Professional learning and an emergent community of practice on the Scottish islands as viewed through Biesta’s educational domains

ABSTRACT

The Scottish Island Schools Network is a community of practice for leadership teams working in island schools in Scotland. This paper reflects on the emergence of the network within an island community context. The paper discusses how the emergence of an island network aligns with Biesta’s (2009) three educational domains of qualification, socialisation and subjectification. Drawing on the OECD (2019) report on rural education, this paper explores the professional learning needs of teachers in remote, Scottish communities, highlighting issues of rurality, benefits and challenges. It considers the role of identity and the tensions that can exist between the different ‘faces’ of a teacher living and working in an island community - as an islander, community member, teacher, and within a wider educational context. In an increasingly digital age, the paper explores the opportunities and limitations for those in less digitally connected rural areas to take part in professional learning opportunities, along with other practical considerations. Finally, the paper discusses the importance of preserving personal and social identities in a remote rural school, and how the unique experiences of rural educators may offer insights which are useful for the wider education population.

Introduction

The Scottish Island Schools Network (SISN) is an online community, operating on Microsoft Teams, for school leaders who work in island schools in Scotland. This paper will explore the network as an observed phenomena, through the lens of Biesta’s (2009) domains of education, considering its sole and purpose, the lived experience of teachers working in an island community who belong to it and the needs of island schools. The observation is made from an academic perspective, with one author providing in-depth insight as a a participant in the network and a second, unaligned SISN and contributing a more detached voice. Following from this, the paper will go onto discuss the professional development needs of teachers in relation to education policy, the digital context and the identity of an island teacher, concluding by drawing together key, emergent concepts in relation to the purpose of education as reflected in the network. The following discussion is not intended as a comparison of other kinds of school settings in either rural or urban Scotland. Instead, it is about the experience of island schools and their teachers, particularly in relation to their place with their community, and in being part of the SISN, which is designed to support their specific needs around professional learning and identity. In contrast, the focus in mainland schools may be on curriculum first and foremost. Cco-written by an islander who began the network, with input from other network members, the purpose of this paper is to extend awareness of a cultural difference (particularly for those who are not island based) in the way in which Scottish island teachers work with a place-based approach to professional learning. Additionally, the discussion should enable a greater understanding as to why an island to island network is important for island teachers, with the shared values, opportunities, and professional challenges across the islands, and the islander ethos of mutual support. The SISN began in 2021 with two teachers on different islands discussing where the benefits for greater co-working may be for supporting teaching staff across the islands, and also with regards to being able to respond to education policy as a collective voice. Second to that, was the desire to share experiences of overcoming the barriers to professional learning to those who live in an area that is remote from the urban centres. The network grew through connections island to island to encompass the majority of ‘all through’ island schools in Scotland. ‘all through’ schools are the schools that have primary and secondary departments in them. Of the 26 schools, 15 are involved in the network in some capacity. The network is used at the point of need basis, whether responding to a request to share how an issue has been tackled in one community, sharing the workload of responding to policy change, reflecting an often much smaller workforce but with the requirement to complete the same work as a school with a larger workforce.

SISN functions through a digital space utilising a private Microsoft Team where team members can post questions and share files with each other as desired. However, the main function is in ‘who is who’ in other island schools. As one headteacher stated:

on an island we all know each other, and we find having conversations is quicker, and more reflective of our culture and ethos than sending faceless emails. The main benefit of the network is you can check who is doing your job in another island school so you know who you are asking for when you pick up the phone.

A key function of the network is concerned with the easy availability of helpful, professional connections.

Biesta’s purpose of education

The SISN focuses on a shared concern of education in island contexts. The question of what is being shared or nurtured and why, is both more complex and more interesting. Beyond the dispersal and co-creation of practice, what are these teachers beliefs about and desires for education? Are these foundational ideas specific to or dependent on living and teaching in an island context? Having identified the mechanisms by which we might expect understandings about the purpose of education to ‘emerge’ (Osberg and Biesta 2021) what is ‘emerging’? Identifying these emerging concepts may enable us to develop understanding of value-laden practice as the meaningful pursuit of agentic teachers, as opposed to evaluating it by measuring instrumental performances which accord with the expectations and requirements of a ‘top down’ education system.

