Can’t disagree (nor would I want to) with anything you’ve written in this piece. Thank you for it and for sharing so many useful links. I’ll share it with PLACE network colleagues, supporting families on the ground experiencing issues around education (barriers) and poor mental health (often as a result of experience in the education system). Thanks for all you have done and continue to do for those still in the system and those still to come.
These seven reforms feel like a breath of fresh air—finally centering the human elements that make education meaningful. The shift from exam-grade optimization to wellbeing as a north star is especially powerful.
I’m particularly drawn to the emphasis on student voice and oracy. But it raises an important question: whose voices are we centering? When we make oracy “ordinary,” are we building on the rich communication traditions students bring from home—or asking them to perform a particular kind of speech to be heard?
The peer-led accountability system is also promising. But who gets to design it? Are we inviting the teachers most harmed by the current system, or mostly those who’ve succeeded within it?
And practically—while I love the idea of Making Sense lessons and Weekly Reviews—many teachers I know are already stretched thin. What do we remove or simplify to make room for these additions? How do we honor where educators are, not just where we hope they’ll be?
These ideas have real potential to humanize schooling. I’d love to see them developed with the communities they aim to serve—rooted in lived experience, not just designed around it.
Thanks for this Johanna. To respond to a couple of points:
"When we make oracy “ordinary,” are we building on the rich communication traditions students bring from home—or asking them to perform a particular kind of speech to be heard?" Very much the former! Although I think it's also a good idea to encourage people to be flexible and adapt their speech to different situations.
And to your latter points, I think slice teams are the best way to implement change in a way that honours where people are, and includes them in the process ot adapting their practice, rather than it being done in a top-down way. I'm not sure whether you subscribe to my other Substack but I posted about slice teams last week (and a few times earlier this year) - see here: https://makingchangestick.substack.com/p/you-cant-afford-not-to-headteacher
Can’t disagree (nor would I want to) with anything you’ve written in this piece. Thank you for it and for sharing so many useful links. I’ll share it with PLACE network colleagues, supporting families on the ground experiencing issues around education (barriers) and poor mental health (often as a result of experience in the education system). Thanks for all you have done and continue to do for those still in the system and those still to come.
Thanks for this Bec - your support in helping spread these ideas is greatly appreciated!
These seven reforms feel like a breath of fresh air—finally centering the human elements that make education meaningful. The shift from exam-grade optimization to wellbeing as a north star is especially powerful.
I’m particularly drawn to the emphasis on student voice and oracy. But it raises an important question: whose voices are we centering? When we make oracy “ordinary,” are we building on the rich communication traditions students bring from home—or asking them to perform a particular kind of speech to be heard?
The peer-led accountability system is also promising. But who gets to design it? Are we inviting the teachers most harmed by the current system, or mostly those who’ve succeeded within it?
And practically—while I love the idea of Making Sense lessons and Weekly Reviews—many teachers I know are already stretched thin. What do we remove or simplify to make room for these additions? How do we honor where educators are, not just where we hope they’ll be?
These ideas have real potential to humanize schooling. I’d love to see them developed with the communities they aim to serve—rooted in lived experience, not just designed around it.
Thanks for this Johanna. To respond to a couple of points:
"When we make oracy “ordinary,” are we building on the rich communication traditions students bring from home—or asking them to perform a particular kind of speech to be heard?" Very much the former! Although I think it's also a good idea to encourage people to be flexible and adapt their speech to different situations.
And to your latter points, I think slice teams are the best way to implement change in a way that honours where people are, and includes them in the process ot adapting their practice, rather than it being done in a top-down way. I'm not sure whether you subscribe to my other Substack but I posted about slice teams last week (and a few times earlier this year) - see here: https://makingchangestick.substack.com/p/you-cant-afford-not-to-headteacher