Allyship in Action: Finding and Growing Allies in Education, Work, and Everyday Life
Written by Marie Manley
Marie Manley works for SEE Change Happens. She is an advocate for families and friends of Transgender individuals. She loves talking to customers about their DEIB requirements, explaining how SEE Change Happen can enhance organisations with all things DEIB-related. She comes from an administration and compliance background, she has strong analytical thinking, a love of processes, and a strict attention to detail.
Allyship is something I used to think of as a value – something you believe in. But over time, and through personal experience, I’ve come to understand that allyship is really about what you do. It’s how you show up, how you listen, and how you stand alongside others, especially when it matters most.
For me, this became deeply personal when my husband became my wife. That journey shifted not only how I see the world, but how I experience it. It opened my eyes to the quiet, everyday moments where allyship is either present or absent – in conversations, in systems, and in relationships. It also helped me recognise just how powerful true allies can be.
What I’ve learned is that allyship isn’t confined to one space. It travels with us – through education, into our workplaces, and into our closest relationships. And in each of those spaces, we have the opportunity to both find allies and become one.
Allyship in Education: Where It Often Begins
Education is often where we first encounter difference – different identities, perspectives, and lived experiences. It’s also where many of our beliefs about fairness and belonging start to form.
I’ve seen how powerful it can be when educators create spaces where people feel safe to be themselves. Allyship in education isn’t just about policies or statements; it’s about the everyday behaviours. It’s the teacher who challenges exclusion. The student who speaks up when something doesn’t feel right. The environment that makes space for everyone to be heard.
Finding allies in education often starts with noticing those small but important actions. Who is curious rather than judgmental? Who is willing to challenge bias? Who makes room for others?
But we can’t leave allyship to chance. It needs to be nurtured intentionally. When inclusion is embedded into how education works – from curriculum to culture – allyship becomes part of the norm, not the exception.
Allyship at Work: Moving Beyond Good Intentions
In the workplace, allyship becomes even more visible – and, if I’m honest, sometimes more challenging.
Many organisations talk about diversity and inclusion, but without active allyship, those words can feel hollow. Allyship at work is about what happens in the moments that aren’t scripted – who gets heard in meetings, who is advocated for, who is challenged when something isn’t fair.
Through my own work, I’ve seen that allies are not always the loudest voices. Often, they are the most consistent. They are the people who quietly but firmly stand for fairness, who follow through, and who are willing to learn and adapt.
When my own family experience changed, I noticed these allies more clearly. The colleague who checked in. The leader who made space. The friend who didn’t assume but asked. Those moments mattered more than any formal policy ever could.
That said, organisations do have a responsibility. Allyship shouldn’t rely on individuals alone. It needs to be supported by leadership, embedded into systems, and reinforced through accountability. When that happens, allyship becomes part of how work gets done – not an extra.
Allyship in Family and Friendships: Where It Gets Real
If I’m honest, the most complex space for allyship is often our personal lives.
Family and friendships are where we feel safest – but they are also where bias can go unchallenged. When my husband became my wife, I saw this firsthand.
SEE Change Happen – Fireside chat is an example of finding Allyship:
https://seechangehappen.co.uk/speaking-library/the-making-of-me-joanne-maries-story/
Some people leaned in with openness, curiosity, and love. Others struggled, sometimes without realising the impact of their words or assumptions.
Allyship in these spaces isn’t about having all the right answers. It’s about being willing. Willing to listen. Willing to learn. Willing to say, “I might not fully understand, but I’m here.”
It’s also about courage. Speaking up when something doesn’t sit right. Gently challenging language or behaviour. Choosing connection over comfort.
Resources from organisations like Stonewall (https://www.stonewall.org.uk/) can be incredibly helpful in guiding those first steps, especially for people who want to be supportive but aren’t sure how.
What I’ve come to appreciate is that allies in our personal lives don’t need to be perfect. They just need to be present, open, and committed to growing.
Growing Allyship – Together
Across all these spaces, one thing stands out to me: allyship is deeply human. It’s built on trust, consistency, and care.
It’s not about getting everything right. It’s about being willing to try, to learn, and to keep showing up.
