the trap that is a “postcode lottery”.  Of course, some would claim that I’m being too extreme here only to make my point - but I’d argue you can’t have your cake and eat it.  You either accept variation or you don’t!

Variation within postcodes is a reality - it exists and the sooner we realise that the better.  Surely the real challenge is not so much to ensure that things are identical but to ensure that the quality of service provided in every  postcode is of an exceptionally high standard. 

So if variation exists how might we turn it to our advantage?  It’s here that I would return to the theme I’ve been exploring for some time now i.e. community ownership of schools.  For if a community decides that it wants to see its schools diverge from what the schools in the next community are doing - in order to meet its priorities - why shouldn’t it be allowed to do so?

There are more than enough legislative guidelines in place to ensure that the needs of individuals within each community can be protected within such an autonomous system.  The real challenge lies with the funding body who need to find a way to ensure that each community achieves national and local outcomes - but is given the necessary freedom to find its own approach to achieve these outcomes.  That really is the $64,000 lottery prize!

Popped down to St Abbs for lunch today (Saturday).  Temperature wasn’t much above 1 degree C.  An army of surfers were enjoying the waves at Coldingham beach - looked great fun but boy was it cold!

St Abbs is a beautiful place at the best of times but it took my breath way this morning.

These horrendous statistics show only the tip of the iceberg that is domestic violence against women in Scotland.  As Chair of the Violence Against Women Forum in East Lothian I’m ashamed to admit that I’d never heard of the White Ribbon Campaign. Yet having found out about it at a seminar I attended yesterday I think this is exactly the kind of thing which could make an impact on reducing the horrendous levels of violence against women in Scotland.

As part of a range of actions I think the one of the most important things we could do would be to change society’s attitudes - and particularly men’s attitudes - to violence against women. 

The fact that the White Ribbon Campaign  is focused upon Men Against Violence is a particularly powerful approach and one that I would gladly promote.  To that end I’d like to think we in East Lothian could work towards preparing for the November 25, the International Day for the Eradication of Violence Against Women.

It’s important to state that this is only one strategy amongst many which the Forum are promoting but it is - perhaps - something that I could take a leading role and use my position to particular advantage.

You can make the pledge at the White Ribbon Scotland.

I’m writing this post from Queen Margaret University following an exceptionally positive Subject Learning Community meeting with East Lothian Home Economics teachers.   Fearghal Kelly gives a much more comprehensive description of what constitutes a Subject Learning Community than I could ever manage, so I won’t try to describe them in detail, but I have stolen his first paragraph and copied it here:

Although Curriculum for Excellence requires us as secondary teachers to make greater efforts to offer our students more interdisciplinary experiences and to place a greater emphasis on the development of their skills, there will still always be a role for subject specialists in the secondary school. It is important to remember that the changes under CfE should be a shift. A correction in balance. A movement towards. It should not be a pendulum swing. We need to find the right balance between subject content knowledge and interdisciplinary learning & skill development, not jump from one extreme to the other.

In the above extract Fearghal captures superbly our commitment to, and recognition of, the importance of subject specialists to the successful implementation of a Curriculum for Excellence. 

To that end we have been holding a series of evening seminars at QMU to meet with subject specialists to share our ideas for a Subject Learning Community and to ascertain if any teachers would like to be trained as facilitators.  We reckon that by the time we’ve finished our last twilight session that over 25% of secondary teachers will have met with us and discussed the concept and shared their own ideas for possible areas of focus - which is a remarkable testimony to the professionalism of our teachers.

The content and programme of seminars and materials are available here.

Fearghal has established a Blog for these groups and it’s interesting to reflect on the issues they identify at their separate meetings - with primary secondary transition being a very common theme.

I have to say that these events are amongst my most eagerly awaited times of the week.

Building the Curriculum 5: A Framework for Assessment was released last week.  The LTS website has a range of materials to support his launch.

I’ve copied some of the key elements here for ease of reference (bold/italics are my own emphasis).  This area will be a key focus for the CfE Implementation Partnership over the next six months. 

