Change is not a new challenge for anyone working in UK education, least of all in FE. For every transformation and change seen by the FE sector, there has been a new description of it. Some of these descriptions have been warmly embraced by practitioners, others roundly rejected. FE has been described, variously over the years, as the “Cinderella sector”, due to its lack of funding; the “ugly duckling”, in reference to its position relative to other phases of education; and the ”Twelve Dancing Princesses”, a phrase intended to capture the “subversive” activities of those who work in it.

This year, I have had the opportunity to explore these concepts and ideas as a fellow of the Further Education Trust for Leadership (FETL). The fellowship saw me examine some of the biggest questions and conundrums in today’s FE landscape.

The aim was to explore how leadership within further education impacts on teaching and learning, specifically on the autonomy of teachers. The project investigated how professionals are constrained or empowered to develop methods which allow them to innovate rather than replicate in the classroom; ultimately creating an environment which inspires and challenges learners.

What is creativity?

Of course, many of the terms I used and examined within the research are open to challenge and debate. And this doesn’t just apply to the concept of “good”! For example, what exactly do we mean when we talk about “creativity”? Creativity is a powerful term, and producing a definitive description of creativity is no easy feat, let alone finding ways to identify, quantify and extrapolate creative practice. Within the amorphous world of further education, creativity may (or may not) be defined in clear terms. Crucially, however, my research showed that whilst finding a standalone definition of “creativity” may be a challenge too far, we are more likely to find, and do find, definitions of what is and isn’t creative in a given setting, like a classroom.

The creation of a powerful inspection regime charged with defining and enforcing defined standards has had considerable impact on how we understand “good” teaching and learning. It is perhaps inevitable that the production of more specific guidelines about how education institutions will be judged provides a narrower definition of teaching, of learning and of good practice in either domain. The creation of this regime, in conjunction with the production of standards, formed control mechanisms which require increased quality assurance processes to monitor compliance against these standards. But what if these standards aren’t right? And who has the power to say so?

‘Enabling innovation’

The purpose of my research here is not to diminish the value of standards themselves, or the benefits of measuring progress against them, but to recognise that to evolve we must create the space for innovation and change. Through semi-structured interviews with teachers, managers and leaders, I sought to explore factors that both enabled and constrained innovation in the classroom.

So what can leaders do to enable innovation in the classroom? Firstly, teachers should be put back in control of the classroom. Although this may be the view of most leaders, this message is not clear for teaching staff and it needs to be communicated effectively so that all parties are aware of real and imagined boundaries in relation to decisions taken about teaching and learning. Further, mistrust needs to be turned into trust. The development of a culture of trust is essential if teachers are to feel comfortable taking risks in classroom practice.

A culture of learning ‘is crucial’

A culture of learning is also crucial. The sector, and its leaders, should strive to use research and external guidance more effectively. Undoubtedly, research has been used to inform teaching and learning; one of the problems appears to be that it has been “swallowed whole”. The development of a thinking approach to the use of research would encourage leaders, managers and teachers to analyse it in relation to their own organisations and select or adapt appropriately. So too would the creation of learning spaces in colleges - a place away from the classroom for teachers, managers and leaders to learn from one another, debate ideas and challenge orthodoxies.

What was clear from my research was that there is no prescriptive method of “creating creativity” nor of producing a one-size-fits-all method of ensuring innovation. Therefore, we must acknowledge that change is not the responsibility of the few; it is in the hands of many and to be effective, it needs to be approached from this perspective.

Dr Carol Thompson is a Further Education Trust for Leadership research fellow and a senior lecturer in post-compulsory education at the University of Bedfordshire