Author Archives: T Hatch

In the second part of this conversation, Alma Harris and Carol Campbell talk with IEN Editor Thomas Hatch about what has (and has not) happened since the release of their report “All Learners in Scotland Matter- National Discussion on Education,” from the National Discussion on Scottish Education almost one year ago. They also share lessons for those who might want to pursue a similar large-scale public engagement and explore how this kind of dialogue could offer a new process to support educational change in the future. In part 1, Harris and Campbell discuss their initial steps and the procedure they pursued as facilitators of the dialogue. The interview was edited by Sarah Etzel & Thomas Hatch.

TH: Can you give us a quick sense of some of those things that you felt you had to put in the report to make sure that children’s concerns were honored?

CC: We had a large volume of responses, but we wanted to make sure that we honored the children’s voices by ensuring that their views, including the challenges they were experiencing as well as their hopes for the future, were included in the report. Plus, Alma and I were personally involved in lots of events and communications where we either heard children and young people’s voices directly or through adults speaking on their behalf, so there were stories that we carried with us, and they had an impact that we wanted to make sure were included. For example, a major issue is additional support needs. Scotland has a way of identifying additional support needs which is quite encompassing; it includes but extends beyond a medical diagnosis or a specific identification of a special educational need. At the time of the report, over 1/3 of school-aged children in Scotland had an additional support need. That’s increased since then. I was in a school where over 50% of the pupils had an additional support need. This has been brought up in previous reviews but the issue is getting more and more complex. Obviously the COVID-19 recovery has exacerbated some things and resources are not there to fully support all learners. For me, that was one issue we had to be clear about. When it’s almost half of your demographic, it’s no longer an additional support need; it’s the need of pupils in Scotland. We had quite a lot to say about that.

“When it’s almost half of your demographic, it’s no longer an additional support need; it’s the need of pupils in Scotland.”

AH: We gave feedback to the Scottish Government that their core guiding principle of ‘excellence and equity’ was just not being fulfilled on the ground. There are a whole range of complex reasons for that, of course, and responsibility does not just reside within education as inequity is multi-faceted. When talking to parents and those who look after children and young people, one thing was crystal clear, that the ravages of poverty on educational progress and attainment were tangible and were getting worse. The issue of social justice runs right through the National Discussion report. The effect of poverty on the lives and life chances of existing and future generations in Scotland, like so many other countries, is the real issue to be tackled.

In many ways, the whole National Discussion was about inequities in the system, not by design but by default. Most of the anger and frustration we heard, from many groups including teachers and other educational professionals, could be attributed to some sort of injustice or inequity emanating, most usually, from a lack of resource. It was clear that everyone we spoke to wanted to do their level best for children and young people in Scotland. There was a great deal of praise for the Scottish Education system but also a real sense that more could be done. In many ways the National Discussion held a mirror up to the daily reality facing children and young people and the adults that care for and support them. There were many positive things we heard from learners, things they liked, great things about teachers and an excitement about learning. In the report, we talk about the joy of learning and the way in which teachers enthuse and encourage all learners at all levels within the system. In many ways, Scotland is a good education system aiming to be better but to make this jump, as we heard time and time again, some change needs to happen.

CC: Also, the title of the report is, “All Learners in Scotland Matter,” and we were asked to develop a vision. The vision is about all learners in Scotland, which sounds glib, but given what we had heard, to actually realize in practice that all learners in Scotland matter was crucial. So, Scotland’s main education priority is closing the poverty related attainment gap, which is very important. As Alma has indicated, poverty is a serious issue and children’s poverty is a very serious issue, but not all the needs we heard were about this. Some were more about physical disability, some were about mental health, some were about racial or sexual discrimination. Now these intersect, but we were saying you need to look at the full range of inequities and differential treatment.

AH: The thing that struck me most was the fact that there were so many different groups associated with a wide range of issues in education that it was almost impossible to decide who was standing for which specific issue. It was a very crowded landscape. We had the privilege, however, to go beneath the surface, and I think we have a more informed picture of Scottish education because we listened to so many diverse positions and viewpoints.

TH: This does raise the next question, which is, it’s one thing to say truth to power, but then what happens next? Are there ways in which the government has listened and is responding?

CC: The report with the vision, values, and call to action, which gets a bit more into the details of the different things that are being suggested, was released at the end of May last year. There was a parliamentary debate about the report led by the Cabinet Secretary for Education and Skills. All political parties in the Scottish Government have accepted and endorsed the National Discussion and have officially supported it. This is unusual because education is a very political priority in Scotland, so to have all party support was unusual and to have a full parliamentary debate was one way of bringing the report into the public eye. The vision from the report from the National Discussion has been accepted by the Scottish Government and now informs the “National Improvement Framework.”, which is the annual framework for educational improvement in Scotland. The calls to action are intended to inform government decisions and actions moving forward as they align strongly with priorities for attention and implementation.