Biesta (2009) asserts that in an age and context in which accountability and measurement can dominate, we need to reconnect with the question of ‘the purpose of education’. This seems particularly relevant in a ‘posthuman’ (Braidotti 2013) context where what can be seen as the failure of a human-centric ontology has enabled the development of and/or is not useful in addressing multiple, complex problems which exist from global to local levels. New ways of thinking are required to counteract new problems, not least, to consider ‘What does it mean to be human today in a digital, interconnected and global political, cultural and economic order?’ (Belfiore and Upchurch 2017, p. 12). Thinking positively, the posthuman predicament can be seen ‘as an opportunity to empower the pursuit of alternative schemes of thought, knowledge and self-representation’ (Braidotti 2013, p. 12). In an island context, this predicament/opportunity is magnified by the need to consider approaches to local cultures in an increasingly ‘globalised’ and potentially homogenised world, to threatened ecosystems, to technologies which have the potential for considerable impact on island life.

In reflecting on what has emerged as a result of the SISN, we can gain insight by trying to look beyond instrumental factors and superficial outputs to consider how educational beliefs and desires have provoked, underpin and result from its existence. Acknowledging that a posthuman context requires us to embrace complexity in relation to our environments and what is contained within them, it is relevant to look ‘beneath the surface’ at how educational beliefs and desires which have emerged via the network, relate to island contexts. To reflect on the success (or otherwise) of the network, we need to consider what conceptualisations of ‘the purpose of education’ (Biesta 2009, 2015) seem to be in play and at whether and how the network supports them. For now, this focus rests largely on observation, complemented by comments from group members. While this limits our insight into the explicit, fully-articulated views of the teachers involved, it can provide a starting point for further investigation as informed, academic interpretation of what may often be tacit concepts.

Given Biesta’s (2009) contention that dialogue about educational purpose is required to ensure that educators have a voice and do not simply facilitate the circulation of pre-existing ideas, we will ask whether the network opens up ‘ … a discussion about what might be?’ (Biesta 2009, p. 37). According to Osberg and Biesta (2021) it is critical that ‘education brings with it the purpose it serves’ as opposed to being concerned with delivering a fixed set of knowledge across varied contexts. We wonder whether, or to what extent the network opens for the teachers

… the possibility to theorise education as a non-instrumental phenomenon … [making it] possible to have more fruitful discussion regarding education than endless political debate about what the curricular ends of education should be.

(Osberg and Biesta 2021, p. 57)

Considering this, we might expect context-specific ideas about education to emerge from such open dialogue within the SISN. Does the network enable the ‘emergence’ of education and if so, to what extent? What is emerging and in what ways might these beliefs and desires relate specifically to education in an island context? Do members of the network find themselves restricted in implementing ideas, with particular reference to meeting the needs of the professional development of staff, which are pertinent to their island contexts within the context of a national education system? In response to these questions the network enables the emergence of education but in an island way, specifically through place-based education initiatives that are ‘home grown’ on the island, emerging from their community needs and desires. As one network member stated

‘the idea that a headteacher or a senior leadership team leads a school is just not true on an island. The community lead the school, the leadership team facilitate what is needed and is the intermediary between policy, outside pressures, and the local context’.

(Network Conversation, 2022)

What emerges is an education for the island, reflecting the plurality of activity mentioned previously. Professional development of staff comes next, once the needs of the community are identified; where is the development gap among staff that needs to be addressed, to meet the community’s needs?

It is not self-first on an island, your own interests and professional development needs are supported, but with finite budget, resources, and access, the school needs comes first and foremost. An island is not a place for career climbers or those wanting to sample a different style of education. The others in the network understand this. (eMmbers S. I. S. N., 2022)

Within this specific, island context, which seems to allow or require at least some space for teacher agency, Biesta’s model of three, overlapping domains of education as qualification, socialisation and subjectification (2009, 2015) offers a structured means of thinking about how education functions within and impacts on these domains. We can consider the SISN as an example of education (professional, teacher education), within education as a field, which it seeks to improve by informing and developing practice. Taking this approach, Biesta’s three domains can enable structured reflection on the educational nature of the network itself, and also of how it influences teacher identity and attitudes to education. The dimension of ‘qualification’ enables exploration of teacher’s developing skills as well as their attitude to skills development within practice. Likewise, the dimension of ‘socialisation’ provides a focus on explicit and hidden ‘social structures, divisions and inequalities’ (Biesta 2015, p. 76) in terms of the functioning of the network and of teacher attitudes emerging from experience of membership. The ‘subjectification’ dimension enables us to look at teacher identity and at whether and how the network enables teachers to ‘exist as subjects of initiative and responsibility rather than as objects of the actions of others’ (Ibid, p.77) and at how these impact on their attitudes to ‘subjectification’ as a domain in relation to pupils. While providing structure for exploration, analytical application of the domains may reveal the emergence of complex, overlapping or conflicting ideas, while providing a dialogical tool for a methodical discussion of this complexity.

