A few days ago, someone very important to me died. His name was Chris. And he was the best of us. My heart is still broken from losing a wonderful soul that helped so many people. I wanted to write about him and why he is so important to me as a human.

I first wanted to say that Chris’s contributions to knowledge are immense. He gave so much and his ways of thinking about schools and school leadership. Documenting this will be a near enough impossible job – very much like complexity would tell us, his influence has rippled beyond anything possible. I have had the immense privilege of working with him over the last 12 years on some of these ideas. They have formulated the very core of my academic identity. Frankly, if you have ever found anything I have done useful, you have also found Chris useful. There will be other spaces to more formally articulate how much his contributions to knowledge set a new bar – a level of theoretical depth and meaning rarely reached by many of his contemporaries, and through that finding deep and practical meaning for how we should lead.

In this piece, my focus is a desire to share my deep loss and grief for the human behind it. The human behind all this is one the very best humans I’ve ever met.

The great privilege of the last 12 years was how our work afforded me the opportunity to sit with him for so long. We talked. A lot. Often about everything and nothing. We’d move from the serious testing of ideas to the ridiculous and silly.  To our families and our lives. To the ideal palest of pale ales. We read each other’s work, always in the spirit of the sacrificial draft. We’d share exasperations at rejected drafts and project submissions, with the 48-hour rule being one of the best systems for dealing with disappointment that I’ve ever been taught. He shared his wisdom on family life, on navigating the sphere of academia and the general musings of two friends who very much enjoyed each other’s company.

He took me under his wing when I was a mid-20s, slightly broken, young father and PhD student still figuring out his path in the world. He carefully and cautiously guided me through some big decisions – personal and professional. He guided me through some of the typical moments of a young father (“you’re only as happy as your least happy child”), through my divorce and restabilising my life. He guided me on what roles to take, what opportunities to forge and how to focus on meaningful and deep endeavour as oppose to grandeur, popularity and quick wins.

His guidance, forged through the deep listening and capacity to see you and hold you as a whole human being, always led to a better answer. Sometimes, this guidance was hard to hear. But he never shyed away from it. This is how he cared and he was tenaciously courageous. He was never afraid of asking people to go deeper – to drive through assumptions and push people further then they thought possible for themselves.  He showed me the path in becoming a kind, compassionate man that could love his work and be brilliant for his family …to be in a place to do good work, with good people that could make a difference. 

I loved watching him. Conferences, conversations, and in his teaching of me and of others. No pride or ego worth a darn. A confidence yet humility which was, frankly, just beyond classy. He was passionate and to the point but never shy on detail or academic rigour. He would find the practical by going deep into the theory, and was never afraid to the hold the responsibility for explaining that depth so people could get it. He embodied balance – wisdom with practicality, simple yet profound, clarity with compassion, conviction with humility. His motive, in everything he did was his relentless belief in people, a desire to help other reach their potential and to be an active presence in doing so. The words passive and Chris do not go together.

His influence on me is pretty evident in my everyday. In the contributions we made to complexity theory and adult development – all of which I would not be able to engage in without Chris. All of which I am deeply, deeply grateful for as he showed me how to communicate these ideas to the world and gave me direction and knowledge to help. In how to take our work seriously but hold ourselves and others with kindness, humility, believing in others’ light and in good humour. If you’ve heard me talk about a sacrificial draft, the ‘sermon’ model or why I’ve asked you to ‘send it down the wire’, you’ll know why. If you’ve ever found me being the one to speak up the with awkward question. If you’ve ever heard me say to my son “do we need 48 seconds, 48 minutes or 48 hours to process this?”. It’s in my exploration of the palest of pale ales, It’s in why I look in the mirror and feel proud of the path I’m walking. In seeing Chris and the light he shone on the world and the people around him, I had a 12 year pupillage in become a good man. I’m not there yet, but he’s given me a great role model to follow.

I have many stories to share.  The time when I watched a younger group of colleagues in deep critique of his paper, totally unaware that Chris was there, at their table. He didn’t jump in, reveal his identity and get defensive. He just listened. The times he’d bite the bullet and ask me the awkward questions on behalf of the audience so he could push me ready for my viva. The time he put his arm round me after feeling shaky of a new group he introduced me to and said “I think you just so smart, Neil, I’m so proud of you”. The endless patience he showed – like the time I ‘flew off the handle’ because the 4^th rewrite of a chapter was not hitting the mark, and his understanding when I called 2 hours later with my tail between my legs apologising because he was right. The time he built fires in the garden with my son, and when he’d talk to my toddler of a daughter during supervisions. All which show every part of the person I’ve tried to describe, and more.

Over the last week, I know how fortunate I am that all this stays with me. That, having had some big and exciting thing happen, that I can still turn to the Chris inside my mind and interact with him and what he showed me. I can feel the guiding hand still pushing me along, in how I feel, think and behave to myself and others…when I look at the work we did and the work still to do…in the conversation I have with myself which, with Chris in the mix, became kinder to who I am and to hold myself with pride, humility, conviction and courage.

For a long time, I wasn’t sure how to describe Chris’s connection to me. When I would introduce Chris (first, he had to teach me how to say Emeritus as, turns out, the way I pronounced it made it sound like some form of medical examination!) I’d hesitate in saying my relationship with him.  PhD supervisor never covered it – we were closer than that and was only true for the first 6 years of knowing him. Mentor, sure. But he was showing me so much more than my professional repertoire…..he guiding me in becoming a better human and father. Collaborator, way too clinical and…frankly, I felt like I was learning so much, to say it was collaborative would grossly underestimate his unseen impact.

