For those working in post-16 education, disruption hardly feels new. Qualification pathways are changing, funding is shifting and established business models are under pressure. We call this reform – a word that implies the careful improvement of an existing system. But on the ground, it often feels far more disruptive. That’s why for many, disruption signals chaos and cliché. But true disruption isn’t about making incremental changes to the system, disruption is simply the willingness to ask whether the system we have is still the system we need. That is why what I would describe as Andy Burnham’s politics of disruption deserves closer attention from those working across education and skills. Not because every proposal is necessarily right, or because every aspect of devolution is guaranteed to succeed, but because it begins with a fundamentally different premise. For decades, England has designed skills policy from the centre outwards. National priorities have shaped local provision. Funding has flowed through centrally designed mechanisms. Qualifications have sought universal consistency. There are good reasons for this. National standards matter, particularly for awarding organisations. Employers also need confidence that competence means the same thing wherever someone trains. Yet the economy itself no longer behaves in such a uniform way. Become a member for unlimited access to FE Week subscribe Our members enjoy early access to exclusive content and in-depth articles before anyone else. Get expert journalism on FE and skills, experience fewer ads, and unlock a growing range of member benefits.