If we want to grow allyship, we need to create environments where people feel safe to ask questions, to reflect, and to be challenged. We need to recognise and value inclusive behaviours. And we need to hold ourselves – and each other – accountable.
This is something I’m incredibly passionate about in my work, and it’s why organisations like SEE Change Happen (https://seechangehappen.co.uk/) exist – to support people and organisations in turning intention into meaningful, lasting change.
A Final Reflection
Allyship has become something very real to me. It’s not theoretical. It’s not abstract. It’s personal, and it’s ongoing.
It shows up in the colleague who creates space. The friend who listens. The family member who is willing to learn. And sometimes, it starts with us – choosing to be that person for someone else.
So, I often come back to a simple question: How am I showing up for others today?
Because when we ask that – and act on it – allyship stops being something we talk about and becomes something we live.
What do school governors need to know about DEIB?
Written by Hannah Wilson
Founder and Director of the Belonging Effect (formerly Diverse Educators).
School governors play a strategic, not operational, role in DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging). What they need to know can be grouped into purpose, legal duties, oversight, and culture.
- What DEIB means in a school context
Governors should understand that:
- Diversity: The range of identities and experiences in the school community (e.g. race, ethnicity, gender, SEND, religion, socioeconomic background).
- Equity: Fairness, not sameness – recognising that different pupils and staff may need different support to succeed.
- Inclusion: Creating systems and practices where everyone can participate and thrive.
- Belonging: Pupils, staff and families feel respected and safe in the school.
DEIB is not an add-on – it affects outcomes, wellbeing, safeguarding, staff retention, and reputation.
- Legal and statutory responsibilities (UK-focused)
Governors must ensure the school complies with:
- Equality Act 2010: Protects nine characteristics (e.g. race, disability, sex, religion). Requires schools to eliminate discrimination, advance equality, and foster good relations.
- Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED): Schools must show due regard to equality in decisions and policies.
- Safeguarding duties: Discrimination, bullying, and exclusion can be safeguarding risks.
- Ofsted expectations: Inspectors look at inclusion, behaviour, curriculum breadth, and how well vulnerable groups are supported.
Governors do not deliver DEIB – but they are accountable for whether it is happening effectively.
- Strategic questions governors should ask
Governors should be able to challenge leaders with evidence-based questions such as:
Pupils:
- Are there attainment, behaviour, attendance, or exclusion gaps between groups?
- How does the school support pupils with SEND, EAL, or from disadvantaged backgrounds?
- Do pupils report feeling safe and that they belong?
Staff:
- Is recruitment and promotion fair and transparent?
- Are there disparities in staff retention, progression, or disciplinary action?
- Is staff training in equality and inclusion effective and ongoing?
Curriculum & culture:
- Does the curriculum reflect diverse voices and experiences?
- Are incidents of bullying, racism, sexism or homophobia recorded and acted upon?
- How does the school engage families from different backgrounds?
- Policy oversight (not micromanagement)
Governors should ensure the school has clear, up-to-date policies and that they are working in practice, including:
- Equality and accessibility plans
- Behaviour and anti-bullying policies
- SEND policy and provision
- Admissions and exclusions
- Complaints procedures
They should look for impact, not just paperwork.
- Data literacy and proportionality
Governors need confidence to:
- Interpret equality and pupil outcome data without jumping to conclusions
- Understand that unequal outcomes don’t always mean discrimination – but always warrant investigation
- Balance DEIB work with the school’s context, avoiding tokenism or box-ticking
Good governance focuses on patterns and trends, not isolated incidents.
- Tone, language, and leadership
Governors set the tone. They should:
- Use respectful, inclusive language
- Avoid politicising DEIB or treating it as “optional”
- Model curiosity rather than defensiveness
- Support leaders when DEIB work attracts challenge or misunderstanding
Silence or avoidance can be interpreted as indifference.
- What governors should not do
- Do not manage individual cases unless part of a formal panel
- Do not impose personal ideology
- Do not expect quick fixes – culture change takes time
- Do not delegate all DEIB responsibility to one staff member
- Continuous learning
Effective governors:
- Undertake regular training on equality and inclusion
- Stay aware of local community needs
- Reflect on their own board’s diversity and skills mix
In short:
School governors need to understand DEIB well enough to ask the right questions, meet legal duties, hold leaders to account, and ensure every pupil and staff member has a fair chance to succeed and belong.
