Learners Today, Leaders Tomorrow

It feels apt to be writing this in a hotel room before walking through the bustling halls of BETT 2025 for Day 3/3, surrounded by gleaming displays of educational technology and powerful conversations about artificial intelligence in schools, I'm struck by a simple truth: all this innovation means nothing if we don't understand the fundamental relationship between learning and leadership.

The conference theme "Learning Today, Leading Tomorrow" isn't just a catchy slogan. It captures an essential truth about human development that philosophers and educators have grappled with for centuries. Plato's Republic wasn't just a treatise on justice; it was fundamentally a text about how education shapes leadership. His concept of the philosopher-king wasn't about finding perfect leaders - it was about creating them through careful education.

But while we've mastered the art of teaching content, we're still struggling with the science of developing leaders. Our educational system excels at measuring what students know, but often falls short in nurturing how they think, adapt, and lead. As psychologist Graham Wallas noted in his 1926 work The Art of Thought (which many of you know has been extremely influential in the development of my own work), learning isn't a linear process of information acquisition - it's a complex interplay of preparation, incubation, illumination, and verification. These same stages, interestingly enough, mirror the journey from learner to leader.

Check out Forming & Framing Ideas By Asking Better Questions to hear more about this.

I want to think about the typical British classroom. We've become extraordinarily good at preparing students for examinations, but are we equally adept at preparing them for the complexity and ambiguity they'll face as future leaders? The evidence suggests otherwise. A 2023 CBI report highlighted that while academic achievement in UK schools continues to improve, employers consistently report a leadership skills gap among young recruits.

Rethinking Learning for Future Leadership

The distance between how we teach and how people actually learn remains one of education's most persistent challenges. Visit most schools and you'll likely find remnants of an industrial-age model: standardised periods, uniform assessments and what Sir Ken Robinson famously called "batching students by manufacturing date". While we've updated the technology and refreshed the curriculum, the underlying operating system remains largely unchanged.

This isn't just an academic concern. When the Royal Society of Arts examined the relationship between traditional educational success and later leadership capability, they found something striking: academic achievement, while important, was a surprisingly poor predictor of leadership effectiveness. What mattered more was the development of what they termed "possibility thinking" - the ability to imagine and create alternative futures.

The shift we need isn't just methodological; it's philosophical. Consider how we currently frame capability development in schools. We talk about 'skills gaps' and 'learning outcomes', using the language of deficits rather than possibilities. But as Harvard's Howard Gardner argues in "Five Minds for the Future", what we really need to develop are different ways of thinking.

“Anything that is worth teaching can be presented in many different ways. These multiple ways can make use of our multiple intelligences.” Howard Gardner

This is where frameworks like the Unboxing Ideas approach become valuable (even if I say so myself). Rather than treating learning as a simple input-output process, it acknowledges the messiness and non-linearity of real understanding. The four stages - Prep, Brew, Aha, and Check - mirror how natural learning actually occurs, not how we've traditionally tried to force it to happen.

Take the 'Brew' stage, for instance. Traditional education often rushes past this crucial incubation period in the race to cover content. Yet it's in these moments of apparent inactivity that some of our most powerful learning occurs. Neuroscience now confirms what many teachers have intuitively known: our brains need time to process and connect information before genuine understanding emerges.

The neurodiversity perspective adds another crucial layer to this rethinking. Our current educational model often treats different learning styles as problems to be solved rather than assets to be developed, especially with the debunking of VAK (Video Auditory & Kinaesthetic learning styles for those wondering!) and other ‘limiting paradigms’. Yet the evidence suggests that neurodiverse approaches to problem-solving and leadership may be exactly what we need in an increasingly complex world. As I have talked about in my own experience multiple times, traits that might be seen as challenges in traditional education - like ADHD's hyperfocus or autism's pattern recognition - can become leadership strengths in the right context.

This rethinking requires us to address a fundamental question: what if we're measuring the wrong things? Our current assessment frameworks excel at measuring knowledge retention but often fail to capture the development of essential leadership capabilities like adaptability, emotional intelligence, and systemic thinking. As educational psychologist Dylan Wiliam notes:

“The teacher’s job is not to transmit knowledge, nor to facilitate learning. It is to engineer effective learning environments for the students. The key features of effective learning environments are that they create student engagement and allow teachers, learners, and their peers to ensure that the learning is proceeding in the intended direction. The only way we can do this is through assessment. That is why assessment is, indeed, the bridge between teaching and learning.” Dylan Wiliam

I had a great conversation with Mark House from RM Education last week at the NGA Conference in Manchester (what a great event by the way). He said something that has been going round in my mind ever since:

“In England, we treasure what we measure; we need to measure what we treasure.” Mark House

I think this is profound.

