Tag: teaching

From Command to Conversation: Harnessing Collective Wisdom in Schools

I recently came across a thought-provoking blog by Nimish Lad on leadership as an attentional practice (link here- https://researcherteacher.home.blog/2025/08/17/leadership-as-an-attentional-practice/)  He writes:

“I am reminded of the phrase ‘you don’t know what you don’t know.’ While reflecting on your own practice is important, it may be more important to seek out the views of others to feedback on what you may not be paying enough attention to.”

That struck me. Leadership, especially in schools, is so often framed as an individual pursuit. We instinctively look for the expert, the decision-maker, the one with the answers. That’s what leaders are for, right?

Traditionally, leadership has been about evaluating the state of play, setting the direction and charting the course. But that model carries an inherent risk: important decisions get made in isolation. When just one or two people make a call, it is inevitably shaped by their assumptions, beliefs, values, and knowledge base.

“But they’re the experts,” you might say. “It’s their job to decide.” Perhaps. But as Chi, Glaser, and Farr (1988) remind us: ‘Experts excel mainly in their own domains.’ And even within those domains, expertise is not simply the product of innate talent or accumulated experience. As Ericsson & Ward (2007) define it expertise is: ‘Consistent, superior performance on key tasks, achieved through long-term, structured practice that transforms cognitive and physiological capabilities.’

That’s invaluable when specific knowledge is needed, but much less helpful when tackling complex, school-wide challenges that cut across multiple areas and perspectives. Take, for example, the challenge of improving literacy. While it might seem like the responsibility of the English Lead or Head of English alone, it also falls to the Geography Lead, the Science Lead, and even the Personal Development Lead to address this priority. In these cross-cutting areas, the expertise of each subject leader must be acknowledged and respected. At the same time, pooling this specialised knowledge allows teams to address broader priorities collaboratively, ensuring that decisions benefit from both deep expertise and the diverse perspectives needed for school-wide improvement.

This is where leadership must expand beyond the boundaries of individual expertise. It means stepping outside your own lens of what needs to be done to collaborate on solutions that serve both your area and wider improvement priorities.

Consider another example: senior leaders setting strategic priorities for the year ahead. Say a leader identifies Mathematics as a key area for development. That decision may well have come from deep analysis, looking at assessment data, classroom practice, and work scrutiny. But even then, it’s one person’s interpretation of that evidence, inevitably shaped by their biases, preferences, and prior experience. As Adam Grant puts it: ‘If knowledge is power, knowing what we don’t know is wisdom.’ (Grant, 2021)

In medicine, high-stakes, complex decision-making is often handled through multidisciplinary teams. These are groups of professionals from different specialties who come together to make decisions for a single patient. The structure of this model is worth examining:

  • Expertise is shared across disciplines to make more informed decisions.
  • The significance of the decision is explicitly acknowledged.
  • Key data and evidence are shared in advance, so everyone comes prepared.
  • Deliberate discussion considers risks, benefits, ethical implications, and patient preferences.
  • A clear decision is recorded, with a plan for review.

This approach has been shown to promote meaningful collaboration across disciplines and ultimately improve patient outcomes. A 2023 meta-analysis found that interprofessional learning within multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) led to a 23% reduction in treatment-related complications compared to standard care (Reeves et al., 2023).

Of course, none of this is to dismiss the importance of expertise, practicality, or accountability. There are moments when swift, decisive leadership is essential, and times when the responsibility cannot be shared. The buck still stops with the headteacher or senior leader. Nor is it realistic to suggest that schools, already stretched for time, can replicate the full structures of multidisciplinary teams in medicine. The point is not to abandon expertise or delay action, but to balance it: recognising where a leader’s specialist knowledge should guide the way, and where opening the conversation to others can surface blind spots, enrich perspectives, and ultimately lead to wiser decisions.

We’ve seen versions of this approach adopted in education already, in pupil progress meetings or in a pastoral context where multiple agencies come together to consider how best to support a pupil e.g. team around the family. But what if we used this model more intentionally not just for intervention, but to guide strategic decision making as leaders?

What if we made space for genuinely shared sense making, where knowledge is pooled, perspectives are challenged, and blind spots are surfaced before they become missteps? Perhaps leadership is less about having the answers, and more about creating the conditions for better questions and wiser decisions to emerge.

