Almost one year ago, Professors Alma Harris and Carol Campbell released the report “All Learners in Scotland Matter- National Discussion on Education,” a summary of the recommendations that came out of the National Discussion on Scottish Education that they facilitated from September to December 2022. This week, Harris and Campbell discuss with Thomas Hatch the initial steps they took and the overall process they pursued to engage as many people as possible, particularly youth and marginalized populations who are often left out of these conversations. Next week, Part 2 of the conversation considers lessons for others who might want to pursue a similar public engagement and explores how this kind of dialogue could offer a new process to support educational change.
The interview was edited by Sarah Etzel & Thomas Hatch
Thomas Hatch (TH): Can you set the stage for us and give us a sense of what the problem was that led the Scottish Government to ask you to develop this National Discussion on Education?
Carol Campbell (CC): Specifically, in Scotland over 20 years ago, there was a national debate about the purpose of education and what people wanted for the Scottish education system. This led to the development of the Curriculum for Excellence, which became the main curriculum for primary through early high school. However, in 2021, the Scottish government commissioned Professor Ken Muir to review the education system. Among his many recommendations, his first recommendation was to initiate a new large-scale public engagement conversation in Scotland about the future of the education system. His second recommendation emphasized the importance of inclusivity in this discussion, particularly involving children, young people, educators, and parents, and not to give “narrative privilege” to established voices.
TH: What was the source of those recommendations? Why did those things come to the top of the list?
CC: For one thing, with any curriculum that’s been in existence for about 20 years, there’s a question of whether it remains fit for purpose? But, more broadly, I think Professor Muir was thinking about the challenges not only in Scotland, but what was happening globally. For example, the sustainable development goals about access to education for all had been developed but require further attention to be achieved. Scotland has a well-developed education system, but there are still some children and young people who are not being well served. Scotland decided to incorporate the United Nations for the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), and if you take that seriously – to support every child to reach their full potential, to value human rights, to value diversity, to care about peace, to care about the planet – that has major implications for education. These are new challenges for our world, and then there was the impact of COVID-19 as well. It was a really big move to go beyond individual reviews of specific things to say, “Okay overall, where are we going as an education system?”
“It was a really big move to go beyond individual reviews of specific things to say, ‘Okay overall, where are we going as an education system?’”
Alma Harris (AH): Within Scotland, there have been a series of reviews undertaken by various specialists, but this was the first time in recent history when Scottish Government were prompted, by the Muir Report, to listen to those within the system about the future direction of education. At its heart, the National Discussion meant going beyond those who are normally consulted in reviews and listening to those who are not usually heard, especially children and young people. I think the prospect of doing something different, and at scale, was particularly exciting because it was a significant challenge to deliver a public engagement process. Despite its challenges, the National Discussion was a real chance to do something very different in terms of informing and shaping future education reform in Scotland.
“At its heart, the National Discussion meant going beyond those who are normally consulted in reviews and listening to those who are not usually heard, especially children and young people.”
TH: That’s a great foundation and framing for our conversation. What was your initial response, and what actions did you take?
AH: My initial response was to suggest to Scottish Government that Carol needed to be involved because I realized I couldn’t facilitate a discussion on this scale alone. It was clear from the outset that undertaking this National Discussion would require a lot of support and expertise. To their credit, the Scottish Government provided us immediately with a substantial expert team. Various civil servants and administrators covered all the logistical aspects, which was crucial to ensure we touched as many parts of the system as possible. One important lesson I learned is that to undertake a National Discussion or any public engagement exercise effectively, you need a supportive infrastructure to make sure that many different voices are heard, and varying perspectives are taken on board.
TH: Could you describe a bit about the nature of that team, especially the aspects that were most helpful to you in the process?
AH One critical aspect was the lead civil servant on the National Discussion team. Lorraine Davidson was our ‘go to’ person throughout the process and was simply outstanding. Lorraine provided much needed continuity and reassurance as well as high level problem solving when we needed it. Having a team of specialists, particularly those who could swiftly access schools and other specialist groups was invaluable. There were so many moving parts in this collaborative work that it truly was a huge team effort. Inevitably there were challenges along the way but having Lorraine and the team available to assist us at any time (day or night) was crucial to the success of the National Discussion. Do you agree, Carol?
