THE removal of the threat of strike action by Scottish teachers was warmly welcomed, particularly by parents, if less so by pupils. On average, the recent teachers’ pay settlement will give most an extra 13 per cent over three years. In the age of austerity, it’s a generous increase. Many other public and private sector workers will be envious having seen their own wages stagnate in recent times.

It was no surprise that the Government found the money to fund the increase. The First Minister’s prioritisation of education and her commitment to closing the attainment gap while commendable, is a serious hostage to fortune. Those who have been at the sharp end of trying to close the attainment gap know full well the complex nature of the challenge. There’s no silver bullet, no quick fix.

The Government’s critics have seized on the flatlining of progress across a range of key national priorities and measures. The last thing the Government needed was a prolonged period of disruption. The settlement offers a much-needed window of stability. It also represents the Government’s recognition that well-motivated and fairly-remunerated teachers are the key to improvement.

What is surprising however, is the Government’s willingness to fund a generous pay settlement without seeking anything in return. Most pay negotiations, particularly in the private sector, involve some sort of agreement on efficiencies or changes to working practices. The Government seems to have taken it on trust that better-paid teachers will respond positively to the transformational changes required if Scottish education is to meet future challenges. Maybe aye, maybe no.

One of the major challenges will be to create an educational system that is light enough on its feet to anticipate and respond to rapid change in the wider world. The old joke that Scottish education would be the only thing an awakened Rip van Winkle would recognise, is uncomfortably near the truth. Virtually every reform of the past 40 years has taken at least a decade to bed in. I can’t think of a major educational reform that hasn’t met with resistance and not infrequently, industrial action.

The unacceptably slow pace of change is not due solely to teachers’ conservatism. In many cases it’s down to the ways in which change has been planned and introduced. Too many developments have been driven from the centre. Not enough time and effort has gone into getting teachers on board to plan and deliver change.

When leading professional development sessions, I was regularly surprised by how few teachers had given real thought to why and how education must change. In the main they were unsure what is required of them, individually and collectively. Some even suggested change is unnecessary and we should carry on as we are at present.

We shouldn’t blame teachers. To a degree they have been de-professionalised through centralised direction. The consequent workload and bureaucracy have made it difficult to think beyond the nuts and bolts of the latest initiative delivered from on high. They have become technicians rather than professionals.

The substantial pay settlement may be a sign that the Government is belatedly recognising the need to enhance and trust teachers’ professionalism to bring about improvement and change. It may also represent a willingness to treat teachers as part of the solution and not part of the problem.

Read more: Teachers accept 13% pay rise

It is of course, a two-way street. In all walks of life change and flexibility is the default position. Education should be no different. Sure, change can be uncomfortable and at times stressful. It is also essential if education as we know it is to remain relevant and credible. So, inevitability and desirability are givens, how can change be managed and brought about?

Teachers have long been critical of centrally-driven change. What then is the alternative? Perhaps the answer lies in locally developed programmes, addressing local priorities and needs, but set within a national framework. There would be less reliance on centrally produced materials and assessments. It’s true that more local and customised development would place significant demands on teachers’ professionalism. But they can’t have it all ways. If centralised initiatives won’t do, it’s down to them.

Furthermore, it’s questionable if the fragmented secondary curriculum is capable of delivering the experiences required in an increasingly fast changing and competitive world. New groupings and skills will require teachers to leave the comfort zone to plan and work across sectors and existing subject boundaries. That raises profound questions on how we recruit, train and register teachers to lead and be comfortable with ongoing systemic change.

Change and improvement is totally dependent on the relationships and experiences that highly professional teachers create in the classroom. That will be a constant even in the age of the robot. As Arthur C Clarke put it, “The teacher that can be replaced by a machine should be.”

The recent pay award was a declaration of faith in the professionalism of Scottish teachers. It was also an implicit professional challenge to be part of the solution. Much hangs on how well our teachers accept and rise to that individual and collective challenge.