Further education providers might justifiably feel embattled after five years of funding cuts, abrupt policy changes and often ill-informed criticism from various sources. Despite this, the sector has proved remarkably resilient, but there is a difference between coping and moving forward with intent.
In the military sphere, there is a contrast drawn between “close” and “deep” battles. The distinction is now more likely to be used in a conceptual way than a literal one. Close battles are those that can’t be avoided - those that are immediately before us with an outcome that is fundamentally uncertain. The equivalent in FE could be unexpected funding cuts, Ofsted inspections, area reviews and policy changes that undermine or challenge existing business models.
Some of these close battles may be the product of sensible decisions. Others - like the establishment of a non-viable school sixth form or university technical college nearby, or a partial commissioning decision by a local authority - will be illogical from many perspectives. Such close battles cannot be avoided and some will inevitably be lost.
Mapping the terrain
The critical point emphasised in military training is always to see close battles as the prelude to further engagements, within the context of a deep battle, which is wider and longer in scope. The art of successful strategy, then, depends on linking each of the close battles to deliver a longer-term design. When I have shared this reasoning with FE providers, the reaction is invariably to ask how it could be possible to have a longer-term design when everything is in a seemingly chaotic state of flux.
Knowing who you serve, what you add to your locality, community or sector, and reviewing why you are doing things can provide a sense of direction that moves you beyond merely surviving
My response is that military operations are similarly complex and chaotic - look at Syria, for instance - but the chances of success are greatest when the objectives are properly considered. Precisely defining an outcome may not be possible, but a consistent direction of travel is critical to avoid diversion of effort and so-called mission drift. Shared values are also vital to sustain progress and transcend the immediate and the particular.
FE providers’ close battles and immediate crises are most likely to build towards long-term success: if underlying trends are worked out; if values are understood and shared; and, crucially, if the mission of the provider is well-defined. Together, these characteristics provide focus and allow us to put the immediate and the specific into a wider context.
Knowing who you serve, what you add to your locality, community or sector, and reviewing why you are doing things can provide a sense of direction that moves you beyond merely surviving. It offers a longer-term perspective that can give shape to the mayhem of daily challenges. Seeing trends allows you to align the interests and needs of those you serve with wider developments.
Those trends can be found in the consensus around the need to increase productivity, to improve social inclusion, to build a distinctive and longer-lasting technical and professional education system, to rebalance local and national influences and to move away from competition as an end in itself in a market-led system.
A 10-year detailed plan is nonsensical, but so too is just reacting to events without any idea where you’re heading. The Skills Plan deserves analysis from this perspective; not as a detailed plan, but as a direction of travel.
Martin Doel is the Further Education Trust for Leadership professor of leadership in FE and skills at the UCL Institute of Education, and a former chief executive of the Association of Colleges
