The intelligent man finds almost everything ridiculous, the sensible man hardly anything.
Goethe
A few weeks back I wrote this post laying out my wishlist for the ‘perfect’ school leader. Since then, one startling omission has become clear. I addition to wanting school leaders to be humble, loving, determined, focussed and possessing of vision I also want them to be clever. Too many people are, for a variety of reasons (but probably the biggest is confidence,) promoted above their ability. This results in the Dunning-Kruger effect.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is the finding that the poorest performers are the least aware of their own incompetence. Or put more crudely: stupid people are too stupid to recognise their own stupidity… After comparing participants’ tests results with their self-assessment of their performance in such diverse fields as sense of humour, grammar and logic, Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, the incompetent not only fail to recognise their own lack of skill but also fail to recognise genuine skill in others… As Dunning observes, “If you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent… the skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is.”
What If Everything You Knew About Education Was Wrong? (p. 62-3)
You’ve probably come across school leaders that fit these descriptions. If you haven’t, stick around.
Obviously, just being clever wouldn’t work, but it stikes me that it might be possible for someone to possess all the other qualities I think are important and still not be very bright. A desire for intelligence might seem somewhat controversial but it is, I think, essential if we want schools to be well led.
Of course, I probably have to justify what I mean by intelligence. At its most basic intelligence is defined as the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Professor of educational psychology, Linda Gottfredson defines it thusly:
Intelligence is a very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience. It is not merely book-learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings, ‘catching on’, ‘making sense’ of things, or ‘figuring out’ what to do.
In his marvellous little book, Intelligence, Stuart Richie says of Gottfredson’s definition:
… it would be surprising if something as complicated as human intelligence could be summed up in a brief soundbite. The definition above describes a mental capacity which everyone has to a degree, but what’s crucial… is that not everyone has the same capacity: some people are more intelligent than others.
These are I think essential qualities in anyone responsible for running a school. So, how do we know if a prospective school leader is up to snuff? Novelist, F. Scott Fitzgerald had an interesting idea: “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” Sadly, I’m not sure how we might measure this. So should we just give everyone an IQ test? Well, maybe – there’s compelling evidence that a quotient of general intelligence, or g, correlates well with a whole host of desirable qualities including educational achievement, performance in complex jobs, creativity and, wait for it… leadership. (It also correlates with committing fewer crimes, making funnier jokes and ‘liking’ The Godfather on Facebook!)
I recognise that this might feel unpalatable and it’s probably impossible to decide on precisely where to draw the line. So instead, I’d like to suggest that a career in school leadership should require a further degree of at least Masters level in their own academic subject. Admittedly, this wouldn’t provide a precise measure of intelligence, but it could be a reasonable proxy which also revealed something about motivation, the capacity for hard work and – highly desirable in its own right – more expert subject knowledge.
“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
Well, I’ve certainly known a lot of school leaders who can do that.
Haha! Yes. Depends what you mean by function, but it it’s conduct meaningless and soul crushing lesson observations on autopilot you might be right.
I think I would go further and say a masters degree in their own academic subject is needed, rather than just any Masters degree. At the risk of sounding cynical, a Masters degree in “teaching and learning” could lead to even more imposition of some unproven and untested “fads,” which just happened to be the latest fashion during the course!
Yeah, you’re right. I’d decided to right exactly that then went and pulled the punch. Sorry, I’ll update now
[…] In another post, I added a sixth wish: intelligence. […]
I agree David. A great leader has vision and the capacity to bring his/her team in line with that vision. One of the problems with our schools is that teachers do not believe in the actions that their leaders are taking. So schools consume themselves through the negativity of staff or in some cases through rampant power struggles. A great leader knows how to manage these things and yes, intelligently, prevent or change these things for good.
Now wouldn’t that be a fine thing! If I were free to choose however, I’d ask for the Master’s to be in the Sciences. Oh, and could they please be able to play the drums?
I see your point but as someone who, for personal reasons, had to curtail their education after a bachelor’s degree then entered teaching in their thirties and now, after ten years, has joined the leadership team with optimism, an open mind and a genuine desire to support good teachers to do their job by binning so much of the nonsense (and an avid reader of your blog) your prerequisite would exclude me while including people I have met in my career whose intentions and intelligence were dubious. I don’t know that I’m convinced a masters degree is a surefire measure of intelligence although I’m possibly being defensive after a long term!
I agree, Catherine. It’s not a reliable measure but, like you, I’ve met many ‘whose intentions and intelligence were dubious’, and working with them is challenging. (Working with me may be challenging too, I’ll warrant!). It’s always such a pleasure to work with people who are able to think critically as well as being well-educated themselves.
Although I see why a relevant Masters qualification might be a good proxy for the sort of intelligence that is being talked about. I agree that it would also exclude some who have the intelligence (and other characteristics) but took a less academic path for whatever reason. I understand the vital importance of good subject knowledge, but there are many good teachers who don’t have 1st class or 2:1 degrees or Masters, but with subject knowledge that is good enough for their situation as long as they know their limitations (e.g. only teaching up to KS4).
It wouldn’t be a bad idea to assess subject knowledge.
Sorry, but an MSc, MA or even a PhD is not a reliable indicator of the intelligence you outline above. This would be a step in the wrong direction….setting an academic hurdle to get over, and exclude many intelligent people who don’t have the qualification. Who does the interviewing for these leadership positions? That’s how we handle it in our sector, utilising a diverse panel of people, all who are looking for sharpness and the required attitude. A further degree is not required.
