Sandy Leaton Gray
@drleatongray.bsky.social
Professor of Education Futures at UCL. Personal account, posts represent my own opinions and not those of my institution.
Title: Northern Lights
November 7, 2025 at 4:04 AM
Title: Northern Lights
There was a time dunce hats, caning, British Empire Day and separate syllabi for boys and girls were popular in village schools as pedagogical strategies, but then we invented educational research.
November 6, 2025 at 10:13 AM
There was a time dunce hats, caning, British Empire Day and separate syllabi for boys and girls were popular in village schools as pedagogical strategies, but then we invented educational research.
Luckily most people don’t feel like that or I’d be unemployed, wouldn’t I? And I certainly wouldn’t be advising organisations on training via my consultancy business. But you do you.
November 6, 2025 at 10:05 AM
Luckily most people don’t feel like that or I’d be unemployed, wouldn’t I? And I certainly wouldn’t be advising organisations on training via my consultancy business. But you do you.
Music is a National Curriculum subject with two components: performing and composing, and listening and appraising. Everyone is supposed to be studying music until KS4 options. Practical lessons often take the form of recorder/ukelele/group violin/choral singing/percussion.
November 6, 2025 at 10:03 AM
Music is a National Curriculum subject with two components: performing and composing, and listening and appraising. Everyone is supposed to be studying music until KS4 options. Practical lessons often take the form of recorder/ukelele/group violin/choral singing/percussion.
That’s great! Let’s have more of it.
November 6, 2025 at 10:01 AM
That’s great! Let’s have more of it.
My final point is that anti-intellectualism is the root of all evil when it comes to education. That’s not to say we need to be pretentious, but as educators we must never outsource questions such as who determines knowledge and how different forms of knowledge fit together. To do so is neglectful.
November 6, 2025 at 9:53 AM
My final point is that anti-intellectualism is the root of all evil when it comes to education. That’s not to say we need to be pretentious, but as educators we must never outsource questions such as who determines knowledge and how different forms of knowledge fit together. To do so is neglectful.
The problem you have at the moment is the fiction that education can be influenced at a population level by the actions of individual schools, children and teachers. It creates ‘busywork’ with no tide raising all the boats.
November 6, 2025 at 9:47 AM
The problem you have at the moment is the fiction that education can be influenced at a population level by the actions of individual schools, children and teachers. It creates ‘busywork’ with no tide raising all the boats.
So in other publications currently under review or in press we have suggested changes along the lines of reintroducing ‘vernacular’ or folk knowledge linked to eg climate change and sustainability, much greater intergenerational contact in education, smaller schools and new forms of collaboration.
November 6, 2025 at 9:44 AM
So in other publications currently under review or in press we have suggested changes along the lines of reintroducing ‘vernacular’ or folk knowledge linked to eg climate change and sustainability, much greater intergenerational contact in education, smaller schools and new forms of collaboration.
The curriculum has all that already. In the vernacular, the review is just a rinse-and-repeat of the last decade. It moves things around whilst sounding virtuous, but it doesn’t face the massive herd of elephants in the room: poverty, regional disparities and the knowledge economy hurtling ahead.
November 5, 2025 at 10:33 PM
The curriculum has all that already. In the vernacular, the review is just a rinse-and-repeat of the last decade. It moves things around whilst sounding virtuous, but it doesn’t face the massive herd of elephants in the room: poverty, regional disparities and the knowledge economy hurtling ahead.
15.
Full paper forthcoming but in the meantime see my academic preprint on the Interim Curriculum Review. doi.org/10.31235/osf... /Ends
Full paper forthcoming but in the meantime see my academic preprint on the Interim Curriculum Review. doi.org/10.31235/osf... /Ends
OSF
doi.org
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
15.
Full paper forthcoming but in the meantime see my academic preprint on the Interim Curriculum Review. doi.org/10.31235/osf... /Ends
Full paper forthcoming but in the meantime see my academic preprint on the Interim Curriculum Review. doi.org/10.31235/osf... /Ends
14.