CC: Yes, the team director was somebody who was very experienced in navigating government; she also had a background in communications. She’s a former political news reporter and that was important because, obviously for a public engagement, you have to think about different ways of communicating and engaging. Alma and I were hired as independent facilitators. We have backgrounds in education, we have connections to Scotland, but our job was actually to listen and to engage. We had to be quite creative about what that engagement might look like.
Our job was actually to listen and to engage. We had to be quite creative about what that engagement might look like.
As one of the very early steps our team reached out to organizations that represent children and young people, that represent marginalized groups and parents, as well as education groups. Before we even officially started, we said to them, “there’s going to be this national discussion, what do you want to talk about?” With children and young people, we had to think about the tone and language to convey a National Discussion in a way that was interesting and meaningful to them. We had to have some advice and support in developing child friendly age-appropriate materials, and multilingual documents in community languages.
We also spent a lot of time going through different iterations and getting feedback on what’s going to be the framing question of this discussion. It ended up being “what kind of education will be needed by children and young people in Scotland in the future, and how do we make that a reality?”
Then it was a very extensive engagement strategy. We had the #TalkScottishEducation and we had a social media specialist on our team. We were super active on social media, but then we had more traditional meetings and focus groups and events as well. I think a key thing was that we didn’t always have to be personally in the room. We encouraged parents’ groups to have their own conversations; teachers to lead conversations in their classrooms; young people to have their own conversations. Then we asked them to submit some feedback along the way in whatever form best suited them.
I think that was important and that’s the only way we got over 38,000 people engaged, some online, some written submissions, some surveys, some open responses in different formats, but that scale of response in a country the size of Scotland couldn’t have been done in a top-down way. It genuinely became a movement where people were hosting their own events, having their own conversations, in addition to the official forums.
“That scale of response in a country the size of Scotland couldn’t have been done in a top-down way. It genuinely became a movement where people were hosting their own events, having their own conversations, as well as the official forums that they could use.”
TH: This is fascinating to me. What I hear is that there was a lot of work that started even before the “official” conversation began. But I also heard you saying that it was crucial to have this team of experts along with you. Were those all from the Education Ministry or were they in other parts of the civil service?
CC: They were mostly from the Scottish Government Education Department, they were civil servants from Education and people were also pulled in across government and from other key organizations, including the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (CoSLA), at different times to work on the project. Somebody had a background in social research with an understanding of researching vulnerable people, not specific to education, and they were really helpful in navigating the laws about engaging with children and respecting protected characteristics. It was a case of drawing on people as and when needed, but officially the core team were all drawn from within the Education Department of the government.
TH: The initial work was around shaping the process. You began with engaging people rather than starting with the questions predefined. But how did you put this whole plan and process together? And were there any things that you had in the plan, but you weren’t able to do or things that you tried that didn’t work?
AH: Ahead of planning for the National Discussion came three core principles. The first principle focused on our positionality. Carol and I spent a lot of time reassuring people that we were truly independent facilitators and that we were genuinely interested in listening to all views. The second principle concerned transparency. We clearly communicated, at every opportunity exactly how the National Discussion would be undertaken, so that the same messages were being shared throughout the system and there could be no misunderstanding about our intentions.
The third principle focused on inclusivity. We were clear from the outset, that we intended to listen to the views of as many children and young people as we could, especially but not exclusively. With the support of our brilliant team, we actively sought to include the voices that are not normally heard. We deliberately and relentlessly contacted a wide variety of groups, organizations, and support agencies so we could include such voices.
Our efforts to reach marginalized or vulnerable children and young people so they could be heard was one of the main successes of the National Discussion. We were really keen that we didn’t just restate what various reports and reviews were already saying, so our methodology really pushed the boundaries and extended the reach of our data collection by using multiple and quite novel approaches. Inevitably, by pushing the boundaries we heard some challenging views, but it was important that we captured those views authentically and with respect.
The third principle focused on inclusivity. We were clear from the outset, that we intended to listen to the views of as many children and young people as we could, especially but not exclusively. With the support of our brilliant team, we actively sought to include the voices that are not normally heard.
