Top takeaways from a peer learning programme

9 April 2026

What does 'good work' in cultural education look like in practice? What might educators and leaders learn from one another if given the space to do so on their own terms? What happens if cultural educators are paired together in a programme with no targets to hit, no prescribed outcomes to deliver - just time and permission to talk.

What happened was this: participants made genuine connections, gained fresh perspectives on their own practice, and began to articulate shared frustrations about the conditions they work in. They also laughed a lot, which matters more than it might seem.

A New Direction ran a pilot CPD over four months in 2025-2026 – Space for Exchange. It was initially developed out of our Space for Change programme which ran for four years. After the success of the pilot, Space for Exchange will be returning for 2026-2027.

Here, John Riches shares with us some insights on the pilot.

Our top takeaways:

• That explaining your organisation from scratch to a trusted peer is itself a valuable form of thinking.
• That having someone from outside ask questions can reveal assumptions you didn't know you were making.
• That 'sense-making' might be a more useful description of leadership than 'decision-making'.
• That moving a conversation into a different space changes the questions you ask.
• That the pressure to hit targets is often self-imposed, based on what we assume funders want to hear.
• That a walk and a talk can be more productive than a meeting in a room.
• That the boundaries you create for your team are often the ones you refuse to apply to yourself.
• That laughter in a work setting is not a distraction, but a sign that something is working.

How it worked: process and structure

Participants were matched up by the Programme Facilitator, Sheryl Malcolm, using goals each participant submitted in response to an application form. These goals ranged from wanting to understand how peers approach evaluation and community engagement, to exploring anti-oppressive practice, to simply seeking connection and confidence. The intention was to create connections based on shared interests or complementary needs, which might provide a foundation for genuine exchange.

They then took part in an introductory group session, visited each other's organisations, shared a creative experience, and returned to the group to share their responses and outcomes. A workbook supported these conversations, containing questions and prompts but no requirement to complete it in a particular way.

The model worked because it trusted participants to know what they needed. It provided structure without prescription, and peer relationships without hierarchy. The learning was not delivered from above but generated between people doing similar work in different contexts.

What participants gained

Space to think. Several noted that the programme carved out time for reflection that their usual working lives don't allow.

External perspective. A fresh pair of eyes could ask different questions, spot assumptions, and offer genuine challenge.

Validation and connection. Several participants spoke about the relief of finding peers who understood their work. The group sessions generated warmth and laughter, but also recognition.

Practical insights. Conversations led to concrete observations about how things might be done differently - opening up new possibilities within their organisation.

Ripple effects. Some gains were already feeding back into organisations before the end of the programme.

Being seen. Several participants described something unexpected: the experience of having their work witnessed and affirmed by someone who understood its complexity. In a sector where much goes unseen, this mattered. The programme provided not just fresh perspectives, but validation.

Values-led connection. The pairings worked not because participants shared a sector or art-form, but because they shared values. This alignment - a sense that the other person was driven by the same things - enabled trust to develop quickly and conversations to go deep.

Place as part of the learning. Visits to each other's physical spaces turned out to be unexpectedly powerful. Seeing a partner in their own context - the building, the neighbourhood, the community they work with - opened up understanding that conversation alone could not.

Insights for the sector

The programme was small, but the gains outlined above were not – and it's safe to assume that the experience of educators across the sector might experience similar insights and outcomes, within a similar programme. So, we can begin to draw out some wider themes from the Space for Exchange pairing pilot:

Isolation is common. Several participants spoke about the loneliness of their roles. Having someone outside their organisation who understood their work was, in itself, a significant gain. The programme did not set out to address isolation, but participants made clear that peer connection of this kind is rare and needed.

The appetite for wider connection. Participants did not only value their paired conversations; several expressed a desire to connect more with the wider cohort. The introductory session had sparked curiosity about what others were doing and learning. This suggests that the isolation participants experience is not only about the absence of a single trusted peer, but about the lack of any sustained peer community at all.

The pressure of targets is unsustainable. Every participant raised this. They described chasing numbers 'plucked out of thin air' to satisfy funders, often tailoring bids to what they assumed would be well-received rather than what their organisations actually needed or did well. This creates a cycle where effort goes into meeting arbitrary metrics rather than delivering meaningful work. It also leads to duplication, with organisations competing for the same funding – sometimes covering the same geographic areas - and thus uneven provision - some young people in parts of London getting 'loads', with others missing out entirely.

Expertise sits outside leadership structures. One observation was stark: ‘The people who are, and have, pushed inclusivity into the mainstream are those from the excluded communities, not the leadership'. The programme validated grassroots and community-rooted expertise, but participants noted that this expertise is rarely the thing that opens doors to formal leadership positions.

There is appetite for something different. Participants described the programme as pointing to 'a different approach to doing things'. The desire for ongoing connection was clear, as was the wish that the learning from the pilot might be shared more widely.

The gap between policy and practice. Participants noted that decisions made at funding and policy level often bear little relation to what works on the ground. One participant said that taking part in the pilot had directly led them to 'create more space around discussion of policy' within their organisation - a small but telling example of how peer exchange can equip educators to push back against systems that don't serve their work or the young people they work with.

None of this is expensive or complicated. What it requires is a belief that educators and leaders benefit from space to think together - and a willingness to fund that space.

John Riches began working as a youth arts worker in east London in the early 1990s, subsequently working at English National Opera and the National Theatre/Art of Regeneration, before turning freelance over 20 years ago. Since then, he has held numerous roles for Trinity College/Arts Award, A New Direction – as a fundraiser, project manager, editor and adviser – and many others. In addition to his current freelance roles, John is the part-time Director of QueenSpark Books in Brighton.

We asked the participants how the programme directly affected the children and young people they work with:

“I feel that I bring new perspective to the work - thinking about how I might use other techniques and ethos that I learned from my peers. Taking the time to evaluate my own practice so that I can improve and expand!”

“My organisation wants to start a youth advisory group. Speaking to members of the group and my exchange partner about this has given me more confidence and invaluable wider sector insight into how to approach the conversations with the leadership team about how best to set up the group. Seeing how coin street offers such holistic care through it's programmes really inspired me and I want to bring this into my work with children and young people.”

“The young people I worked with have benefitted from me being more energised and motivated because of my engagement in the programme. I have continued to think about, support (and develop) ways for them to establish routes into creative industries more widely.”

“I believe I will better be able to give my time and work towards the young people I work with, this means I'll be a better role model. I will also have more connections with others, in order to guide a high standard of work for our young people and provide them with opportunities. I truly believe there are a lot of institutions which are working individually which tend not to be connected to anyone, and I think this is a catalyst to me for more connection, with those who work directly in the community, and those who work directly institutions.”