Thread by @katief1978

1/ Some high level thoughts on #ReConf22 and #rED22 while they are swirling. I would love to make these more coherent but that may never happen and I would rather share and develop imperfect thinking than have it all disappear into daily life.

2/ Full disclosure - I am on the outskirts of many of these worlds (not a teacher!), just an enthusiast with my own niche interests and experiences. I’ve given my children huge amounts of agency and I’ve also used cogsci insights to help them study for exams when they chose to.

3/ I’ve seen up close hundreds of children thrive outside of the school system who have got there for all sorts of reasons - some positive and some frankly heartbreaking; and some who have struggled. And I’ve seen plenty that are happy, and not, within it.

4/ I’m seeking to understand perspectives from all those with different experiences to mine to get somewhere closer to the truth, if one exists. These are observations not necessarily my opinions. And I speak for no-one but myself.

5/ Firstly and most importantly - I’m still uplifted by the organisers, helpers, speakers and attendees at both conferences - people are devoting hours of their one and only life to improve things for children and therefore society.

6/ Enthusiasm and caring for a shared endeavour - everyone will go back to their communities a bit more fired up. Gotta be good.

7/ I see more overlap than many would recognise between the two. Most are looking to improve the experiences and outcomes for the children they have responsibility for. Most would accept that there are some children who aren’t well served by their current daily experiences.

8/ There are a wide range of views on almost everything at both, from both the speakers and the attendees. The conferences have explicitly different aims and objectives but both are, I think, open to anyone who would speak or attend within those bounds.

9/ Now I am going to generalise massively. Please add your own nuance - of course it is there.

10/ So, the differentiators. One is those aims and objectives. Broadly, #ReConf22 is looking at system design. Is education within our society (with all its fuzzy edges) doing what we think it should be and what options are there if not?

11/ This is high level and involves a wide swathe of society - we’re all affected by education, we all have a concern in what it does and roughly how. *Especially* children and their parental advocates. It needs to be thought about from a wide perspective. This is vital work.

12/ And it focuses more (tho’ not exclusively) on what isn’t working now, or what could be completely different, rather than incremental changes within the current approach. Because if you think things are basically OK then why would you be looking at redesign in the first place?

13/ Also it is insanely complex, slow burning, with no clear answers, a myriad of trade offs and affects people's whole lives. Vital, but terrifying. And it mostly doesn’t immediately change what you need to do with 9B next Friday.

14/ #rED22 is looking more at optimisation, right now. Given what we are tasked with doing, how can we do that better? What tools might we be able to use and what information can help us? How can Friday with 9B be more pleasant and productive?

15/ These are more practical, practitioner focused questions. There will and should be far more of a focus on teachers in classrooms. Though there is also space for half an eye on wider stakeholders, that isn’t what it’s trying to do.

16/ And these two are not necessarily in opposition (though aspects may be because we are frankly in our infancy in terms of understanding of the human condition in all its complexity). They are different components of a whole.

17/ People will choose where they want their focus to be and which they consider the best use of their energy. And both are important and hopefully effective so it’s a good thing that people are working on them both.

18/ And there’s also the reality aspect. Most people - including parents, teachers, and children - just want to get through the day without too much going wrong, and mostly they do that just fine now.

19/ There are limits to resources of money, energy, infrastructure, & how much we want to risk on massive changes for what level of reward even if we see it as necessary. What else could that political and monetary energy go towards? This is important but is it *most* important?

20/ Even those who do want to change - or at least think deeply about whether and how that’s necessary - are limited by the daily firefighting, balancing budgets, dealing with staff illness, student disagreements, burst water heaters…

21/ So we can’t all do everything. It’s necessary to pick a focus and do what you can there. And sometimes that focus is your health and your family, or your class or your school, where massive impacts can be made, and someone else has to think about all of society.

22/ Now, the second differentiator is more fuzzy and more of my interpretation. I may be wrong and am very open to additional perspectives. But I think it’s about values and priorities.

23/ In a nutshell, there is a tension between agency, and protection. Plenty of research and experience tells us both are important. And both can have both positive and negative effects.

24/ They can be considered as in opposition (although this is a huge debate in itself with arguments that they act in synchronicity too). Changes that increase autonomy and individual flexibility also increase the risk of damaging actors and damaging choices.

25/ We need to consider this carefully in terms of both prevention and mitigation. The vast majority of people (of all ages) are worthy of trust but some are not - systems do have to account for this.

26/ But there are risks and damage through *not* allowing autonomy and flexibility too. We also have to take account of this; and seek a balance between risks and rewards.

27/ This seems to me to be the key differentiator between views - trust in people in general, with good reason, which affects where one sees the risks and the rewards and where one thinks that balance needs to lie for the good of the children - and therefore society - involved.

28/ VERY ROUGHLY SPEAKING, #ReConf22 sits towards the side that sees optimising for agency has more positives; #rED22 sits towards the side that sees optimising for protection is more positive.

29/ And personally I’m not sure there is a definitive answer to that. It is a fundamental tension of opposition. Everyone will admit there are people who sit at both ends and people who would be negatively affected by wherever that balance lies.

30/ Nonetheless those decisions have to be made and _are_ made whether intentionally or not. They are expressed in national structures and they are expressed in individual interactions.

31/ So how can we make those decisions more effectively at whichever level we’re thinking of? What goes into deciding where that balance lies?

32/ I don’t know for sure, but I have questions that I think might go into figuring it out. They are big questions and I don’t know how to answer them (though sometimes I have my views!); but asking is the first step.

33/ For now, in no particular order, and possibly repeating the same idea with different angles, some of my questions are:

34/ Can we quantify the risks and rewards associated with agency and protection in a way that takes account of, but goes beyond, individual experiences?

How could we explore different approaches to this balance further?

35/ Are there groups who would benefit more or be harmed more by different approaches to agency? Can we identify them and adjust accordingly? Should we? What are the unidentified risks and benefits of doing that?

36/ And broadening out:

What’s the balance between freedom and protection?

Who decides what is learnt and when? What are the benefits and costs of defining a core set of knowledge? Is this actually something that is possible - or desirable - to do?

37/ Who can we trust most? Children, parents, teachers, government? What checks and balances should there be?

When there is conflict between individual current well-being and what ‘we’ believe is best longer term, how do we handle that? Who has the most say in what happens?

38/ Do we take decisions on an individual or societal basis (not for the good of … but at the level of … )? Who is and who should be involved in those decisions?

39/ What is the balance between individual flourishing and societal cohesion? Do/should we put limits on individuals for the overall good? Is this effective if we do think it’s a good idea?

40/ What is good about the way things are now? What do children value about their daily experiences? Does this relate to future outcomes? Can we learn from it?

41/ What’s the proportion of ‘good’ to ‘bad’ daily experiences? Are there patterns around which of these one has? Can we change approaches based on those patterns? Should we?

42/ What future outcomes do we value anyway? What can we measure? When should we measure it?

43/ Is any of this ‘our’ business in the first place? Where does and should our zone of control end? Do we have a right to force choices on others ‘for their own good’? What are the edges of that?

44/ Should we limit ourselves to offering opportunities? Or is that a dereliction of responsibility? Who has that responsibility?

45/45 So that’s just for starters!

Any answers?

Sorry @RethinkingJames you got me thinking 🤯 Would be really interested in other takes on any snippets that grab your interest too… @rlrossi64 @bennewmark @Waldenkent @eugenemcfadden @CREducATE @miss_mcinerney