The other day I realised what phrase I should have been using all along. When someone asked how I was, I said I was struggling because my dearest and best friend died today. I know I told him this enough, but I also wish I could tell him one more time.

So, to my dearest and best of friends. I love you. Thank you for bringing me into a world and trusting me with your ideas.   Thank you for keeping me by your side, especially when we both found things tough. Thank you for showing me how to be a good friend, a good guide and, I hope, a good man. Keep a palest of pale ale waiting for me by the San Antonio river, I’ll keep ticking things over and I’ll keep finding a way of sending it all down the wire.

What I present here is the third, AI inspired (Thanks for the push, Laura, again!!)  draft of an idea I have been working on for a while. Please do give me even feedback. Super grateful to those who took the time to talk about the idea further (Thanks, Laura!)

Having space to express our ideas and see them in action is a critical if we are to take satisfaction and meaning from our roles. Knowing we have helped play a critical role in the process feels good – the sensation of “I did that, that was me” would appear to be a critical part of workload satisfaction for teachers, which repeatedly points to the need to experience autonomy and some form of intellectual expression.

I would argue that the main route for teachers to achieve these goals has been through lesson planning. Lesson planning is a core responsibility, etched into the identity of teaching. What do teachers do if it is not the plan and teach lessons? Critically, part of why it is so crucial to the identity of a teacher is its provide the core way in which they can act and express. Through the planning of the lesson, teachers can express their ideas on learning a subject through their actions. They see the output of these actions directly in the classes they teach. They get to express their ideas – deciding what and how to teach and then seeing the outcome is intellectually stimulating, hugely satisfying and fits with the need for autonomy within their role.

However, achieving autonomy and intellectual expression through lesson planning has its flaws. For a start, its inefficient. It doesn’t make sense to build 5000 lessons on diffusion across a system, just as much as it doesn’t make sense for surgeons to create individual pools of techniques which aren’t shared and standardised. In an era of substantive workload challenges, only giving teachers this route to express themselves means that individual teachers are asked to sacrifice their time so that they can experience the intellectual curiosity and autonomy so critical to their enjoyment of the job.

How do we square this circle? How do we help teachers embrace the workload benefits of shared resources whilst experience intellectual stimulation and autonomy. Indeed. Is there a way that could make teachers even more impactful?

I suggest we relegate the skill of lesson planning as the act of intellectual expression and, instead, we proactively promote adaptation as the real art and science of teaching. That the real intellectual challenge is not in the creation of PowerPoints or lesson activities, but in the evaluation of that lesson according to the needs of a group, the license to adapt within a framework, the responsibility and credit for the lessons enactment and the capacity to collate the evidence and feedback. We haven’t articulated that this to teachers, and the time has come to do so.

Two main gains:

A) We are fuelling intellectual curiosity, autonomy, and efficacy within a secure framework so that teachers can be successful and feel successful. Equally, we aren’t just leaving the room for random rebellion either.

B) Inclusion at the core. Supporting teachers to adapt to need is inclusion. Therefore, by enabling teachers primary activity on adapting to meet need and collating evidence on their success, we are giving time and space to inclusion as the primary act of teaching, rather than expecting teachers to build a lesson from the ground up and adapt as a bolt on.

What do we need to do?

We need to do three things.

1) Build buy in. At the moment, we are only communicating the benefit of prepared lessons on the basis of workload alone. I don’t think that’s enough. Lets actively show how the focusing on lesson plans and PowerPoints get in the way of you thinking about the harder components of teaching. Let’s work hard to show teachers this is the true art and science of teaching Build awareness of how this approach models the decision making process of other graduate level, frontline professions (e.g. how frontline doctors, lawyers and social workers all are expected to work in a similar way). This final part is critical if we are to give reassurance that we are upgrading the challenge, not downgrading or removing intellectual stimulation.

2) Enable teachers to make decisions. This doesn’t mean asking teachers to follow the lesson as prescribed nor does it mean giving full free license. Instead, seeking to provide a framework that enables teachers to evaluate, adapt and monitor. Such capacity should be built up over time – frameworks built, training provided and coaching. The focus becomes on supporting the decision making capacity in how to adapt and a recognition of the tools and guidelines to make such decisions within.

3) Build adaptation as the goal all the way through professional development – we conceptualise the mental model of teaching as the art and science of how we take a foundation and make it something responsive and adaptive to the trainee needs. We introduce and scaffold at the start of their career, we expose trainees to teachers who do this week and reward systems that enable this to happen.

4) We should recognise that adapting resources is in of itself a time demanding task. In providing a set of resources and asking teachers to adapt, there is still a considerable time ask. First, understanding a lesson you have not designed yourself is hard – you need time to get into the thought patterns of another person, their design choices, what they did and why. This is not easy at all. This is why some teachers still prefer designing their own resources, regardless of system level inefficiency, there is an efficiency at the individual level by of understanding the narrative of the designer through being the designer themselves. Second, the act of adaption is where real thinking begins – the merger of different forms of knowledge –  of the pedagogy, of the individuals in the room and the context you serve. This act of engineering – taking a foundational platform and helping it meet contextual need, as well as the time to understand what the design is trying to accomplish,  should have time made for it.

The argument for the use of resources to ‘save time’ should be cautiously held and critically examined for how much time they are truly expecting to gain, on light of the need to comprehend someone else’s design and the time required to adapt.. Instead, we should be thinking about how we can help our expert engineers spend time engineering as the key efficiency, rather than the net gain of time.