The implications for leadership development are complex too. When we examine successful leaders across sectors, from Dame Sharon White at John Lewis to Marcus Rashford's social advocacy (let’s not talk about his football currently, eh?), what stands out isn't their academic credentials but their ability to synthesise information, build relationships, and navigate complexity. These capabilities aren't easily measured by traditional assessments, yet they're crucial for future leadership.

Progressive schools like XP School in Doncaster are already reimagining education through project-based learning and real-world problem-solving. Their students don't just learn about leadership - they practice it daily through collaborative projects that require initiative, teamwork, and creative problem-solving. The results are telling: their students consistently outperform national averages not just in academic measures but in measures of leadership capability and emotional intelligence.

The technology angle here is crucial but often misunderstood. While BETT's halls are filled with impressive digital tools, the key isn't the technology itself but how it enables new forms of learning and leadership development. Artificial Intelligence, for instance, shouldn't be seen as a replacement for traditional learning but as a tool that can free up time for the complex, human aspects of leadership development that machines can't easily replicate.

This brings us to a critical point about capability development: the need to balance structured learning with emergent understanding. The Finnish education system, often cited as world-leading, provides an instructive example. Their approach emphasises 'ilmiöoppiminen' (phenomenon-based learning), where students learn through exploring real-world phenomena rather than through siloed subjects. This naturally develops leadership capabilities as students must navigate complexity, work collaboratively, and take initiative in their learning.

Yet this rethinking isn't without its challenges. School leaders often find themselves caught between the demands of current accountability measures and the need to develop future-focused capabilities. The greatest enemies of superior performance and quality of experience in education are the standardised solutions and soulless standardisation that now dominate it.

The solution lies not in abandoning standards but in reimagining them. 

The emerging pattern is clear: effective learning for future leadership requires us to move beyond the false dichotomy of traditional versus progressive education. Instead, I think we need what might be called an 'integrated development approach' that:

- Recognises the validity of different learning styles/approaches/preferences (whatever you want to call the thing!) and cognitive perspectives 

- Creates space for both structured learning and emergent understanding

- Values both individual achievement and collaborative capability

- Embraces technology while preserving human connection

- Measures what matters, not just what's easy to measure

This rethinking isn't just about changing what we teach; it's about transforming how we think about learning itself. When we understand learning as a process of leadership development rather than just knowledge acquisition, we begin to see different possibilities for education. As Sir Ken Robinson pointed out:

"The real role of leadership in education... is not and should not be command and control. The real role of leadership is climate control, creating a climate of possibility." Sir Ken Robinson

In this light, every classroom becomes a leadership laboratory, every project an opportunity for growth, and every challenge a chance to develop the capabilities our future leaders will need. The question isn't whether we need to rethink learning for future leadership - it's whether we're brave enough to do so.

The Authenticity Challenge

The irony of teaching leadership in British schools is striking. We claim to want innovators and independent thinkers, yet our systems often actively discourage both. This isn't just about school structure - it's about the fundamental disconnect between what we say we value and what we actually reward.

Applying Dannemiller's Formula for Change (from FRiDEAS #20) to this challenge reveals something interesting. The dissatisfaction exists - educators, employers, and students all express frustration with the current system. The vision of authentic leadership development is clear. We even have promising first steps in progressive schools experimenting with new approaches. Yet the resistance remains formidable, rooted not just in institutional inertia but in our collective anxiety about letting go of familiar metrics and methods.

This resistance manifests in subtle but powerful ways. Take student voice initiatives, for instance. Too often, they become exercises in managed participation rather than genuine leadership development. Students learn to phrase their ideas in ways adults find acceptable rather than developing their authentic voice.

The resistance also looks like seemingly progressive projects. I heard two leading ‘innovators’ recently whose hope for the future of assessment was digital exams! For real. Let’s replace the methodology that labels ⅓ of students as failures BY DESIGN with a digital version of the same. I kid you not. 