Permeable Minds: How Omission Forms Meaning
Written by Rachida Dahman
Rachida Dahman is an international educator, a language and literature teacher, and an educational innovator. She started her career in Germany as a teacher trainer advocating the importance of relationships above academics. She then moved to Luxembourg where she teaches German language and literature classes to middle and high school students. She is an award-winning poet, co-author of the best-selling book, ATLAS DER ENTSCHEIDER Entscheiden wie die Profis- Dynamik, Komplexität und Stress meistern.
Judgment Formation and the Ethics of Attention in the Classroom
In classrooms where books are read and texts are discussed, students absorb invisible hierarchies of attention and recognition. They learn not only from what is articulated, highlighted, and rewarded, but also from what is omitted, overlooked, or left unspoken. Meaning moves through the room, through the questions asked and the questions avoided. It shapes perception long before students can fully name what they are absorbing.
Schools often articulate strong commitments to inclusion, wellbeing, and safety. These commitments are serious and necessary. Yet institutional language alone does not guarantee coherence in practice. Posters are displayed. Assemblies are convened. Mission statements are published. Classrooms, however, are governed less by rhetoric than by attention. Every emphasis, every silence, every interpretive choice participates in shaping what students come to trust, recognize, and regard as real.
The ethical management of attention in classrooms determines whether institutional commitments become formative realities or rhetorical contradictions.
Policy and Practice
A structural tension exists between policy ambition and classroom practice. Policy speaks in generalities; teaching unfolds in particulars. It is in those particulars, especially in the study of literature, that judgment is formed. Choices about naming, framing, or highlighting elements of a text carry consequences beyond the immediate lesson.
Serious education has never prioritized comfort. What matters is judgment: the capacity to perceive complexity, to recognize human dignity in its specificity, and to interpret without erasing. When this discipline falters, the erosion is quiet but cumulative. Students internalize patterns of recognition and omission long before they can articulate them.
Naming and Omission
When identities within a text are left unnamed in discussion, students learn more than the assigned content. They learn which dimensions of human experience are treated as central and which as peripheral. A novel may be analyzed for structure, language, or historical context. Its craft may be examined in detail. Yet if the marginalized identities shaping its characters’ positions remain unacknowledged, students absorb a hierarchy of relevance.
In classrooms where misogynistic rhetoric is analyzed as a stylistic device but not named as misogyny, some students fall silent, others detach. The discussion continues, yet something has shifted. The omission itself communicates.
Not all silence is harmful. At times, restraint creates space for reflection rather than hierarchy. The distinction lies in pattern. Occasional discretion differs from consistent omission. When particular dimensions of human experience are repeatedly left unnamed, they become less thinkable. What becomes less thinkable gradually becomes less real within the intellectual life of the classroom. Recognition requires courage. Silence is often easier.
Permeable Minds
Developing minds are permeable. Adolescents are not passive recipients of content; they are active interpreters, scanning for relevance, legitimacy, and recognition. Permeability is not fragility. It is the very process of formation.
Educational environments shape judgment through repeated signals of importance and marginality. Over time, these signals accumulate. Institutional language cannot substitute for interpretive practice. The ethics of education resides not only in declared commitments but in the disciplined management of attention within the classroom.
Teachers and school leaders carry responsibility for what students see, hear, and internalize, for what is named and what remains unspoken.
The Double Bind
Schools frequently emphasize care, belonging, and safety. Yet everyday pedagogical practices may convey a different message: indifference, irony without scaffolding, or humiliation without commentary. Students encounter structural contradictions, what Gregory Bateson described as a double bind: two incompatible messages delivered within a relationship that cannot easily be exited or openly challenged.
- Students are told their wellbeing matters.
- They are simultaneously expected to endure unexamined provocation.
- Students are told inclusion is foundational.
- They encounter subtle forms of elitism that reproduce exclusion.
