Hi David,
Really interesting, thanks!
Some comments / thoughts:
Could do with explaining Top Down vs. Bottom Up (just what they are…) early on – maybe in a sidebar or sidebox. At present you get into the benefits of Bottom Up without explaining what you mean by it, or what the alternative is.
By the way, I think that the vast vast majority of school spend and provider selection is done bottom-up. I’m not sure that your report recognises that (or maybe I’m defining it differently to you). I reckon (back of fag packet) that in our addressable market which includes back office spend, assessment, teacher development and training, tutoring and recruitment that:
Around 50% is truly bottom-up (no restrictions)
Around 30% is mainly bottom up (i.e. there’s a selected list of approved suppliers but it’s >100 – this is mainly the supply teacher CCS framework)
Around 10-15% is sort-of top-down (i.e. there’s a selected list of approved suppliers but it’s between 5 and 100 names so there’s a reasonable level of choice, e.g. ITT or NPQ or ECF)
About 5-10% is properly top-down (i.e. single source or <5 providers, or a longer list but <5 at the local level – e.g. OAK, Careers, some SEN provision).
I think that this will make a lot more sense with some examples for each of those 7 mistakes and how the downside manifested.
Similarly, I think you would benefit a lot from listing out some good examples of 300+ bottom-up organisations. I’m not sure that 300 is the right threshold – at £5k a pop (which is a decent amount) that’s a £1.5m revenue business. Those sort of businesses are generally (not universally!) kind-of screwed without their founder. At £2k a pop you are genuinely in pain-land, and there are secondary services (wellbeing springs to mind…) at that level.
There are some valid reasons to embrace Top-down planning, albeit with longer-term costs in the variation and choice available to schools. One trade-off to assess is:
A rich landscape with lots of small providers that give you tons of creativity and choice that aligns them to your own (as an educator) and your classes needs / preferences, but where they are all tiny, a bit fragile, and can’t invest; vs.
A more consolidated landscape with fewer, larger providers that give less choice but which are more likely to be able to invest in fixed assets well (like content, technology), where there are fewer bankruptcies but when they happen they are more disruptive, and where there may be the temptation for too-commercial investors to over-milk.
What is MAT central buying? Bottom-up? Top-down? Middle-out?
When you say: “My contention is that if we allow bottom-up innovation to flourish, in 3-5 years we will have a pipeline of low-risk investible decisions for incoming Secretaries of State, indefinitely, into the future.” isn’t this the exact opposite of what you are asserting i.e. that secretaries of state shouldn’t be picking winners?? Or is your point that the zero-to-300 segment should be organic and the 300+ segment people can pick out their favourites (and presumably let the others who got 300 wither on the vine… but that would also stop new providers emerging)?
If the point is that there should be a c.2-4 year process to establish who is sustainable (300+ secondaries, 1.5k+ primaries) and then you declare winners and let them grow to a larger level… then what do you do to repeat the process and when should you? What’s the cost of incubating challengers? Is it that you should spend c.£1-5m to attract and incubate start-ups?
Interesting (maybe) case study – there was a competition for the KS1 SATS (iirc) where a bunch of providers got through a DfE gate for quality, and then had X months to find and sign-up customers. Ones that got to a certain scale (1k schools??) were allowed to remain and operate the SATS for the duration of the contract, others had to shut up shop. I think a few missed the threshold.
What is the cost of developing a solution and getting it to 300 secondary or 1500 primary schools (in cash terms and sacrificed earnings from the founder(s))? I reckon it’s generally around £500k-2m depending on the product. How many of these investments can the ecosystem (in terms of investor wallets and founder passion) tolerate?
Obviously happy to discuss; it may be that some of this would be more palatable in debate than in a screed!
Best wishes,
Ian
Ian Koxvold
Head of Education, Strategy and Corporate Development
Supporting Education Group
M: 07715 487627