One positive aspect that I find noteworthy is that the groups we’ve engaged with have embraced certain topics from the National Discussion to advance their own advocacy agendas. Professional organizations, for instance, are highlighting issues such as valuing and developing the profession, while parents are also echoing concerns we’ve addressed, such as support for early learners. This reflects the alignment with the broader national discourse, wherein groups are leveraging specific statements or discussions to push for action. Local authorities, akin to school districts, have integrated elements from the National Discussion into their strategic plans and work.

While progress has been made, it’s fair to say that we would like to see further explicit action and rapid implementation linked to the National Discussion calls to action. The challenge lies in seamlessly integrating these discussions into existing frameworks and plans. This can be particularly frustrating for parents, as they inquire about the fate of their input. We will be asked directly what happened to something a parent or other person told us directly during the National Discussion. While the calls to action are being integrated into governmental work stream, this is not a satisfactory response for people who want explicit and visible responses to their input.

AH:  A couple of reflections on the follow-up. I think responding to a large and complex report based on a huge public engagement exercise is inevitably challenging. Looking at the report, you might think “where to start and what to privilege when everything is so important?“ In reality, also everything costs money. Hence it is perfectly possible that there are just too many things that need attending to in the ‘Call to Action’ section of the National Discussion Report. We accept this but we represented what we heard, faithfully and accurately.

Possibly there is a sense of disappointment that the National Discussion did not point to any one definitive thing that needed to be introduced or changed. If this had been the outcome it would have certainly been neat but also fundamentally unrepresentative of what we heard. On reflection, this public engagement approach to education reform is worthy of consideration by other education systems, primarily because  it offers an alternative to the top-down processes that tend to dominate policy formation and so often fail to deliver.

As a recent Times Educational Supplement article about the National Discussion noted: “This is a model that could be built on and replicated in future reform. It is crucial that the potential here is not lost-the future of Scottish Education depends on it.”

“’This is a model that could be built on and replicated in future reform. It is crucial that the potential here is not lost-the future of Scottish Education depends on it.’”

CC: To build on that, over 38,000 people are engaged now. Yes, the scale of data was overwhelming. The range of possibilities is overwhelming. But as Alma said, our advice would be to choose one thing, choose three things. There are clearly some things that need attention. Another generation is going through our education system and there’s an argument about the system being overstretched and not wanting to make wrong decisions on reform, but we can’t leave the status quo either, we heard about urgent and needed changes. For example, workload, violence, equity, all of these things are issues which requires some change.

What came through to me was that people wanted to be heard, and they wanted to make a difference. It wasn’t a case of “please don’t change everything, we’re tired, please go away.” They actually were willing when they were asked. But that quickly turns into frustration and cynicism if you’ve taken your time and effort to engage and you don’t feel appropriate follow through has happened. While we did try to do this differently, it is one of many reviews of Scottish education. Now, the other ones are more specific about curriculum or assessment. But for some people and groups, they’ve now given their advice many times. That’s kind of a tipping point. The government needs to listen and use the evidence to inform decisions.

“People wanted to be heard, and they wanted to make a difference…. The government needs to listen use the evidence to inform decisions .”

One of the calls to action is called “Human-centered Educational Improvement”. We’re thinking about this as a new way of making educational changes. A lot of the previous reviews have ended up being very structural in terms of recommendations – abolishing organizations, introducing new qualifications. These all matter, but what we actually heard was people wanted to focus on the people: the children, the young people, the carers, the educators. For them, that was the guiding purpose. The other stuff was important, but they didn’t want another set of structural reforms. They wanted to get the focus back to people and relationships in education.

TH: Let’s delve into that further. If you had the opportunity to do this again or were advising others looking to engage in a similar process, how would you approach it differently? What additional steps would you take to steer it in the direction of being a novel process and form of support for educational change?

CC: There’s interest in Scotland in making sure this is not a one-off event, but we’ve also had international interest. There’s a team in Germany who would like to do something similar, so we’ve been talking about it. I do think the team that’s involved is crucial because it’s a huge amount of work, involving logistics, strategy, research, analysis, and communication. The individuals leading it, whether independent facilitators, senior government figures or some form of ambassadorial role, set the tone, and that matters. It’s important to encourage people from various backgrounds and experiences to lead their own discussions, aligning with our vision that these conversations would take place across different settings, with participants then submitting their insights. Having a clear and compelling question or purpose is essential; otherwise, people may struggle to understand the initiative’s intent. It’s crucial not to overwhelm with too many questions.

In hindsight, I think perhaps we asked too many questions. Don’t try to be too clever about the questions. What do you want? Why? Because people were struggling with any question that seemed complex or abstract. We were asking them to look 20 years into the future, but people were talking about what happened yesterday or what was happening on Monday. I think some of that future thinking is just difficult for people when they’re dealing with their day-to-day.

“We were asking them to look 20 years into the future, but people were talking about what happened yesterday or what was happening on Monday. I think some of that future thinking is just difficult for people when they’re dealing with their day-to-day.”