The challenge becomes more complex when we consider neurodiversity in leadership development. These traits often seen as 'problems' in traditional education can become leadership strengths when properly understood and supported. Yet our standardised approach to leadership development rarely makes room for these different ways of thinking and leading.

While our schools invest considerable resources in both academic achievement and leadership development, these efforts often pull in opposite directions. The pressure to achieve specific measurable outcomes - whether GCSE results or Ofsted ratings - can work against the conditions needed for authentic leadership development.

This tension manifests particularly in secondary education, where the competing demands of curriculum coverage, examination preparation, and broader development collide most visibly. The Department for Education's emphasis on the EBacc suite of subjects, while well-intentioned in its aim to provide academic rigour, has arguably narrowed the scope for the kind of exploratory, experiential learning that develops leadership capabilities. When success is predominantly measured through examination performance, schools naturally prioritise teaching methods that optimise these outcomes.

The introduction of systematic synthetic phonics offers an instructive parallel. While this approach has demonstrably improved reading acquisition at primary level, its success stems from systematic implementation rather than personalisation. Leadership development, however, requires something fundamentally different - the space for individual characteristics and approaches to emerge and develop. This highlights a central paradox in our educational approach: we cannot systematise authenticity.

Graham Wallas's stages of thought provide a useful framework for understanding this challenge. His model emphasises the importance of incubation - that period where ideas and capabilities develop below the surface of conscious attention. Yet our educational structures, with their emphasis on constant assessment and visible progress, leave little room for this crucial stage. We risk creating what might be termed 'performative leadership' - students who can demonstrate leadership behaviours without developing genuine leadership capabilities.

The implications of this tension manifest in several key areas. First, consider how schools approach student leadership opportunities. The traditional prefect system, still prevalent across British secondary schools, often selects students based on their ability to conform to existing structures rather than their potential to innovate or lead meaningful change. This system, while efficient for school management, potentially reinforces what educational theorist Paulo Freire termed the "banking model" of education - treating students as passive recipients rather than active agents of change. Indeed, when I got my blue and red prefect tie, I remember it being met with more than a few grumbles, considering my penchant for pushing the boundaries and multiple exclusions from school!

“Implicit in the banking concept is the assumption of a dichotomy between human beings and the world". Paolo Freire 

More fundamentally, this challenge reflects a deeper question about the purpose of education itself. The Education Act 2002 mandates that schools promote "the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils", yet our assessment systems predominantly measure academic outcomes. This disparity creates what might be called an authenticity gap - the space between what we say we value and what we actually measure and reward.

The emergence of academisation has added another layer of complexity to this challenge. While academy status theoretically offers schools greater autonomy to innovate, the reality often involves increased pressure to demonstrate measurable improvements in traditional metrics. This pressure can inadvertently discourage the kind of experimental, risk-tolerant environment needed for authentic leadership development. When school leaders themselves feel constrained by performance measures, their ability to create space for authentic student leadership development becomes similarly constrained. This is exacerbated by the reality that most academies are centrally managed as part of a MAT, thus creating even greater disparity between context and control. 

The role of technology in this context presents both opportunities and risks. Digital platforms can facilitate student voice and leadership initiatives in new ways, yet they can also create what might be termed 'pseudo-authenticity' - the appearance of student agency without its substance. When students lead digital initiatives or contribute to online forums, are they developing genuine leadership capabilities, or simply performing leadership in a new medium?

Moreover, the challenge of developing authentic leadership capabilities intersects with broader questions of educational equity. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds often have fewer opportunities for leadership development outside school, making the school's role in fostering these capabilities even more crucial. Yet these are often the same schools under the most intense pressure to improve academic metrics, creating a potential double disadvantage in terms of leadership development.

The cognitive science behind learning and leadership development adds another crucial perspective. We know that effective learning requires what cognitive psychologist Robert Bjork calls "desirable difficulties" - challenges that require effort and occasionally failure to overcome. Yet our educational structures often prioritise what appears to be efficient learning over what actually develops robust capabilities. This same principle applies to leadership development: the messy, sometimes uncomfortable process of developing authentic leadership capabilities often looks less efficient than teaching prescribed leadership behaviours.

Are we at a point where there is too much stuff in education and not enough space?

This tension between efficiency and effectiveness emerges particularly clearly in the context of curriculum planning. The national curriculum's emphasis on coverage and progression can leave little room for the kind of deep, sustained engagement with complex challenges that develops authentic leadership capabilities. When teachers feel pressured to 'get through' the content, opportunities for student-led learning and genuine leadership development often become casualties of time pressure.