The very first step Carol and I took, even before the entire process began, was to publicly share a personal piece outlining our stance and our commitment to the process. We wanted those within the system to understand that we were truly independent and personally committed to listening to all voices in the system.
TH: That’s very powerful. Were there any specific strategies or approaches that were particularly effective in reaching and hearing from people, especially those with challenging perspectives?
CC: If you take the principles that Alma has outlined, we had to honor those in our methods. We decided from quite early on that if we were going to do this, we did not want a typical government consultation – there’s lots of those. It had to look and feel different. Alma and I wrote personally; we did videos where we spoke to people; and we would engage in social media directly with #TalkScottishEducation. Governments are typically wary of social media, because obviously you can receive bots and trolls and criticism, but if you genuinely want to engage a large number of people, that’s how some people engage.
We did have a survey and we also received written submissions. Many of the professional organizations submitted their reports, too. But we also accepted submissions in any format that encouraged the person to contribute. We had videos and pictures, we had a song, and we had a poem. With the help of Education Scotland and what’s called e-Sgoil, which is an online learning platform, there were lessons designed at primary school level and secondary school level, so teachers could have a class discussion and the pupils and students, even young children, could contribute to the National Discussion. Analyzing that range of data was challenging, but it let people participate.
With the most vulnerable groups, we created focus groups with relevant children and young people’s organizations who knew how to work closely with, represent, and appropriately involve marginalized or disadvantaged children and young people. We made sure that either Alma or I was part of the focus group. These were online, but there were people there who really knew the population and knew how to work with them, how to approach them to engage young people in the focus groups too. We were very conscious that, as two professors with our own lived experiences, we don’t know everybody’s experience. That’s why we used mediators as well as encouraging groups to host their own events in ways that worked for them. There were discussion guides produced that people could use should they want to, with materials adapted for different age levels, different languages, and different accessibility requirements. For some people it became clear they would not go to a meeting in a school if somebody from the government was there, while for other people they wanted that. So, if you’re genuine about listening to all voices, you have to think about, “how do we actually listen to all voices?”
“If you’re genuine about listening to all voices, you have to think about, ‘how do we actually listen to all voices?’”
TH: That raises the data analysis challenge that you just mentioned. You’ve succeeded in getting this diversity of responses and you’re still two white women who are trying to honor this complexity. So how did you handle that?
AH: The volume of data was quite staggering. Scottish Government commissioned a company to help us manage and interpret the data in its various forms and to offer some initial thematic analysis. Carol and I also engaged with the data sets to ensure we were familiar with the themes and issues that were emerging. It was important to us that we were not far removed from the data. We felt passionately about representing the views we heard accurately, so we engaged with the data from the National Discussion.
Both of us personally facilitated many discussions both face to face and online which was important as it allowed us to be close to the action. In the final report, we represent what we heard, and some of the issues we raise in the final report are challenging. Our promise to all who participated in the National Discussion was that we would try and encapsulate all views and opinions. We were very clear that this wasn’t about us or about the government; this was about the learners in the Scottish education system and those who educate and support them. In the report, we ensured that the voices of children and young people were front and center and we also made sure the report was about the future of education in Scotland for every learner, not just some.
We hear such a lot about the importance of student voice in educational change and reform but to listen – to really listen – is incredibly hard. The lesson I’ve learned is that you can say you will listen to children and young people but to do it on the ground requires a deep humility and expert brokerage. Without people mediating conversations for us, some children and young people would simply not have spoken to us. I think that the most powerful interviews we engaged in were with those with vulnerable, marginalized, disaffected children and young people who didn’t think the system was for them. Inevitably the volume of data was overwhelming and at times bewildering. I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much data in so many different forms. But I think we stayed true to our principles and our initial purpose by producing an independent final report that did not lose the detail or the nuances of what we heard.
“I think that the most powerful interviews we engaged in were with vulnerable, marginalized, disaffected children and young people who didn’t think the system was for them.”