People were much more comfortable expressing challenges and concerns but articulated less suggestions for practical alternatives. So, perhaps after these large public engagements, you need a slightly different approach to reaching the next steps. As we were working on our final report, we revisited the key groups and tested out the vision and values. This involved another round of iteration to ensure that the wording and content resonated and connected with participants. Mostly, we received positive feedback, but there were some suggestions for improvement. I also think if you say you’re going to listen, you need to genuinely listen.

As independent facilitators, there’s also an expectation that we remain independent, facilitate the discussion, and present the report. But for some countries or systems, I think we should have considered advocacy and action more thoroughly – moving from presenting the report to instigating change. It’s essential to encourage people not to rely solely on the government for all changes. Some require government action, but others relate to cultural shifts within the education system or how people interact with each other. The calls to action from the National Discussion are for everyone involved in Scottish education.

“The calls to action from the National Discussion are for everyone involved in Scottish education.”

AH: In terms of additional steps, three things come to mind. The first is starting with the end in mind. I think being clearer about exactly what the end point should look like, in terms of action, would have been helpful. In other words, a deep commitment to some change that would follow the National Discussion. The second thing is about policy churn. Inevitably, things change quickly in politics and often policy attention moves on simply because that is just the way that policy works, not because it is a reflection on the nature or importance of the work undertaken.

The third thing I’d say is that the National Discussion remains a good example of flipping the system, shifting power relationships so that ideas flow from a broader base to inform policy making and shape the discourse of education reform. The National Discussion succeeded in providing a broad range of views, in that sense it was an achievement as a genuine broad-based listening exercise. It is important to see the National Discussion therefore not as an event but as on ongoing process of dialogue within the system.

“The National Discussion is a good example of flipping the system, shifting power relationships so that ideas flow from a broader base that inform policy making and shape the discourse of education reform… It is important to see the National Discussion therefore not as an event but as on ongoing process of dialogue within the system.”

TH: To me, it sounds almost like you’ve described a new and powerful process for engaging many people in sharing their concerns and hopes. But it seems like the mechanisms and routines for continuing that conversation and engaging in advocacy and decision-making at a local and national level have not been fully established yet. Can you imagine some mechanisms or routines that you would like to see put in place to help sustain the conversation and support responses that would address the priorities that surfaced?

CC: There’s a current fear, if we’re honest, in doing anything that might be unpopular or destabilizing. But the National Discussion includes the voices of a lot of people. If I were the political leader or an educational leader, there’s material there to support bringing about changes. It’s not just an idea from the government or from the civil service or from one particular interest group; there’s evidence and voices from thousands of people. The National Discussion needed resources, as we’ve discussed, but an ongoing conversation in Scotland doesn’t. Social media continues, parents’ groups continue to meet, teachers continue to meet, educational organizations continue to advocate.

To pursue transformation, some of the challenges lie in the existing established practices for example linked to the improvement framework and data requirements. However, we would encourage school and system leaders to have the courage to recognize that the status quo needs changes. While they can’t change everything, they can make a difference in their own spheres, whether it’s their classroom, organization, or local authority. I will say that there are some local authorities and schools that have embraced this mindset. It’s about instilling a cultural shift. It doesn’t mean changing everything, but it should mean changing something.

AH: My hope is that the National Discussion shows that an alternative, inclusive approach to educational change and reform is perfectly possible. Very few countries have undertaken such a discussion on education on such a large scale, so in many ways Scotland is ahead of the game. My hope is that this model of change will be embraced by other countries and that in Scotland the National Discussion continues, as a process, in some way.

TH: Is there anything else you want to add that you haven’t mentioned or anything that you learned from the process that you wanted to share at this point?

AH: I have been working in the field of educational change for over three decades and my observation is that I don’t think much has changed in terms of our approaches to reform at scale. I think we know that top-down approaches don’t always work yet there is still an over-reliance on approaches to educational change that are tightly controlled and not creative. Without question, the National Discussion was a creative approach to educational change that generated a great deal of buy-in. I think it offers an alternative approach to reform at scale but only if concrete, meaningful and informed change follows from it. If change does not happen, it is quite simply, a lost opportunity.

CC: It’s of course extremely important to engage and listen with all the formal representative groups in education, teachers, school leaders, etcetera. But by doing this in a broader sense, and we aimed our best to be inclusive and to listen, we heard different things, and we heard important things. Sometimes we hear about student voices or parent engagement, but we heard things I don’t think would have come through the same way. So, I think there are times when a genuinely public engagement matters. I wouldn’t say for something that’s very technical or specific, but this was about what we want for the future of Scottish education. I think that matters. I think that inevitably, and rightly, much of the conversation right now is about digital and artificial intelligence, but we kept hearing about people and relationships, so let’s not lose the priority importance of human-centered educational improvements as we have these other conversations.

“There are times when a genuinely public engagement matters. I wouldn’t say for something that’s very technical or specific, but this was about what we want for the future of Scottish education.”

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)