There has been a shift in the air lately. You can hear it in policy documents, in the steady rise of prescribed curricula and tightly controlled pedagogical scripts. Trust, once the backbone of teacher professionalism, seems to be thinning.
Recently, I seem to be reading more and more about the need to standardise teaching so that every pupil receives a consistent diet. The language is persuasive. It speaks of equity, of entitlement, of closing gaps. Yet beneath it sits a growing assumption that teachers cannot be trusted to make the right decisions for the children in front of them.
Across the system, many academy trusts now prescribe not only curriculum sequences but also lesson plans and even the pedagogical approaches that must be used in each lesson. There is a sense of certainty in these models. A promise that coherence can be engineered from the top down. A promise that slide decks contain pedagogy.
Yet research consistently highlights the importance of teacher agency in effective practice. Priestley et al. (2015) argue that teacher agency is not a luxury but a core component of responsive teaching. When educators are able to interpret, adapt and shape curriculum in relation to their context, learning becomes more meaningful and more impactful. Similarly, Biesta (2010) reminds us that education is not merely about the transmission of knowledge but about the formation of individuals within relational spaces. That work cannot be fully scripted.
It was refreshing, then, to sit down recently with Danielle Lewis-Egonu and Aidan Severs for our podcast The Kitchen Table. Our conversation centred on a different question. Not how we control teaching, but how we grow teachers.
We spoke about what it means to truly up-skill educators. Not through compliance but through trust. Not through rigid scripts but through deep understanding. We explored how teachers can be supported to deliver exciting, adaptive content within a well sequenced structure that still allows for local adaptation and bespoke practice in the classroom.
There is a tension here. Structure matters. Coherence matters. Pupils deserve a curriculum that builds knowledge over time (Rosenshine, 2012). But coherence does not require uniformity of delivery. In fact, overly prescriptive approaches can undermine the very expertise they seek to guarantee.
In my previous blog, The Seven C’s of Belonging, I wrote about the conditions needed for people to feel that they truly belong within a community. One of those conditions is contribution. If we want teachers to feel a sense of belonging within their schools and trusts, they must be able to co-produce, to shape, and to influence the work they are part of. Belonging cannot be mandated. It grows through participation.
Deci and Ryan’s (2000) work on self-determination theory reinforces this. Autonomy is a key driver of motivation and professional growth. When autonomy is removed, engagement declines. In teaching, this has wider implications. If early career teachers are trained within systems that limit decision making, where will future curriculum leaders come from? Who will have the experience to design, adapt and innovate?
Succession planning becomes fragile in a system that narrows the role of the teacher. If we do not allow teachers to practise the craft of curriculum thinking, we risk a future where fewer educators have the confidence or capability to lead it.
Reflecting on my own journey, I know that I grew as a teacher alongside my classes. Each group brought something different. A new dynamic. A new set of needs. My teaching was shaped in response to them. I learned to adjust, to refine, to rethink. That process was not always neat. It was not always efficient. But it was deeply human and it was where the real learning happened, for all of us.
Hattie (2009) emphasises the impact of teacher expertise on student outcomes. Expertise is not built through compliance. It is built through experience, reflection and adaptation. Through the freedom to try, to notice and to respond.
So where does this leave us?
Perhaps the answer lies in balance. In holding onto strong curricular thinking while also trusting teachers as professionals. In recognising that consistency in entitlement does not mean uniformity in enactment.
And perhaps, more than anything, it calls us back to a simple principle.
Reclaiming teacher agency.
Not a slogan, but a commitment. A commitment to our pupils, to our colleagues and to the profession itself. A commitment to trust teachers enough to let them grow. To let them think. To let them shape the learning in front of them.
Because when we remove that, we do not just standardise teaching. We diminish our beloved profession.
References
Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.
The Belonging Collective 