In this article, Scott Sinclair looks over the eleven contributions to our series on the Francis Review and wonders if the review provides an opportunity for us. As ever with NAEE blogs the views expressed are not necessarily those of the Association..
NAEE has brought together a stimulating group of articles commenting on the Francis Review and its implications. There is scope for a wider range as Justin Dillon suggests in his overview. These articles also capture something of wider significance in terms of taking stock of a new situation and considering possible future priorities.
The articles ……
Bill Scott – An introduction [1]
Kate Greer, Melissa Glackin, Heather King – Why do we educate young people today? [2]
Ben Ballin – Will it give us permission? [3]
Paul Vare – An evolution to be devoutly wished for [4]
Scott Sinclair – An opportunity to networks linked to NAEE? [5]
Elsa Lee – A curriculum for joy [6]
David Dixon – Does it need a review? [7]
Alun Morgan – An emphasis on sustainability is needed [8]
Morgan Phillips – A stepping stone [9]
John Huckle – Ideas from the Green Left [10]
Justin Dillon – An overview of previous posts [11]
I find myself myself imagining this group coming together to think creatively about the Francis Review and its implications. I invite you to join us: What would you want to discuss? Who else would you suggest inviting to the meeting? There is much we could discuss. I offer six potential starting points:
1~ about the Review …
There is the Review itself and what we all feed into the process, then the documents that emerge and then the implementation. I suggest that whatever any documents say, we already know that we can use them to generate new strategic conversations and as opportunities to support creativity in schools.
The question is, as Ben [Article 3] put it – How do we get ready for that? How do we best make use of that permission? He has been involved in many projects that seek to use ‘the space’ created by policy change. What can we learn from such strategies?
2 ~ about a pendulum …
Alun [Article 8] highlights the repetitive nature of the ‘curriculum change football’ over time. He writes … “I now hope – along I’m sure with most in NAEE – that we have reached a moment for a much-needed pendulum swing back to allow greater emphasis on sustainability, inquiry-based learning, learning outside the classroom, and greater scope for teacher autonomy to make their practice place-responsive.”
As Paul says [Article 4] “this review could be the most significant evolutionary moment in education this epoch”. How do we make the best of that potential? How, at the same time, do we take measure of powerful influences that seek division to maintain the so called ‘culture wars’? Can we steady the pendulum?
3 ~ about the limitations of policy …
The Frances Review is very open and asks sound questions. Exciting stuff. But as several of the articles imply, it is very likely that what emerges will be more prescriptive. There are many examples of imaginative sustainable learning / climate education initiatives in England despite policy.
Clearly, we want the best policy possible but perhaps we also need to ask: Is there a danger that new albeit enlightened policy, using current control models, ends up shutting-down the motivation for localised school initiatives? Are we likely to get better outcomes if curriculum decisions are made closer to learners?
Could we make a case for policy designed to stimulate the range of initiatives in schools? Maybe endorsing the idea proposed by Stephen Scoffham & Steve Rawlings [1] that … “Just as in the natural world diversity helps to ensure the resilience of a habitat, so the educational eco-system could benefit from a multiplicity of approaches and interpretations.” This might be unlikely, but could networks work together to demonstrate the potential of partnership with teachers to help build such an educational eco-system?
4 ~ about teacher professionalism …
All the articles feature the significance of principal educational matters, not just content relating to sustainability. Can we help highlight the need for standards to be defined by professional bodies based on sound pedagogical thinking?
John [Article 10] highlights that – “The green left does not seek to indoctrinate school students with critical ideas but seeks to ensure that these are introduced, considered, and debated along with mainstream ideas.”
But Alun [Article 8] reminds us …. “However, the game shifted back to the other side from 2010 when Michael Gove and austerity put pay to most of the developments – in England at least. All mention of sustainability was excised as indoctrinatory, and value free (not possible) disciplinary content was back.”
