Teach-Primary-Issue-19.2

Hannah Carter It’s time to stop counting years served to elect school leaders and start really evaluating talent... ‘Earning your stripes’? It’s a fallacy VO I C E S I n many schools, the unspoken rule is clear: before stepping into a leadership role, you must ‘earn your stripes’. This typically involves years of classroom experience, taking on smaller responsibilities like leading a key stage or subject, and slowly climbing the ladder. The belief is that experience in teaching equates to excellence in leading. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: it doesn’t. Education has a leadership problem. The obsession with time served, rather than identifying genuine talent has, in many cases, created a conveyor belt of often uninspired and underqualified leaders. It’s time to rethink how leadership in schools works, and move away from rewarding endurance over impact. For decades, many schools seem to have operated on the idea that leadership is a reward for survival. Stick around long enough, navigate the pressures of teaching, and eventually you’ll move up the ladder. Consider the traditional pathway: a classroom teacher starts by picking up extra responsibilities, progressing through roles like head of year or key stage coordinator. Over time, they move into middle leadership and eventually into senior roles. This process, though it sometimes does allow those with talent and aptitude to progress, too often ignores whether individuals actually have the vision or the skills needed to lead; it’s simply about ticking boxes. Yet time served is, on its own, a terrible predictor of leadership ability. Some teachers spend years honing their craft in the classroom, but Leadership isn’t about how well you teach; it’s about being able to empower others to teach well. It’s about having a vision for improvement, being willing to make tough decisions, and fostering an ambitious culture. These skills are not a natural by-product of teaching, but rather require a whole different focus. Some of the most promising leaders are found early in their careers. A teacher in their second or third year might already be inspiring colleagues, driving innovation, and articulating fresh ideas. But schools often tell these individuals to wait their turn. By the time they’ve ‘earned their stripes’, their enthusiasm may have dulled, or worse, they’ve left the profession entirely. Core subjects also tend to dominate leadership pipelines, because those from larger teams have more opportunities to evidence their impact. In contrast, teachers in smaller subjects, like drama or art, are often overlooked for senior roles, regardless of their potential. To create better leaders, schools must stop equating leadership with longevity and focus on nurturing talent early. First, we need to separate teaching from leading. Great classroom teachers should be able to stay in the classroom and be rewarded for their expertise without being pushed into leadership roles at which they may not excel (nor enjoy!). Second, leadership pathways must focus on potential, not just experience. This could include fast-track leadership programmes, mentoring schemes, and targeted development for teachers with demonstrated impact, regardless of years served. Finally, schools must rethink how they evaluate leadership candidates. Promotions should be based on evidence of influence and effectiveness, not popularity. What has the candidate achieved? How have they inspired others? Do they understand what great leadership looks like? To build the next generation of leaders, we must create systems that value ability over waiting in line. Our schools and pupils deserve nothing less. TP Hannah Carter writes as The Honest Educator, and is an experienced headteacher and executive coach, specialising in school improvement. www.teachwire.net | 13 @thehonesteducator.bsky.social lack the strategic thinking, people management, or decision-making skills that leadership demands. Others spend years moving between roles further down the ladder without truly getting the chance to demonstrate their capacity to lead. And then there’s the issue of likeability. Schools often mistake personal charisma for leadership potential, promoting those who are well-liked over those with the ability to inspire change. Take that one teacher who’s always organising social events and chatting at lunch. Their visibility can see them climb the ranks, even if other colleagues have a greater ability to drive whole-school improvement. Meanwhile, a quieter teacher only in their second year of teaching might have innovative ideas, but is overlooked because they’re ‘too inexperienced’.