Hi David,
Â
It was great to meet you as well!
Â
Thanks for providing a soft copy of your draft paper.
Â
For what it's worth, here are some quick reactions and comments:
Â
I don't disagree with your calls for a more 'bottoms-up" approach, and your analysis of the challenges posed by 'top-down" approaches to innovation.
Â
Where is a 'top-down" approach useful? If one concedes that the compulsion for top-down decision making will remain, how/where might this be most useful? In other words: people in charge like to demonstrate that they are in charge. Are there recommendations that could take advantage of his compulsion in useful ways? Top-down approaches aren't in an of itself a bad thing; nor are they necessarily a good thing; nor are they neutral.
Â
After reading your paper, I understand what you mean with the use of the term "innovation from the inside", but I must confess that upon initially seeing it, I thought you would be talking about something different: innovation from inside the system. (You are talking about that with your hypothetical discussion of Suhail, who is a teacher in the system, but in that case, 'inside' means 'from the perspective of an innovator, I think.)
Â
I see that your reference Geoffrey Moore. One challenge I see for much 'bottom-up innovation' in education is, to adopt Moore's terminology, is in crossing the chasm. Might there be a role for 'top down' decision making here? I am thinking about guidelines and approaches to procurement, in addition to the potential role of centralized purchasing itself. I take your point that, for example, "A government provided or recommended solution prevents alternative solutions from creating a successful operating model or scaling up because (in practice) it’s too difficult to expand to more schools and they can’t secure investment." But is this indictment of top-down decision making, or just of bad decisions? Or are you saying/implying that (for reasons of self-preservation, conceit, arrogance, inertia, ignorance, or some combination of these and other factors) central government can't play a useful role in supporting innovation in education, other than perhaps to get out of the way?
Â
One area where top-down decision making and control might be useful, and warranted (if not mandated) relates to guidelines and protections around data privacy and information security. Related guidelines and guardrails (and auditing) will necessarily inhibit innovation in various ways -- but one might argue that (done well) related guidelines and guardrails serve very useful purposes. As might centrally funded studies of e.g. efficacy and impact or various solutions.
Â
A big (and often quite valid, imho) argument against top-down decision making is that it usually rewards large incumbents. (Most regulation, including related to privacy and security, does as well.) Would it be correct to say that this is an underling theme that animates key elements of this paper? If so: What role might there be at a central level for 'leveling the playing field' to catalyze and enabling innovation from smaller or newer actors in the system? What role might a 'middle tier' play, given the current scope for action within the English school system?
Â
I totally agree with your point that "Being able to demonstrate that a solution works for students is necessary, but not sufficient." Is it worth considering (or proposing) what other necessary elements might combine so that a sufficient number of factors / elements of an ecosystem are at hand?
Â
I must confess I do not know the English schooling system all that well. Let's assume I agree with you your points about Naace and Becta on page 7 -- does calling out these organizations by name help or hurt your larger argument in this paper? By which I mean to say: Does calling them out by name risk people responding to your assessment of those two groups, in ways that become a distraction from the larger points you make in your paper? (More broadly: Do you see no role at all for gatekeepers? Or just for bad ones, or ones at the wrong place in the English educational bureaucratic hierarchy, for lack of a better term?)
Â
You state that policy-makers "must avoid endorsing particular groups or creating in-house solutions." Ok ... but might some see large scale procurements as implicit endorsements? (and presumably there is some validity and usefulness to large scale procurements of some things, no?) Might it be useful to unpack what it might mean for an 'endorsement' to be made within the system by a certain body, and how/where/why this might or might not be a good thing? (I concede that it is possible that the useful of the term 'endorsement' here has very specific connotations within the English education system that I might not be aware of; if so, I apologize if I have misunderstood things here).
Â
Your recommendation about not supporting the development of in-house systems is a good one, of course, and is supported by heaps of evidence. (That said, there are often specific dynamics at play / specific conditions that lead to decisions to develop solutions in house, and addressing those dynamics and conditions might be what is needed to make decisions to go in house in the future less likely -- this is perhaps a topic for a different paper.)
Â
I understand your intention in using widespread adoption as a key metric that can be used to determine whether a particular innovation has entered the 'Scale-up season', but I am a bit skeptical that this is a sufficient proxy for demonstrating that something 'works'. (I often observe that it is marketing prowess, and not a product's value, that drives adoption of edtech solutions in some circumstances.)
Â
You briefly suggest on p.8 a high level rubric outlining where a strong case can be made for government investment. It might be useful to explore this in a little greater detail, as this might be an area where a paper like this can have tangible impact on the way decisions are made (i.e. by suggesting a related rubric that can be adopted, and then influencing the content of this rubric).
Â
The seven mistakes are potentially powerful. You might want to consider exploring these in a separate paper. In my experience, doing so can be impactful.
Â
The high level recommendations are good. That said, while I don't disagree with "Invest in categories that are already starting to be adopted at scale, and not before", might there be a role for investment or a policy change to catalyze bottom-up innovation in categories that are legitimately new? Or should such investment be left entirely to the private sector? (related: Is there a role for government investment to help catalyze such private investment?)
Â
Thanks a lot for circulating this, David. Hopefully something I have said here is helpful to you -- even of only to provoke violent disagreement that helps you further refine your thinking in some way!
Â
Hopefully our paths will continue to cross in the future.
Â
Best,
Mike
Michael Trucano
Visiting Fellow, Center for Universal Education (CUE) Global Economy and Development
The Brookings Institution
bio:Â https://www.brookings.edu/experts/michael-trucano/
email:Â mtrucano@brookings.edu
BROOKINGS | 1775 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20036 USA
Center for Universal Education - Brookings - Quality. Independence. Impact.