ALISON MITCHELL, PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND POLICY OFFICER, SCHOOL LEADERS SCOTLAND (SLS), UK
DAVID BARNETT, GENERAL SECRETARY, SCHOOL LEADERS SCOTLAND (SLS), UK
JANE CRAIGIE, NATIONAL OFFICER, SCHOOL LEADERS SCOTLAND (SLS), UK
KIRSTY AYED, HEADTEACHER, KING’S PARK SECONDARY SCHOOL, GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL EDUCATION SERVICES, UK
Introduction
School leaders across the globe are navigating persistent uncertainty and fragility, shaped by intersecting social, political and economic challenges that threaten democracy and human flourishing (Mitchell et al., in press). Scotland is no exception to these challenges. Polarised political discourse and competing ideologies, including the rise of right-wing populism (Zembylas, 2020), disinformation and racism, increasingly challenge the conception of social justice leadership that underpins the General Teaching Council for Scotland (GTCS) professional Standard for Headship (SfH) (GTCS, 2021). Further, headteachers in Scotland are responding to significant and contentious educational reform, escalating levels of student additional support needs (ASN) and increasing workforce vulnerability. These realities demand courageous, ethical and politically astute leadership (Mitchell, 2025). At the same time, they raise important questions about the sustainability of school leadership.
As the scope and demands of the role continue to expand, there is a growing risk not only to the wellbeing and flourishing of individual leaders but also to the future capacity, recruitment and retention of headteachers across Scotland. It is within this context that the Sustainable School Leadership (SSL) (Greany et al., 2026) project’s conceptualisation of an ethic of education and care provides a valuable lens for understanding the realities of contemporary headship in Scotland and the conditions necessary
to sustain it.
This article argues that the sustainability challenge facing Scottish school leadership is rooted in the growing expectation that schools will respond to increasingly complex social needs while compensating for pressures arising elsewhere in society. Sustaining an ethic of education and care therefore requires attention not only to the work of school leaders, but also to the policy, resources and system conditions that support or undermine their capacity to lead effectively over time.
Sustainable school leadership: An ethic of education and care
The findings of the SSL project (Greany et al., 2026) demonstrate that school leadership can no longer be understood solely through the lens of instructional leadership. Instead, the project foregrounds an ethic of education and care, positioning leadership as fundamentally relational, ethical and values-driven. From this perspective, school leaders are responsible not only for improving learning and teaching, but also for supporting the wellbeing of learners, staff and communities within an increasingly complex social, political and economic landscape. The SSL National Technical Report for Scotland (Collins et al., 2026) finds that leaders are committing significant time to addressing issues 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, wellbeing, behaviour and attendance as children’s needs become increasingly complex, often leaving schools to ‘pick up the pieces’ (p. 6) of wider societal challenges.
Why this matters to school leaders in Scotland
The SSL findings resonate strongly with the contemporary experiences of Scottish secondary school leaders. The recent manifesto published by School Leaders Scotland (SLS), the professional association for secondary school leaders in Scotland, was co-constructed with SLS members representing urban, rural and island contexts in state-funded and independent schools across Scotland (SLS, 2026a).
The data (SLS, 2026b) and the published manifesto (SLS, 2026a) offer a compelling account of the leadership challenges and aspirations of SLS members. Read alongside the findings of the SSL project, the manifesto highlights an important tension: as health, social care and community services face escalating demand and reduced capacity, school leaders are responding to complex issues relating to wellbeing, mental health, poverty, attendance and family or community support, raising critical questions about sustainability for both leaders and the wider education system.
Privileging the voices of school leaders: SLS Manifesto Project
The SLS constitution (SLS, 2024) articulates a clear commitment to ensuring that the perspectives of school leaders inform educational policy and public debate, including placing ‘the policies and the views of the Association at the heart of Scottish Education’ (p. 3). The co-construction of the SLS manifesto represented an opportunity to move beyond routine consultation (Bovaird and Loeffler, 2012; Subagyo, 2023) and to privilege school leaders’ voices in proposing an aspirational future for Scottish education in advance of the 2026 Scottish Parliamentary elections. Through a national survey and 10 focus groups, leaders were invited to share their experiences, concerns and aspirations for education in Scotland. In doing so, the manifesto became more than an organisational artefact; it became a process of collective sense-making in uncertain times, serving as both a warning and a vision for education in Scotland by bringing urgent concerns to light while imagining alternative possibilities (Hanna and Ashby, 2022).
Care as a foundation of educational leadership
The ethic of education and care emerged as one of the strongest points of alignment between the SSL project and the SLS manifesto. Across both studies, and aligning with the values of SLS as a professional association (SLS, 2024), leadership was consistently described as moral, relational and community-facing, shaped by a deep commitment to supporting young people, staff and families through increasingly complex circumstances. As one headteacher observed, ‘the changes to the demographic of young people and the challenges they present within my own school, would have been unimaginable 10 years ago’ (SLS, 2026b).
The manifesto co-construction data highlights care, wellbeing and welfare not as additional responsibilities but as essential conditions through which learning can be sustained. This reflects Noddings’ (2013) ethic of care, which positions education as a fundamentally relational and moral endeavour. From this perspective, leadership decisions are guided not only by organisational priorities and performance measures, but also by a commitment to the wellbeing, dignity and flourishing of learners, staff and communities.
