I wrote a post the other day about the balance between luck and traditional paths of enlightenment. Don’t know if it fits this discussion, though:
http://edu.blogs.com/edublogs/2008/05/quirkology-ther.html

The “Doctoral Profession” is a phrase coined by Stephen Heppell, yet he is also of the opinion that, actually, as more and more people get, say, an MSc where an BA would have done before, or a PhD where an MA Hons would have sufficed, we devalue the MA Hons because the choice of PhDs is there.

There is a danger in following this course of debate that we end up appearing to be “anti-intellectual”, since its logical conclusion is that we would have to be PhDed up to the eyeballs with no or little practical application - not something anyone would like.

So, like a good diet, everything is needed in balance. Back to my original point: we need teachers who reflect on their practice. I think they call it action research, but that has never really caught on in academia either

As an aside, almost, I was slightly worried by Ewan’s reference to the ‘devaluation’ of degree qualifications - I disagree that this is a real issue. The proliferation of degrees only matters, I would contend, in an education system and in an economy that sees education as a race to the line, as a ‘winner takes all and to hell with the rest’ process. This is what Chris Whitehead and his ilk happily call ’separating the sheep from the goats’.

Now, I know very well that this is not the kind of education system that Ewan would wish to see, but I wonder if by promoting, perfectly rightly, the benefits of education or learning in the round, as he does, but promoting it as somehow more rewarding or fruitful than a degree course, he himself is devaluing the notion of a degree qualification? I don’t agree with the elitist press, for instance, that more people with degrees means the devaluation of those degrees - it depends on what you think degree courses are for.

I like to compare the original concept of the ‘democratic intellect’ for instance, even with its mythical status, to the ‘theological college’ kind of education that was delivered by Oxbridge in the days when Scotland had four (briefly five) universities to England’s one. Education, whether achieved through formal means or informal means, should be about enabling everyone - everyone! - to achieve what they are capable of, to stretch themselves to the limit of their capabilities, and occasionally beyond.

The Scottish way saw the degree course as flexible, broad-based and intellectually stimulating - and you just happened also to get a degree at the end. Of course, the other kinds of learning that Ewan describes are every bit as valid, but I, for one, would not push their validity at the expense of degree qualifications. Even today, whether a degree is specialized or broad-based really doesn’t matter, I would contend - the process of learning required to attain the degree is valuable in any case.

It also, by the way, runs the risk of falling into the trap of that awful anti-intellectualism that too often besets Scottish education, best typified by those in the late 90s who argued against any credit being given for MEds, or similar, to those who would be pursuing the Chartered Teacher qualification - they did not want the qualification to be ‘too theoretical’, by which they meant ‘at all theoretical’ really.

As i say, I know Ewan will not disagree much, if at all, with my basic points about education and about learning - I just think we have to be careful not to set up false antagonisms in order to promote one kind of learning over another.

Ewan, do you think the increasing specialism of people with PhDs Masters etc could be made more valuable if there was a structured way of linking them to each other? I know this can and is more likely to happen through blogging communities, but it is still serendipitous. However, I can’t myself conceive of a way that is more joined up that doesn’t immediately become restrictive rather than creative

David, some teachers are very anxious about how they will acquire the skills to implement ACE. I have an experienced colleague who has taught only the National Curriculum in England and 5-14, or 3-18, in Scotland. She is, from my observations, a “good teacher”. She is reflective and engages effectively with pupils, colleagues and parents. But she is extremely anxious about being cast afloat on the sea of DIY lessons and planning with only the stars to guide her, when she’s used to GPS and regular advice from the shipping forecast!

What matters, of course, is that ongoing reflection is undertaken. The number of PhDs I know who haven’t moved their thinking on to new areas (the PhD by its very definition narrowing them down to a niche) would make for a fairly narrow-minded, slow-moving profession. Ongoing reflection doesn’t necessarily come in the package of a PhD, Master or, dare I say, a SQH. They all have the potential to be blips of progression unless we value, equally, the skills that cannot be taught, but which can be learnt.

I think that these are exciting times for 3-18 education. There has been little clear focus recently on the ‘purpose of education’, which has opened up seemingly limitless claims from government and ‘quangos’, and commerce (including educational suppliers). In this respect, ACfE fits the age.