It is very easy, given the depth of our concerns, to not question the possibility of indoctrination. How do we stimulate debate that values John’s aspirations?
5 ~ about stimulating new conversations …
Elsa offers some perceptive ‘What if …’ questions. She reminds us of the massive interest generated by Gaia that moved popular thinking and motivation on in many ways. Learning is not linear. It is not, as sometimes seems to be assumed, about pressing all the right content buttons. As Elsa puts it … “For me, the way to do this is to think of schooling as both aesthetic and affective – not merely about gathering skills and facts, but about emotionally and aesthetically relating with ideas and people.”
Kate, Melisa and Heather [Article 6] ask … “Why – given the breadth of alarming evidence, are we persisting with systems of education which largely ignore that climate change, biodiversity loss, air pollution and ecosystem degradation are already here?
They also propose a new “culture of why” having raised key questions about the purpose of education. “Envisaging the type of future, we want is vital when reflecting on the purpose of education, and the systems necessary to support it.” This links to the work of Tim Brighouse and Mick Waters [3] who in their substantial analysis of education policy since 1975 highlight the lack of clarity about ‘purpose’.
Do we need to be concerned about these basic questions about schools? How do we avoid bolting on an awareness of sustainability to a dodgy unsustainable machine?
6 ~ about a community of quality teaching …
“Creativity was also to be encouraged, through teachers being a ‘Guide from the side’, rather than a ‘Sage on the stage.’” Teachers: “Free thinking professionals – applying pedagogical skills”. David [Article 7] gives substance to the question – what was lost in the process of strategies like the National Curriculum? There has been positive change, but for example, he highlights the formative ‘space’ teachers used to have to develop their own professional awareness.
I enjoyed his insight. I found myself remembering that we were all encouraged to build our own “crap-detectors” [4]. Mine is a bit burnt out these days! David questions the lack of ‘space’ for such development in teacher education today. I suggest that the qualities of such ‘space’ are also vital in what will be needed to follow up the Francis Review. How do we avoid a default to a deficit view of teachers and “their need for training”? What can we do to offer space for teachers working together, to self-generate their professional development, to plan their own learning, and for team work to design appropriate localised curriculum?
A concluding note …
There is much that has been achieved in the NAEE and related networks.
It is a creative community. This energy, these people, these organisations offer a foundation to extend the range of educational practitioners involved and to grow a recognition that sustainable development and related matters are essential learning.
They address the core purpose of schools meeting learner needs.
The Francis Review is the opportunity that we make it. What it turns out to be is another matter. Hopefully it will exceed expectations.
………………….
Scott Sinclair was Director of Tide~ global learning until 2010. More recently he is a Tide~ Trustee and co-editor, with Jeff Serf, of the Elephant Times magazine. Currently, the Elephant Times Association [ETA] is working on the legacy and reflecting on the work of Tide~ global learning. The educational charity Tide~ is in the process of closing. The aim is to make ideas and resources available through an active archive and partnership with other organisations. The ETA will also enable people to reflect on Tide~ experiences in the context of current education debates. He can be contacted at: scott.7cs.org@gmail.com
Citations
[1] ‘Sustainability Education: A Classroom Guide’ Stephen Scoffham and Steve Rawlings https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/sustainability-education-9781350262089
Elephant Times article about their book https://www.tidegloballearning.net/files/2023-03/ET%203.2%20Stephen%20Scoffham%20%26%20Steve%20Rawlinson%20new%20book.pdf
[2] MEE – Ministry of Eco Education. https://www.ministryofeco.org/curriculum/
[3] Tim Brighouse writing about ‘About our schools – improving on previous best’ and Climate Change in Elephant Times magazine. https://www.tidegloballearning.net/files/2023-03/ET%203.2%20Tim%20Brighouse%20reflects.pdf
[4] ‘Teaching as a Subversive Activity’ – Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner https://www.edweek.org/education/teaching-as-a-subversive-activity/2000/04