A school may hold a wellbeing assembly, then require students to analyse a text containing degrading rhetoric without space to acknowledge discomfort. The institutional message is “your wellbeing matters.” The pedagogical message received may be “your response is irrelevant to serious analysis.”
When students are instructed to “separate personal feelings from intellectual rigor,” the lesson conveyed can become that emotional experience disqualifies serious thought. The result is rarely open rebellion. It is more often a quiet destabilization, a subtle erosion of trust in the coherence of adult authority.
The Erosion of Trust
The most serious consequence is not offense. It is the gradual erosion of trust. Trust in the teacher’s coherence. Trust in institutional language. Trust in the alignment between word and action. In socially polarized contexts, this erosion matters. Authority experienced as inconsistent cannot stabilize conflict. When institutional language loses credibility, its capacity to guide and de-escalate diminishes.
Research consistently underscores the importance of perceived fairness and relational trust. Students’ sense of psychological safety depends less on the absence of challenge than on predictable and ethical adult authority. Young people do not reject rigor. They struggle when the signals they receive contradict one another.
Coherence as Professional Responsibility
Pedagogy does not promise comfort. Challenging texts and unsettling questions are essential. The question is not whether students encounter difficulty, but whether difficulty is framed within coherent ethical practice.
Public commitments to wellbeing must be mirrored in classroom decisions. Text selection cannot be merely private taste. Provocation cannot be detached from responsibility. Critical distance cannot become an alibi for indifference. Ignoring queerness in texts about queer lives, failing to address antisemitism in Jewish literature, or omitting misogyny in feminist texts constitutes erasure. Erasure teaches students that certain realities do not merit acknowledgment within serious intellectual work.
Teachers operate under real constraints: time, curriculum mandates, community expectations, and political scrutiny. Ethical attention does not require exhaustive commentary on every identity dimension. It requires awareness of pattern. The question is not whether everything is named, but whether repeated omissions accumulate into hierarchy.
Influence in classrooms is inevitable. What circulates within that influence must therefore be examined.
“All one-sidedness remains one-sidedness and carries its own suffering within it. Whoever reduces, constricts. And whoever constricts, causes harm.” – Carl Jung
From Reflection to Action
The dynamics described here have direct implications for practice and policy.
For Teachers
- Name identities deliberately. Where relevant, acknowledge historical context, ethical tensions, and marginalized positions within texts.
- Distinguish restraint from erasure. Consider whether silence creates space for thought or unintentionally signals irrelevance.
- Reflect on attention patterns. Notice which perspectives are consistently elevated and which remain peripheral.
- Model moral attentiveness. Demonstrate that intellectual rigor and ethical recognition are not opposing commitments.
For Policy-Makers
- Align language with classroom reality. Commitments to inclusion and wellbeing must be actionable within pedagogy.
- Support teacher agency. Provide professional development focused on interpretive ethics and moral formation. Enable educators to name identities responsibly without fear of reprisal.
- Evaluate coherence, not only compliance. Assess how students experience recognition and omission in daily classroom life.
Closing Reflection
Classrooms are not neutral spaces. Every discussion, every interpretive choice, every sustained omission participates in the moral formation of students. Teachers and policymakers share responsibility for the ethical conditions under which judgment develops.
When coherence is present, trust strengthens. When word and action align, authority stabilizes rather than destabilizes. By honouring the permeability of young minds, education can fulfil its promise of inclusion and prepare students to engage thoughtfully and thoroughly. In times marked by social fracture, that coherence is not an optional refinement. It is a professional necessity. Without trust, education cannot endure.
Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 Consultation
Written by Belonging Effect
Belonging Effect is committed to shaping intention into impact and supporting people with their Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Belonging strategy and training needs.
On 12th February 2026, the Department for Education published a new draft of the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools and colleges: Keeping Children Safe in Education.
Amongst other changes, the new draft guidance includes an amended section titled ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual’; and a new section titled ‘Children who are questioning their gender’.
