As I retire from my headteacher role, after 18 years as a school leader in Scotland, I have been considering the state of Scottish education, and what the future may hold for teachers, schools and the system. What follows are some observations for the system and its leaders.

I must start by recognising the thousands of fabulous educators, school leaders and system leaders within the system. They make me proud to have been a small part of such a fabulous collaborative endeavour. These are people who are committed to their values and the young people and communities they serve, and who are achieving tremendous outcomes for all, despite everything thrown at them, and often despite the vagaries of the system in which they work. I have had the privilege to work, and collaborate, with many of these, and they have helped to shape and improve my own understandings and practice.

I do have concerns though, and I know many of these are shared by people here at home in Scotland, as well as by others looking at us from afar.

As a profession, I still think we are too compliant, and even complicit, in going along with changes and direction imposed upon us and our learners by people who have no deep understanding of learning, or the purpose of education in its fullest sense.

This is what John Dewey, the American educational reformer, said in 1895: “It is… advisable that the teacher should understand, and even be able to criticise, the general principles upon which the whole educational system is formed and administered. He is not like a private soldier in an army, expected merely to obey, or like a cog in a wheel, expected merely to respond to and transmit external energy; he must be an intelligent medium of action.”

I think this is as true now as it was then, although the pronoun should reflect the mixed gender we have in teaching. The University of Stirling’s Professor Mark Priestley has spoken in the past of teachers being regarded as “milkmen” by some; that is, mere deliverers of something, curriculum or resource, given to them by others. This is not my view of teachers or teaching, and we need to have more confidence in our professional knowledge and skills, and then be prepared to defend these from a sound knowledge, research and pedagogical base.

Frantic activity for little gain

The above is perhaps part of the reason why education has been so full of frantic activity with very little sustainable improvement for many years, and why it is at the mercy of various fads and trends.

I have long argued that actually we don’t need to do more, and faster, we need to do less and slow down, in order to embed deep sustainable change. Education leadership experts Alma Harris and Michelle Jones wrote recently: “In an educational age of constant re-engineering, transformation and innovation, there is little opportunity for leaders to draw or catch their breath. Yet pausing in the present and moving from reaction to reflection is probably what is needed from educational leaders, at all levels, right now.”

They, too, recognise the frenetic nature of many change and innovation agendas, but also the importance of school leaders having space to slow down and reflect, especially on the impact of all this activity, instead of having to constantly react to the latest diktat from above.

The educationalist Sir Tim Brighouse and David Cameron, former Stirling director of education, posed an interesting question recently at their Four Nations meeting near Edinburgh: “Are we just getting better at doing the wrong things?”

I think this is a great question to ask, and for school and system leaders to reflect on. It may lead us to conclude that we have lost our way a little and that we need to refocus on what will really make a difference for all our learners - and perhaps even have a new conversation about what we understand by “education”.

I worry that educational policy and development has become very much a soundbite agenda. So there is lots of talk about equity, closure of attainment gaps, getting it right for every child, promoting teachers as enquiring professionals and sharing good practice, but the people who spout a lot of this have little understanding of what the words actually mean, what is involved in achieving some of this, or what the implications might be for them and the system as a result.

A few weeks ago I heard Dr Janet Goodall, a lecturer in educational leadership, speaking in Glasgow about parental engagement, and its importance to student achievement. One observation she made was that if we really want to close attainment gaps entirely, we will need to go to a more selective education system, which she was not advocating. She would prefer us to focus on the narrowing of gaps instead, and how schools and parents can support each other to achieve this.

Education consultant Michael Fullan has talked a lot about having the “wrong drivers” in education systems. I feel that here is a danger that we are starting to focus very much on some of those here in Scotland.

Both he and Professor Stephen Ball, in a lecture in Glasgow in 2016, demonstrated that systems focusing on high levels of accountability, high-stakes testing, top-down direction, dubious data and narrow curriculums have actually been shown to have detrimental effects on attainment.

I have been saying similar things ever since our National Improvement Framework (NIF) was produced, but we still seem to be heading in this direction.

I would conclude by reminding everyone of the fantastic people we have in the Scottish system, and it is they who still give me hope that we can build on their successes and commitment to produce the system we all want, and the outcomes we all seek.

To do this, they need a culture of trust and support and system leaders who know how to grow and develop such cultures. What they don’t need is more micromanagement and direction from those who still think they have all the answers, or who are trying to justify their roles and titles.

George Gilchrist was a primary headteacher in the Scottish Borders. He retired last month.