This situation has exposed something we talk too little about in education: the quality of a school depends not only on the programs or the efforts of teachers. It depends on management. And the level of management in Lithuanian schools today is like a lottery.
In Lithuania, we have excellent leaders. Those who can build strong teams, create a culture based on trust, are not afraid of difficult decisions, and clearly know what kind of school they want to see. The influence of such a leader is felt immediately: teachers are not afraid to suggest ideas, people do not walk around tense, and conflicts are resolved not by looking for the guilty, but by looking for solutions. However, on the other hand, there are schools drowning in chaos, where people work not creatively but cautiously: just to “not cause problems.”
Even the strongest teachers eventually get tired of working in an environment where there is no clarity, trust, and direction. One good teacher can do a lot in their classroom. But alone, they cannot sustain an organization where management itself does not work.
Therefore, a child’s results are not only the consequence of the teacher or the program. They are influenced by the entire school organization: whether teachers have the conditions to work well, whether changes are implemented, whether the team agrees on the direction, whether everyone knows what to do in a crisis. It is no coincidence that the competencies of a school leader – after the teacher – are considered one of the most important factors influencing student achievements.
Why do we have such drastic differences among Lithuanian schools? Because we expect a lot from school leaders but do not systematically develop them. And this is one of the biggest flaws in our system.
Practically all principals come to lead from teaching positions. They may be excellent at working with a class, but leading a modern organization means managing crises, changes, finances, public procurement, and legal processes. Pedagogical experience alone is not enough for that.
Data from the National Education Agency (NEA) shows that among candidates for educational institution leaders, the lowest-rated competencies are strategic thinking and change management, leadership of people, education, and learning.
This means that leaders take the principal’s seat without essential competencies and – due to systemic gaps – usually start learning to lead only after beginning their duties. Moreover, not all current principals find time to gain managerial knowledge.
According to NEA data from 2021, as many as 38% of Lithuanian educational institution leaders have never studied management or administration, and 35% have not participated in any leadership training.
Simply put, people are thrown into one of the most complex positions without prior preparation and left to manage on their own.
Read more NVSC warns about children’s summer camps: do parents know this?
This preparation problem is also compounded by demographic reality. The average age of school leaders in the country already reaches about 55 years, and almost a third of principals are over 60. The question of who will lead schools is not a theoretical future problem. It is already here.
The greatest danger lies in the fact that weak management today blocks tomorrow’s leaders. Future leaders are current teachers, but if an initiative, passionate teacher ends up in a poorly managed institution, their leadership is extinguished. They quickly learn that the safest thing is not to stand out or simply leave the system. Thus, poor management successfully destroys the reserve of future leaders.
Meanwhile, strong education systems behave differently. In Estonia, which is considered one of the strongest education systems in Europe, potential school leaders are identified in advance. They learn strategic management, work with real challenges, receive mentor support. Leaders there also learn from strong organizations outside education – they “shadow” leaders, observe how culture is created, teams are managed, and changes are implemented.
In Singapore, future leaders are also prepared consistently and in advance, even before becoming principals. They try different roles, lead teams, work on real projects, and constantly receive feedback. Leaders there are not prepared as people who will just oversee the system. They are prepared to strengthen it.
Lithuania needs the same serious approach to school leaders. We do not need another one-off training. We do not need another certificate from a theoretical conference. We need consistent preparation of future and current principals: with practical experience, mentorship, and the opportunity to learn from strong leaders both in education and beyond.
It is not necessary to wait for the Lithuanian national government to take similar decisions. This can be done today, for example, by the municipalities themselves. After all, they allocate the education budget, appoint school leaders, and set their annual goals. They can also engage in identifying and preparing future leaders.
We can endlessly change programs, adjust exams, and create ambitious strategies. But if there are no people in schools capable of turning those paper changes into daily action, all reforms will remain just in drawers.
If we want every Lithuanian child to receive the highest quality education in Europe, we need a managerial breakthrough.
Read more Announced the country with the most expensive prices in the world
