The first sentence was too long to Tweet :) - so I thought I'd blog.

At the MIT seminar Mon/Tues there were comments that the secondary sector is 'change averse', this wasn't intended as a compliment, ... although it could be.

Being change averse can be an entirely appropriate strategy when unproven initiatives are constantly being thrown at you in an environment of continuous policy churn.

These education 'initiatives' are generally un- or under-resourced, there is little or no professional development (using the proper meaning) and no time taken to either introduce, prepare, implement, monitor, manage, adjust, embed, assess/investigate the effects of, the change on students, teachers, school communities.

In any reading of the news media - education is either the cause of all society's ills or expected to be the remedy for all society's ills. That our politicians and government agencies allow this unrealistic debate to continue and in fact use it for their own ideological ends is reprehensible.

In the case of the seminar the elephant in the room was Tomorrow's schools - competition in education and competition for the funding in education. I commend the principals' present who stood up and challenged Tomorrow's schools.

I commend teachers who use resistance as a considered strategy to defend public education and use it to ensure their students get the best possible education in the circumstances. After just  reading The greatest teacher incentive: The freedom to teach I would echo "we must speak".

"My only thought was this: when someone insults teaching what do we do? We run for the hills? We cower? What! The problem I have with most people who defend teachers is HOW they defend us. We must be noble but we must BE. We must speak."

So tell people why you are resisting  - it only takes a moment or two to comment on a news item, respond, blog, tweet, facebook .... Be 'noble' and speak up.

The teaching profession deserves it.