What it means to live and work in a small rural community

In Scotland there are currently 5052 schools, with 40% of primary schools and 20% of secondary schools in Scotland being classified as rural. By definition, rural areas are thinly populated, and while no two rural areas are the same, they all share the same geographical trait i.e. that rural communities tend to be at a significant geographical distance from other populated centres (Echazarra and Radinger 2019, p. 11). In addition, rural areas tend to be poorer than urban areas, and when delivering services, it is difficult to take advantage of economies of scale, resulting in fewer services due to cost (OECD 2010). However, rural communities and education have a tendency to be viewed from a negative perspective, focussing on the issues around service delivery and equity of access, focussing on lack of teachers, poorer infrastructure and other challenges (Bouck 2004) rather than the mitigating benefits of living and working rurally, and how the challenges are overcome. Though the policy area is complex, and rural schools are as different from each other as urban schools, rural schools often have the advantage of smaller classes and more ‘ethnically homogeneous and socially cohesive communities with stronger relations between community members’ (Echazarra and Radinger 2019). On average across OECD countries, teachers in rural schools tend to be more supportive than teachers in city schools (Dahlman 2016, p. 27). Often the schools in rural areas are at the forefront in supporting the social cohesion of a rural community, not least as it is not possible to separate community members, teachers, pupils of the school from each other, as they are often the same people, all living and working in one small community. It is this lack of separation in teachers’ lives, so normal in a rural, but, in particular, an island, setting of the personal and professional, school-time and home-time, teaching and learning (Brown et al. 2021) that has enabled the emergence of a network between the Scottish island schools. Understanding of place is essential to all teachers working in a rural context, with the requirement not just to be ‘classroom ready’ but to be school and community ready, and even more so in an island context. The reason behind this is to do with plural activity, and the understanding of the multi roles everyone in the community has – the teacher who is also a parent in the school who is also the lifeguard at the swimming pool next door, whose partner is the local doctor. With being community ready is also the understanding of the nature of education policy, why there currently is a lack of contextualised education policy for rural areas in Scotland, specifically that rural communities, and small island communities specifically, may lack the political clout, and the weight of numbers, to make their voices heard and to promote their social and economic interests (Echazarra and Radinger 2019). By being part of a network, there is an opportunity to challenge both the deficit rhetoric in policy and in the perception of education leaders of working on an island, and through weight in numbers, increase the opportunity for voices to be heard, challenging the status quo, and taking ownership of the island identity.

What do rural schools need and how does that relate to education policy – within the digital context

In relation to Biesta’s model of three, overlapping domains of education as qualification, socialisation and subjectification, as outlined previously, the OECD suggests that what you need to provide for education to be excellent and equitable will be similar regardless of where it is an urban or rural or island setting., However, with regards to professional development, the provision in an island area will often require a more targeted response ‘to compensate for challenges related to distance and size, but also socioeconomic factors that play an important role in explaining rural-urban gaps’, and make the most of opportunities specific to rural education’ (Echazarra and Radinger 2019, p. 46). This is the importance of adding ‘rural’ into everything relating to education, that it is everybody’s business, not just for those who live in rural places. Without doing so ‘a metro-urban normative approach’ (Green et al. 2013) is the norm, with little or no awareness of the circumstances and needs around island education. This includes understanding the geographical spaces inhabited by the school communities, acknowledgement of the diverse lives of pupils and being prepared to teach different developmental stages and ages in anyone learning experience or classroom setting (White 2015, p. 56). Teaching in a rural space such as an island means to recognise and value the social and symbolic capital that is there (Reid et al. 2010) and building upon these through relevant learning experiences. One way to do this is through investment in digital technology and in effective, and relevant professional development. Over the last 10 year there has been a promise of transformation on both accounts though, it is still a promise that many see as unfulfilled, with an effective strategy for those in rural areas remaining unclear (Brown et al. 2021).