Stability is not the same as justice. Procedural consensus is not democracy. Education policy that refuses to truly imagine the future is already obsolete.
Stability is not the same as justice. Procedural consensus is not democracy. Education policy that refuses to truly imagine the future is already obsolete.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
14.
Stability is not the same as justice. Procedural consensus is not democracy. Education policy that refuses to truly imagine the future is already obsolete.
Stability is not the same as justice. Procedural consensus is not democracy. Education policy that refuses to truly imagine the future is already obsolete.
13.
Curriculum should be a public conversation about how we live together, not a delivery system for inherited abstractions. The Final Review turns that conversation off.
Curriculum should be a public conversation about how we live together, not a delivery system for inherited abstractions. The Final Review turns that conversation off.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
13.
Curriculum should be a public conversation about how we live together, not a delivery system for inherited abstractions. The Final Review turns that conversation off.
Curriculum should be a public conversation about how we live together, not a delivery system for inherited abstractions. The Final Review turns that conversation off.
12.
To break that cycle, we need a new approach to reform:
1. Name your theory of knowledge.
2. Trust teachers as epistemic agents.
3. Allow learning to breathe.
4. Judgement, not just testing.
5. Education as encounter, not closure.
To break that cycle, we need a new approach to reform:
1. Name your theory of knowledge.
2. Trust teachers as epistemic agents.
3. Allow learning to breathe.
4. Judgement, not just testing.
5. Education as encounter, not closure.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
12.
To break that cycle, we need a new approach to reform:
1. Name your theory of knowledge.
2. Trust teachers as epistemic agents.
3. Allow learning to breathe.
4. Judgement, not just testing.
5. Education as encounter, not closure.
To break that cycle, we need a new approach to reform:
1. Name your theory of knowledge.
2. Trust teachers as epistemic agents.
3. Allow learning to breathe.
4. Judgement, not just testing.
5. Education as encounter, not closure.
11.
The danger is that “curriculum reform” now functions as ritual, not renewal - a way of maintaining legitimacy while avoiding the civic and ethical questions that education ought to ask.
The danger is that “curriculum reform” now functions as ritual, not renewal - a way of maintaining legitimacy while avoiding the civic and ethical questions that education ought to ask.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
11.
The danger is that “curriculum reform” now functions as ritual, not renewal - a way of maintaining legitimacy while avoiding the civic and ethical questions that education ought to ask.
The danger is that “curriculum reform” now functions as ritual, not renewal - a way of maintaining legitimacy while avoiding the civic and ethical questions that education ought to ask.
10.
In my paper I call this process epistemic consolidation, and I identify five markers:
1. Stability as virtue
2. Depoliticised consensus
3. Symbolic inclusion
4. Assessment entrenchment
5. Epistemic finality
In my paper I call this process epistemic consolidation, and I identify five markers:
1. Stability as virtue
2. Depoliticised consensus
3. Symbolic inclusion
4. Assessment entrenchment
5. Epistemic finality
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
10.
In my paper I call this process epistemic consolidation, and I identify five markers:
1. Stability as virtue
2. Depoliticised consensus
3. Symbolic inclusion
4. Assessment entrenchment
5. Epistemic finality
In my paper I call this process epistemic consolidation, and I identify five markers:
1. Stability as virtue
2. Depoliticised consensus
3. Symbolic inclusion
4. Assessment entrenchment
5. Epistemic finality
9.
The result is a curriculum regime that is stable, safe, and epistemically inert. A structure built to reproduce the very inequalities it claims to mend.
The result is a curriculum regime that is stable, safe, and epistemically inert. A structure built to reproduce the very inequalities it claims to mend.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
9.
The result is a curriculum regime that is stable, safe, and epistemically inert. A structure built to reproduce the very inequalities it claims to mend.
The result is a curriculum regime that is stable, safe, and epistemically inert. A structure built to reproduce the very inequalities it claims to mend.
8.
