Is there any school that would not say it cared? Any school leader who would not say care was central to their moral purpose? Yet many school leaders and teachers reject the notion that schools are part of a system of public care, advocating that educators leave the “social work” to others (Henderson Smith et al., “We’re teachers right, we’re not social workers?” Teacher perspectives on student mental health in a tribal school. Sch Ment Heal 15:1113–1127, 2023). Other school leaders and teachers point out that schools are central to communities and are logical places for care services to be placed. Over decades, educational policymakers have see-sawed in their commitments to care services in schools. Policies have alternated between “wrap-around” coordinated care provisions and/or full-service schools on the one hand and on the other a strong focus on only teaching an agreed curriculum. Current policies in the USA and UK have instrumental approaches to care which help to construct a thin equity focused on inspections, tests, and exam results. However, leaders in disadvantaged schools find it hard to ignore the children, young people, and their families facing adverse life circumstances not of their own making. These families often rely on their schools for a range of supports, from food to assistance with accessing health and welfare entitlements. In this chapter, I suggest that leading with care, while sometimes a policy-resistant act, is essential for a robust and capacious approach to educational equity, regardless of the vicissitudes of policy. I argue that leaders who offer wholistic support for their communities are following an ethic of care. Joan Tronto (Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge, 1993; An ethic of care. Generations 22(3):15–20, 1998; Who cares? How to reshape a democratic politics. Cornell University Press, 2015) posited five elements of an ethic of care: attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness, and plurality. As Tronto argued, together with other feminist theorists of care (e.g., Held, Justice and care. Essential readings in feminist ethics. Westview Press, 1995; Lynch, Care and capitalism. Polity Press, 2022; The Care Collective, The care manifesto. The politics of interdependence. Verso, 2020), care is fundamental to human existence: an ethic of care should be at the center of moral and political life. When care is undervalued and relegated to the private sphere, there are negative implications for social justice in education and in wider society. The chapter concludes with a potential evaluation heuristic which might be used to generate school data and discussion about care.

Leading with a Feminist Ethic of Care

动态工具书词条
发表日期：

2026年

查看全文

Pat Thomson

摘要

Is there any school that would not say it cared? Any school leader who would not say care was central to their moral purpose? Yet many school leaders and teachers reject the notion that schools are part of a system of public care, advocating that educators leave the “social work” to others (Henderson Smith et al., “We’re teachers right, we’re not social workers?” Teacher perspectives on student mental health in a tribal school. Sch Ment Heal 15:1113–1127, 2023). Other school leaders and teachers point out that schools are central to communities and are logical places for care services to be placed. Over decades, educational policymakers have see-sawed in their commitments to care services in schools. Policies have alternated between “wrap-around” coordinated care provisions and/or full-service schools on the one hand and on the other a strong focus on only teaching an agreed curriculum. Current policies in the USA and UK have instrumental approaches to care which help to construct a thin equity focused on inspections, tests, and exam results. However, leaders in disadvantaged schools find it hard to ignore the children, young people, and their families facing adverse life circumstances not of their own making. These families often rely on their schools for a range of supports, from food to assistance with accessing health and welfare entitlements. In this chapter, I suggest that leading with care, while sometimes a policy-resistant act, is essential for a robust and capacious approach to educational equity, regardless of the vicissitudes of policy. I argue that leaders who offer wholistic support for their communities are following an ethic of care. Joan Tronto (Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. Routledge, 1993; An ethic of care. Generations 22(3):15–20, 1998; Who cares? How to reshape a democratic politics. Cornell University Press, 2015) posited five elements of an ethic of care: attentiveness, responsibility, competence, responsiveness, and plurality. As Tronto argued, together with other feminist theorists of care (e.g., Held, Justice and care. Essential readings in feminist ethics. Westview Press, 1995; Lynch, Care and capitalism. Polity Press, 2022; The Care Collective, The care manifesto. The politics of interdependence. Verso, 2020), care is fundamental to human existence: an ethic of care should be at the center of moral and political life. When care is undervalued and relegated to the private sphere, there are negative implications for social justice in education and in wider society. The chapter concludes with a potential evaluation heuristic which might be used to generate school data and discussion about care.