What about AI?

The arguments of AI in this domain should be no different to that of any form of creative expression. AI shouldn’t replace the artist, but provide a tool to provide foundational resource or support expression.  AI could way of providing the foundational resources in a timely and contextually relevant fashion. What if AI could be a useful thought coach – a source of ideas which are linked to the need or support the process of thinking through adaptation, or a critical friend to augment thinking?  However, AI cannot replace the vast contextual and historical knowledge the teacher will hold – which, in such a context dependent discipline, will always be in the eyes and mind of the individual teacher. Finally, as alluded to earlier, we will swap out the time a teacher spend  teacher creating resources for the time required for teachers to absorb someone/something else’s mental model of design – both to adapt to need, and ultimately to deliver it with fidelity. We are talking about removing unnecessary tasks, but we also need to remind ourselves that the time gained in not curating resources will be lost in the time the teacher will need to adapt and understand the mental model of design within the session/s.

The point of this blog was as follows – to recognise that teachers deserve to feel intellectual stimulation, responsible levels of autonomy and efficacy as well as a managed workload. Central or shared lessons can afford the opportunity for teachers if they are used to refocus their wonderful minds on the hard, more complex task of adapting to meet need IF we enable them to do so through the systems and structures within an institution and provide the development for this to happen.

Thoughts, as always, are welcome as I continue to shape this narrative.

In this blog post, I want to talk about the need for integration as we evolve the conversations around education.

Education is messy because its not a simple enterprise. Education is complex and schools are complex. (For more insight into this, please see Gilbride, James and Carr, 2023) Often, what schools do everyday is a combination of necessity, government policy, trust/LEA policy, the needs of their community and the individual autonomy of schools/ school leaders. In all of this, we all need make decisions and it is likely these decisions will be hugely influential. As such, the question becomes – how do we help all those involved in education to make decisions when their task is complex and so is their organisations?  

Much debate in education is polarised – progressive vs traditionalist,  knowledge Vs skills, recruitment Vs retention, core vs broad, academic Vs technical. And so forth and so forth along a series on reductionist binaries which only serve to rob us of the strengths that can be gained by an integrated vision for education, teaching, learning and leadership.  

Lets look at supporting decision making of school leaders. First, to make a decision, you do need knowledge. The knowledge we have retained shapes what and how we think – exposing and developing the expertise and knowledge base of school leaders is going to be a vital component to how we help school leaders make complex decisions.  

In addition, there are components of training and thinking which are less about the specific educational and organisational knowledge a leader needs, but how a leader comprehends, enacts and works with their environment. For example, how they work with others how to work with the ambiguity of a complex organisation and the trials that can come with this and to problem solve around complex or ‘wicked’ problems (For more on wicked problems, see Gilbride, James and Carr, 2021).  

None of these are in conflict. And yet, these two narratives are often put in opposition to one another. Some argue that the focus on developing the knowledge or mental model comes at the cost of developing wider leadership capacities to influence and shape the organisation. Equally, it might also be said that the development of wider leadership capacities prevents the leader developing the nuanced and specific knowledge that educators need to understand to make an informed decision. 

Leadership affords us an important example – it’s not about either/or, it’s about the integration of different perspectives. Leaders need knowledge of education – and we should respect the complexity of education and the expansive array of theory and practices within education by recognising that the development of knowledge is something we should aspire for all leaders to develop throughout their career. Furthermore, this is likely to be a core foundation of practice. Equally, how this knowledge is brought to life in how they conceptualise their organisations, how they work with others and how they comprehend and respond to complex problems and beyond, is vital for school leaders to work with their organisations and the people within them. All of these factors will shape how the school leader will ultimately make decisions and, therefore, should be considered as part of the development of a school leadership and the school leader. The argument should not be which one, but how we integrate different ideas, synchronise them together and then work together to build concepts and ideas that harness the whole, rather than push division.

The future of education  is not to pick a side, but to seek integration. Education is messy and complex and no single narrative will be able to carry the weight on its own. We should seek to integrate different narratives so that we evolve ideas . This will mean;  

• Recognising what has worked, regardless of political, ideological or personal persuasion. Recognising the difference between solid and robust evidence vs evidence that persuades us personally – these are not synonyms.  
• Actively bringing a range of different perspectives around the table – integrating multiple perspectives to form a whole means working as a community of thinkers and leaders to pull narratives together. Especially  if these ideas seem contradictory. This is not about a compromise, neither is it about a solution which just adds different ideas together akin to lego bricks, but that together they form a whole.  
• Holding the whole – education is complex and making decisions is a multifaceted process that pulls on many different parts of our psychological architecture. We should be prepared to consider different disciplines – from cognitive science, adult developmental theory and beyond. In this, there will be tensions and disagreements and ambiguity. Holding this ambiguity is what we ask school leaders and teachers to do on a daily basis. We should therefore seek to model how we hold ambiguity and multiple -perspectives in these debates and when we consider strategy.  
• Calling out that integration is not simple exercise –  adults struggle to integrate multiple perspectives, especially when they seem either contradictory or at risk of stand at opposite ends of a spectrum (Gilbride, James and Carr, 2023).  As such, we need to recognise the inherent complexity of this ask in how we create the space for these conversations and developmental work to happen.  

In the evolving narratives in education – whether it is curriculum, pedagogy, the purpose of schooling and so forth, we should seek to integrate rather than divide.  This is where the hard work lies. 

