Transforming communities

Explore

Transforming communities; embedding regenerative economic principles into institutions and organisations

Sustainable Environmental Wellbeing Network (SEWN)

A holistic approach to community; building research learning networks for transition into regenerative paradigms.

Situating the project:

The necessary positive change required in order to support organisations and institutions into a future of prosperity and abundance might seem a daunting task for any leadership team. Yet, this is exactly what is being asked by the United Nations Sustainable Development goals. Eroding or undermining these principles, through current operational activities, waiting for the target deadline to arrive, with hope that overnight action might occur as the clock strikes, is both immoral and unethical. The notion of disavowal paralyses necessary and urgent action and it is through a continuing drive by community, and those being impacted by the break down of systems, holding organisations and individuals to account, that will see the speed of transformation that is required.

It is here that this project focuses. It is a simple and yet brutal reminder that we are within the midst of ecological breakdown with our civilisation, as we currently know it, on the brink of collapse as a result of the exponential effects of climate change. It is too late for much of what we need to remedy and, as has been recently voiced through COP, keeping to 1.5 degrees is no longer a reality. If nothing else, the knowledge that this is now our reality, should move us all to hold our companies, organisations and leaders to account, asking the question of what, when and how fast, action can be taken to adapt and mitigate.

A vehicle for positive change:

Our current system of operations, in particular education, is the focus of this paper and project. It is with caution that we tread this line, voicing both the urgency required, the historic mandate, the failure of action and the missed opportunities. We also provide hope that it is still possible for the necessary change and, as was clear from the recent covid-19 pandemic, the speed of possible change should not be underestimated.

Our mission is to rekindle, embed, support, guide and nurture an internal culture that develops a critical consciousness within organisations, working as a change mechanism from within. We will deconstruct, analyse and re-imagine processes and practices required in order to make this positive change happen and work alongside organisations throughout the duration.

Each organisation, as part of the process, will be mapped alongside regenerative principles to establish their transition into new paradigms, new models of working, decision making and outlook, continually asking the question of how and why the organisation itself supports our ecosystem to regenerate.

Those organisations who commit to making positive change, and indeed the ones who have taken the first steps to recognising around equitable needs will be seen as the bastions of both community and ecosystem, not only the stewards but the leaders and incubator hubs to support further transformation.

Identifying systemic failure:

It is not plausible to argue that there has not been opportunity or mandate for change, with the World Health Organisation stating in 2018 that:

Both focus and resource must been placed to level up wider inequalities experienced through disadvantage

(WHO, 2018.)

These warnings bring to bare the necessary accountability required to take action against apathy and, as our new reality looms, we identify this incompetence in leadership whilst refocusing our resolve to champion those individuals, organisation and institutions that pave the way for others to follow. There are questions still to ask that concern the sustainability of most companies, not around if they could continue to operate but if they should continue, furthermore, accounts need to be made from our public sector organisations who support growth models in a time where it is unfeasible to contemplate growth as a sustainable future.

Breakdown of our education system:

Within the sphere of state education in the UK, failure has been acknowledged through significant research along with calling for action. Unfortunately, as much research fails to achieve, it is not recognised or acted upon. There are numerous reasons for this; because it voices an opposing view to the ‘mainstream’; it is not disseminated to the appropriate decision makers; the decision makers do not benefit from the research. If research is created and passed up, if no action is taken, it just becomes yet another unheard voice in the ether. The lack of agency and self efficacy within research is both astounding and understandable. For instance we could take the voice of Evans & Davies, identifying that:

Only 7% variation in academic outcomes are a consequence of schooling, therefore a holistic focus upon wellbeing and community resilience, as part of a holistic education process, form the drive for equity and justice.

(Evans & Davis, 2010.)

If it is acknowledged that academic output is not the purpose of education then why do we still have a system that is measuring that output? Or if we look at the Office for National Statistics who identified that:

At age 25 years, 23.0% of free school meal (FSM) recipients, who attended school in England, had recorded earnings above the annualised full-time equivalent of the Living Wage in comparison with 43.5% of those that did not.

(Office for National Statistics, 2022.)

There is a catalogue of examples but I will simply refer to previous research conducted as a result of the Cross Party Parliamentary Group for a fit and healthy childhood, identifying wide ranging issues with the inability of effective quality assurance for the outsourcing of Physical Education and Out-of-School services within our primary schools. (CPPG, 2020).

