I have recently been working on a book paying tribute to the late Tim Brighouse. It’s called Unfinished Business because, as was the case with the former schools commissioner, the focus is on the future - and what we need to do to draw on the lessons from his life and achieve his ambitions.
Perhaps colleagues in the Scottish government would benefit from the same sort of reflection.
Brighouse led the London Challenge, which was the Blair government’s strategy to raise attainment in London schools - and it worked. There might be some debate about other factors that had an impact, but the reality is that London went from being an area of educational concern to being a role model for achievement and progress.
That was achieved by recognising that real improvement not only happens in schools but also through schools. Brighouse believed that if all children and young people were experiencing the best practice in our schools, there would be no need for system change.
What makes a difference for children
I remember Brighouse and other speakers being challenged about what “the answers” were in education at a conference. While the other experts equivocated, he was clear that the answer was in the school where the conference was being held.
He eulogised the practice of a teacher he had spent time with that morning. That was what made a difference for children: care, humanity and reflective, thoughtful practice. It was a classic example of improvement through listening and learning rather than pontification.
Apart from this belief in the centrality of practice, the London Challenge was based on creating families of schools, where schools were grouped based on their circumstances. As a result, comparisons between schools were fair, and targets and ambitions were reasonable and achievable.
If we in Scotland were to learn from this, we might have a model that looked very different from our current picture.
The proposed Centre for Teaching Excellence, even with a changed title, would be a hub to which examples of effective practice would be gathered and shared. It could be headed by a commissioner for schools based on the role that Brighouse played in London.
That post would be concerned less with leading practice and more with visiting schools and encouraging staff; with recognising and rewarding successful contributions and interesting efforts at improvement. It would focus on creating energy, enthusiasm and commitment, rather than offering advice. It would move away from the hierarchical model that we have too often invested in in Scotland and might, finally, put an end to the idea that we have a ruling cabal in Scottish education that is self-regarding and self-perpetuating.
Education reform that goes beyond rebranding
This sort of model could replace Education Scotland in a way that goes far beyond rebranding. Some of the very good practice within Education Scotland would move naturally to the hub model, as could some of the staff, but the aim would be to use a mix of short-term secondments and fixed-term contracts to ensure freshness and openness.
It would also have an impact on the role of the inspectorate, which would be charged with identifying effective, interesting and innovative practice. Rather than “driving up performance”, a role claimed too often for the agents of accountability, they would have a key role in recognising where performance was already good. The key questions would be “where can we learn from?” and “how can we make sure that more children benefit from that learning?”, rather than “where are we failing?” and “how can we turn that around?”
I am not suggesting that this is an absolute either/or situation. We would still need to address areas where young people were not getting the opportunities that they deserved and act on these without hesitation. What we would do is change the balance and, more importantly, change the culture. We would talk less of “embedding” and talk more of “growing”. We would recognise, as I am fond of saying, that “in challenging and complex times, the answers come not from the soloists but from the choir”.
Guarding against complacency
Brighouse was far from complacent. He would always have argued that we should be trying to “improve on previous best”.
He would have agreed with Lawrence Stenhouse, who, in Artistry and Teaching: The Teacher as Focus of Research and Development, wrote this (which is worth quoting at length):
“Good teachers are necessarily autonomous in professional judgement. They do not need to be told what to do. They are not professionally the dependents of researchers or superintendents, of innovators or supervisors. This does not mean that they do not welcome access to ideas created by other people at other places or in other times. Nor do they reject advice, consultancy or support. But they do know that ideas and people are not of much real use until they are digested to the point where they are part of the teacher’s own judgement. In short, it is the task of all educationalists outside the classroom to serve the teachers; for only teachers are in the position to create good teaching.”
If we could make the Centre for Teaching Excellence reflect Stenhouse’s view, it could be an engine for change in the whole culture of Scottish education - and perhaps that is what we need to make the improvement that we seek.
David Cameron is an education consultant based in Scotland who has previously worked as both a local authority director of children’s services and as a head of education. He tweets @realdcameron
For the latest Scottish education news, analysis and features delivered directly to your inbox, sign up to Tes magazine’s The Week in Scotland newsletter