Since the draft guidance was published, these sections specifically have been reported on widely. We have read and listened to much of the coverage from diverse sources, and are concerned to see some exaggeration or misrepresentation of the current situation. To be clear, this is not currently statutory guidance – it is a draft of proposed guidance, which has been opened for a 10 week consultation period ending on 22nd April 2026. Currently, schools and colleges should not make changes which are informed by this draft guidance. They should continue to follow the 2025 version of KCSIE.
Our intention in this piece is to set out the context in which this draft guidance has been released, the details of the guidance, and provide information about the ongoing consultation as accurately and clearly as we can in order to encourage those involved in education to express their views through the consultation. In order to do so, we have tried to avoid presenting our own opinions in much of the following piece. However, we think it is important to be transparent before we begin. We have worked with transgender, non-binary, and gender questioning students, and we are fully committed to their inclusion and belonging in educational spaces. We believe that any statutory guidance for schools and colleges should provide workable and inclusive guidance that protects all students from discrimination, and ensures safety, dignity and respect for all young people in education – including trans students. With that clear, let’s begin.
The Context
Chances are, if you are reading this piece, you are very familiar with the statutory safeguarding guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education (often referred to as KCSIE). It was first published in 2014, and is reviewed and updated by the Department for Education annually, with updated versions typically becoming statutory each September. Most years these updates come without consultation, but a consultation or call for evidence may be made when substantive changes are proposed.
In the KCSIE update for September 2022, under the section ‘Children potentially at greater risk of harm’ a new category was added, titled ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, bi, or trans (LGBT)’. This new guidance was brief, but acknowledged that being LGBT, or being perceived to be LGBT, could be a risk factor for bullying. The following year, in the 2023 September update, this section was slightly expanded. It stated:
‘203. The fact that a child or a young person may be LGBT is not in itself an inherent risk factor for harm. However, children who are LGBT can be targeted by other children. In some cases, a child who is perceived by other children to be LGBT (whether they are or not) can be just as vulnerable as children who identify as LGBT.
204. Risks can be compounded where children who are LGBT lack a trusted adult with whom they can be open. It is therefore vital that staff endeavour to reduce the additional barriers faced and provide a safe space for them to speak out or share their concerns with members of staff.
205. LGBT inclusion is part of the statutory Relationships Education, Relationships and Sex Education and Health Education curriculum and there is a range of support available to help schools counter homophobic, bi-phobic and transphobic bullying and abuse.’
Later that year, in December 2023, the Department for Education published draft guidance relating to trans and non-binary students in schools, which they called ‘Gender Questioning Children’. This was draft, non-statutory guidance, which opened for a 12 week consultation period ending on Tuesday 12th March 2024. You can read more about this draft guidance and consultation here.
Shortly after that consultation closed, the Cass Review was published in April 2024. The Cass Review was intended to be an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people. It has been widely criticised since its release. Although not an education focused document, the review made some recommendations relevant to schools and colleges.
In the same year, the UK saw a change of government with a new Labour government elected in July 2024. The Labour government committed to looking at the results of the consultation into the ‘Gender Questioning Children’ guidance and to publishing finalised guidance for schools. They also committed to enacting the recommendations of the Cass Review.
On 12th February 2026, The Department for Education published a new draft of the statutory safeguarding guidance for schools and colleges, KCSIE. Amongst other changes, this new draft guidance includes an amended section titled ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual’, and a new section titled ‘Children who are questioning their gender’.
In materials published online, the DfE explains their choice to position gender guidance as part of KCSIE, rather than in separate non-statutory guidance as first proposed in 2023. They state that they “propose instead to include this content in KCSIE so that children’s wellbeing and safeguarding are considered in the round, and so that schools and colleges can easily access this information in one place”.
The DfE also provides some limited details about the results of the consultation. They explain that the consultation into the draft ‘Gender Questioning Children’ guidance received 15,315 respondents and “demonstrated that this is a highly contested policy area with no clear consensus on the appropriate approach, but more respondents expressed negative than positive views about the usability of the draft guidance published for consultation”.
This draft guidance is now open for a 10 week consultation period, ending on 22nd April 2026. The following sections will set out the details of this proposed guidance, and information about the ongoing consultation.
The Guidance & Consultation
Although other important changes have been made, we focus specifically here on the parts of the guidance titled ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual’ and ‘Children who are questioning their gender’.