Why would this impact the breakdown of community?

One of the central tenants of community is education, the ability to learn from each other and our environment, to reach and remain critically conscious. Education therefore is the basis that supports the development of individuals within the context of an ecosystem and should prevent us from remaking the mistakes of the past while protecting our future prosperity.

Until we question the structures that repress this voice we will continue to play out our current destructive path through the rhetoric that individual achievement takes president over our planetary health, that our learning is somehow separate from our environment and our ecosystem.

Dysfunctional communities, where crime, violence and oppression are significant driving factors have developed through a learning process. The process however has been one where failure to achieve academically, being rejected by an overtly oppressive academic schooling system, has resulted in the search for a way of life, of survival, of recognition by some other means. It is hardly surprising that young people seek out gangs in this situation as they grapple for any sense of community that they might be able to hold on to. From an outsiders perspective this might seem like a lack of community but, from an internal dynamic, this is community in action. Destructive, divisive and oppressive these are the functions of our forgotten communities.

Education refocused:

Focusing education solely upon establishments and institutions as providers supports a narrowed view of education, that it is something that is done to us, that we are somehow the subject. Education is, however, an iterative and continuous process. The formation of ones education does not distinguish between the establishment, the institution, the community or the environment; they all play a part in the social acculturation of individuals (Lawson, 1986) . Having a process that does not constantly critique, challenge and reform itself to meet the needs of its community, one that does not learn through research, is to reject education itself.

Young people are increasingly failed by a system that does not support or recognise self efficacy or children as agentic learners. It is based within an economic structure that serves no purpose in the future and, therefore the symptomatic Curriculum, valuing certain knowledge over others, takes the assumption that certain acquired knowledge is learned by a specific chronological point in time. It fails therefore to understand the concept of developmental appropriateness, nor does it recognise that inequality in wider society is not something that the current school system can somehow fix by ensure that all pupils will fit the mold that the school has been charged with.

It is poignant to understand here that it is not a lack of personal ambition or fortitude but a systemic failure that is at fault. It is neatly coined in 2021 by Williams-Brown & Jopling:

‘teachers are still struggling with the consequences of the standards agenda… the heightened neoliberalism after 2010, which has increased the emphasis on performativity, accountability and achievement in schools, has intensified their opposition to how standards have been implemented.’

(Williams-Brown & Jopling, 2021)

The current system is unable to cater for the needs of increasingly growing disaffected groups and, as our institutions look to offer ‘alternative’ provisions, co-curriculums, to support and ‘re-engage’ young people within a system of learning, should we not be asking the question as to how to make fundamental changes to reorganise or recreate the system itself.

Breaking this cycle means a move away from individualism, away from subjective cultural capital white privileged leadership, away from focus of particular knowledge at specified time periods, away from testing, grades and exams, away from national inspection standards and away from oppressive power structures, behaviour systems and post colonial hierarchies. If we are to embrace equity it is essential for civilisations to recognise and dismantle their own structures of power, those that are fundamentally anti-democratic, denoting a total control of subjects, like our current organisation structures, based within capitalist economies.

How is this related to environmental collapse?

Within the realms of education, our understanding of the world around us, the entanglement of wellbeing and environment is something that must come to the fore. Biophilia is our innate attachment to our natural environment, and that our existence is entwined (Wilson, 1984). It is our desire to project ourselves as masters of our universe that has focused, through the human sciences, primarily upon our own priorities, humanist, dismissive of our place within the ecology of life, determined to be the ruler, the controller, the agent of our own destiny. But at what cost?

Logically this leads to an objectification of our environment, with this simplification of our relationship with the environment identified by Clark & Mcphie (2014) as part of the reason for the crisis we find ourselves in.

Post pandemic, questions have arisen as to the function of school. The increase in a range of resources and knowledge online, that can be digested at any time, has led to a rapid rise in parents questioning the purpose of school, and indeed the facility it operates within. If school is seen as simply a way to impart knowledge, and that can be digested more flexible elsewhere, is there not a need to refocus on the meaning and purpose of school, not as a simplistic tool for disseminating particular knowledge but as a bastion for engaging young people in a love of life, how we exist within this complex ecosystem, instilling a value for diversity and inclusion while supporting a sense of belonging to and connection with our environment.

