Flexible working is increasingly common in many workplaces. But the adoption of flexible practices in schools has been slow and patchy.
For many leaders, requests for flexible working feel like a procedural hurdle to process and often decline.
But the passage in December of the Employment Rights Act marks a significant shift in how flexible working requests must be handled.
While it has not become an automatic right, the bar for refusing a request has been raised, and schools that fail to adapt will expose themselves to legal risks. Having a blanket policy of no flexible working is not a safe approach.
What has changed?
Schools can still refuse flexible working requests, and the eight statutory grounds for doing so remain in place.
However, refusals must now be “reasonable” – a higher legal test. It is no longer enough to just state one of the eight reasons. Leaders must demonstrate why a refusal is reasonable in the specific circumstances of that request.
Consultation with the employee is mandatory, so schools must meaningfully engage with the individual before a decision is reached.
This is not a courtesy meeting or rubber-stamping exercise. It must show genuine consideration of whether the request, or a modified version, could reasonably work.
Any refusal must be accompanied by a written explanation setting out the reasoning. Generic language and blanket statements of policy wording are unlikely to stand up to scrutiny.
In short, flexible working has moved from being a procedural exercise to a substantive decision that schools must be able to justify with evidence.
Beyond the legal risks
Many experienced teachers and leaders now expect some degree of flexibility, particularly those with caring responsibilities or health needs.
If requests are refused without robust justification, as well as the risk of an employment tribunal, schools risk losing skilled staff.
From a workforce planning perspective, leaders will need to show they have at least considered alternatives.
That might include job sharing, timetable tweaks, remote working or creative use of part-time leadership.
From a risk management perspective, a poorly handled refusal now carries a higher chance of challenge.
Employment tribunals will expect to see evidence that leaders actively weighed the impact on pupils, colleagues and the organisation against the needs of the individual, and that they did so reasonably.
For governing bodies and trust boards, this raises important questions about oversight. Are leaders being trained to make legally defensible decisions? Are policies being applied consistently across schools? Are flexible working decisions being monitored from a governance perspective?
A catalyst for reflection
This legislative change should act as a catalyst for reflection. Senior and middle leaders need training.
Flexible working requests are often handled at departmental or line-manager level, yet many leaders have never been taught how to assess them properly. Without clear guidance and understanding of the relevant legislation, inconsistency and risk are inevitable.
Next, flexible working policies need to be reviewed. Many school policies are out of date, and can be overly restrictive or written with refusal in mind. A policy that does not reflect the new legal test is a liability.
Instead of a source of anxiety for leaders, this should be an opportunity for schools to take a strategic look at the flexibility they already offer.
Where has it worked well? Where has it failed and why? What assumptions are being made about what can and can’t be done?
To summarise, flexible working has not become an automatic yes, but saying no has become harder.
For schools and all other employers, this is about being able to show that each request has been taken seriously, explored properly and decided fairly.
For many schools, this will be a significant shift. Ultimately, the Employment Rights Bill nudges schools towards a more thoughtful and positive conversation about flexible working.
For schools willing to engage with this change, that may turn out to be an opportunity rather than a burden.
Your thoughts