References

  • Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Ericsson, K. A., & Ward, P. (2007). Capturing the naturally occurring superior performance of experts in the laboratory: Toward a science of expert and exceptional performance. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(6), 346–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00533.x
  • Grant, A. (2021). Think again: The power of knowing what you don’t know. Viking.
  • Reeves, S., Xyrichis, A., Zwarenstein, M., & et al. (2023). The effectiveness of interprofessional teams: A meta-analysis. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 37(2)

From Research to Reality: Concept Futility to Concept Utility

Advances in cognitive science, psychology, and neuroscience over the past decade have deepened our understanding of how pupils learn. For experienced teachers, this has often affirmed intuitive practices. For newer professionals, it has helped shape the contours of their initial teacher training. Either way, one thing is clear: these insights have not only enriched the teaching profession but, when applied well, have tangibly improved learning outcomes for pupils. However, between the research findings and the micro-decisions we make in the classroom lies a vital space, which is shaped by the quality of professional development (PD), how we interpret and apply our learning, and the insights we develop through lived practice.

In this blog, I share some reflections from leading professional development at school and trust level, and from observing approaches across the sector. My focus is on how we can move from concept futility—terms that are named but poorly understood—to concept utility—ideas that are purposeful, applied effectively, and make a real difference in the classroom.

Language: Building Bridges, Not Barriers

Language has the power to include or exclude. Over time, I’ve learned that the way we introduce and use educational terminology can either open up understanding or shut it down. We should strive to meet colleagues where they are, using language to invite them into learning, not to position ourselves as gatekeepers of knowledge.

Technical terms like metacognition, meta-analysis, or randomised controlled trial are important, but without clear explanations or accessible shorthand, they can feel abstract or intimidating. Offering simple, meaningful shorthand terms supports understanding and provides a shared language for CPD conversations. Over time, this fosters depth of learning and continued engagement.

When designing PD, it’s worth reflecting on the terms we use and how we explain them. Language either amplifies or diminishes understanding and our role as leaders of learning is to make complex ideas more understandable, not less.

Purpose BEFORE Process

One of the most impactful shifts I’ve seen in teacher development is starting with purpose before delving into process. Take checking for understanding, for example. When we begin by exploring why this practice matters and how it supports responsive teaching and formative assessment, we set the stage for deeper learning. Teachers then see the point of various strategies, rather than viewing them as isolated techniques.

Too often, strategies like using mini whiteboards are introduced as ends in themselves. This risks reducing powerful pedagogical tools to performative routines executed carelessly. Mini whiteboards, when framed as one of many ways to check for understanding, become part of a broader repertoire. We need to spend time unpacking both the purpose behind the strategy, the alternatives that exist, and which tool works best in different situations. Don’t get me wrong: having a handy step-by-step guide on how a teaching technique plays out is illuminating. However in my experience, it’s unlikely to have maximal impact unless the teacher deeply understands it’s purpose and in what situations it actually makes a difference to learning.

Sequencing PD to begin with purpose, build shared understanding, and only then zoom into specific processes leads to stronger, more reflective practice.

The Role of Naturalistic Decision-Making and Coaching

In recent years, I’ve become increasingly interested in Gary Klein’s work on Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM). Unlike traditional decision-making models based on rational choice and ideal conditions, NDM examines how experts make decisions in real-world, high-pressure environments…sound familiar?

In their 1993 research, Orasanu and Connolly identified key features of such environments:

  • Ill-structured problems
  • Uncertain, dynamic contexts
  • Shifting or competing goals
  • Time stress
  • High stakes
  • Multiple players
  • Organisational constraints

These features are present in nearly every classroom, every day. Teachers are constantly navigating shifting dynamics and making rapid decisions based on what they observe. Recognising this highlights just how complex and skilled teaching truly is.

So, what does this mean for PD? Coaching, when done well, provides a vital opportunity for teachers to reflect on the why behind their decisions. By revisiting lessons with a focus on their in-the-moment choices, teachers can develop greater awareness of what influenced their actions, what impact they had, and how to build on them. This doesn’t mean adding more theory for its own sake. It means making the invisible work of teaching visible, discussable, and improvable.

From Knowing to Knowing How

The challenge and opportunity lie in how we translate research and theory into real decisions in living, breathing classrooms. When professional development is purpose-led, language-sensitive, and rooted in the realities of classroom complexity, it does more than inform…it empowers and promotes teacher agency.

As educators, we are not just applying other people’s research. We are building a professional knowledge base of our own, refined through practice, coaching, and deep reflection. In that middle space between research and classroom reality, there is immense potential. It’s where theory becomes action and where action becomes learning that lasts.