Recognising that resources are finite, that we are within the midst of a climate crisis, necessitates that we reevaluate both purpose and function of these institutions. The sustainable development of humankind is, and must be, considerate of the ecosystem we are part of and, therefore, in order to enable a flourishing and collaborative community, focus needs to be placed upon adaptation to support and nurture communities and their natural environments, while we work to mitigate against the consequences of climate change that are beginning to be felt.

A holistic approach to education, where do we start?

Playing and understanding how to play with others is a basic social need. Knowing and understanding others and how they wish to engage, is forever an education in itself. Having systems, organisations and structures that are dominated by extroverts, might not be the solution that we actually require if we are to be considerate of all beings, both human and non.

Our focus upon the tools that enable play is as much part of learning as the play itself. The value we place in the enactor that supports and facilitates play is critical, therefore, in the process of Lawson’s (1984) social acculturation, the understanding of norms and accepted values within our environment are paramount. Play supports our understanding of the world around us, therefore the environment we play in and what we play with, shapes our values and ethos. Playing with others who denote destructive behaviours will, unless reinforced otherwise, support a perceived value upon destruction. If we play in a hostile environment, hostility becomes reinforced as a social norm.

It is therefore necessary to play with others who can shape our play with values they themselves learned through their own developmental journey. These values, are for us now to define. Do we want to support the notion of competition over collaboration, of power, of hierarchy, of oppression, of inequality? Or do we imagine another space, one that is nurturing and life affirming, a culture of support, of reciprocity of mutual respect, of equity? During this co-constructed learning, being supported in play, we recognise and begin to understand emotions, through cause and effect, of how our own behaviours and actions impact others around us, not just humans but our whole environment. Play is the way we begin to see, recognise, understand and critique the world. If we are not able to critically reflect upon our play, we may never understand the consequences of our actions. If we never play and engage in our natural environment during play, we may never understand its innate value.

What is education and how is it integral to regenerating our future?

Placing focus upon the environment, initially through play, how we interact within our ecosystem, and the consequences of our actions within that ecosystem, supports and develops our understanding of how our wellbeing is entangled with our ecosystem. Learning to be compassionate and understanding of the profound impact that our lives have upon our ecosystem can only be nurtured over time. Education, in its holistic sense, places responsibility on enabling an understanding of the consequences of our actions, nurturing those who have not been afforded the opportunity to understand the implications through facilitated and purposeful experiences. Being educated is not about being knowledgeable, but about the ability to process knowledge and critique actions with a critical consciousness, enabling socially just and equitable practices to result. Until we understand that our actions are causing hardship and destruction, until we recognise that they are inadvertently driving inequalities, why would we change?

Why it is paramount for institutions to adapt and place focus upon community operations and community development.

The notions of ‘living’ and ‘working’ have been separated in the modern age. ‘Live to work’ or ‘work to live’ or ‘work-life balance’ are often phrases thrown into social conversations. The idea that you live in a different place to your work is in itself not conducive to community. It separates the two notions into a purely performative function, I ‘live’ here and work ‘there’, somehow divides the notion of work into something other than living. ‘How is work going?’ or ‘How is Life?’ are not necessarily answered as the same question. But if we reflect upon what life is, a complex and interconnected process, work is simply part of that process, not separated from it. If work is not considered as part of that process, that it somehow prevents us from being involved in life, when we are working, it is clear to see how this might disengage people and be seen as something that just has to happen so that we can live.

It is clear from this that there is a need to answer some questions that are baked into our worldly views, these questions are both complicated to form and complex to answer. This however, should not prevent those questions from being formulated. It is with this in mind that this project focuses.

If our connections with our environment, our wellbeing, are eroded through a misplaced notion of the purpose of work, would this not be considered as detrimental to health, to life itself? Is the value of what we do ultimately diminished if we do not feel that it is connected to the process, and therefore the development of life?

If those who work in a community feel they need to leave it when ‘work’ hours are over, they are detaching themselves from that community, using it only for the purpose that suits their needs, typically it is the work that draws them but it also fractures the communities they are part of, through these transient behaviours. It is this learnt behaviour that threatens rural communities into becoming dormitory villages; part time habitats for human occupation, objectified themselves through the perception that somehow the inhabitants are more important than the environment they dwell in. The consideration of space, that can be afforded to occupants, of peace, of calm, that our human-centric opinions of what constitutes a ‘good’ place to live, is equally the same scale for what constitutes a good place to work. The two are conflated in the same argument, it is good to work here and it is good to live there, to commute from one place to another, with little consideration of the impact that we cause by those decisions we make, will ultimately reduce the notion of what community is.

