In this series of 10 short blogs – which will issue in rapid succession – I will consider in turn the top themes that have emerged from 50 interviews with teachers, leaders, policy-makers, academics and other from across and beyond the English FE system. Each blog will end with a question which I hope will generate debate on LinkedIn, where the blogs are signposted.
The core question considered has been “what might be the features of a self-improving FE system?” Interviewees have also considered the key features of the FE system as it stands, and what is holding it back from being self-improving.
The theme most commonly mentioned is trust. The main contention from interviewees has followed this pattern:
Fans of logic will notice that this argument only points one way: it asserts that a self-improving system (SIS} requires trust, but not that trust will certainly lead to a SIS. In other words, trust is “necessary but not sufficient” for a self-improving system.
This may seem like nit-picking, but I think it is very important if we are to think clearly about the problem. Because it implies that building trust is an important theme, but won’t necessarily take the trick. And that matters because there are actually lots of reasons why actors in the system may want to see a higher degree of trust; one of the main motivations being that they wish for more autonomy, and want to spend less time managing an excessive audit regime that they see as symptomatic of a lack of trust. They want to be “left to get on with it”.
This all seems understandable in a stressed system – and somewhat familiar; for example trust was seen by many as an underlying issue in the recommendations made in the well-respected Mary Ney review of 2019. But it may have nothing at all to do with creating a self-improving system. So it is important that we do not see trust as the key that automatically unlocks self-improvement, it is only part of laying the groundwork.
The next big related question is how can trust be built in the system? There are varying views on this. Some believe it cannot be given, it can only ever be earned. Others may agree in theory but argue that it has already been earned by the system and it is being unreasonably withheld. Others again think that trying to build trust in order to permit openness is exactly the wrong way round, and the only way to achieve trust is to start with openness, and all the risks this entails.
Most interesting of all, perhaps, is that the nature of the ‘trust problem’ looks different depending on where my interviewees stand in the system. Lack of trust is variously attributed to ministers, officials, inspectors, CEOs, middle leaders, employers and even teachers depending on where one stands in the system. But almost everyone who raised trust as an issue believed that the problem lay somewhere else (i.e. not with “people like me”), and that the solution was for someone else to change their behaviour.
Question: what practical steps could be taken by whom to increase levels of mutual trust in the system?
David Russell
Executive in Residence at Oxford Saïd Business School
Education and Training Foundation