Dan Rosen

New Blog Post Creating a Culture of Curiosity

🎉New Blog Post 🎉

Creating a culture of curiosity in schools.

Practical ideas to build a curious culture in schools.

Reflected on this after going through my EdD work and came up with these ideas as I went.

researchtoclassroom.com/so/98PZggWwE...

#EduSky #EduBlogUK #teacher #academicsky

Staff voice is also interesting. It's why I like PLCs and Lesson study, as it is rooted in the teacher's own practice, guided by their interest. This is another aspect where the formality of facilitation allows staff to be curious.

If we can facilitate opportunities for passing conversations, anecdotally, great things can happen.

Beer uses a wonderful example when talking about organisation charts mapping accountability not conversations. He came at it from the point of view of removing cross-departmental coffee breaks (unnecessary) causing a firm to lose vital communication pathways. But it works the other way too.

Thanks for tagging me in, Claire.

Loads of interesting aspects.

I think the formality point is great. We need some formality to start something, otherwise it is a bit too 'hopeful'. Organic from scratch might work, but it might not also happen.

What comes next is indeed where the magic is.

The counter to this would be that in this situation the head is a good leader as they have appointed people well.

Which is why I think leadership is the property of the organisation, as it accounts for all possible combinations of leaders, but focusses on the overall outcome.

If the Head is a poor leader, I think it difficult for an organisation to be well led unless somehow others are able to articulate the vision and reduce uncertainty in spite of them. Theoretically, that can happen of course.

I think it is perfectly possible to have good middle leaders with poor SLT and vice versa. They are able to communicate the vision and reduce uncertainty.

But whether an organisation has good leadership is dependent upon the overall communication and enactment of the vision.

But within that I think that good leaders are those that reduce uncertainty.

So there can be good (and bad) leaders at all levels, but their roles will be different, I think.

What Makes Great Leadership? Clarity of Communication & Reducing Uncertainty Yesterday Claire Harley posted about sensemaking in schools, in which she poses some excellent reflective questions for leadership to consider, focussing on values and how they are communicated.&nb…

Good questions.

I wrote here that I think leadership is a property of an organisation, based off of Pangaro (what Claire alluded to above).

musingsofadr.wordpress.com/2025/07/24/w...

I think we can.

But I also think it possible to have good leadership achieving a vision we don’t like. The ‘like or not’ is at best in parallel to ‘achieved or not’, perhaps downstream.

I think that’s fair. If leaders decide the vision, that should form part of how we judge leadership.

But if a vision is not crap, then achieving it would represent good leadership imo. Especially in the context of schools.

And therefore, in relation to @cmooreanderson.bsky.social’s point, we cannot say leadership is poor because we don’t like the vision or think it could be better. That’s a different argument.

One could argue the first has poor leadership because they could have achieved more, sure.

But that is a hindsight judgement - if visions are agreed and achieved, that has to be good leadership.

I’m not asking which is or will be the better school. I’m simply asking about leadership.

I would argue it reasonable to conclude that the first has better leadership - they knew what was possible and achieved it. The second lacked something - either implementation, realism or something else.

Imagine two schools with exactly the same outcomes in all possible metrics. One had a vision to achieve exactly what they said. One had more ambitious aims but has missed them.

Which has the better leadership? The one that achieved exactly what it said it would, or the one that fell short?

Okay, but you don’t disagree with the vision or think it is not valid, just you would do something different? I think that’s totally valid, but not quite the same as having a crap vision.

As in, you think there are visions with which you disagree vehemently?

Can you give me an example? I presume you wouldn’t then work in such a school.

But back to you point, a leader who delivers on that vision is still a good leader. Because some people must think it’s a good vision to have?

But that isn’t the same as a bad vision. That’s a poorly enacted one, which means a poorly led one imo.

I don’t think the vision is the pertinent problem in this case

Even more to the point, I would wager there are very few crap school mission statements, or ones with which a teacher would disagree with vehemently.

What might be a great vision at one point in time might turn out to be crap with hindsight. But the leadership at the time might not know this. Doesn't make them a poor leader, it makes it a poor mission.

I disagree. I think they are a good leader. They are just leading something crap.

The whole point of a leader is to achieve the mission. The value of the mission is a different debate.

This is a different type of knowledge. You are talking about personal knowledge of Paris. If you wanted to have some form of shared knowledge of Paris e.g. where a specific place is, what colour a building is, then you would need to be able to verify it some how.

Using your logic, all you know is that they have declared something, surely?

If I say that 4 squared is 28, do I know what 4 squared is?

Great post! Loving the links to variety and cybernetics.

How should we deal with school complexity? The art of creating equilibrium in a world of possibilities and constraints

New today.
open.substack.com/pub/matthewe...

I think the innate sense of positive or negative value you describe is simply anchored to the values we hold, consciously or not. That's what makes it +ve or -ve.

And I do agree that the feeling of this can make us more aware of what we actually value.

Sorry, should have made it clearer that I don't think we need to be conscious/aware of our values. I'd argue that in many cases people are guided by values about which they are not explicitly aware.

How so? We agreed that values don’t have to be explicit…. We can value survival, nutrition, avoiding pain, sunlight etc.. that would be the driver to determine whether an action is worth doing.

I don't think 'correct' applies here. It would be 'correct for me and what I value'.

I think we just disagree that the action is assigned value at the point of the decision making. I think the potential/predicted value informs the decision, value assigned post fact.