Barley and Beesley (2007) found effective professional development to be a main factor in the success of high-performing, high-needs island schools, but previous research has highlighted that a lack of opportunity for professional dialogue could be a frustration for rural education professionals (Coker 2021). Being cognisant of the social nature of professional learning (Philpott 2014) and the value of social capital (Hargreaves and Fullan 2012) networks seek to extend this opportunity for interaction to colleagues through the power of technology and digital means. Geographically dispersed schools and the varying and specific needs of rural teachers based on their unique contexts make providing professional development particularly challenging (Peterson 2012). Teachers can often have a feeling of isolation and that they are working on the periphery of the education community. Through the use of technology those on the periphery can more easily be pulled into the fold of the communities’ narrative and be afforded the crucial social interaction and ongoing dialogue that is arguably more easily achieved by urban colleagues (Coker 2021). Through building upon social capital, including outwith with immediate community, helps teachers accomplish things they cannot do alone (Demir 2021) and can be built further when individuals reach beyond their immediate groups and networks (Putnam 2000). As one deputy head teacher said ‘it is knowing that you can pick up the phone or send a message to colleagues who are in a similar set up as you, who “get” some of the complexities of what you are asking for advice on without it having to be explained’ (Network conversation, 2022)

Connecting with colleagues using digital platforms can effectively enable the continued flow of knowledge and support that is jeopardised when face-to-face interaction is not possible. However, embracing digital is not a new concept for many island educators (Dick and Peat 2022). Where there is adequate technology, this can mitigate the challenges of distance, cost, and time which impact on rural professionals’ access to professional learning. When networks exist online it can mean that the need for lengthy travel (sometimes involving overnight stays) and the associated costs on time, practicalities and money are eliminated (Coker 2021). This can work well where there has been investment in infrastructure to support online engagement, which can be more difficult for small rural communities (OECD 2018). The most significant is that it is widely acknowledged that rural areas have poorer internet connectivity than urban areas (Coker 2021).

There are several potential risks associated with a purely online network. One in particular is that there can be a tendency to assume that technology has a magical ability to stimulate and transform learning and teaching, will solve any and every difficult (Brown et al. 2021, p. 12). This is not necessarily the case, as the data highlights, there is still a large percentage of rural educators working without access to stable connectivity. In the Scottish government’s digital strategy plan, while 95% of premises in Scotland have access to fast broadband, in rural areas this falls to 65% of premises in Orkney, 75% in Shetland and 79% in the Western Isles (Scottish Government 2019). With reference to Ofcom’s ‘Connected Nations’ report, approximately 20% of Scotland – mostly in rural areas does not have 4 G coverage from any mobile company (Ofcom 2019) Consequently, this means that there are teachers who cannot reliably access and benefit from online networks, and as such, their ability to effectively access professional learning is curtailed. This can generate a domino effect; if the network membership is limited by member’s connectivity it is at risk of becoming a network that exists in name only. The second question is around whether teachers value digital technology and what does this mean for their identity, Biesta’s subjectification, as a teacher in an island school?

This is a complicated question, particularly due to the nature of rural and island communities, and the multiple identities within that community that a teacher occupies. In the first instance there needs to be identified a use for the technology. In more connected, typically urban areas in Scotland, technology can be used as a means of connecting an existing community with its disparate members, linking those who do not necessarily see each other after school hours. Part of the identity of an island school teacher, is that the community exists when the school day ends. With the boundaries between home and work life becoming permeable (Brown et al. 2021) due to the rapid change in digital teaching and learning we have seen recently, in an island community, home and work life were already permeable and technology hasn’t necessarily changed that. What digital technology has done has brought one island school in easy (virtual) reach of another island school, what Biesta refers to as the socialisation of education.