Furthermore, the challenge of authenticity in education connects directly to questions of assessment validity. If we accept that authentic leadership capabilities are crucial for students' future success, we must grapple with how to assess these capabilities in meaningful ways. Traditional assessment methods, designed to measure knowledge acquisition and academic skills, may be inadequate for evaluating leadership development. Yet without some form of assessment, how do we ensure these crucial capabilities are being developed effectively?

Addressing these challenges requires a fundamental shift in how we conceptualise and structure educational experiences. Several approaches warrant consideration, each with its own implications for policy and practice.

First, we might reconsider how we structure learning time itself. The traditional six-period day, inherited from industrial-era schooling, may not provide the flexibility needed for authentic leadership development. Some schools are experimenting with longer learning blocks - what might be called 'deep learning sessions' - where students can engage with complex challenges without the artificial interruption of period changes. This approach aligns with cognitive science research on attention and learning transfer, but it requires significant structural change and faces practical challenges in terms of timetabling and resource allocation.

The assessment challenge requires particularly careful consideration. Rather than attempting to measure leadership capabilities through traditional metrics, we might adopt what assessment expert Dylan Wiliam terms "responsive assessment" - ongoing evaluation that adapts to evidence of developing capabilities. This could involve:

- Portfolio-based assessment that captures leadership development over time

- Real-world project outcomes that demonstrate actual rather than theoretical leadership

- Peer and self-assessment frameworks that develop evaluative capabilities

- Qualitative feedback from multiple stakeholders who experience students' leadership in action

- Digital, quick-feedback models that allow for fast assessment of learning and efficient recalibration in the direction that each learner needs (e.g, Google Classroom Practice Sets, Quizizz lessons and Century Tech). 

However, implementing such approaches within current accountability frameworks presents significant challenges. School leaders need to balance the development of authentic leadership capabilities with the legitimate demands of academic progression and qualification requirements. This balancing act becomes particularly acute in Years 10-13, where examination pressures are most intense.

The role of teachers in this context also requires careful consideration. Developing authentic student leadership capabilities demands a shift in teacher stance - from director to facilitator, from answer-provider to question-asker. This shift carries implications for both initial teacher training and continuing professional development. Teachers need support in developing what might be termed 'leadership-fostering pedagogies' - approaches that create space for student agency while maintaining appropriate academic rigour.

Moreover, the social and emotional dimensions of leadership development demand attention. The work of Carol Dweck on growth mindset provides useful insights here, but needs careful application in the leadership development context. It's not enough to simply encourage students to 'believe in themselves' - they need structured opportunities to develop resilience through facing and overcoming real challenges. This requires what might be called 'scaffolded risk-taking' - opportunities to exercise leadership in increasingly challenging contexts with appropriate support.

The question of equity remains central to any solution. Schools serving disadvantaged communities often face the greatest pressure to prioritise traditional academic metrics, yet their students may have the greatest need for explicit leadership development opportunities. Any systemic solution must address this tension directly, perhaps through:

- Protected funding for leadership development initiatives in schools serving disadvantaged communities

- Partnerships with external organisations that can provide additional leadership development opportunities

- Explicit recognition of leadership development in school evaluation frameworks

- Professional development support for teachers in fostering leadership capabilities alongside academic achievement.

Creating Genuine Leadership Opportunities

Perhaps the most glaring gap in our current approach to educational leadership development is the nature of student leadership opportunities themselves. While most secondary schools offer positions like prefects, school council representatives, or house captains, these roles often represent what might be termed 'managed leadership' - carefully controlled opportunities that serve institutional needs more than they develop genuine leadership capabilities.

The distinction becomes clear when we examine what these roles typically involve. Prefects often focus on monitoring uniform or lunch queues. School councils frequently discuss relatively superficial issues like lunch menus, prom committees or locker arrangements. While these responsibilities have their place, they rarely offer students the chance to tackle substantive challenges or make decisions with real consequences.

More meaningful leadership development requires what might be called 'consequential opportunity' - chances to lead initiatives where the outcomes genuinely matter and where failure is both possible and instructive. This might involve students leading community action projects, managing real budgets, or contributing to significant school policy decisions. The key difference lies not in the scale of responsibility but in its authenticity.

