The twenty-first of September 2022 was an exciting day for Scottish education, full of hope and promise.
Professor Carol Campbell and Professor Alma Harris took to the stage at the Scottish Learning Festival to tell the world about the ”National Discussion”: the most ambitious consultation exercise ever to take place on the future of Scottish education.
While it is not unusual for the Scottish government to use consultation as a form of policy engagement, the scale, reach and ambition of this one seemed extraordinary.
For researchers interested in teacher participation in policymaking, exploring this consultation process was essential. Although our project is in its early stages, we highlight some initial observations and questions below.
Right from the beginning, it was emphasised that “every voice matters”; and that this was a “once in a generation” opportunity to shape the direction of change. There was a clear commitment to an inclusive process that supported the participation of those who are often unheard of in policy.
There was a buzz of excitement and dawning realisation that perhaps this was not a normal government consultation. It was said that the world would be watching, that this kind of national conversation had been attempted in a few other countries - but not at this scale.
Well, if the world is watching Scotland, they might wonder what happened. Where did the National Discussion go?
What did participation look like?
The consultation was open for approximately 11 weeks and different formats of participation were encouraged.
While completion of the online survey was an obvious way to participate, innovative and less time-consuming methods were also available.
There were podcasts, polls, videos, conferences, twilight online discussions and local events involving an extensive network of stakeholder organisations.
There was a flurry of activity on social media, namely X (then Twitter), where #TalkScottishEducation was used by those tweeting to tag their contributions. This provided an insight into school community engagement, which included: talking circles, school assemblies, pupil consultations, mind-mapping and debates.
So far, two things are clear: although myriad individuals and groups were involved in National Discussion consultations via a vast array of methods, teachers appeared to be on the periphery.
The participation phase ended in December 2022, and All Learners in Scotland Matter, including a “call to action”, was submitted to local authorities’ body Cosla and the Scottish government in May 2023. The report was well received across the education system, yet, one year on, very little has been said about how (or if) the vision will be taken forward.
Classroom teachers’ voices
There is a growing awareness of the importance of involving the teaching profession in education reform. Any change must be informed by school experts: classroom teachers. This seems like an obvious point to make, and although policymakers often engage with teachers, it has, at times, been experienced as somewhat “tokenistic”.
But the National Discussion felt different. This was a genuine commitment to hearing the voices of the profession. Consultation was positioned as a much-needed tool for teacher empowerment; an opportunity to shape and lead change. But to what extent does this reflect the reality?
Without protected time, were teachers expected to engage in consultation activities in their own time, outside of work? And although various formats of participation were offered, we cannot assume that this led to more equitable engagement. Where engagement occurred during the school day, did teachers often play a facilitation role? That is, were class teachers there to hear and communicate the voices of others?
To what extent were voices heard?
While consultation can offer a structure to share views, it does not guarantee that these views will be heard. But the facilitators, Professors Campbell and Harris, were keen to address such concerns, with the term “we heard” appearing 137 times in the final report. So good, so far.
However, a quick look at the analysis document highlights some issues. While engagement on X was reported as “overwhelming”, from the 1,605 original tweets, only 339 were actually analysed. Although diverse formats of contributions were encouraged, we were told that not everything could be coded, particularly those that reflected “specific areas of interest or expertise”. So, what happened to the contributions that did not “fit”?
While “voice” might be facilitated, it needs to struggle through the extensive policy architecture of Scottish education. The National Discussion joined a busy landscape of other reviews, consultations and reports.
While of course there are connections between the National Discussion and each of these, its purpose is different. By regarding it as just another piece of the education reform puzzle, there is a risk that voices will be further diluted.
To what extent is the National Discussion being acted on?
The assumption of voice disregards the existence of shifting political contexts and ongoing reform.
On the day of the publication of the final National Discussion report, education secretary Jenny Gilruth stated that instead of moving forward, she intended to pause to consult further with teachers providing additional “engagement opportunities”: a consultation about consultation.
A “stakeholder consultation” duly followed, which asked the teaching profession (among others in education) for their responses to the key ideas in the National Discussion and recommendations from the June 2023 qualifications and assessment review, often referred to unofficially as the Hayward report.
The findings were published in February 2024, with one of the main takeaways being that it was difficult to find consensus given the over and underrepresentation of “certain viewpoints”, “making it difficult to draw generalisable conclusions”.
Scottish education reform finds itself once more in a period of stalemate. While we wait for further announcements from government, there is a risk that any momentum that was built will be lost. Given the current context of political instability, it’s anyone’s guess what will happen next.
For us, the National Discussion represented an extraordinary shift towards a more democratic model of policymaking, which had the potential to create the kind of spaces where the voices of the teaching profession could genuinely inform change.
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.
Dr Anna Beck is a University of Glasgow senior education lecturer; Dr Denise Mifsud is a University of Bath associate professor in educational leadership, management and governance;
Dr Frances Breslin Davda is an information poverty researcher at the University of Glasgow
For the latest Scottish education news, analysis and features delivered directly to your inbox, sign up to Tes magazine’s The Week in Scotland newsletter
