Category: Taking The Lead

Can the vicarious observation and analysis of experience be effectively substituted for experience itself? Comments on PeriodOne’s experience deficit posting from erudite practitioners would suggest yes, they can. And I agree – after all, this has been going on for some time. I think that the difference now is in the speed at which this observation and evaluation has to be performed, and the critical situations that are at stake. Someone beginning, say, a core head of faculty job with two years’ experience (which is eminently plausible) is not going to have had time to conduct the process of watch, adapt, try out, evaluate, develop. The individual will certainly have learnt a great deal over the previous 6 terms, but she is still starting a job that 6 or 7 years ago would have only been taken on by someone with a least twice the experience. Inevitably, many of the new head of faculty’s decisions, reactions and strategies are going to have to base themselves on something else. Call it a style, a philosophy, a hunch, whatever: the thing motivating the actions of the inexperienced leader is going to be intangible: intellectual, maybe emotional. But not the product of experience, be it real or vicarious or observed. And when questioned on a decision, there’s not going to be any firm answer: no “it worked for me when …” or “I’ve taken it from when …”. I know this because it’s how I feel: my meeting contributions are often justified with a rather weak-sounding, “Actually, it’s my next assignment topic”. Or even, “Er, because we learnt it on the PGCE”. Such explanations don’t go down well. But what guides successful inexperienced leaders when they are faced with a situation they just haven’t seen anyone else deal with is what defines them. And in the ruthlessly pragmatic world of education, having the confidence to develop and nurture a philosophy with which to guide oneself is becoming essential. Without it, the inexperienced leader risks steering a chaotic course plotted using individually valid but mutually incompatible ideas hastily gathered as a newly qualified teacher. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that our philosophies are already guiding us. We just need to figure them out so we can better support each other.

There are currently more and more young and / or inexperienced educational practitioners taking on levels of responsibility previously only awarded to those with several years’ experience. Especially in city schools where recruitment is difficult, young and flexible applicants (often driven on by a variety of leadership-orientated schemes) are filling the posts – witness the age profile of my school. The advice given to these leadership aspirants is often similar: actively seek out leadership opportunities and maintain a reflective approach, evaluate and improve. My question is: against what criteria should inexperienced leaders evaluate themselves? A conscientious and available mentor could provide these, but such people are understandably hard to come by given the pressures on senior school staff. The other option is to try and compensate for lack of direct experience by building up theoretical knowledge which can be accumulated readily outside of the classroom – in the library or the post-graduate lecture theatre. But is this any good? Does it cut it in a tense budget meeting or classroom confrontation? I think we need some theoretical guidance on making theoretical guidance work in practice. There are currently some incredibly successful, incredibly inexperienced leaders at work in education – we need to look at how they have bridged the experience deficit, whether through solid theory, inspirational mentors or sheer determination, fortitude and resilience. That’ll leave the rest of us to get on with bridging our other deficits…