Hearing the term “Lead Learner” again, in reference to the role of the principal (I’ve blogged about this before and how there should be more than one “lead learner” in schools), and tweeted the following:
Does the term “lead learner” mean much for a principal if no one sees what they are learning?
— George Couros (@gcouros) March 4, 2016
If you really think about it, leaders (hopefully) have always learned. In a profession where one day from the next will always look different, by default, you have to learn. But does that make the principal a “Lead Learner”? Does one become a “Lead Learner” in any organization if no one knows what they are learning?
This response from Kat Ling, resonated with me:
@gcouros I think important for principals to share learning to inspire staff. Self given titles don’t mean anything to me.
— Kat Ling (@sapphkat) March 4, 2016
The more I hear this term thrown around as the new title for principal, the more I feel it becomes simply a term, and loses all meaning. All administrators should be “Learning Leaders”; learning in your job as an educator should be the default path that we all take. Yet if , as Kat mentions, administrators self-anoint themselves as the “Lead Learner”, yet no one else sees them that way, does it really matter what term we use in the first place?