Educating Leaders?

This is a discussion paper exploring whether there is, in fact, an inextricable link between our education systems and contemporary leaders and to that end, I would love readers to comment, reflect and share their personal experiences.

Education in Scotland

There are and have been many facets and dynamics to the education system in Scotland, public schools; private schools; state schools; segregation based on sex and religious belief.  It seems schools have, intentionally or subconsciously also determined the traits of Scotland’s ‘leaders’.

Education for the wealthy

Education was originally the preserve of the wealthy.  Those who could afford to school their children had reasonably well paid; well respected positions – generally management level, a profession or owned their own business.

There was an unenviable link between personal wealth, educational attainment and future career options – the ‘uneducated’ mining or undertaking other physical tasks.

Schools were segregated based on sex and the curriculum was too.  Wider societal values were reinforced in educational establishments and as such, females were found at the helm of neither business nor industry.

Education for all

Education became State sponsored and tuition fees abolished.  However, the prevailing economic climate meant that schools were still filled with middle and upper classes and the curriculum remained segmented.  This was reflected in the higher echelons of business.

Command & Control

As education became more accessible and families less dependent on children earning an income, emphasis moved to conformity; the ‘educational’ cream hived off to Academies whilst the rest were given more vocational training in things like typing and woodwork.

Poor achievers were a burden and often removed from classes to avoid their disrupting the mainstream ‘able’ children.

Similarly, the business world was all ‘hire and fire’.  There was no time for coaching and mentoring; business was not a place for sentimental notions.  Orders were barked and employees dutiful in following these commands promptly.

This generation grew up with the threat of a ‘belt’ or ‘ruler’ being used to enforce classroom law and dismissal the ultimate sanction in business. 

Over time, high performing employees started to make it into the promotion pools based on their ability rather than educational attainment.

The sex battle’s dissipated somewhat but isolated pockets of conflict remain (predominantly) in the 45 -65 age bracket where women seek recognition of their ‘right’ to equal treatment in business and men struggle to accept females in senior positions.

Attainment for all

Creation of ‘Standard Grades’ meant attainment for all.  You were categorised into foundation; standard and credit and given parameters inside which you could comfortably achieve ‘something’.  This was echoed in the business world with the rise of the bonus culture, no longer the preserve of high achievers, all employees had to be requisitely rewarded for effort regardless of attainment.

Curriculum for Excellence

Changing the dynamic of learning to focus on experimentation; improvisation and a sense of adventure, the curriculum for excellence is professed to create a ‘safe environment’ for children to develop through trial, error and perseverance.

The Exception?

Many people point to Lord Alan Sugar, Sir Richard Branson et al. as demonstrable evidence against any such correlation between educational experience and future attainment.  I disagree.

Being in the ‘lower attainment’ bracket, children were taught that little was expected of them and therefore little was asked of them.  They never learned what it meant to fail therefore they were excused the burden of expectation and disappointment.

They carried this fearlessness into their business activities and, combined with exceptional business acumen, they set out achieving for themselves what the educational establishment had refused to provide them – recognition of their ability and reward for their effort.