The challenge for schools is considerable. Creating space for genuine student leadership involves risk. It requires adults to step back while remaining ready to support. It means accepting that student-led initiatives might not align perfectly with institutional preferences or timetables. Yet without this element of authentic responsibility, we risk developing students who can perform leadership behaviours without truly understanding what leadership entails.

The evidence supporting this need comes from multiple fields. Organisational psychology suggests that leadership capabilities develop most effectively through what Annie Murphy Paul terms "deliberate practice with feedback" - real attempts at leadership followed by reflection and adjustment. Yet our current approach often provides neither the practice nor the meaningful feedback required for genuine development.

“In a world of too much information, we use shared attention to help us figure out what to focus on, then direct our mental resources toward the object that the spotlight of shared attention has illuminated. As a result of these (mostly automatic) processes, we learn things better when we attend to them with other people. We remember things better when we attend to them with other people. And we’re more likely to act upon information that has been attended to along with other people.” Annie Murphy Paul 

The business world recognises this principle. Companies implementing graduate development programmes consistently find that actual project leadership, even at a small scale, develops capabilities more effectively than theoretical leadership training. Education could learn from this approach, creating what might be termed 'leadership laboratories' where students can experiment with real responsibility in relatively low-stakes environments.

Moreover, the nature of leadership opportunities needs to reflect the changing demands of modern leadership itself. In a world where distributed leadership and collaborative decision-making increasingly dominate, our traditional hierarchical student leadership roles appear increasingly anachronistic. Future leaders need experience in building consensus, managing diverse perspectives, and leading through influence rather than authority - skills rarely developed through traditional school leadership positions.

This calls for a fundamental reimagining of student leadership structures. Rather than assigning fixed leadership roles, schools might create rotating leadership responsibilities across different projects and initiatives. This approach not only provides more students with leadership experience but also helps develop the flexibility and contextual awareness that modern leadership demands.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

After examining the complex relationship between learning and leadership development in education, several critical considerations emerge. These aren't simple solutions but rather fundamental areas requiring attention if we're to genuinely develop the leaders tomorrow needs. Each builds upon our analysis while pointing toward specific actions at policy, institutional, and classroom levels.

Key Considerations for Educational Leadership Development

1. Assessment Architecture

The fundamental challenge lies in developing assessment frameworks that capture meaningful leadership development while satisfying accountability requirements. This requires a systemic rethinking of how we measure educational success beyond traditional metrics. How can we measure what we treasure?

2. Structural Implementation

Educational institutions must reconsider their organisational structures to facilitate authentic leadership development. This includes examining timetabling, resource allocation, and the balance between academic rigour and leadership opportunity. The greatest schools seem to make conscious decisions to give students responsibility. How can we allow for meaningful student responsibility?

3. Pedagogical Evolution

Teachers need to shift from instructors to enablers of leadership development, yet most have never received training in fostering these capabilities. This requires a fundamental rethinking of teacher development, from initial training through to ongoing professional learning. How do we equip teachers to develop tomorrow's leaders while maintaining academic excellence?

4. Equity Imperative

Leadership development often becomes a privilege of high-performing schools or students who already display traditional leadership traits. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where those with the most existing advantages receive the most leadership opportunities. How do we ensure leadership development becomes a universal entitlement rather than a selective privilege?

5. Evidence-Based Innovation

While we have decades of research on academic teaching methods, our understanding of effective leadership development in educational settings remains limited. We need robust evidence about what works, in which contexts, and why. How do we build an evidence base for leadership development that stands up to the same scrutiny as our academic research?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

The challenge of developing tomorrow's leaders through today's education system is tough but not insurmountable. The barriers are significant - from assessment pressures to structural constraints - but the cost of not addressing this challenge is far greater. We risk producing a generation well-qualified on paper but ill-equipped to lead through the complexities ahead. And goodness knows, our world is going to need leaders who can lead with our global challenges. 

The path forward requires more than incremental change. It demands a fundamental rethinking of how we conceive of and deliver education. This isn't about choosing between academic achievement and leadership development - the two should be mutually reinforcing. Rather, it's about creating educational environments where leadership capabilities can develop naturally alongside academic learning. As we navigate this transformation, we must remember that tomorrow's challenges will require leaders who don't just know what to think, but how to think, act and lead in ways we might not yet imagine. Our education system must evolve to meet this need.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ If anyone has got this far and wants to explore how we can develop authentic leadership in schools, I’d love to work with you!