In this blog post, I have discussed the following. The future of education lies in integration. This means acknowledging the value across differing perspectives, and recognizing the importance of diverse perspectives. By integrating these aspects, we can create a “whole” approach that prepares future leaders and teachers for the complex realities of the education sector. This includes respecting existing knowledge, critically evaluating evidence, and embracing ambiguity – a skill crucial for navigating the complexities of education. By working together as a community of thinkers and leaders, we can evolve conversations in education and ensure that future leaders, teachers and the system as a whole is well-equipped to make informed decisions and shape the educational landscape. 

Further Reading  

Gilbride, N., James, C., & Carr, S. (2021). School principals at different stages of adult ego development: Their sense-making capabilities and how others experience them. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2): 234-250. 

Gilbride, N., James, C., & Carr, S. (2023). The ways school headteachers/principals in England at different stages of adult ego development work with organisational complexity. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, DOI :17411432231170581. 

I had the great privilege and pleasure of helping to organise ResearchEd South West 2024 over the weekend. I wanted to use the space to reflect on its success and why this experience is only reaffirmed and strengthened my belief that events such as ResearchEd are a sign that we have a truly graduate profession.

When Rhiannon came up with the idea for running a research ad in the South West, I was completely and utterly convinced. I wanted to help create a space where practitioners could be invited to think and share their thinking. To feel safe and excited about sharing ideas that they perhaps had never shown before. Perhaps they had shared ideas previously, but wanted to work on something new in a kind and ambitious space. A space that was positive, empowering and enabling for all types of practitioner to learn within. Inclusive – one where single parents could come, where all needs could be catered for. And caring – one where WE care for YOU for the day, with great catering and facilities. A space that could show off the very best of the South West and draw in some of our strongest and most talented National voices in education.

We were so blessed in so many ways. The space at Gloucester Academy was perfect. A panel of speakers embodied the vision and were an extension of our humble but mighty conference. They spread joy, enthusiasm and support in every session they attended, And their warmth spread through the conference like wildfire. Our keynotes were inspiring, provoking, and so very expert in what they do. We were blessed with the best technical staff who went above and beyond and volunteered their time. Our sponsors were generous with their support and some even gave money so the children in our kids club could leave with a goodie bag! We had some speakers who had never spoken before and speakers who were daring to try something a little bit different and new. Our attendees were kind and generous in their support, offering positive feedback and fully immersing themselves within the spirit of the day. The kids club was a true success and seeing families walk away knowing that everyone had the best day made my heart sing.

I cannot wait to get started on next year’s ResearchEd South West, and for us to go even further so as to create the most inclusive practitioner-led event we can possibly try to achieve. And before I move on to the next part of this blog, a huge and massive thank you to everyone who supported us.

This experience has only reaffirmed to me the power of these events and what they represent. Practitioners coming together, sharing, learning and supporting each other’s work. Practitioners debating and talking about what they’ve learnt and what it means for their context.

This weekend, I saw practitioners and non-practitioners come together to learn from each other. I saw experimental psychologists sharing information to teachers. I saw rugby coaches learning from teachers. I watched FE lecturers coming to learn from early years teachers. I saw psychologists learning from school leaders and primary teachers teaching secondary teachers! If this is not a sign that we have achieved a graduate profession within our sector than a community working together in this way, then what is?

There might be one more proxy. A community which is taking charge of its own learning. A community that’s defying the spaces in which it wants to learn. That’s not to say that there should be only one community. In fact, the opposite. The sign of a discerning graduate profession is one where graduates self-organize to work and learn together. Not being limited to one structure of professional learning or one particular type of institution. Instead, using its own critical thought to create spaces in which to learn and grow together.

For me, the power of a university education is facilitate growth. Not to define it. Not to tell people what to think. To support people over time so that they can take their own journey and define and work with the spaces that they wish to learn within. A graduate education is about empowering those to take decisions for themselves and their contexts – not what to think, but how to develop a more nuanced, complex understanding of their environment and the tools they have at their disposal. To provide knowledge to help them think, not to determine what to think. A graduate profession takes that empowerment and moves forward. A graduate profession feels empowered to disagree – even with the ones that trained it! A graduate profession is one where we have a lively ecosystem of different environments and structures in which to develop and grow.

We should be proud of the practitioners and speakers that attend these events. They have become enablers for our graduate profession to move forward. Not in their own image. But in order to help those around them shape an image of their own.

Those spaces require curation. Something which myself, Rhiannon and Thomas have worked so hard to achieve on the 27th April. Kind, humble, balanced, ambitious and inclusive. I look forward to going one step further to this goal in 2025.

What I present here is the second draft of an idea I have been working on
for a while. Please do give me even feedback. Super grateful to those who took
the time to talk about the idea further (Thanks, Laura!)

Having space to express our ideas and see them in action is a critical if we
are to take satisfaction and meaning from our roles. Knowing we have helped
play a critical role in the process feels good – the sensation of “I did
that, that was me” . would appear to be a critical part of workload
satisfaction for teachers, which repeatedly points to the need to experience
autonomy and some form of intellectual expression.

I would argue that the main route for teachers to achieve these goals has
been through lesson planning. Through the planning of the lesson, teachers can
express their ideas on learning a subject through their actions. They see the
output of these actions directly in the classes they teach. They get to express
their ideas – deciding what and how to teach and then seeing the outcome is
 intellectually stimulating, hugely satisfying and fits with the need for
autonomy within their role.

