TONY GALLAGHER, EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION, QUEEN’S UNIVERSITY BELFAST, UK
JACKIE BARTLEY, NI PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HEAD TEACHERS, UK
Introduction
The Sustainable School Leadership project explored the training, supply, retention and sustainability of senior school leadership across the UK between 2022 and 2026. The final report identified four key themes, namely ‘leadership’, ‘identity’, ‘place’ and ‘an ethic of education and care’ (Greany et al., 2026). The first three emerged from the academic literature, while the final theme emerged from the empirical findings of the study. Schools have always had a duty of care, but the evidence of the Sustainable School Leadership project suggests that it has become a core priority, a finding that raises foundational questions about the purpose of schooling. In this article, we will consider the form that this theme took in the study, offer some examples of an ethic of care in practice, and consider some of the consequences of this for future practice.
Pressure on schools
A recurrent theme in the research was that ‘everything rolls downhill to schools’ (Greany et al., 2026, p. 101). This reflected a perception by school leaders that the level of support for children has been stripped back over recent years and that schools have often felt obliged to step into the breach. This has also occurred at a time when the challenges facing schools – the complexity of inclusionAn approach where a school aims to ensure that all children are educated together, with support for those who require it to access the full curriculum and contribute to and participate in all aspects of school life, safeguarding, behavioural issues and pastoral needs within school – have increased. The COVID pandemic played a significant role, but the project broadened this to identify a ‘polycrisis’ facing schools, which, in addition to COVID, included Brexit, government austerity, inflation, stagnant wages and rising levels of inequality, rising social tensions and a rise in populist politics (Greany et al., 2026, p. 17).
Some aspects of inclusion and safeguarding are, of course, legally mandated and regulated, but the pressure on schools to meet children’s needs provoked by this polycrisis went beyond these legal mandates. One interviewee for the study suggested that the relentless pressure on school leaders to act due to the pandemic was matched by a sense of frustration that other services had not stepped up to the same extent: ‘We’re the only universal service, we’re the only ones that can’t say no.’ (Greany et al., 2026, p. 87)
Schools still struggle to address the consequences of social disadvantage, whether it is concentrated, as in urban contexts, or dispersed and less visible, as in rural contexts. The polycrisis ramped up pressure on schools and made it harder to distinguish between their primary educational goals and the wider enabling – or disabling – factors that hampered the achievement of those goals. For those reasons, the pressure to act included a pragmatic perception that if a child was hungry or not attending schools, then their capacity to learn was inevitably restricted, and that the prioritising of the ethic of care reflected a ‘deeply human response to need’ (Greany et al., 2026, p. 101).
The report concluded that the education and care roles of schools could be encompassed in three overlapping areas. The first was within schools and characterised by attempts to create inclusive, relational cultures, based on responsive pedagogies and curricula, and pastoral systems that try to ensure that every child ‘is known, is ready to learn, and can flourish’ (Greany et al., 2026, p. 101). The second was beyond school and involved engagement with parents, carers and communities to address the wider needs of students in areas such as health, welfare or community development. The third and final area was across school and focused on promoting self-care and wellbeing among staff by developing collaborative and enabling cultures to promote a strong sense of trust. This was also reflected in the perceived importance of maintaining institutional space for the negotiation of purpose, power and particularity.
Examples from Northern Ireland schools
The study found that this ethic of care was particularly evident among school leaders in Northern Ireland, perhaps reflecting the close community relationships that reflect their work in that jurisdiction. Some of the Northern Ireland respondents talked about their role as being ‘community anchored’ but insisted that this was more than simply knowing about local knowledge and networks. Rather, they suggested that this involved school leadership as an identity that is ‘shaped by and accountable to a community’s values and expectations’ (Greany et al., 2026, p. 79) and became a form of community stewardship.
Some examples of the implementation of this ethic of care can be illustrated by instances of practice from Northern Ireland, while acknowledging that many of these can be found elsewhere across the UK.
One example lies in the development of a partnership between the school and a local food bank to address socio-economic disadvantage within the school’s local community. This collaboration led to the establishment of a fully funded, universal breakfast club, ensuring that all students had access to a nutritious meal at the start of the school day. By adopting a universal model, the initiative avoided stigma and reinforced a culture of dignity and inclusion.
The impact of this extended beyond immediate physical needs to encompass improved concentration, increased punctuality and a heightened sense of belonging among students. Furthermore, the initiative strengthened relationships between the school and the wider community, reflecting a shared commitment to supporting children and families.
A similarly relational approach underpinned a literacy initiative aimed at students in their first year of post-primary school and their parents. Recognising that some families lacked confidence in supporting literacy at home, the school implemented a programme of workshops and ongoing engagement. Parents were equipped with practical strategies to support reading and writing, enabling them to take a more active role in their child’s education. Over time, this developed into a sustainable, responsive programme that was reviewed annually. The initiative not only improved student outcomes but also empowered parents, strengthening home–school relationships and enhancing community capacity. In this instance, care was expressed through partnership, respect and a commitment to address barriers to engagement.
