The brilliant US researcher Mary Kennedy, from Michigan State University, rightly characterises teachers and school leaders as “idealistic people” in her short paper Against Boldness. In it, she ultimately suggests that idealism leads to the proposal of “bold” changes but that the failure of those ideas is often likely. She puts it bluntly: “Bold ideas require too much change. People resist and new initiatives fall apart.”

What Kennedy characterises, with cold-eyed accuracy, is that making positive and sustained changes in a school requires a complex range of support factors, including teachers having the time, knowledge, beliefs and capacity to make multiple alterations in the white heat of the classroom.

How often do all of those factors fall into place - and is success guaranteed when they do? Research projects undertaken by the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) and its US equivalent, the Institute of Education Sciences, demonstrate that, despite the best possible conditions of expert support and funding, around 80 per cent of projects do not have a positive impact on learning. Innovation, to put it candidly, usually doesn’t work.

So, what do we do instead of bold changes? Kennedy praises the value of “tinkering”. Although it may be dismissed by energetic new school leaders - seeming to some to be meek and unduly cautious - tinkering is a pragmatic approach that offers a greater likelihood of sustained success for our worn-down teachers.

Some examples of “tinkering” - in a sustainable and healthy fashion - are the recent Department for Education pupil premium strategy documents, published in October 2019. These strategy documents promote a long-term, three-year plan for supporting pupil premium pupils. Rather than a raft of bold new ideas, there is a small number of priorities to be focused upon.

So, let’s do more tinkering in schools. Instead of bold new school improvement plans each academic year, containing a plethora of new targets and innovative new ideas, we should look to evolve instead.

All the best evidence on implementation (such as the EEF guidance) indicates that we must aim to “probably make fewer, but more strategic, choices and pursue these diligently”. If we are “doing curriculum” or “doing vocabulary”, then what are we also stopping doing? Are we planning to tinker, improve and sustain this work beyond the cycle of a single school year?

The last word should go to Kennedy: “Instead of seeking bold ideas, grand ideas, creative ideas or group commitment, we should be doing just the opposite: studying our practices closely and deliberately, deepening our understanding of the circumstances in which we work, and finding small and sustainable ways to improve.”

Alex Quigley is the national content manager at the Education Endowment Foundation. He is a former teacher and the author of the upcoming Closing the Reading Gap

This article originally appeared in the 10 April 2020 issue under the headline “A spot of tinkering can save a lot of turmoil”