However, achieving autonomy and intellectual expression through lesson
planning has its flaws. For a start, its inefficient. It doesn’t make sense to
build 50000 lessons on diffusion across a system, just
as much as it doesn’t make sense for surgeons to create individual pools of
techniques which aren’t shared and standardised. In an era of substantive
workload challenges, only giving teachers this route to express themselves means that
individual teachers are asked to sacrifice their time so that they can experience the
intellectual curiosity and autonomy so critical to their enjoyment of the job.

How do we square this circle? How do we help teachers embrace the workload
benefits of shared resources whilst experience intellectual stimulation and
autonomy. Indeed. Is there a way that could make teachers even more impactful?

I suggest we relegate the skill of lesson planning as the act of
intellectual expression and, instead, we proactively promote adaptation as the
real art and science of teaching. That the real intellectual challenge is not in the
creation of PowerPoints or lesson activities, but in the evaluation of that
lesson according to the needs of a group, the license to adapt within a
framework, the responsibility and credit for the lessons enactment and the
capacity to collate the evidence and feedback. We haven’t articulated that this
to teachers, and the time has come to do so.

Two main gains:
A) We are fuelling intellectual curiosity, autonomy, and efficacy within a
secure framework so that teachers can be successful and feel successful.
Equally, we aren’t just leaving the room for random rebellion either.

B) Inclusion at the core. Supporting teachers to adapt to need is inclusion.
Therefore, by enabling teachers primary activity on adapting to meet
need and collating evidence on their success, we are giving time and space to
inclusion as the primary act of teaching, rather than expecting teachers to build
a lesson from the ground up and adapt as a bolt on.

What do we need to do?

We need to do three things.

1) Build buy in. At the moment, we are only communicating the benefit of
prepared lessons on the basis of workload alone. I don’t think that’s enough.
Lets actively show how the focusing on lesson plans and PowerPoints get in the way
of you thinking about the harder components of teaching. Let’s work hard to
show teachers this is the true art and science of teaching Build awareness of
how this approach models the decision making process of other graduate level,
frontline professions (e.g. how frontline doctors, lawyers and social workers
all are expected to work in a similar way). This final part is critical if we are
to give reassurance that we are upgrading the challenge, not downgrading or removing intellectual stimulation.

2) Enable teachers to make decisions. This doesn’t mean
asking teachers to follow the lesson as prescribed nor does it mean giving full free
license. Instead, seeking to provide a framework that enables teachers to
evaluate, adapt and monitor. Such capacity should be built up over time –
frameworks built, training provided and coaching. The focus becomes on
supporting the decision making capacity in how to adapt and a recognition of
the tools and guidelines to make such decisions within.

3) Build adaptation as the goal all the way through professional
development – we conceptualise the mental model of
teaching as the art and science of how we take a foundation and make it something responsive and
adaptive to the trainee needs. We introduce and scaffold at the start of their
career, we expose trainees to teachers who do this week and reward systems that
enable this to happen.

The point of this blog was as follows – to recognise that teachers deserve
to feel intellectual stimulation, responsible levels of autonomy and efficacy
as well as a managed workload. Central or shared lessons can afford the
opportunity for teachers if they are used to refocus their wonderful minds on
the hard, more complex task of adapting to meet need IF we enable them to do so
through the systems and structures within an institution and provide the
development for this to happen.

Thoughts, as always, are welcome as I continue to shape this narrative.

In this blog, I want to articulate the potential risks involved in the use of the term SEND within schools.

Ben Newmark’s excellent blog around the challenges we can have around the term SEND and the potential benefits of taking down this umbrella term is a must read. I agree with it and it is a very powerful piece of thinking.

I want to add to the debate that Ben has rightly started. I believe a considerable part about thinking about the future is analysing the system we have now and further reflect on the SEND category. I have tried to do this through three tests.

The Three Tests

Chesterton’s Fence – this was pointed to me from Tom Rees and from Sam Freeman’s outstanding substack post (if you do not have a subscription to his substack, I highly recommend that you get one). Chesterton’s fence teaches us is that, prior to removing any policy, that we should first to understand the need it is, or was intending, to meet.  

Elliot’s Wall – This is in recognition of Professor Joe Elliot’s attempt to communicate the risks of a broad definition of Dyslexia back in the mid-00’s. The Channel 4 documentary “The Dyslexia Myth”  attempted to argue to the public that the broad and overwhelming definition of Dyslexia did not represent the science and was no longer a meaningful term. However, what many in the public took from the title alone was that those with Dyslexia had no discernible disability at all. The mistake of the title and messaging caused uproar and substantive damage – Dyslexia does not exist, says professor | Schools | The Guardian, individuals found their genuine difficulties being openly questioned in the mainstream media. This made it far more difficult for those struggling to get recognition or support: I myself had pictures of the Guardians headline “Dyslexia doesn’t exist” put in my school bag and a University lecturer openly question why they should provide support to me at all.

What Elliot’s Wall teaches us is that attempts to reconfigure a system, no matter how justified or nuanced, can be taken to polarised extremes and we should be cautious of the unintended  harm which can be done to vulnerable individuals who need help.

Rutland’s Plumbing – This is a more informal observation of what happens whenever I undertake any form of DIY or manual work. I have always found it takes twice as long to repair an issue than I initially expected. This is usually because, by repairing or changing something, the attempted repair creates new issues or problems that did not exist previously.

 What Rutland’s Plumbing teaches us is that, by trying to make change, we can create new challenges and issues which we might not have expected or have been made as a result of our actions.

