I was in Wales last month talking to headteachers, and others, about what they might learn from our experiences with Curriculum for Excellence as they begin to engage with their own new curriculum, the Curriculum for Wales.

There is a lot of interest from Wales regarding the challenges we faced in Scotland, and how we overcame these - if we ever did.

The new Welsh curriculum principles have been drawn up by Graham Donaldson - our former senior chief inspector and he of the 2011 Donaldson report on teacher education - so there are great similarities between the two curricula and the national contexts.

It soon became clear that there were also common issues emerging in Wales that will sound very familiar to those of us in Scotland.

It is one of these that I wish to focus on here: the ability to question some of the rhetoric around the new curriculum, and for practitioners to be able to engage meaningfully with its construction, debate and “consultation”.

Colleagues in Wales were already beginning to express unease about their ability to stick their heads above the parapet and ask awkward questions of politicians and system leaders.

Stories of school leaders and teachers being called in for “a chat”, and advised to quieten their voices with regard to any concerns they have around the new curriculum, are already surfacing. One person said to me that “you have to be seen to agree with everything about the new curriculum, no matter if you can see it might have three horns and a pointy tail!” - a colourful illustration of the current cultural challenges in Wales.

As I listened sympathetically, I was thinking of a similar culture that pervades the Scottish system, from government, through local authorities and into schools. Since I stepped down as a headteacher last year, I have received many messages from school leaders and teachers detailing similar experiences, and I’d encountered some of these myself during my career.

These messages have only increased as school leaders and teachers try to manage the introduction of the new national testing regime this year, and are desperate to protect learners from the worst excesses of this imposition (“P1 children ‘in tears’ over new national assessment”, Tes Scotland, 25 May).

It begs the question whether this is a healthy state of affairs for any system and the individuals within it. I would suggest not.

Careers might be blighted

If professionals are feeling that they are not allowed to question the new curriculum in public forums - whether that be at a meeting within the local authority, a conference, a professional development opportunity or on social media - then something is going awry.

Any democratic society or organisation has to encourage and support healthy debate. If we try to shut that down, to stifle discourse, to “manage reputational damage” - whether to protect political and system leaders, further our own careers or for any other reason - we do so at an eventual cost to the young people and families we purport to serve.

Teaching requires us all to act professionally in the best interests of learners, not just the system. If the system needs to be challenged, we should never feel afraid to speak up, or to feel that our careers might be blighted in some way if we do. Everyone in the system, and the system itself, needs to behave ethically and morally, and not resort to bullying, if we are to truly model the behaviours and attitudes we look to develop in young learners.

Some of the behaviours displayed by teachers on Twitter and elsewhere are nothing less than bullying and abusive at times. But the system itself may well be responsible for developing attitudes where such behaviour could be seen as acceptable, as it tries to micromanage or direct people’s actions and thinking at all levels. Such characteristics are more commonly associated with expressly authoritarian or dictatorial regimes.

We have known for more than 50 years of the power of collaboration and collegiality in schools, for their development and to sustain their ability to keep improving outcomes for learners. I would suggest this is equally true for any system.

When hierarchies persist, which they do, then behaviours tend to match, and some become more equal than others, with many feeling they have no voice or are unable to use their voice. If governments, local authorities or others continue to present collaboration and consultation as a veneer for how they operate, they should not be surprised if all they get is surface-level compliance and rising levels of dissatisfaction.

The most successful schools and organisations are open, collaborative and supportive, and promote dialogue and consensus. Is it too much to expect our system to be the same?

I have heard the debate around Curriculum for Excellence being likened to the apocryphal tale about the emperor’s new clothes, with people feeling they have been unable to challenge aspects of what we are doing, and everyone having to fall into line with everything, despite misgivings.

Debate and criticism can be healthy, allowing us all to reflect on our understandings and consider our own biases. They help the system to improve.

If no one ask questions or is curious, if they feel that they are not allowed to be, then nothing will ever change.

I don’t agree with a lot of the critical comment around Curriculum for Excellence, but I will continue to defend the right of people to express their opinions and hold those views.

If we believe they are wrong, then it is our responsibility to engage with their concerns openly - not try to shut them down or dismiss them altogether.

George Gilchrist is an education writer and former primary headteacher