In the second instalment in our ethical leadership series, an experienced head reflects on how they responded when they discovered a nearby school was telling parents to use their school if their children had special educational needs or disabilities (SEND) - contributing to the “magnet school” effect they were witnessing.
The leader discusses how they used the to consider their response - and the impact this had.
What was the issue?
Our head of Year 7 went to an open day for a nearby school as part of the process for choosing a secondary school for her child.
While there, she heard the headteacher say that most SEND needs cannot be met by their school and parents should consider instead using a nearby school - the school she taught at and where I am the headteacher.
What we did next
The head of year came to me and told me what was said. Although there was no written or recorded evidence of the claim, I know the head of year is a calm, experienced and exceptionally trustworthy colleague: she would not have invented the story.
After careful consideration, I decided to call the headteacher of the other school - whom I had never met - to understand exactly what is being said and why, and question if this is really the best approach to take: was this the message the other school wished to give?
I decided to ring directly and was soon able to speak. The conversation was awkward with trepidation on one side and bluster on the other. There was little agreement reached, but I asked the school to reconsider its duty to all local children, including those with SEND, and insisted that our school is not named or recommended to parents in this manner.
I followed this up with a polite and collegial email reiterating what was discussed.
How the FELE values helped
While I was nervous ahead of making the call, I used the FELE values to underpin the importance of making it. For example, explaining that selflessness means schools have a responsibility to admit children with SEND, even if that might affect outcomes. The need to be honest in admitting what had happened and accountability: all schools have a duty to children with SEND.
I also reminded the other headteacher that justice for all children, no matter their circumstances, service to the principles of the education system and optimism about what children with SEND can achieve are important virtues.
Finally, I took heart in recognising my own courage to pick up the phone for what I knew would be a difficult conversation.
What happened next?
The head of year did not apply for a place for her child at the school in question.
I was already working with the local authority on the matter, but felt braver about raising it at the next heads’ meeting.
I had figures from the local authority (LA) demonstrating the distribution of children with SEND, especially those with education, health and care plans, and together we spent considerable time working on a detailed SEND rebalancing scheme that should bring all schools closer to parity in five years.
That’s still ongoing. Almost all headteachers in the LA agreed to this aim.
Key takeaways
Despite the incident being hearsay, we cannot shirk our responsibility to tackle matters like this when we become aware of them - and to give leaders the chance to explain themselves and then challenge them if such behaviours are indeed true.
The follow-up with the LA took time and determination, but a structured response to tackle injustice can be possible.
For key school and trust leadership insights delivered every month, sign up for the Tes Leaders’ Briefing newsletter