Nuance and Caveats

I want to point out this is not me disagreeing or challenging the arguments presented in the narrative thus far. I agree that the identifier of SEND could be at risk of doing harm – it is becoming overused, and I absolutely agree that as a catch all it risks homogenising a diverse group of individuals. I agree we are conflating individuals who have genuinely profound need beyond that of universal provision with those who are causalities of poor instruction. Indeed, I agree that the term SEND risks perpetuating the myth that there is something ‘different’ that we do for SEND that we do not do for others and compromises attempts to develop high quality universal provision for all. Finally, we have to recognise that any label can come with self-limiting beliefs that affect both the individual and society as a whole.   

Instead, what I hope to do is examine a little further about what this identifier, or label, could be doing despite its current weaknesses – all of which I absolutely agree with and largely agree with the direction Ben and others suggests. This is not a contradiction in terms – what is capable of good is also capable of harm. We recognise this in the field of medicine – just read the side effects of your antibiotics and indeed, despite their risk of harm, we still take them as the good outweighs the bad. This is about ensuring we have recognised the inherent complexity by examining through additional lenses so that any new systems can meet the needs of those this term currently serves.

What role is the SEND label playing right now, despite its flaws?

Before we delve into this question, there is an important point to raise.

1) We need to recognise that children who’s learning and progress is being affected do require forms of informal and formal protection:

• By formal protection, I mean resource allocation and accountability. By having been identified with SEND, you will have resources attached to you which will require the school or provider to be accountable to how they spend and resource the needs that you have. Therefore, not only do you have resource, but you have the safety net of accountability – someone checking that you are getting what you need.
• In addition, you have the informal attention – by virtue of having an identifying marker, we are more likely to pay attention to it when making decisions. Whether that is in executive trust meeting, a school level meeting or when you receive your class registers and see a red “flag” next to them. This attention matters – we don’t think what we don’t attend to.

2) There is a distinct difference between disability and SEND. Being identified with SEND is not the same as having a disability as recognised by the Equalities Act. One could have a disability without having SEND and one could have SEND without having a disability.

3) The Equalities Act is a key and extremely powerful piece of legislation if you happen to have a disability. It enshrines your right to reasonable adjustments into law – a protection so very important for now and later life.

The Main Argument

Where SEND can be very powerful is that the identifier can afford you the formal and informal protection an individual and their family might need where there is not a clinical diagnosis of disability in place.

For example.

1. There is a delay in the diagnosis which affords a clinical explanation for what’s happening. This is exceptionally relevant right now. Some boroughs are reporting up to 3 years waiting list for AD(H)D, 2 years for ASD and lets not even begin to talk about the delay in seeking support for mental health challenges. Subsequently, if there was not a identifier, such as SEND, it would be difficult to secure resource and attention for such individuals.
2. They miss the threshold for clinical diagnosis yet still experience enough challenge to have been put forward in the first place. Thresholds for being afforded a diagnosis are high and only continue to climb in the face of overwhelming demand for services. At some point, you have to be able to draw a line between someone who has, or who does not have, an identified clinical condition. In any case, such individuals’ challenges do not disappear – they are still very much in need of support, as they would have made it through the long waiting lists in the first place. Without the SEND identifier, they have no protection that they will receive resource and attention to meet these needs. The weight placed on clinical diagnosis is high enough, without a SEND label as a back-up, the weight becomes even higher.
3. For those who’s challenges are not clinical: they could orientate in the social domain but still very much cause a barrier to learning. Again, there is no mechanism outside of SEND which affords an individual attention and resource to assist.

The Three Tests Revisited

If we accept this line of argument, what does the three tests illuminate as to the potential consequences?

Chesterton’s Fence: This test asks the question: What need is the SEND label meeting and what would happen if we remove it?

By removing SEND, there is nothing to identify individuals who could be struggling considerably to access the curriculum. Whilst is it likely there a number of these individuals will benefit and respond to high quality universal provision to help access it, for some this will only provide the foundation i.e. there will be a group of individuals that need more beyond this universal provision. Unless you have a marker or identifier, there is nothing to recognise this group and the resources that they need.

Whilst The Equalities Act would protect those with a recognised disability, it would not protect those without. The Equalities act does afford some protection to those suspected of having a disability, in that reasonable adjustments should be made. But:

 a) You first still need to identify such individuals  this includes those awaiting diagnosis.

B) This will not cover those who have missed the clinical threshold or who’s challenges lie outside of a clinical diagnosis.

Despite this affordance in the Equalities Act, there would still be no mechanism for which to channel resource, to explicitly point attention to need and no protection for families and the child to ensure they access help.

Individuals who sit in the scenarios outlined above then become a vulnerable at-risk group – one, because the lack of marker means there is nothing to identify them, and two because there is no mechanism for assistance. What’s more, many in this group would have no right of recourse as it is highly unlikely they would be covered under the Equality Act, despite facing substantive challenges which should demand informal and formal recognition.

The ease at which someone can be considered with SEND is both its critical weakness and sublime strength. No application form, no tribunal process and no hoop jumping – especially powerful in a system where it can take years to achieve formal recognition. The identification is in the hands of the school and its flex means it can adjust to meet these three categories which formal diagnosis cannot, and that formal and informal attention can be applied far more quickly. Removing SEND means removing this flex.  

Elliots Wall. This test asks: By removing SEND, what message could be heard within the sector and could it force a polarisation?