As an education institution we aspire to build stronger community relationships through the work that we do, reaching out to our wider community, embracing and enabling a community voice while fostering and nurturing collaborative partnerships. Bring people together to work, live, share and flourish. And yet, often for those who work in the education institutions themselves, the message is clear, don’t live where you teach.

Inequality and social injustice can only be tackled through a holistic approach to education that embroils the whole community into the process. Not just through the learning process but in all aspects of life. It is this wider inequality that we target, questioning how organisational behavioural change can build a more equitable society. With growing numbers of families on the cusp of a hand to mouth lifestyle, detached from the fabric of society and disengaged from the status quo, education must be reimagined and re-conceptualised to meet its very purpose. Recognising that providing education for community, how we function, work and live together can only be driven through concerted effort to implement what is required, understanding that catering for these cultural, social, environmental and health needs is, in itself, an education.

Research learning network:

As part of our journey we will develop and forge a research learning community that supports and critiques the work we do and future work we need to focus upon. An organic education process, fluid in its thinking and working, will be adaptive to the needs of the community as they develop and change.

Transformation to align with community

The covid-19 pandemic has provided much insight into the need for communities to come together and provide strong support structures for each other. Community cohesion was acutely highlighted when individuals were afforded time to support each other during the lockdowns. It was not the society structures that operated at the time of the lock downs that provided this cohesion, it was newly formed structures, functions and processes that came about as a result of individuals having to isolate themselves and requiring support from the community around them.

This re-found community resilience has abated as we return to the status quo, relying upon structures of old to support our daily functions. The question still remains around affording the opportunity for the entire community to access everyday services and if we are to look to bolster community resilience, should we not question those structures that so easily broke down. We find ourselves realising that the only institutions that could provide any support during this pandemic was the government and therefore by proxy, all public sector services, including, our schools. The question focus is therefore upon the critical role that our public sector spaces, and the services they offer from their facilities, can play. As a community we therefore can support them to adapt, bolstering resilience and mitigate against the adverse effects of climate change.

Why is community ownership integral to this?

Recent research has worked to highlight unethical and inequitable practices enabled through the out-sourcing of PE and Out-of-School-Hours (OOSH) activities operating in primary schools (Crichton, 2019; Gardiner, 2021) The outsourcing of these services meant that during the pandemic, with only key workers accessing school and as they reopened for the wider community, some of these services could not operate, as they were outside of the control of the school. The pandemic is understood to be an effect of climate change, as communities are marginalised and seek to exploit the natural resources available to them, inter-species transmission of communicable disease increases, Quote needed here (Milly?).

The affordance of opportunity

The issue that outsourcing often fails to address is one that is rooted within community wealth; why do our institutions, set up for public service, not realise that they are simply fueling the climate crisis by enabling profit to be syphoned from operations, and therefore reduce resources that could be harness to develop those services. Research in 2021 (Gardiner) leads us to question if it has yet become apparent that the procurement function within our education institutions has been untethered from the sustainability policy directives, UNSDGs, that these institutions should be operating by. There is a dichotomy emerging, on the one hand outsourcing, and on the other, sustainable and regenerative practices and processes embedded within operational policy, statutory schooling for example is available for all in the UK but UNSDG 4; ensuring equitable education, is only currently applied as access to statutory provisions and does not assume that all organised opportunities afforded to young people are indeed part of their holistic education. In the face of the multiple crisis’s, should we not be looking at our wider functions of our institutions, their ability to act, as well as say what they are doing to meet the UNSDG’S.

A range of research considers the context and political environment that has enabled this outsourcing to become so prevalent, examining the outcomes that have resulted from this approach. Gardiner considers the All Party Parliamentary Group’s (For a Fit and Healthy Childhood) report in November 2020, titled, ‘The Primary PE and School Sport Premium’, (Crichton, 2020) and builds upon the questions asked around the lack of governance, due diligence and oversight of the spending of the Physical Education and School Sport funding that is allocated directly to primary schools.

Community function:

A lack of funding along with increased performance pressures for academic output has squeezed every sinew of the schools function, leaving little head room or breathing space for consideration of anything other than statutory obligations. What has developed in this vacuum is a market driven, a product, commercial and exclusive world, inequitable and unethical.