The irony is that this managerial inclusivity is what makes the Review politically unassailable. It’s post-political by design: everyone consulted, nothing transformed.
The irony is that this managerial inclusivity is what makes the Review politically unassailable. It’s post-political by design: everyone consulted, nothing transformed.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
8.
The irony is that this managerial inclusivity is what makes the Review politically unassailable. It’s post-political by design: everyone consulted, nothing transformed.
The irony is that this managerial inclusivity is what makes the Review politically unassailable. It’s post-political by design: everyone consulted, nothing transformed.
7.
So “inclusion” is reduced to representation: a few new examples or texts, while the deeper question - who decides what counts as knowledge - is never asked.
So “inclusion” is reduced to representation: a few new examples or texts, while the deeper question - who decides what counts as knowledge - is never asked.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
7.
So “inclusion” is reduced to representation: a few new examples or texts, while the deeper question - who decides what counts as knowledge - is never asked.
So “inclusion” is reduced to representation: a few new examples or texts, while the deeper question - who decides what counts as knowledge - is never asked.
6.
The Review keeps the disciplinary-modernist model intact - abstract, hierarchical, assessment-driven - while talking up “equity” and “inclusion”. It gestures towards pluralism, but here’s the thing … the epistemic architecture never shifts.
The Review keeps the disciplinary-modernist model intact - abstract, hierarchical, assessment-driven - while talking up “equity” and “inclusion”. It gestures towards pluralism, but here’s the thing … the epistemic architecture never shifts.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
6.
The Review keeps the disciplinary-modernist model intact - abstract, hierarchical, assessment-driven - while talking up “equity” and “inclusion”. It gestures towards pluralism, but here’s the thing … the epistemic architecture never shifts.
The Review keeps the disciplinary-modernist model intact - abstract, hierarchical, assessment-driven - while talking up “equity” and “inclusion”. It gestures towards pluralism, but here’s the thing … the epistemic architecture never shifts.
5.
This is how late-stage technocracy works in education: consultation stands in for democratic deliberation; evidence replaces philosophy; and “stability” becomes the moral high ground.
This is how late-stage technocracy works in education: consultation stands in for democratic deliberation; evidence replaces philosophy; and “stability” becomes the moral high ground.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
5.
This is how late-stage technocracy works in education: consultation stands in for democratic deliberation; evidence replaces philosophy; and “stability” becomes the moral high ground.
This is how late-stage technocracy works in education: consultation stands in for democratic deliberation; evidence replaces philosophy; and “stability” becomes the moral high ground.
4.
Its central mantra - “evolution not revolution” - sounds reassuring. But when used by government, “evolution” usually means no change to power. Continuity is recast as virtue; questioning the foundations becomes irresponsibility.
Its central mantra - “evolution not revolution” - sounds reassuring. But when used by government, “evolution” usually means no change to power. Continuity is recast as virtue; questioning the foundations becomes irresponsibility.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
4.
Its central mantra - “evolution not revolution” - sounds reassuring. But when used by government, “evolution” usually means no change to power. Continuity is recast as virtue; questioning the foundations becomes irresponsibility.
Its central mantra - “evolution not revolution” - sounds reassuring. But when used by government, “evolution” usually means no change to power. Continuity is recast as virtue; questioning the foundations becomes irresponsibility.
3.
The Final Review marks the next stage: epistemic consolidation. The system no longer just assumes its epistemic order, it actively reproduces it. Reform becomes an exercise in maintenance.
The Final Review marks the next stage: epistemic consolidation. The system no longer just assumes its epistemic order, it actively reproduces it. Reform becomes an exercise in maintenance.
November 5, 2025 at 10:08 PM
3.
The Final Review marks the next stage: epistemic consolidation. The system no longer just assumes its epistemic order, it actively reproduces it. Reform becomes an exercise in maintenance.
The Final Review marks the next stage: epistemic consolidation. The system no longer just assumes its epistemic order, it actively reproduces it. Reform becomes an exercise in maintenance.