CC: Being independent facilitators, our job was to represent what we heard as best we could. It wasn’t to pass judgment on it or add our interpretation to it. We ended up setting out quite a range of experiences. However, that was also very challenging because, of course, we have our own views and our own opinions. Some of what Alma I heard was heartbreaking, some of it was inspiring. There were some meetings where I came out, and it was just fantastic. There were other ones that were truly difficult and unsettling to listen to. We had to honor that range of experiences. It’s a different task from being a typical academic expert or government reviewer, to really place people’s voices at the heart of this and to take their experiences from what they have said to you. It was, we will say, probably one of the best experiences of our lives. But it was also very, very, very challenging because there’s a huge responsibility that comes with that.
TH: Could you share one or two examples that produced those feelings of elation as well as those that were challenging and heartbreaking?
AH: You do elation, I’ll do challenging.
CC: We were doing this in the context of a pay dispute between the largest teachers’ union in Scotland and the government. In that context, it could have been extremely challenging, but we personally made sure that we met with key people and all the key stakeholder organizations, and we said: “Please, we need you. Please engage in the National Discussion. This isn’t a typical government review, we need you, your insights and expertise, and the voices and experiences of your members.” On a Saturday during a pay dispute, over 100 teachers came together, supported by their union. They spoke about the joy of teaching, and they wanted to return to that joy of teaching and the love of learning. Obviously, that involved all of the real concerns and issues about workload and working conditions, but there was an understanding that was only part of the conversation. Whereas the National Discussion was about: “what do we want for children and young people and for education in Scotland?” That involved shifting to a different conversation about learners and learning. Trying to get to that conversation is a hard one when people are having difficult day-to-day experiences, but people went back to what it was that brought them into education, why they wanted to make a difference, and what their hopes were for the future of Scottish education and especially for learners. For me, those were the conversations that were genuinely joyful, but there were also some challenging ones.
AH: In terms of elation, it was wonderful when we saw on Twitter the videos that children and young people had put together in schools across Scotland, based upon their views of what needs to happen in the future for education. That was very uplifting, and it also signaled that the tone of the National Discussion was truly invitational.
For me personally, the issue within the National Discussion that I found most challenging was inequity. In summary, there are some children in Scotland right now who are getting a rough deal. There are three examples that immediately spring to mind. First, I spoke with a group of young people who care for a sick or disabled parent or family member. Heartbreaking just doesn’t go near it. Imagine you are a 7-year-old looking after your mum, and then going to school worrying if she will be okay and then getting told off for not concentrating or listening in class or being late (again) for school. As one young carer told me, “Why don’t they understand? I’m caring for my mum and that’s my full-time job. I have to be the adult in the house but at school they treat me like a naughty child.”
Second, there were lots of parents we talked to who were frustrated that their child’s additional learning needs were not being fully met. These parents were concerned that their child was just languishing in the system with no one actively helping them. Sometimes we heard anger, despair, and raw emotion from those adults just trying to navigate the system to get the best for their child.
Third, we heard a lot from children and young people about bullying and the way this made them feel about school. Some children and young people talked about being unsafe at school. These were the stories that kept me awake at night, the conversations with children and young people, who were afraid to go to school or didn’t have money to pay the electricity bill for their mum or get her medication for her.
Many of the young children and young people I spoke to found crucial support in a variety of forms, from specialist groups, from youth workers, from teachers, from after school clubs which they all said helped them cope. But it was still staggering just how many children and young people said (in their own way) that they felt lost or abandoned within the system.
One common frustration that children and young people often felt that no one was listening, so they said to us, “can you make them listen please?” There was one point at the end of the conversation where a young person said to me, “Okay, you’ve listened to us. But will you truly tell them what we think?” That was always the question from children and young people. Will you be honest for us? Will you speak truth to power? We always said that we would, and we always did.
“There was one point at the end of the conversation where a young person said to me, ‘Okay, you’ve listened to us. But will you truly tell them what we think?’ That was always the question from children and young people, will you be honest, for us?”
Next week: A process not an event: A Conversation with Alma Harris & Carol Campbell about the National Dialogue on Scottish Education One Year Later (Part 2)
International Education News 
Pingback: A process not an event: A Conversation with Alma Harris & Carol Campbell about the National Discussion on Scottish Education One Year Later (Part 2) | International Education News