Guest Blog from Christina Astin (Physics Partners Coach and Advisor)
Heads of science are often leading the biggest department in a school. They are managing laboratories and technicians, overseeing health and safety and a vast curriculum of three distinct subjects. All within stretched budgets and against the backdrop of a recruitment and retention crisis which means that colleagues are often less-experienced. Yet many step into the role with little or no preparation. What kind of training actually makes a difference for new leaders in science?
In a recent poll, I discovered that most teachers had received no training at all for their first leadership role. This may not surprise you. In education, strong classroom practice is often seen as sufficient preparation for leadership. Yet leading one’s peers is fundamentally different from teaching students. It requires influencing colleagues, navigating complexity, and translating whole-school strategy into effective practice.
It is therefore unsurprising that heads of department report some of the highest levels of stress in the profession. So, what kind of training helps?
Long or short?
Some CPD programmes take place across a year or more, whereas others are front-loaded over just a couple of days. Longer courses offer time for reflection and application. However, this can be challenging where staff turnover is high or immediate impact is needed.
Shorter programmes can provide timely support and build early confidence, but without time to review and embed learning (as we know from teaching students), impact may be limited.
The sweet spot strikes a balance: pacy but sustained, providing early support whilst building in opportunities for reflection and application.
Theoretical or practical?
There is clear value in drawing on research – whether in areas such as team dynamics, spotting signs of stress, or how to handle tricky conversations. However, the challenge for the emerging leader is how to find their authentic leadership voice and put this into practice. (And 1:1 coaching can really support this.)
Programmes that combine evidence-informed frameworks with pragmatism, combined with peer learning, are more likely to translate into meaningful change.
Online vs face-to-face
Face-to-face learning helps trust to build more quickly, and relationships can form that sustain beyond the programme.
Online delivery, meanwhile, reduces travel time and increases geographical reach – particularly important when budgets and time are at a premium.
Again, a blended approach often proves most effective: high-quality facilitated online sessions, complemented by opportunities for connection and reflection.
General vs role-specific
Middle leadership roles vary widely: academic, pastoral or co-curricular – and most courses cater for all. However, leading a science department (or a subject within science) requires some rather specific skills which set it apart from other departments, including:
- Leading a practical subject – managing laboratories and technicians, monitoring health and safety, ordering consumables
- Keeping abreast of rapid developments in scientific research
- Overseeing an often-busy co-curricular programme of science or STEM clubs
- Managing the specific SEND and EDI challenges of the science curriculum, e.g. girls and physics
- Embedding careers contexts in lessons, providing talks, role models and possibly work experience opportunities from industry
And leading what is usually the largest department in the school, covering at least 3 distinct subjects which uniquely develop students’ abstract-conceptual, numerical, analytical, IT, manipulative and reasoning skills.
Finding the sweet spot
There is no single model that works for every school. But the evidence points towards a clear set of principles:
1. early support
2. a balance of theory and practice
3. opportunities for peer learning
4. access to coaching
5. a subject-specific programme for science leaders
A strategic investment
In the corporate sector, stepping into a leadership role is accompanied by professional development offered in protected time. In education, this is still far from universal.
And yet, we know that when middle leaders are confident in leading people, schools benefit from stronger implementation of priorities, improved team culture and greater staff retention – particularly important in science where recruitment is under particular strain.
So, investing in middle leadership is a strategic decision: recognising that middle leadership is not simply the next step in teaching, but a distinct professional role requiring deliberate support.
Christina Astin is an education consultant and executive coach and is director-developer of “New to Science Leadership”, a programme for new and aspiring leaders in science, which is being offered this autumn in partnership with the Association for Science Education. She is a coach and advisor with Physics Partners and a former trustee.
The ASE has kindly provided Physics Partners a discount code for £15 off the “New to Science Leadership” programme. Use code NTSL15 when registering.