Bear in mind this: 40 years ago, it was both culturally and politically accepted for children from lower income backgrounds to leave school with zero qualifications. It is only relatively recently whereby considerable policy mechanisms came into existence that afforded protection, including the use of the Free School Meals as an identifier. As a label, FSM face the same critique as SEND – it is crude and describes a homogenous group  and is often afforded to pedagogical strategies which have questionable evidence. But, if we take that away, can we be confident that the same level of systematic and individual attention would be applied?

History tells us no. Speculative, but removing SEND as a label might be heard as “SEND doesn’t exist”. Akin to the Dyslexia debacle in the mid 00’s: Instead of achieving a more nuanced perspective, the message heard was “Dyslexia doesn’t exist at all” and support – at the least informal, was withdrawn. This, frankly, caused harm. We risk doing this by removing SEND and people hearing “So SEND doesn’t exist then?”. We collapse the middle ground – the space where we think hard about how universal provision provides a foundation for some learners, for which is necessary for targeted action to take effect.

We need to be brave and ask, if we remove the term SEND, will the system still care? If we have doubts, we have to think how we support individuals to transition to a more subtle system.

Rutland’s Plumbing : The test asks: By making change, do we create problems elsewhere?

By removing SEND,  we increase the risk of adding even greater weight onto diagnosis and disability so as to secure necessary resource and attention. If this label is meeting a need, then all it will mean is individuals rushing to meet that need elsewhere. This marginalises those without the formal categorisation and also reinforces the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve, which is a broader acceptance of difference and commitment for inclusion for all.

By removing SEND, do we create a lethal mutation of Universal provision argument? I worry that removing SEND means that we expect more from universal approaches and indeed allow the legitimacy of the argument that universal meets all needs and is enough for all. This is not the case – some children will need more than what universal provision can reach. Remember, removing SEND means there is no way of recognising those for whom need more outside formal input – they are part of the whole, and stand a greater chance of being lost. Are we asking the system to run whilst it is learning to walk?  

Conclusion

In this blog post, I have tried to articulate what we could loose if we remove SEND and what any term or system needs to account for. Systems are complex and the interdependencies on any concept is far beyond the scope of one person. Whilst there are flaws and to the extent where I agree that the SEND term might have had its day, we having to ask if removing it entirely might cause extra problems beyond that of what we currently have. At the very least, help us think about what any system has to do for all those for which it currently serves to ensure they can continue to receive support. At the very least, I argue we need to examine and scrutinise the consequences at the very least as a pre-mortem for further reflection.

Thank you for your attention.

I have written before about the role about being an academic. This time, I want to speak more from a personal perspective.

We have long aspired for a graduate profession in teaching. Whenever I have thought about what this term means, I have more focused about a graduate profession in how it conducts itself. A graduate profession is about a process by which we come to inquire, reflect and consider the evidence around us before making decisions for our pupils and communities. One that can hold its own discourse and can manage opposing views and perspectives. One that aspires for the evidence it needs to make informed decisions. One that offers a space to articulate what we are thinking so as to hear different views. One that values rigour and debate: that seeks to engage and read and question themselves.. To build knowledge and understanding in light of their practice, and to consider how new knowledge influences and informs their own ideas. One that seeks to create their own communities, informed by their own reading, practice and experience and articulates their ideas to help their fellow kind.  

A sign of a graduate profession is that practitioners feel confident enough to disagree with those who hold power and build their own spaces. Its not about us expecting practitioners to engage on our terms and in our ways. It is about coming to them to support and help and engage. But also to LEARN as a group of people passionate about education.  

A graduate profession needs academics. But not to dominate or act as some gatekeeper of thought. Not to ostracise those that disagree. Not to hold them in contempt or suspicion. Not to say “they don’t know” “they are just young” or to assume that those of different persuasions are mindless – that they have been tricked, duped, deceived or assume they have been hookwinked into a conspiracy that they are totally unaware of and have no agency over. Not to cast assertions which we would, all too rightly, hold our own students to account for – when they have no merit, no evidence and based purely on suspicion.

I would go as far as this -To act in any of these ways goes against what holding an academic role should be about. Such a position only serves to undermine the very process of the graduate profession.

Our role is one predominately of service – to take our responsibility to service seriously and in a way that shapes lives positively, that helps those around us to think and provides a safe space to do so. So how can we serve “well”

We should seek to empower, to ignite and to lead through example. To hold that bar high, not to tear it down. To recognise that power that our roles hold and to use that power with grace, tact and wisdom. To meet practitioners where they choose to engage and to reflect WITH them, from a position of mutual respect and trust. Indeed, to build that trust. To respect the profession to build arguments and offer them to the world as tools for thought, not as tombs of wisdom. To respect to profession that these arguments should be questioned as part of a wider professional dialogue that helps us all to grow.  

Does this mean we should be neutral? No. We should be prepared to question and critique. But not from a position of such active distain and distrust for those for whom we disagree. Instead, we should do what we ask our own students to do – to  ask questions from a position of trust, kindness and in their interest of the wider profession. Not to judge or make assertion on their values or assumed political ideology. Instead, from a position of mutual respect, intrigue and for the benefit of the profession.  

I was lucky to have this modelled to me by the wonderful Professor Chris James. No matter what room he was in, he would listen. He wouldn’t put on the kid gloves – he challenged and discussed, but from a position of wanting to learn, to hear and to advance each other’s argument through honest debate and discourse. There was a shared trust that you had come to your own perspective through thought.  I learnt a lot from him and how he worked.

