At one point last Friday morning, as I addressed the audience at the 21st Century Learning Conference in the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre, I noted that I had observed that teachers and leaders, when they leave the profession, almost always seem to need some form of rehabilitation in order to readjust to ordinary life. If you have ever, as a teacher or school leader, found yourself itching to organise an unruly queue at the Post Office, or have automatically taken the lead when a gate change is announced at the airport … or if, conversely, you fall into a sloth-like lethargy at semester-end, when you are deprived of the stimuli of day-to-day life in school … then the chances are pretty high that you, too, will need a stint in rehab at some point.
Let me be clear – I am not talking here about the full-on celebrity detox associated with noxious substance abuse, or any other well-documented addictions, albeit that I am certain I have read somewhere that school leaders exhibit addictive personalities at a higher-than-average rate compared to the general population … No – here, I am talking about the rehabilitation that is needed to recover from an over-proceduralised, over-bureaucratised, overly metrics-driven system that marks our schools today. As Beyoncé didn’t quite say, but might have done, had she been addressing a different audience, ‘If you like it, you should have put a policy on it’. Even before our students and teachers enter the school gates on their first official day as part of the school community, they have been subjected to scores of policies, forms, handbooks and guidelines. Processes abound in schools (and in numerous other organisations designed to support the public good in society); in fact, we are so used to these systems and structures that it can feel disturbingly destabilising if they are absent. Have you ever visited a school or public institution where for some reason you have not been given a lanyard or visitor’s badge … and where, as a consequence, you have felt on edge for your entire visit?
What is challengingly insidious, of course, is that we can (almost always) justify every single one of these systems and structures. Safeguarding, fire regulations, legal requirements … none of these are optional in schools. There is also much to be said for systems that oil the wheels of the organisation, so that (in theory, at least) more focus can be given to learning. I have found myself on numerous occasions placing a positive spin on near-disasters in school, and reminding people that ‘a frustration is merely an opportunity to create a system’. Systems are useful, structures are helpful, policies and procedures are there to support us all.
And yet, and yet … there is a tremendous looming danger that comes with the weight of these systems. It might be too dramatic to describe this as a crushing weight, but if we are honest, there will likely be many occasions when we experience it as stifling. Occasions when we know that we are not actually doing what a particular child needs, because it isn’t in the guidelines; occasions when the timetable runs the people, not the people the timetable. Structures may be good, desirable and necessary … but without deliberate space for judgement, flexibility and human response within these structures, they risk squeezing the life out of the education they seek to nurture and expand.
The key point I was making in my speech last Friday was that the Dewey-inspired educational thinkers and teachers of the early 20th century, from Maria Montessori to Helen Parkhurst, among many others, recognised this danger, way back then, and sought to create models that combined structure and rhythm with a fundamental belief in the human-ness of the child, in order to build schools which kept systems in their rightful place, ie as servants, not drivers. We actually don’t need to start from scratch, with a blank page, in our quest for recalibration in our schools. So much of the work has already been done for us. Start by re-reading Dewey and Dewey’s (1915) ‘Schools of Tomorrow’, and Helen Parkhurst’s (1922) ‘Education on the Dalton Plan’. Then turn your attention to the present, with Mehta and Fine’s (2019) investigation ‘In Search of Deeper Learning’. In each of these places, you will find solid, practical evidence that it is possible – indeed, essential – for schools to challenge their existing systems, in order to create space for genuine student-centred learning, not just the type of learning we sometimes kid ourselves is student-centred …
And remember … you might need to go cold turkey for a time before you can access this thinking really clear-headedly, and with courage. The Betty Ford clinic will have a place for you, I am sure … 🙂