SLS members described a daily reality of leadership that extends far beyond learning, teaching and assessment, increasingly characterised by complexity, safeguarding, emotional labour and responsibilities extending to social care and welfare:
Schools becoming the de facto frontline of social care, mental health, and family support. Senior leaders taking on responsibilities far beyond education – crisis management, complex safeguarding, mental health triage, and intensive family support
SLS, 2026b
Greater emotional labour, as leaders support staff who are stretched, anxious or at risk of burnout. Reduced capacity for relational leadership, as workload reduces time available for coaching, mentoring or meaningful engagement with staff and learners
SLS, 2026b
Importantly, members did not question the importance of these responsibilities. On the contrary, they viewed them as central to the moral purpose of education. However, they did question the growing assumption that schools alone can resolve increasingly complex social challenges. As one headteacher observed, ‘not everything can be “fixed” by schools and nor should that be the expectation’ (SLS, 2026b).
These reflections do not suggest that leaders are becoming less committed to care. Rather, they demonstrate that the demands on headteachers have expanded significantly. The SLS findings therefore reinforce the SSL proposition that care is central to educational leadership, while also exposing a growing tension. As schools assume increasingly complex responsibilities for wellbeing and welfare, they raise important questions about the appropriate boundaries of educational leadership, the distribution of responsibility between schools and wider public services, and whether such expectations of headteachers are sustainable over the longer term.
When care becomes unsustainable: Perspectives from SLS members
While SLS members accept that care is central to their leadership, they also warn that the conditions under which such care can be sustained are becoming increasingly precarious. As one participant observed, ‘the weight of responsibility falls disproportionately on schools because families trust that we will not disappear… the pressure defaults to the school, because we are the constant’ (SLS, 2026b).
Across the manifesto data, leaders repeatedly described schools as the ‘last service standing’ when wider systems are unable to respond quickly or effectively. Responsibilities once shared across health, social work, youth work and community services are increasingly being absorbed by schools. The SSL project reached a similar conclusion, highlighting the expansion of leadership responsibilities associated with inclusion, attendance, behaviour, safeguarding and wellbeing (Greany et al., 2026). Taken together, these findings point to something more significant than increased workload. They suggest that school leadership in Scotland is increasingly characterised by a system that expects schools to continue delivering high-quality educational experiences and outcomes while simultaneously absorbing responsibilities created by wider social and public sector pressures.
Members frequently described the ethical tensions this creates. Leaders know what young people, families and staff need but cannot always secure timely access to external services or appropriate support. One headteacher described:
the moral injury experienced when Head Teachers know what a child requires, but cannot secure it. Being the “last service standing” leaves leaders carrying responsibility for unmet needs created by systemic underfunding across education, health, social work and communities
SLS, 2026b
At the same time, leaders are expected to sustain the wellbeing and effectiveness of their own staff:
Leaders are managing teams who are already stretched beyond capacity, while still trying to maintain staff wellbeing, motivation and professional growth. The emotional and relational labour required to sustain large staff teams under such pressure is substantial and continuous
SLS, 2026b
Recognising the impact of escalating care responsibilities does not suggest that headteachers should, or could, diminish their focus on wellbeing and welfare. Rather, it acknowledges that the growing demands of care require their leadership and emotional labour to be better recognised and supported. As Tronto (2013) argues, care is a shared public, societal and political responsibility, not simply an individual obligation. An ethic of care can only be sustained when the wider education system also extends care to those who are expected to enact it.
Discussion: From caring leaders to caring systems
The findings of the SSL project, together with the SLS manifesto, reinforce an ethic of education and care as a defining feature of contemporary Scottish school leadership. They also provide a compelling lens through which to understand the risks to leadership sustainability. While there is little doubt that school leaders remain deeply committed to supporting the children, staff and families in their communities, an important question remains: to what extent do the policy, governance and professional conditions within which they work enable this commitment to be sustained? This shifts the focus from leadership as an individual responsibility to leadership sustainability as a system concern. Issues such as recruitment, retention, wellbeing and workload are not simply leadership challenges; they are indicators of how effectively the education system supports those upon whom it depends.
The SSL findings and the SLS manifesto point to four key implications for policy and practice that may help to mitigate the risks to leadership sustainability.
Leadership development in Scotland should engage explicitly with care as an ethical, relational, critical and political practice, with opportunities to explore ethical dilemmas, professional boundaries, emotional labour and the realities of leading within increasingly complex communities as central dimensions of contemporary school leadership in Scotland.
Policy actors should recognise school leaders as partners in knowledge creation. The SLS manifesto demonstrates that co-construction produces policy recommendations that are both professionally credible and informed by the realities of practice.
If schools are expected to address increasingly complex social needs, they require coordinated support across all public services.
Politicians should ‘recognise the emotional toil of the significant responsibilities placed upon school leaders and provide statutory wellbeing support’ (SLS, 2026a), aligning with the SSL Scotland project recommendation that ‘associations should lead campaigns on the value of leadership and encouraging universal access to mentoring, coaching and supervision’ (Greany et al., 2026, p. 11).
Conclusion
Viewing leadership sustainability as a systemic issue shifts the focus from supporting individual leaders to strengthening the conditions in which leadership is enacted. Collectively, the SSL project and the SLS manifesto provide a credible foundation for understanding the realities of contemporary headship in Scotland and the conditions needed for sustainable leadership to flourish. Leadership sustainability will not be secured through individual resilience and moral purpose alone. It requires an education system that values the professional knowledge and expertise of school leaders and places their experiences at the heart of policy and reform. If leaders are expected to sustain schools and communities, the system must also create the conditions that sustain them.