I have experienced this across the very many academics within education and in psychology. They are mostly not on Twitter. They are brilliant and kind and working hard to act exactly in the way that I got to experience Professor James work across many years. Whether it is in marking term papers, in how they support SCITTs in their work, how they supervise their students or how they proactively seek to engage with practitioner communities on their terms.  

Only difference is Chris would always buy the beer afterwards….

In this blog post, I want to talk about something a little different. I want to talk about one of the most fundamental challenges which adults face. I want to talk about how this challenge, I believe, underpins difficulties we face in how we view ourselves, the people around us and the responsibilities we have in our daily work and personal life. This challenge is the concept of integration

What do I mean by integration? Integration is accepting the notion that all things in life are deeply connected, no much how deeply disconnected somethings might appear. Joy and suffering are polar opposites, and yet they are inherenitaly linked as one cannot exist without the other. Life and death are deeply integrated through the nutrient cycle. Dark and light are deeply connected, for without night and dark we cannot comprehend day and light.

I would argue that the human identity is deeply integrated. We cannot have the conscientiousness without concern/worry, passion without anger, openness without risk. Traits or ways of being which we admire (the light) and enjoy also come with a supposed ‘dark’ side – a pattern of behaviour or way of being that modern society perhaps considers less admirable, a downside, weakness or Achilles heal. My main thrust of my blog post will focus on this very topic.

(I do need to say from the outset that I have struggled with finding a word for dark – it could undermine what I’m trying to say. It’s a heads up that when I say dark, I don’t mean it as bad but as a metaphor for opposite.)

There are two steps to recognising integration. The first is accepting the surface level concept. Most people do not have a problem accepting that one cannot exisit without the other, such as joy and sadness, is one quite a few would happily accept. It sounds sophisticated and maybe we’ve listened to a few Buddah tapes and realised this sounds good. In summary, very few would deny the reality of integration at the surface. People who worry tend to also be very detailed. People who are care free tend not to think about details etc and etc. People readily accept my argument on the surface level.

But the second step is far harder. That is accepting the consequence and reality that integration brings. That is there cannot be one without the other – that the elemental factors making up one side are the same factors which make up the other.

What does this mean? For a start, it means that the trait you admire in someone and with yourself will come with an expression that might be less admirable. It very much resembles a coin with heads and tails – the sides are different, but they are of the same coin. They are not two separate parts glued together. It is one unified entity, made of of the same element, but with the potential to expressed in totally different ways. Flip heads; you have a completley different impression of the coin than if you flip tails.

Some concrete examples. That conscientious person who you adore for thinking through the details and will always goes out their way for you, might also drive you crazy as they demonstrate worry about making the right impression or how they express their organisation. The person who expressed intensity of joy and wonder will likely express the same intensity of worry and frustration. The person who you enjoy for their spontaneous nature will frustrate you for not showing up on time. The ability to live in the moment and be right there with you and only with you…will also leave you blindsided when they are in another moment and you’re not in their thoughts.

Again, my premise is not that people aren’t ready to accept the concept that these different aspects are integrated. It’s accepting of the consequences that such a a philosophy has on how and who we like and love those around us that most people struggle with. It’s accepting that the person you like or love and things you love and like about them will come with another side – and the more extreme the expression, the more extreme the opposite is true.

This leads me to question: Do we really accept people for who they are? Do we really accept ourselves for who we are? Yes, we can say “everyone has flaws” but that still implies a separation as they are not flaws separate to the self – they are part of the self which, in other contexts and situations, are the aspects which will most admire and love. The consequence of integration is when we show like and love, we might have to love the whole – the light and dark, the conscientious and the worry, the eclectic and the quirky, the relaxed and the laxed. This isn’t to say we should accept all – but perhaps should reflect hard on what this means for ourselves and the connection we have to others and its meaning.

It will mean releasing expectation – expectation that people around us, and indeed ourselves, can just shine on the “light” and scrub away the “dark”. Releasing the expectation that we should scrub away at our own Yang’s, but not acknowledging that will comprimise the ‘Ying’. That we should expect people to love in spite of supposed flaws, and actuall We release ourselves of the expectation to only be in the light by not feeling compelled to justify expressions of fear and sadness or or or quirks and coping strategies as something far greater than just being part of you – to embrace and accept, and to do that for all

People could say “Well, fine, but what about extremes? Extreme anger, aggression etc”. There is of course room for temperance. Extreme worry, extreme aggression, sadness are not good for anyone and that’s when they become clinically relevant. Indeed, we should recognise that extreme happiness is not good for anyone either – we take far greater risks and put ourselves in danger. We talk about balance but balance means of both, not of excluding the other as it just isnt possible to exclude one without costing the other. It means accepting balance to be both.

A phrase a very wise man told me a long time ago was “come as you are”. And I think that’s far easier to say than in practice and this blog post has been about unlocking why that sentence is hard to live by. In my own reflection on writing this,I have two questions:1) How much is this driven by the expectation we have of others and self

And 2) that this isn’t the whole story of understanding ourselves and others. What happens when we are met with trying to comprehend two seemingly polar opposites expressions in ourselves and others – when the Yang doesn’t necessarily align with the Ying. When the extremely calm expressed extreme worry, when the loud and social also seeks quiet and solitude. In essence, when we are met with the eclectic and the, seemingly, irrreconsible opposites. My next post will explore the concept of the eclectic and why it’s so hard for ourselves and others to both manage, comprehend and live by.