Leading a school brings a multitude of daily difficult decisions. But one of the most difficult is when to suspend or permanently exclude a child. The weight of this decision must not be underestimated. The decision made by leaders will ultimately define a different life path for that child and family. It is a life-lasting landmark. I have been exploring how to make these difficult decisions “ethically” in an educational landscape with growing SEN needs, trauma-informed advocates, a boom in parental complaints and DfE guidance directing nearly no external suspensions. Schools often use “principle-based ethics”. This states that an action is ethical if it aligns with universal laws, or in school speak, universal rules. And school are packed with universal rules. It has no regard for the consequences of applying the rules, only that they are universally applied and, if they are, then the leader has acted ethically. Falling at the first hurdle Whilst school staff hugely favour this model of consistency, clarity and guidance it often falls at the first hurdle. Many would argue that it is unethical to apply the same rules and sanctions to pupils with SEND, or to a first-time offence. After all, what is our end goal? Is it to punish for punishment’s sake or is it to ensure the negative behaviour doesn’t happen again? I have suspended pupils because it followed a school “precedent”, or their behaviour “crossed a line”, when I knew a strong talking-to and education from myself and parents would ensure it wouldn’t happen again. One of the words leaders fear the most is “inconsistent” and yes, staff would probably call a leader inconsistent if he or she didn’t follow principle-based ethics. Individual merits If they did not, they would be following “consequential ethics”. This states that the right action is one that brings about the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Using this theory, a leader would take every case on its individual merits as long as they believed it would result in the best possible consequences. Advocates for SEND or looked-after pupils would probably back this – I have been pushed by those advocates to not sanction poor behaviour of pupils with certain needs or backgrounds. In reality, however, this would bring many issues around consistency, pupil bias and even behaviour analysis tracking. Bold decisions? Moreover, it needs a strong leader to make a bold decision against the expectation and will of others in school because they believe it will bring about the best consequence. This strong leader may well be carrying out “virtue ethics”. This is the theory that if the decision maker is “virtuous”, then their decision will be ethical. How many school leaders truly have not only the backing of all staff, but a staff body that would describe them as virtuous? Who decides who is virtuous anyway? Finally, relational ethics. This in essence is “trust your gut”. Listen to your heart pulsing faster, or the bead of sweat on your forehead, and act on it. I have been surprised by just how confident I was in some permanent exclusion decisions when I have used relational ethics. If my body is screaming out to me, then surely I know the decision is ethical? This approach, however, is fraught with the risk of bias, conscious or otherwise, by the decision-maker. So how do we make difficult decisions that are right for the child, for your staff and for the school as well as it being “ethical”? Ultimately, the most ethical decisions come from leaders who can consciously balance these competing theories with transparency, humility and humanity. In a landscape filled with pressure and complexity, our responsibility is not to choose a perfect model, but to choose the path that most meaningfully protects the dignity, safety and future of every child in our care.