When did the what become more important than the why or the how?

The current service, the inclusive statutory school offer; 09:00 - 15:15, Monday - Friday for 39 weeks each year is not able to meet the needs of our pupils, our families or our communities. Furthermore, the opportunities afforded to children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are far diminished when compared to their counterparts. This vast difference in background cannot be addressed through our 09:00 – 15:15 service.

Back to the misunderstanding of education

Covid-19 and the school closures saw many schools realising that their facilities were the only free, safe and available place for children to play. When schools did reopen, without the ability to fully offer OOSH childcare services, the knock on impact for the community was magnified. Even if parents wanted to return to full hours of work they could not rely upon the ‘childcare’ they accessed previously at the schools. Individuals were once again faced with the aged issue of affordable, accessible and appropriate childcare. When the system of schooling was asked to support operations during the pandemic, when they were called to support the essential functions of society and key workers, already stretched, juggling the need to return to work and the needs of their children, the system was unable due to its dependence upon outsourcing. As schools did what they could, already having to recreate themselves to cater for this pandemic, they were stretched beyond capacity. Private operations simply did not have the resources to operate, outsourcing has been well and truly highlighted as problematic.

If we concede that education is a function of government and of society, enabling the development of critical consciousness and understanding, therefore of socially just and equitable processes, should we not also concede that all interactions of those who have yet to become critically conscious are considered educational? What therefore is the difference between school and OOSH childcare provisions?

Why do children choose to be involved with OOSH activities and why do parents pay for those activities but not for schooling? More importantly, why do we have central funding for schooling but not OOSH? Is it that we have a system that is designed to drive further inequality simply by not affording the opportunity for all to access education?

Deconstruct, analyse, transform:

The lock down demonstrated that it is possible for us to mobilise and support each other, but it has also shone a light upon the fragility of current operations with the realisation that schools, the institution, plays a critical role for communities; the care and nurture of children, not just a place for learning but a place of support, a hub for wellbeing and an available, safe space to access .

If we are to transform, to reimagine a world that might recover from the tipping point we are heading towards, the social value; the services we can provide for communities and society, only forms part of the consideration of how we change. It is the environmental impact, the cultural erosion and the social acculturation; the actions we take, not just the words we say, that need careful attention. Philosophically, services that are both socially just, equitable and environmentally ethical, need to form the direction of transformation.

Schools and the facilities they operate from have inadvertently become drivers of social inequalities through their involvement with companies who have focused exclusively upon certain groups over others while looking to generate profit from those who access these private services.

Do all services understand the implications of individualism? Do any? Have we not seen the impact yet? Has it not been realised that individual wealth and a focus upon capitalist gains is the one thing that has led us to this crisis point? I need more, to do more, to be more, must be challenged with a question of why? Why does an individual gain need to happen if it is at the cost of everything else?

MultiKite theory, Gardiner 2021, can be used here to examine the consequence of individual performance when it is not for greater good, when it is neither equitable nor just. If you consider the kite, flying high, without its connection with others around it, what is its purpose other than to itself? What is its purpose when it has become detached from all others, from the environment it operates? Does it recognise the balance of its gain compared to the needs of others? Does it change when others around it fall? Does it recognise that if its flight is the cause of others to fall, its purpose has become destructive?

My question is philosophical and underpins our purpose. Has a focus upon individualism, upon the performance of the kite, removed all notion of our imbrication within the fabric of life and has this ultimately negatively impacted our wellbeing, as our tethers have been torn from that fabric?

We have a choice to make; do we keep ploughing forwards or, now that we realise that it could be different, do we act like our house is on fire and start to radically transform, providing hope for the future and ensuring that when our future generations ask what we did to adapt and mitigate, we can say that we did everything possible.

Why is OOSH so important?

All children need to be afforded the opportunity to be involved in enrichment activities. Not only do these involvements enable further socialistion for participants, they enhance a sense of belonging, develop confidence, cater for passion, agency, self-efficacy, channel creativity and nurture curiosity and a critical consciousness. The idea that schools are able to cater for this entirety within their current pressures is a far-fetched notion with poor operational consideration, stemming from the introduction of the extended schools initiative of 2003.

If we are to adapt and mitigate to meet the needs of children and communities, our duty of care must consider that they are imbricated within the environment, not separate entities, we need to support communities' understanding of the principles of equity and justice through the provision of the best possible education. We therefore need to look at the community as a whole, and how each facet operates and interacts with each other, as a process, not as a system. We need to also take a holistic view of the child, not just as a pupil who attends school.