Part Two of KCSIE sets out the statutory guidance around the management of safeguarding, and it includes a section on ‘Children potentially at greater risk of harm’. It is within this section that LGBT identities are discussed under the following two headings.
‘Children who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual’
This amended section used to include the word ‘trans’ (2022 & 2023), and later ‘gender questioning’ (2024, 2025). That has now been removed, and this section focuses specifically on sexual and/or romantic orientations lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The draft guidance states:
“244. A child or young person being lesbian, gay, or bisexual is not in itself a risk factor for harm; however, they can sometimes be vulnerable to discriminatory bullying. In some cases, a child who is perceived by other children to be lesbian, gay, or bisexual (whether they are or not) can be just as vulnerable as children who are. Schools and colleges should consider how to address vulnerabilities such as the risk of bullying and take steps to prevent it, including putting appropriate sanctions in place.”
‘Children who are questioning their gender’
This new section is the result of the 2024 consultation into the then draft non-statutory ‘Gender Questioning Children’ guidance. It includes some general information, followed by specific advice on:
- Preventing and responding to bullying
- Decision making when a request is made for social transition
- Parental Involvement
- Physical Spaces (toilets, changing, accommodation)
- Record Keeping
- ‘Children living in stealth’
- ‘Children who wish to detransition’
This section of the draft guidance is long so we have not quoted it here in full, but it includes significant changes in how schools should work to support trans, non-binary, or gender questioning young people. We would encourage you to read it in full in the draft guidance released by the DfE, or in this longer article published by Pride & Progress.
The draft guidance is currently open for a 10-week consultation period, which ends on 22nd April 2026. The consultation invites responses from a variety of educational spaces, and those working in them.
The consultation is divided into 9 sections:
- Section 1 – proposed changes to the ‘about this guidance’ section and general updates to KCSIE
- Section 2 – proposed changes to Part one: Safeguarding information for all staff •
- Section 3 – proposed changes to Part two: The management of safeguarding
- Section 4 – proposed changes to Part three: Safer recruitment
- Section 5 – proposed changes to Part four: Safeguarding concerns or allegations made about staff including supply teachers, volunteers and contractors
- Section 6 – proposed changes to Part five: Child-on-child sexual violence and sexual harassment
- Section 7 – proposed changes to Annex B – further information
- Section 8 – proposed changes to Annex C – the role of the designated safeguarding lead
- Section 9 – expanding our evidence base
You can view all of the questions asked in each section of the consultation in the DfE consultation document. Section 3 of the consultation is where questions are asked about the proposed changes to Part Two of KCSIE. There are no questions asked about the guidance relating to ‘Children who are lesbian, gay, and bisexual’. Of the guidance relating to ‘Children who are questioning their gender’, three questions are asked. They are:
- Question 33: Does the updated section of the guidance on children who are questioning their gender provide clarity about the considerations schools and colleges will need to take into account?
Yes, No, Not Applicable, No Opinion, Please Explain Further (Optional)
- Question 34: Do paragraphs 104-115 provide clarity for schools and colleges about their legal obligations relating to toilets, changing rooms, and boarding and residential accommodation?
Yes, No, Not Applicable, No Opinion, Please Explain Further (Optional)
- Question 35: Do paragraphs 94-97 provide clarity for schools and colleges about the circumstances in which the school is justified in having a policy of single-sex sports?
Yes, No, Not Applicable, No Opinion, Please Explain Further (Optional)
These questions focus on the clarity of the advice set out in the new draft guidance, but they offer a vital opportunity for those working in education to consult on the workability of this guidance. As stated earlier, we have worked with transgender, non-binary, and gender questioning students, and we are fully committed to their inclusion and belonging in educational spaces. As, in our experience, are the vast majority of those working in the education sector. We believe that any statutory guidance for schools and colleges should provide workable and inclusive guidance that protects all students from discrimination, and ensures dignity and respect for all young people in education – including trans, non-binary, and gender questioning young people.
