Risky business
Risk is often sensibly avoided in education, but it’s hard to progress without it. This post explores how we can mitigate strategic risks different to unlock creativity and drive meaningful change.
Risk is often seen as a dirty word in education—something to be avoided at all costs.
But without risk, there’s no innovation and progress is incremental at best. If we want to create an education system that delivers better outcomes for all children, especially those underserved by the status quo, we need to rethink how we handle risk.
As I alluded to at the end of my previous post, right now, the burden of risk is heaped disproportionately on individual school leaders. This dynamic stifles creativity, discourages experimentation, and reinforces the safety of the status quo. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
In this post, I want to explore two ideas:
1️⃣ How the current system mismanages risk; and,
2️⃣ How we can create the conditions for bold, ethical innovation in education.
(The problem with) How we manage risk
Misplaced burden
In education, individual leaders—headteachers, CEOs of trusts—are expected to carry the bulk of the risk. Their performance is scrutinised through punitive accountability systems, like Ofsted inspections and DfE league tables, that reward safety over change.
For example, a headteacher who experiments with a new curriculum approach faces the risk of a dip in exam results, which could harm the school’s reputation, intake and (probably) Ofsted judgment/s. Meanwhile, leaders in other sectors often have mechanisms to share or mitigate risk, such as innovation funds or governance frameworks that prioritise long-term outcomes over short-term metrics.
Low risk tolerance
Leaders are discouraged from taking risks because the stakes are so high—children’s futures, public trust, and professional reputations. This is understandable, but it’s also counterproductive. In systems that are demonstrably failing the most vulnerable children, the greater ethical risk lies in doing nothing.
Accountability vs. autonomy
Many of our prevailing systems demand high accountability but offer limited autonomy. Leaders are held responsible for outcomes without being given the flexibility to innovate freely. This misalignment reinforces reactive, risk-averse behaviours.
Rethinking risk
🅰️ Trusts as risk-pooling structures
We know that one of the key benefits of schools belonging to trusts is the financial risk-pooling they provide. In a trust, individual schools are no longer solely responsible for covering deficits or absorbing unexpected costs. I wonder if the same principle could apply to innovation and creativity?
‘Innovation risk-pooling’?
Could trusts could create innovation funds or designate specific schools as “innovation hubs” to trial bold new ideas? By pooling risk, trusts could shield individual schools from the potential downsides of failure while allowing experimentation to flourish.
For example, a trust could trial a new behaviour management framework in one school, with additional support and resources from the central team, before deciding whether to scale it across other schools. If the initiative doesn’t succeed, the risk is absorbed collectively rather than falling on the shoulders of a single school leader.
Trusts are uniquely positioned to lead this cultural shift. By fostering environments where calculated risks are not just tolerated but encouraged, this might unlock the creativity and innovation often stifled by the current system.
🅱️ Reimagining Ofsted’s role
What if Ofsted were tasked with assessing not just compliance but creativity? Maybe ‘creativity’ isn’t the right word, but what if part of the next framework included criteria to evaluate:
Boldness? i.e. The extent to which schools and/or trusts are actively pursuing innovative strategies to close attainment gaps and improve outcomes?
Evidence of learning? Even if outcomes are not immediately measurable, are schools demonstrating a commitment to learning from their initiatives. To what extent is the school a ‘learning organisation’?
Collaboration? To what extent is the school/trust sharing successes and failures with others to build collective knowledge?
I won’t pretend to be an expert on school accountability generally—or Ofsted, specifically—but we know the power that this function has and that similar approaches are being implemented elsewhere, within education and beyond.
In Finland, for example, schools are encouraged to experiment with locally driven innovations under the guidance of municipal boards. These initiatives are evaluated for their broader impact on learning rather than just test scores. Similarly, in Singapore, the Ministry of Education supports schools in piloting new ideas with rigorous evaluation but without punitive consequences for failure.
Imagine Ofsted celebrating a school that’s boldly and rigorously experimenting with new strategies to engage disadvantaged students? Even if the lagging outcomes hadn’t quite materialised yet, if the school could point towards strenuously evaluated leading indicators, surely this should be factored into their judgments. Even still, if the leading indicators weren’t materialising, and the school had caught this before it was too late, interrogated why and pivoted to a new strategy—this should surely be rewarded. This would require a shift in accountability measures, prioritising long-term systemic change over short-term compliance.
Risk as a catalyst for change
Risk doesn’t have to be a barrier—it can be a catalyst for meaningful change. Trusts can play a pivotal role by acting as innovation incubators, pooling risk and creating structures that protect individual leaders from punitive consequences. At the same time, Ofsted could shift its focus to reward schools for creativity and boldness, recognising that truly transformative change takes time.
The stakes are too high to stay safe.