We understand that not all children have the same opportunities afforded to them and yet we are failing to look at, let alone address these variations. Our duty of care as professionals, tasked with governing the education afforded to pupils, is to provide all that we can to support their holistic development. When we consider that safe and creative spaces for our most vulnerable young people are havens, away from hardship, abuse, and criminality, we must ask how we reshape our facilities to accommodate and address these much wider social inequalities.

It is reasonably practical to look at changing the way in which services are offered to children. The system, in its rigidity, simply fails to cater for the changing demands society burdens upon children, families and communities.

It is this failure which could lead to questioning the capability of a sector to provide the service which it sets out to offer, education. Schools are not given the flexibility they need, they are scrutinised to the limit of their existence, and they are not funded sufficiently to implement what they are being limited to do.

Disenfranchised by this narrow view of education; that it is just about learning certain things at certain times, opinions of our institutions form. These bastions of community, enabled with purpose to support and enrich young people, have simply been cut off from the community they serve, ultimately an emphasis upon performance and profit has driven their purpose and value further from the needs of the community. The messaging being portrayed through the OOSH operational practices, the social acculturation, is simply reinforcing the notion that if you can neither afford or perform you cannot access these opportunities during these formative years; the OOSH period, the weekends and the school holidays, the school facilities and, therefore the institution is focussed upon exclusive groups, not for all. Individualism over collectivism is therefore the perceived value our institutions are eliciting.

If we take Gardiner’s (2021) Mutli-Kite Theory and consider the performance of the Kite, objectively measured by the system, enabled to fly higher during OOSH operations because it had already reached a certain performance, we have a system that is driving the education attainment gap, not narrowing it. Ofsted clearly state that schools with greater involvement of children within enrichment activities are among the highest achieving, unsurprisingly these are some of the more affluent areas, where OOSH providers operate because they can see opportunities for business, whereas in areas of lower socioeconomic status, schools achieve lower standards.

The cultural capital afforded to professionals and decision makers must not cloud judgements of what and how we should act, education is not predicated by individual belief systems but ultimately considers the ability to ask why we place energy in the directions we do. The value ascertained by that focus can only be intrinsically guided, therefore a philosophical question of why, needs to focus upon the wider implications and values of our actions. Focus needs to be placed upon addressing inequalities and this is not a question of individual belief, it is a question of doing everything possible to support levelling up, using available resources, ensuring that all young people are afforded the opportunity to understand that connection to community and environment nurtures wellbeing, that our institutions listen to the voice of those who have been disaffected or disenfranchised, and act to change, to transform, to reconnect those with a purpose and value that is much deeper than individual achievement.

This is a failure of process, it has led to a widening divide between those who can afford and those who cannot. Our state education sector has caved to pressures to provide ‘business activities’ within publicly funded buildings. It is this difference in philosophy which drives the divide. On the one hand we have the school, offering a service for all, publically funded so that each pupil is able to access, while at the same time, in the same facility we have an array of activities offered exclusively by market forces.

The ultimate failure of the system is with its inability to reach out to the community and voice not just what they are doing but how and why. It was clear during the pandemic and as worksheets were sent home for children to undertake as ‘home learning’ there was no theoretical framework or pedagogical underpinning of the worksheets. The question that we are now facing, one which I would argue is both incredibly dangerous and destructive, is why do we need educators?

Without a deep understanding of the complexities of the learning process, how is it possible for a non pedagogically trained member of the public to pick up a worksheet and support a developing child to understand it? If this is simply what schools are thought to be, a place to instill subject knowledge, we have a huge misunderstanding of the purpose of educators.

The art of teaching is not to understand facts or to have certain types of knowledge or skill. A teaching degree is a Bachelor of the Arts degree (BA), the art is of the understanding of how to nurture a love of learning, of curiosity, of critical a critical consciousness, to support, to structure and to scaffold, to afford the opportunity for each individual to develop through each miniscule step of each learning journey, at their own individual pace. It is this art form that recognises the process of learning, of how it occurs and the barriers that are placed at each hurdle. It is this understanding of nurture that recognises progress, not compared to others, but over time, knowing and affording that time and space for those individuals to grow, to educate themselves in life and it complexities, recognising that the why and the how are more important than the what.