Another example can be seen in the establishment of a Sanctuary Room, which was designed to support students with behavioural difficulties and special educational needs. The design and role of the Sanctuary Room was co-constructed with parents and tailored to individual needs. A teaching assistantAn adult that assists a teacher in the classroom provided mentorship to both students and parents, promoting consistency and building confidence. This work was enhanced through collaboration with a local mental health and wellbeing hub, enabling access to broader expertise. The resulting provision supported improved emotional regulation, stronger engagement and more positive relationships. Such practice illustrates how an ethic of care is realised through collaboration, personalisation and an unwavering focus on wellbeing.
Challenge and possibility
There are, of course, limitations to the capacity of schools and school leaders to adopt this role. Respondents in the research study expressed concern that this work can be emotionally and physically demanding. The capacity to meet these challenges may also require skills and qualities that are insufficiently recognised or addressed within school leadership programmes. One issue that emerged as particularly important was the need to know where to draw the line and where responsibility needed to be taken up by other agencies.
This change can be illustrated by examples from Northern Ireland, largely drawn from maintained primary and non-selective post-primary schools. One example is a school that tried to establish a programme to support students with severe mental health needs, particularly those experiencing emotionally based school avoidance. Despite a strong commitment to inclusion, the school lacked the specialist expertise and capacity required to meet increasingly complex needs. In response, reduced timetables and adaptations to curriculum pathways were implemented to prioritise student wellbeing. However, this created a tension between care and entitlement. While these measures alleviated immediate distress, they also limited access to GCSE and A-level qualifications, with potential long-term implications for students’ life chances. In this example, there was clearly a need for earlier intervention, stronger multi-agency collaboration to support the work of the school, and help in the development of more flexible models of curriculum delivery.
Another example is provided by an initiative aimed at addressing the role of social media in bullying. These issues increasingly affected students’ wellbeing and behaviour within school, and this often led to parental concerns and complaints. A suite of actions was available for the school to draw upon, but while these were implemented consistently, they proved insufficient in addressing the problem, not least because the underlying influences extended well beyond the school environment. For these reasons, the school adopted a more collaborative, community-based approach. Parents were engaged in awareness-raising initiatives and involved in the co-construction of policies, fostering shared understanding and accountability. The school also participated in a regional pilot to eliminate mobile phone use during the school day, seeking to mitigate the immediate impact of social media. These actions had the consequence of strengthening relationships and reducing some instances of problems within the school, but they also highlighted the need for a more proactive and wider approach that equipped students and families with the skills with which to navigate digital environments safely and responsibly, whether in or out of school.
More generally, the legacy of the Troubles in Northern Ireland continues to have an intergenerational impact on the mental health and wellbeing of some families. Experiences of trauma, loss, fear and uncertainty can be carried across generations, influencing the emotional lives and experiences of young people today, even when they themselves did not live through the conflict. This has reinforced in our schools the importance of an ethic of care within, where understanding a pupil’s wider family and community context is central to providing meaningful support. In that respect, schools have an important role not only in supporting pupils when difficulties arise, but also in creating compassionate, safe and understanding communities in which young people feel listened to, valued and able to seek help.
These examples highlight the possibilities of, and practical limitations to, what schools can achieve. As school leaders interviewed for the study had said, during the pandemic, many schools stepped up to the plate in unprecedented circumstances, to ensure that their students retained access to a good-quality education, while at the same time addressing the plethora of other emerging challenges. Their preparedness to do this, reflected in the idea of an ethic of care as being central to sustainable school leadership, should not allow other agencies to step back from their responsibilities. Rather, it should act as a reminder of the importance of multi-agency collaboration in addressing pressing social challenges – school leaders have clearly demonstrated their preparedness to be part of such a coalition of concern, but they need to be supported by others.
The fact that the research found the ethic of care to be particularly strong among school leaders in Northern Ireland also highlights another opportunity – and challenge. The connectedness of schools and their local communities is an important source of strength for schools, but it also makes the role of school leadership highly visible in the community. This often means that school leaders enjoy respect from their local communities, but it can also make them lightning rods for problems that emerge in the community, regardless of their role in these problems or their capacity to address them. Furthermore, in a divided society like Northern Ireland, where the governance of schools reflects the wider religious divisions within society, a ‘community anchored’ school may be anchored in one community only: social capital can bind a community, but it may also need to bridge between different communities (Field, 2016).
The peculiar history of religion and schools in Northern Ireland is less relevant to other parts of the UK, but a similar challenge might arise in contexts where schools are divided – formally or informally – in terms of ethnicity or social background. But here again, Northern Ireland school leaders are showing another aspect of a commitment to an ethic of care through the religiously integrated schools and the collaborative networks of schools in the Shared Education initiative (Gallagher, 2016).
Conclusion
The Sustainable School Leadership project has made an invaluable contribution to policy debates in the UK. By examining the consequences of connected crises – the ‘polycrisis’ – it has highlighted the decline in service support to children and young people and illustrated the response of school leaders. That response has become embedded in the conceptual framework of school leaders through the articulation of an ethic of care, but it is unsustainable in its present form. Children and young people need support, and schools can and will make a significant contribution to this, but they cannot – and should not be expected to – do it all.
