This paper takes up the issue of what an “intense” education for all might involve. In Education in an age of Nihilism, Blake, Smith, Smeyers and Standish adopt a Nietzschean critique of contemporary educational values (as they apply to a European context) and in so doing argue that the technological understanding of being which characterises contemporary education simply treats questions pertaining to value in terms of the opposition between success and failure. Adopting Nietzsche’s critique of nihilism (nihilism here is characterised by such oppositional thinking) they argue for an affirmative approach to education which incorporates the Dionysian force of intensity - the spirit of the dance. Although they do not elaborate on the following point, Blake et al warn us to beware the “false dancers” which include “enthusiastic facilitators” and “earnest enablers” who fixated with learning outcomes must keep the class moving and not stray from the plan. It is clear that Blake et al are both suspicious of the evangelical flair (or intensity) that surrounds such figures and approaches, but are also concerned that the intensity generated by speed and movement, which characterises contemporary teaching methods, is somehow an impoverished view of intensity. The first section of this paper will outline the principle arguments that pertain to the provision of an intense education The second section of this paper looks toward the possibilities of an intense education with reference to two images of thought which appear in Deleuze and Guattari’s a thousand plateaus. Deleuze and Guattari begin by discussing tree-like thought, which projects an insular depiction of the world in which knowledge emanates from a root to which it can always return. I will argue that contemporary education, with its focus on “scaffolding” and learning objectives presents a tree-like approach to education. We will then consider Deleuze and Guattari’s second image of thought – the rhizome. Plants of the rhizome type grow by a process of cloning or lateral spreading; they do not have the central trunk of the tree, with roots and branches extending outwards from this. Rhizomatic thinking is characterised by the line as opposed to the point, by intensity rather than structure. If teaching and learning is ever to be rhizomatic, then it must (on occasions – the argument is not for the complete abandonment of structure) be unbridled of the structuring apparatus that is usually advocated for lesson planning. I provide examples of what such an approach to teaching and learning might look like. The third section of this paper takes seriously the notion that although a “rhizomatic” education might seem an attractive way of reframing approaches to education, it can easily run up against accusations of elitism. One might argue that it is all very well to imagine an education which involves an intense experience unencumbered by a structuring apparatus, when the students are already reasonably well balanced, able to control their behaviour and sufficiently intelligent to deal with the disorientating aspects of learning that does not proceed in accordance with measured stages. Indeed it might be argued that for less able/disaffected students, carefully structured/fast paced lessons provide the only means for ensuring that learning takes place. During this section we will consider (1) whether the contemporary (nihilistic?) preoccupation with “excellence” and the various identities imposed on different kinds of students is not itself bound up with the suppression of intensity (2) the persuasiveness of certain scenes from schooling (including a scene from the film être et avoir) that depict an intense education (for students who do not find learning easy) that is neither characterised by speed nor controlled by objectives.

Conclusion The paper concludes by arguing that an intense education for all (regardless of ability inclination and behavioural problems) is possible although its implementation in the current educational climate faces serious difficulties. Overcoming such difficulties would involve rethinking the roles structure (which is clearly, to some degree, necessary) and speed (which also has its place) play in teaching and learning. This would involve an understanding of structured learning as a stepping off point, or a safe haven that can be returned to. Similarly, the speed that accompanies fast-paced learning might be perceived as only one form of intensity. Finally, for a rhizomatic education to exist as a real possibility it is important for educators to think in a rhizomatic way. This might bring critical attention to (1) the psychological manipulation of “difficult” students (through careful attention to structured planning) and (2) the apparatus, derived from psychology, which provides a structured and structuring interpretation of behaviour.