Conference discussions

Conference discussions

At the recent Naace Strategic Conference I spent some of my spare time (what little there was of it) to find out from delegates what they were enjoying, what they were learning, and just their general impressions and thoughts.

My original intention was to get around as many people as possible collecting soundbites. But in the event, people gave much more in-depth responses, and we had some good discussions. I think it is interesting to listen to the general issues discussed rather than to get bogged down in the particulars of local issues. I have a feeling that they are pretty similar everywhere.

One of the people I spoke to was Ewan McIntosh. He makes a lot of sense, but I also happen to disagree with a great deal of what he says. Or, at least, I don't just accept it without question.

For example, he says that we should get it right first time, and that the expression "a step in the right direction" serves only to make us feel better about our failure to do so. But that is to deny the possibilities and restrictions which exist at any point in time. It is, indeed, almost to deny the role of historical development.

But also, what is "right"? A little later in the discussion I expressed misgivings about the lack of research into the long-term benefits of using Web 2.0 etc, and Ewan changed the goal posts by talking about the abundance of research into assessment for learning. I have absolutely no problem with assessment for learning, which is why I was using AfL techniques before the term had even been thought of, but it is by no means axiomatic, despite being seemingly obvious, that using Web 2.0 approaches is synonymous with AfL.

Perhaps this is just quibbling. I think a more important issue is the danger of being "right". As I was reminded in a discussion over breakfast with consultant Colin Watkins, the history of education in England is littered with the corpses of approaches which were unequivocally "right" at the time:

English across the curriculum;

Mathematics across the curriculum;

Economic awareness across the curriculum;

ICT across the curriculum;

The Initial Teaching Alphabet;

Project work (of the worst, unstructured, kind);

Inclusion -- not because it is "bad" in itself, but because of its unfortunate interpretation as "integration", which itself became a dogma that was often blind to individual circumstances (Martin Littler touched on this, and I will be posting the podcast of his talk in the near future);

and, more recently, the first incarnations of the Literacy and Numeracy Strategies.

Each of these, in its time, was deemed to be "right", and in some cases I really believe that some children's education was damaged in the process. So to assert, as Ewan seems to, that Web 2.0 approaches are absolutely right is a complete denial of educational history. There is, of course, the possibility that Ewan is, and will be seen to be, correct: I certainly hope so, as I share his enthusiasm. But I think we need to exercise a degree of wariness, and although Dave Warlick is right when he states that we won't really know if the approach has been successful until today's schoolchildren are adults, there is something about that which makes all the educational experimenting we do (not just us, but Governments too) a bit of a moral issue.

One more thing (I hope Ewan doesn't think I'm picking on him!). Ewan thinks that change can happen instantly, and that it doesn't, or needn't, take time. My own view is that change is effected in layers, or stages. You can bring instant change, then further changes within a few days, then a few weeks, and then a few months. Sometimes it actually takes years to change a culture.

I'd have said all this at the time, but I had to rush off to a presentation.

Now, I don't want to give the impression that I violently disagreed with everything Ewan said (just most of it!). I, along with others on this pocast, very much enjoyed his presentation, the audio of which I will publish later. A couple of people mentioned his concept of the "digital holidaymaker" (someone who dips their toe in the digital water every so often)

Anyway, listen to all the discussions in this podcast, I think you will find them very interesting.

The people who appear on the podcast, in order of appearance, are:

Terry Freedman, Independent, England

David Warlick, Independent, USA

Ewan McIntosh, Learning & Teaching Scotland, Scotland

Jonathan Sly, Essex, England

Brian Podmore, Suffolk, England

Stever Bolton, Essex, England

Gareth Davies, Cambridgeshire, England

Sandra Crapper, Independent, London, England

Lynne Heavens, Lewisham, England

Ian Usher, Buckinghamshire, England

Gemma Holmes, 2Simple, England

Dave Smith, Havering, England

Anthony Evans, Redbridge, England

Gary Jelks, Redbridge, England

Annette Carlon, Redbridge, England

The music featured is by George Wood, and is podsafe. The intor and the outro is from "High Five". The bit after my intro is from "Nice'n'Sleazy". You can download these and other tracks from here.