I attended the SLF on Wednesday of this week for the first time, and I have to admit I left with mixed feelings on my experience. I’ve hesitated to write this, but I feel I have to be honest.

Initially, I was overwhelmed as I explored the exhibition hall in the morning (in between manning the East Lothian stand). It felt fantastic to be able to experience all of these cutting edge developments all in one place, and I enjoyed my conversations with many of the exhibitors. As the day wore on however, an unsettled feeling began to grow in my stomach. I couldn’t, and still can’t quite, put my finger on what was bothering me. I think it was something to do with the very commercial air in the exhibition hall. It was also something to do with the lack of practicing teachers who were there (apart from those of us who were there representing our councils). It certainly wasn’t aided by the disappointing nature of the two seminars I attended.

I think to me, the words ‘learning festival’ evokes a lot of classroom practitioners having an opportunity to learn. It certainly didn’t live up to this impression for me.

Why is it held at a time when teachers would require cover (which schools can ill afford) to attend? There were a lot of educationalists who are out of the classroom present – which is understandable given that their roles would require them to be there and they do not require cover – but where are they staying on the Wednesday night? Who is paying for this? Don’t these people get these opportunities to network etc. a lot anyway? Could this money be better spent? How can we get more classroom practitioners there?

As I said, I know this is a controversial reflection. But it’s my reflection, and I can’t deny it.

Perhaps ‘learning festival’ is just the wrong name and it will always struggle to live up to the images this evokes?