One aim of the network was to build the social capital within those leading schools in an island context using a place conscious approach (as defined by White 2015). The identity was that all members live and work in an island environment with the shared interest in island schools and providing mutual support to each other. Coleman (1988) talks about this in terms of social capital, which is inherent in the ‘structure of relations between and among actors’ and as a productive entity, which make possible achievements ‘that in its absence would not be possible’ (Coleman 1988, p. 98). Rural contexts face specific challenges given the small size and nature of educator positions. Teachers are often isolated, especially when teaching in small one-teacher schools, and have fewer opportunities to exchange ideas, and less contact with external staff, such as teacher educators or supervisors (Echazarra and Radinger 2019). As such, social capital is built through meaningful interactions with peers about instruction based on feelings of closeness and trust (Fullan and Hargreaves 2021) by providing a space for those teaching in like-for-like schools there was a new opportunity for a unique domain to emerge, and teacher social capital can be enhanced (Bourdieu 2011). Creating such professional environments in rural contexts should therefore be a priority (Echazarra and Radinger 2019). Coleman (1988) explains this in terms of increasing the density of social obligations, where ‘the overall usefulness of the tangible resources of that social structure is amplified by their availability to others when needed (Coleman 1988, p. 103). The benefit of networks as a response to the professional learning need of island schools is that it is embedded in the ‘situatedness’ of the context; the social and cultural nuances of rural places and spaces (Kostogriz 2007, Roberts and Green 2013). Coker (2021) explains that those leading and contributing to a network already possess the human capital necessary to boost the perceived value of the network because they live and breathe the rural experience; their positionality mirrors that of the members they wish to attract and retain. In addition, teachers in rural areas often cover multiple subjects, and assume multiple roles, creating pressures on time. The creation of a community of practice, to collaborate between island schools, can create the necessary critical mass of knowledge, resources, and students to expand the education programmes, specialised support, extracurricular activities and professional development offered to students and teachers (Clarke and Wildy 2011, p. 7). Additionally, school collaboration can also ‘foster networking opportunities and professional interaction among school leaders’ (Echazarra and Radinger 2019, p. 51).

This bringing together of the collective voice has the benefits of unlocking expertise and building an atmosphere of trust and respect (Dick and Peat 2022). To policy makers and urban teachers, island students, their families and communities can be seen as ‘invisible’ (White and Kline 2012, White and Corbett 2014), but within a community of practice they are front and foremost of the reason for the community to exist. By bridging the island communities’ schools together, the network serves to recognise this. Resources and know-how were contributed because people wanted to, rather than because they were obliged to. The very practical side of this community of practice was that by joining together, rather than each small school re-inventing the wheel when it came to creating a new resource or policy following a shift in government perspective or to keep up to date with the latest educational thinking, the work could be shared out between schools.

The relationships between members of a professional learning community form the ‘connective tissue’ of networked professional learning. The SISN is a social space that evolves when their members participate and negotiate the meaning of what it is to ‘be’ in the community (Wenger, 1999 cited in Coker 2021). Through this dialogic process the network members negotiate their shared values and beliefs as a way to establish group cohesion. The enactment of these values and beliefs in practice forms part of their collective professional identity as rural teachers (Wenger 1998). Through being part of the SISN, the members are learning with, from and on behalf of one another which highlights the argument made by Stoll (2007) that professional learning communities are not just about professional learning but are about fostering a sense of belonging and a mutual investment in the people and growth of the respective schools. The network recognises the social and symbolic capital that exist there, rather than elsewhere. It means using the resources of the people who know (White 2015, p. 272). This is Biesta’s qualification domain of education.

The role of identity of a teacher living and working in an island community

Simply, identity is the story we tell about ourselves. For the purposes of this paper professional identity is defined as ‘one’s professional self-concept based on attributes, beliefs, values, motives and experiences’ (Slay and Smith 2011). Identity is not something one has, but something that develops during one’s whole life and, as such, is an ongoing process of interpretation and re-interpretation of experiences (Beijaard et al. 2004, p. 107). It is important to recognise that professional identity is formed by an interplay of different spheres of life, including those outside work and education, and that some of these spheres play a bigger part depending on the time and situation (NystrOm 2009, p. 65). The notion of identity can be used as an analytic tool in determining how, what or where you place yourself in relation to others in a particular context or sphere, in this case, in an island community as a teacher.

A teacher’s professional identity is tied up with the complex interplay of the personal and professional, the individual and the collective (Larsen and Allen 2021, p. viii). There is a relationship between who teachers see themselves to be and what they do e.g. their perceived identity in education could be considered a practical one tied up in their past experiences, teaching context (Lasky 2005) and their interactions within that context. Island teachers, as stated at the start of this paper need to become ‘community ready, school ready and classroom ready’ (White and Kline 2012) with the necessity of being able to look beyond the classroom to the school community is important and appreciate their role with that. Island life and community relations may be one of the factors that attract some teachers and school leaders to work in an island school, but it may also act as a barrier for others (Echazarra and Radinger 2019). Schools on islands can be challenging places with less anonymity and opportunities to identify with peers, it can be difficult to establish relationships, live and work in a community with less privacy (Downes and Roberts 2018) and fewer resources for support. If a teacher also has children in the school, along with living in the community, it can be complex to balance school objectives, interest as a community member and interest as a parent. Being able to separate work from personal life is difficult (Brown et al. 2021), identity becomes blurred, and it takes time to navigate these identities, find an appropriate balance, ‘and foster knowledge, trust and collaboration among teachers, students and their families’ (McPherson et al. 2001).

