You don’t always need more. Sometimes you need better return from what’s already in place. Before adding another strand to your CPD plan or commissioning new training, it’s worth asking a harder question: are you getting the full impact from the development, expertise and resources you already have?

Meetings are full. Training is scheduled. Initiatives are underway. Updates are shared. From the outside, it can look busy and purposeful. But the real test of strategy isn’t how much activity is taking place — it’s whether the people doing the work understand what it’s all for.

Deciding what’s actually worth staff time You’re making decisions right now with limited budget, limited time, and limited capacity. Most of them aren’t ideal choices — they’re more like trade-offs. If something new comes in, something else has to give. If time is spent in one place, it’s taken from another. That’s why return on time is a useful lens. But that isn’t what the new EIF is asking for.

For a long time, schools have felt pressure to demonstrate activity. More initiatives. More training. More strategies. More evidence folders. But volume has never been the same thing as quality — and under the new framework, that difference is becoming harder to ignore. But that isn’t what the new EIF is asking for.

When frameworks change, expectations tend to creep up with them. There’s a sense that schools should already have answers, already be further along, already be able to point to impact everywhere at once. But that isn’t what the new EIF is asking for.

If it feels like every conversation in education right now eventually lands on outcomes, you’re not imagining it. Outcomes are everywhere. In meetings. In inspections. In improvement plans. In emails you haven’t quite had time to read yet. Outcomes. Progress. Impact. Evidence. On repeat.