I agree with your comments about intelligence in the broader sense, but not so in the academic sense. As someone who is very good at ‘the system’ of education, I know I could go on from my masters to a doctorate, but I also know it wouldn’t necessarily make me a better teacher or leader (other than the status it would give me, which might encourage others to respect my ideas or accept them more willingly.)
I’ve experienced leaders (more than 1) with PhDs and leaders with no further degrees than their bachelors. Add to that conversations with my colleagues and friends from the UK and beyond, and I don’t see any direct correlation between qualifications and an aptitude to lead. Certainly an interest in education may be indicated by self-financed further study, but I hear a lot of teachers saying they do further study to get ‘up the career ladder’ rather than for any inherent joy in learning about education and broadening their minds in this field.
What I *have* noticed as common in great leadership is a clear vision of what education is for, open-mindedness, great people skills, a willingness to have an open door, be accepting of (and actively seeking) feedback from all areas of the school community, and always reflecting on past outcomes to be able to explain current practice. I find people like this inspirational to work with, and – as my children are in the schools I work in – I know this appeals not only to the staff, but also the students and their parents.
It’s perhaps not the most scientific method of drawing conclusions, but I don’t necessarily value experiential ways of knowing as less than scientific ones.
I’d go for an advanced degree *and* an IQ test. There are some pretty dodgy postgraduate courses out there.
I don’t think a Masters gives you better knowledge for teaching. I know that when teaching Chemistry that the quantum stuff I did in my post-graduate is not only not useful, but positively unhelpful.
An open mind, reading about the subject and strong second year level university knowledge is all you need for teaching High School. Even intelligence is a two-edged sword: the smart teacher who can’t explain anything is a stereo-typical trope for a reason.
I would merely ask that a Principal have a strong knowledge in a subject, so that they can understand what that brings to a teacher, and a realistic appreciation of their intelligence.
The Dunning-Kruger effect is, notoriously, strongest with the clever. Because they are clever they tend to think that they are good at everything and vastly over-rate their ability to do things outside their area of expertise.
My personal favourite requirement in senior leadership is an imperviousness to fads.
It’s nice to see someone being honest about the need for intelligence at the top. I may go further and say that this is something we could do with a little more of at all levels of the profession.
I’m not convinced by the Masters requirement – of course, there are many for whom a Masters represents a good degree of intellect (pun not intended) but there are plenty of others for whom it represents too much time on their hands and the ability to find a spare ten grand to pay for the bloody thing… Having said that, finding another adequate measure of what we’re looking for is nigh on impossible. Abena’s second paragraph above is a very accurate summary of what we’re looking for but many of these qualities represent a certain interpersonal excellence among other qualitative attributes which are incredibly difficult to quantify. Perhaps we should have Head Teacher X-Factor? Panel: Lord Harris, Sir Ken of Pseudland and a rotating guest spot for year 10 pupil-feedbackers (must be prefects to confer credibility).
I’d dearly love for schools (particularly now that large academy chains appear to be stockpiling funds à la Smaug and his gold) to offer sabbaticals / funded study periods to their most promising staff but I’m not holding my breath… We neglect developing the intellectual curiosity and wider knowledge base of our teachers whilst expecting them to develop these very qualities in their pupils every day. I’ve always found it odd to expect teachers to unlock the intellectual curiosity of the youth when their own intellectual curiosity is too often neutered by faddy nonsense and turgid CPD (which, alas, is often based on said faddy nonsense).
One of the qualities I would look for is the ability to spell “write”.
Another quality I would look for is the ability to do a 60 hour week, under heavy government scrutiny, with a real time funding cut of 7%, be held responsible for all of society’s ills while maintaining a sense of humour when someone with hardly any experience of school leadership takes the moral high ground on it. I aspire to be that person.
Merry Christmas, by the way. I enjoyed the book.
🙂 I hear you Bill… It’s a bloody thankless task. Part of actually attracting the right quality into leadership positions (especially headships) has to be addressing this depressing truth across the system:
http://www.desperatelyseekingsir.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/symptoms-and-causes.html
The very fact that qualifying what might demonstrate a sufficient skill-base to lead a school well is so impossible is, in part, an indicator of just how few people are likely to be fully suited to the role.
It is also very fair to say that a lot of teachers don’t appreciate that the skills required for leadership are quite different from those required to be an excellent teacher (although there is some overlap, of course). The common refrain of teachers that it’s ‘easier’ being ‘out of the classroom’ in more managerial/leadership roles always amuses me… Try having the buck stop with you and managing yourselves for a couple of terms and see what you reckon then… There is so much that goes on behind the scenes – much of it absolutely vital and complex work – that many class teachers are unaware of.
Having said that, it’s probably fair to acknowledge that Peter Principle applies fairly often in education which is, understandably, a source of frustration for many who are led by people who may be a little stretched beyond capacity. Then again, it applies all over the place I suppose or it wouldn’t be a principle I suppose. Solutions on a postcard…
And can we also please examine/test the intelligence of our lords and masters in Westminster? For example, all those who believe that every child can be at least average?
[…] December – One more thing I want from school leaders – In November I wrote a list of the qualities I most desired in school leaders. Somewhat […]
Not sure what this adds to the debate about whether intelligence can be accurately measured by higher degrees but have to say that, having just completed a doctorate, the most significant thing I think Iearnt was that I am actually not as intelligent as I thought I was….