Once in the role of teacher, there is then the requirement to undertake professional learning. As Echazarra and Radinger (2019) highlights, the professional development needs of rural and urban teachers however appear to differ in some respects, with perceptions of what support and training is needed, or relevant, to their particular situations (p.39). This can also be complicated due to factors including the lack of privacy and the need to appear as a competent teacher, letting all your colleagues know that you have questions or are asking for assistance may or may not be something a teacher feels comfortable sharing (Hunt-Barron et al. 2015). Secondly, who is delivering the training and are they an ‘incomer’ who is disconnected from rural (or island) reality (Quinn et al. 2020). Stack et al. (2011) explains this as, ‘the whole of the context is initially unknowable to the facilitator as ‘incomer’. This unknowability is increased by the ‘social and spatial distance confronting the usually urban-based expert facilitator in the rural situation’ (Stack et al. 2011, p. 13).

Therefore, the network is one of the professional learning avenues that is best placed to understand the local differences in knowledge, need and opportunity for teachers and schools (Quinn et al. 2020).The working together can help capitalise on the expertise of ‘teachers in a similar role and community to their own, and their knowledge of and commitment to the communities they serve’ (Hunt-Barron et al. 2015, p. 11). There is a strong sense of place-based identity that network members can retain whilst connecting with each other. The island place in which SISN teachers are from will continuously influence their, ‘cognition, personality, creativity, and maturity’ (Shepard 1977, p. 32) and because of this there is a deep ‘sense of rootedness, responsibility and belonging’ to the places and people within those communities (Orr 2013, p. 184). As such, supporting teachers to connect their professional identities to the place in which they teach can ‘merge geographical ways of living and learning’ (Lavina 2020, p. 242). The consequence of this, in the context of SISN, is explained by Orr (2013) as the individual ‘microsystems’ in various rural places becoming better connected to a wider educational ‘ecosystem’ (p. 186).

Reflecting on the purpose of education as reflected in the network

On reflection, how is ‘the purpose of education’ (Biesta 2009, 2015) reflected within the functioning of the network? By standing temporarily outside of the SISN and treating it as a kind an emergent phenomena, we can relate the discussion above to Biesta’s dimensions: qualification, socialisation, and subjectification. In so doing, we may arrive at an understanding of the core desires and beliefs which drive it. Ultimately, the understanding which we will now detail can be opened up to the network for discussion and reflection.

Qualification: Teachers within the network are likely to have developed or need to develop a specialised skill set which enables them to improvise in sometimes challenging circumstances. There is a belief that the network exists partially to enable sharing of these kinds of experience from within island contexts, supporting and modelling the development of these skills. I moved from England and a large urban school to the … islands. I hadn’t appreciated the scale of the difference in everything, but particularly around the culture and the mindset. Being able to talk about it with others, and having people in other islands, to talk it through with that could help explain what might be going on has been a life saver (eMmbers S. I. S. N., 2022). This perspective suggests that, for SISN, education should be and in reality is context-related. As such, unique skills for adaptation and flexibility may emerge. This illustrates Osberg and Biesta’s (2021) idea of emergence in education, as opposed to the delivery of a pre-determined, one-size-fits-all approach which could negate teacher voice.

This belief in the importance of context extends to concerns about who delivers development opportunities to teachers within the network. The needs of teacher-learners and the situations of schools require that contextual understanding should underpin training and there is a preference for this to be based on the trainer’s experience in similar contexts. An emphasis on first-hand experience emerges as a key belief about how teachers’ skills should be supported. We had a visit from an Education Scotland team telling us about family and parental engagement, how to work with the community, as per their policy and guidance. Except we were also the parents, the families of the children in the school, we were talking about us engaging with ourselves, our neighbours in the next croft. How we were going to implement the policy was going to look very different. If you don’t live it, haven’t lived it, it can be very difficult to genuinely comprehend (eMmbers S. I. S. N., 2022).