The Framework for Assessment aims to create:

> a more effective assessment system which supports greater breadth and depth of learning and a greater focus on skills development

> through collaborative working, a better-connected assessment system with better links between pre-school, primary and secondary schools, colleges and other settings to promote smooth transitions in learning

> better understanding of effective assessment practice and sharing of standards and expectations, as well as more consistent assessment

> more autonomy and professional responsibility for teachers

Principles of assessment:

Assessment practice will follow and reinforce the curriculum and promote high quality learning and teaching approaches. Assessment of children’s and young people’s progress and achievement during their broad general education to the end of S3 will be based on teachers’ assessment of their knowledge and understanding, skills, attributes and capabilities, as described in the experiences and outcomes across the curriculum. Assessment practices for the next generation of National Qualifications from S3 (for National Literacy and National Numeracy) and in the senior phase and beyond will be aligned to Curriculum for Excellence. 

Standards and expectations:

The standards and expectations that form our aspirations for all learners from 3 to 18 are set out for the whole curriculum in the experiences and outcomes of Curriculum for Excellence and their equivalent in the specifications for qualifications and awards. Reflecting the principles of Curriculum for Excellence, progress is defined in terms of ‘how well’ and ‘how much’, as well as learners’ rate of progress. This approach will promote greater breadth and depth of learning, including a greater focus on the secure development of skills and knowledge. Assessing progress across a breadth of learning, in challenging aspects and when applying learning in different and unfamiliar contexts, will also help teachers to plan, track progress, summarise achievements in a rounded way and better prepare children and young people for the next stage in learning.

Ensuring consistency:

Scottish Government, other national partners and education authorities will work together to build on local and national practices for quality assurance and moderation of assessment. The aim will be to support the development of a shared understanding to achieve consistency in standards and expectations and build trust and confidence in teachers’ judgements. Education authorities will provide assurance that schools in their area are consistently applying national standards and expectations.

Informing self-evaluation for improvement:

To enable schools to use benchmarking information, the Scottish Government will develop from its previous work with education authorities a process to enable sharing of information about learners’ performance at school level. The Scottish Government will not collate or publish aggregate information nationally.

Monitoring standards over time:

The revised Scottish Survey of Achievement (SSA) will be fully aligned with Curriculum for Excellence and will sample learners’ achievements to measure standards over time and to monitor national performance in literacy and numeracy at P4, P7 and S2. Scotland will participate actively in international surveys of achievement to compare the performance of our children and young people with that of their peers in other countries. The findings of all such national and international studies will contribute to guidance and advice in the National Assessment Resource to help achieve better outcomes for all learners.

Reporting to parents:

Parents will get regular information about their children’s strengths, progress and achievements. This will include brief descriptions of progress across the curriculum areas and through the curriculum levels as well as progress towards qualifications in the senior phase. In addition to individual reports on the progress of the child or young person, they will receive information on: how well all learners and particular groups of learners are achieving; the performance of children and young people in the school in relation to expected levels at particular stages in key areas such as literacy and numeracy; and how the school is applying national standards and expectations. 

CPD and support:

Staff will be supported by continuing professional development and a new online resource – the National Assessment Resource – which will provide guidance, assessment materials and illustrations of performance and learners’ work to support the development of consistent standards.

Summary of a Framework for Assessment - see diagram on page 10 of document

What we assess

Application of the national standards and expectations of each learner’s progress and achievements in
developing:
• knowledge and understanding
• skills
• attributes and capabilities as detailed in the experiences and outcomes within curriculum areas and
subjects and in the curriculum guidance and specifications for qualifications and awards in the senior phase

Why we assess

        Supporting learning
• sharing learning intentions and success criteria
• high quality interactions and feedback
       Promoting learner engagement
• learner involvement in reflection, setting learning goals and next steps including through personal
learning planning
• self and peer assessment
       Ensuring appropriate support
• to be fair and inclusive
• to enable learners to have the best chance of success

When we assess

• as part of ongoing learning and teaching
• periodic (from time to time)
• at transitions

How we assess

• by using a variety of approaches and range of evidence to fit the kind of learning
• by making assessment fit for purpose and appropriately valid, reliable and proportionate
• through partnership working

Informing self-evaluation for improvement

Information gathered should:
• contribute to an account of success at local and national levels
• enable the monitoring of standards over time

Reporting on progress and achievement

• involving learners, parents and others, for example, profiles, records and reports
• describing progress and achievement against standards and expectations
• giving a valid and reliable account of learning at points of transition as concisely as possible
• recognising learners’ achievements including through celebrating success, profiling achievement, and
by using certification, accreditation, qualifications and awards

Ensuring quality and confidence in assessment

• developing sound judgements through sharing standards
• supporting assessment through exemplification and CPD