All teachers are now expected (and sometimes encouraged) to reflect, which is great; you can see how some teachers are transforming their practice via their blogs. However, some seem concerned that this may be leading to our administrators and managers requiring us to re-register, say every five years and that the process of reflection (possibly through more formal means that a blog) is preparation for collating our evidence portfolios.

Ewan is right that the most important skills today (for many, though not all) cannot be taught. Teachers are aware of this. However, with uncertainty and change now the only constant (on the macro and the micro-level), and with a working week and CPD commitment which doesn’t offer much opportunity for a ‘reflection/action research - (shared) strategy/resource - implementation’ loop, I think that many will take the safe route and buy ‘off-the-shelf’ solutions, which will claim to be ACfE compliant.

I remember Don writing about the teaching profession eventually being entirely made up of Masters-level graduates and students. This appeals to me (of course it would!). It gives professionals the space to explore their practice and to better understand the forces acting upon the system. Critical reflection by an entire profession would be interesting (potentially debilitating, of course). It might be worth considering that it may not collective cynicism to ACfE, but individuals, who know their teaching and learning environment as well as anyone else, just don’t yet see how the project will benefit them or their students.

I love the idea of:
Every teacher being equipped with time and energy to maintain up-to-date understandings and reflection on what is working in practical and theoretical terms in learning
can we afford that? I certainly do not feel I’ve go the time to keep up-to-date and reflect at the moment.

“It’ll take a lot more than rhetoric” - you’re right, of course, but this takes us back to a chicken and egg scenario. These seem like huge changes, but over the past three years at least I’ve seen teachers change their style bit by bit, probably to the point that the changes are so nuanced, over such a period of time as to not notice until we look back, in retrospect. Few of us have videos of our teaching in the past, and now, so it’s hard to appreciate these changes.

We (teachers at the whiteboard face, managers, those of us who garner great practice and try to share it wider) desperately need to take on that innovative attitude that says: “just do it”, fail faster and more frequently to find the best way forward. Discussion of potential techniques and sharing ideas on our blogs is one simple way of accelerating this, without everyone having to fail for themselves first - we can learn from others’ successes and failures.

In the end, though, I think CfE will succeed on four main factors:
1. Every teacher being equipped with time and energy to maintain up-to-date understandings and reflection on what is working in practical and theoretical terms in learning. This allows us to take fewer real risks, while completely changing the ‘old school’ way of teaching and learning that’s just so incompatible with CfE. Technology, and learning how to use it effectively, makes this even more possible.
2. Every teacher seeing sharing their own experiences as a core part of their CPD.
3. Parents being involved in their part of the jigsaw - parental understanding of how learning in general is changing (and why) helps them/us get more engaged with our children’s learning in particular.
4. Learners understanding better how they learn, why they are learning and being given ample opportunity to make the connections between the hugely varied exposure to different areas of learning with which they have been blessed in the Scottish system. AifL and critical skills have helped with this, where it’s truly been applied across the board, but needs more application and not just lip service to the parts which we like.

This, for me, comes from one simple research fact: the most heavy weighting on improving education attainment and engagement is on the skill of the teacher. The way forward is not for that teacher to be dependent on intellectual or practical handouts, but to be independent and confident in finding their way forward, through the robustness of their understanding of what works and what doesn’t.

Having that confidence in our own abilities, with the understanding from our leaders that we will make mistakes (perhaps more frequently than before), is key. I hope that soon, most of us look back at the way we were teaching five, ten, 15 years ago, and see how far we and our students have come. But we might still need those video cameras to record class to see it!

I agree with what you and Dorothy are saying and a great deal of the blame - yes sometimes we do need to use this word - for the dependency culture we have created in secondary education lies at the door of others. For me, who has lived through the genesis and implementation of Standard Grade, 5-14, and Higher Still, it’s been the implementation strategy which has been based upon multitudes of working groups, masses of materials, centralised control and the dreaded “cascade model” which has “deskilled” the profession to the point that we now wait expectantly at the side of the pool flapping our hands and waiting to be fed.

As a manager I need to take my fair share of the “blame” but as I’ve been finding out over the last three years it will take a lot more than rhetoric from someone in my position before the profession really believe that they have the kind of freedom to create alternative models of practice more suited to the needs of our children.