This valuing of experience resonates with Dewey’s description of learning in which we make connections between what we do to things and the consequences of this, so that ‘ … doing becomes a trying; an experiment with the world to find out what it is like’ (Dewey 2007, p. 107). Being part of a network might help enable confidence for such experimentation. Special circumstances within the settings require the teachers to become autonomous to some degree, in adapting a national education system to island settings. The island context brings with it a purpose for the education of teachers which is concerned with them developing adaptability, resourcefulness, and creativity to respond pragmatically to contextual challengesFor this, they often rely on each other for support, which brings us to an overlap with Biesta’s second dimension of socialisation.

Socialisation: The very existence of the network and the enthusiasm it depends on suggests that social interactions are highly valued as a key means of supporting teacher development. With shared norms and values having been negotiated by members of the network, we see a strong belief in dialogical processes which are made possible by digital means. No rigid structures have been imposed in terms of organising meetings, with this happening organically and according to the needs and ideas of members. This flexibility is not always seen in education practice, particularly in times of accountability and standardisation and in larger-scale settings. Social opportunities which arise through technology are seen as the key means of enhancing teacher knowledge, by using the power of social capital within this unique domain. There is a sense that what is truly valued is the experience of colleagues involved in the dialogue, rather than a reliance on political and organisational mechanisms for discussion. Again, aligned with Dewey’s emphasis on experience, there is a belief that ‘through social intercourse, through sharing in the activities embodying beliefs, he [she/they the learner] gradually acquires a mind of his [her/their] own’ (Dewey 2007, p. 107). Individual development is a result of social dialogue.

Dialogue does not end at the school gates. There is a shared recognition among the group that schools and learning are intrinsically connected to the island communities which they are situated in. We can begin to connect this to Dewey and his ideas in regard to building democratic capacity as part of the role of education which he links with a ‘ … clear consciousness of a communal life’ (Dewey 1927, p. 149) and which he argues ‘ … constitutes the idea of democracy’. We may be stretching the point slightly here in the absence of direct discussion with teachers, but there is an emergent sense that within the domain of socialisation as it relates to the educational purpose of the network, there is a belief in developing democratic approaches, both for the teachers within the network and for the wider and longer-term-good of the communities. This begins to suggest a valuing of personal voice and individuality within the realm of the social, which leads us to consider Biesta’s ‘subjectification’.

Subjectification: The notion of teachers as subjects in this context again suggests a pragmatic blurring and overlapping of roles in response to context. Personal, professional, individual and collective identities overlap. The network recognises and accommodates this in a way which might not be expected in urban contexts. In needing to be ready to act along each of these identities, Biesta (2015) describes subjectification as coming to exist ‘as subjects of initiative and responsibility rather than as objects of the actions of others’ (p77). Teachers who are sliding between identities in a way where this is almost part of their role as a teacher could be said to be making their own box as opposed to simply thinking outside of one. Within the network they are working together with an understanding of how their different identities are integrated with their teacher role. So long as they manage to ensure the delivery of the national curriculum, this offers these teachers opportunities to redefine the purpose of education, informed and supported by the network but ultimately, as autonomous teachers who know their island, school and pupils best. These are individual teachers who have a sense of rootedness and responsibility to the people within their communities.

Conclusion

In relation to Biesta’s three domains of purpose, we conclude that within the network, there are opportunities for teachers to theorise education as a ‘non-instrumental phenomenon’ (Osberg and Biesta 2021, p. 57) and that indeed, this is necessary in the context of education on rural islands. This does not offer complete autonomy, in the context of a national education system which can also be challenging but the network at least enables the development of teacher dialogue and agency, meeting the needs identified by Echazarra and Radinger (2019) of targeted support. In turn, this can be applied to adaptation and creativity within education practice. As pragmatic, creative ‘adaptors’ in unique contexts, teachers see the purpose of education as a shared belief within the network as being concerned with equity of access to professional learning, but professional learning that is relevant and embedded in the context within which they work as opposed to the delivery of a set, often urban centric, model of professional learning, as determined by the policy makers. There is a role for the digital in both enabling discussion and emergence of new, contextual purposes of education and also in supporting teachers to connect with those in similar settings in order to ‘deliver’ and co create situated professional learning. Rather than the often deficit viewpoint of island education, focussing on the perceived challenges in location, in maybe that those in island areas have a mode of practice that can benefit all teachers, regardless of location and setting. Developing others’ voices and agency and moving forward together.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).