Actions you may wish to consider taking
We hope that reading this piece has helped you to feel more informed. Below are some actions you may wish to undertake as a result of what you have read:
- Please challenge any mis-characterisations of this draft guidance. This is not currently statutory guidance – it is a draft of proposed guidance, which has been opened for a 10 week consultation period ending on 22nd April 2026.
- Please contribute to the consultation process, and consider specifically the workability of the guidance set out, and whether it is inclusive guidance that protects all students from discrimination, and ensures dignity and respect for all children in education. You may wish to delay your contribution to the consultation until other organisations have released guidance and support on doing so.
- Consider encouraging colleagues and connections to read about the draft guidance, and contribute to the consultation themselves. The previous consultation had over 15,000 responses – the more people who contribute, the more informed the finalised guidance can be.
- Finally, you may wish to begin considering what policies and practices you may need to review when the finalised guidance is released in September. What has been discussed here is the draft guidance, and no changes should be implemented yet, but it may be a good idea to begin to consider your policies and practices relating to LGBT+ students ahead of the final guidance being released later this year.
This piece was written by members of the Belonging Effect team and is intended for informational purposes only. This blog was published on 17/2/26, and all information was to the best of our understanding at the time of publishing.
Sanctuaries of Inclusion & Incubators of Innovation!
Written by Laura McPhee
Laura McPhee is Director of Education at University Schools Trust. Prior to this, Laura was an experienced headteacher. She has a proven track record of leading transformational change management and successful school improvement journeys across London. Laura is a facilitator for the National Professional Qualification facilitator for Headship (NPQH) and a School Improvement consultant. She holds a number of trustee positions and enjoys guest lecturing for ITT courses. She is the author of 'Empowering Teachers, Improving Schools: Belonging, Psychological Safety & School Improvement' and a co-author of 'Tackling Poverty and Disadvantage in Schools.'
I’m sitting at the back of the teacher training induction session, pretending to read the welcome pack, when a large imposing figure appears at the front. He thanks us all for coming and quickly moves on to a lengthy monologue, warning us of the perils that lie ahead. He informs us in no uncertain terms, that training to be a teacher will be the most challenging thing we’ll ever have to do.
‘Hmmm. Doubt that. I’ve beaten cancer twice,’ says a jolly voice next to me, beaming.
I’ve been hiding in the back row with the other ‘mature’ students – who, as it turns out, are not so mature after all. The beaming voice is Kate, who like me, has a healthy disregard for rules. We become fast friends and slope off for coffee.
But the introductory ‘talk’, with hints of a dark reckoning, is still ringing in my ear. I thought this was the beginning of a new adventure, so why did it already feel like a zero-sum game?
I was yet to realise that the well-meaning individual, terrifying us all into submission that day, was in fact preparing us for the high stakes career that lay ahead.
As educators, we champion accountability. But accountability in the absence of psychological safety, can stifle innovation, limit progress and encourage poor behaviours.
I was lucky. I was a quick learner and, for the most part I was surrounded by exceptional teams and leaders who were extraordinarily generous with their expertise and professional support. But that hasn’t always been the case.
The evidence base suggests I’m not alone.
I would bet my mortgage that you, or someone you know, has at one time or another been worried about expressing their opinion at work for fear of reprisal. Perhaps you’ve thought twice about sharing a concern or idea? Or were afraid to ask a question? Maybe you’ve faced unfair criticism, chastisement or social exclusion.
Perhaps you’ve had to battle systemic barriers in the workplace?
The sector at large has been impacted. In a profession that is high stakes, a lack of psychological safety has, at times, resulted in exclusionary practice. This is amplified when weak education policy creates perverse incentives. For example, through ‘off – rolling’ or exclusionary practice around admissions.
We’re also seeing a direct correlation between staff engagement and pupil engagement. Unsurprisingly, when staff feel trusted, purposeful and supported. So do pupils.
However, research shows that our sense of belonging isn’t evenly distributed, with disadvantaged pupils and Black pupils reporting significantly lower levels of inclusivity. (Jerrim, 2025).
There’s much debate across the sector about what it means to belong, yet too often a crucial part of the conversation is overlooked. Psychological safety is the missing part of the puzzle for many pupils, parents and educators.
Professor of leadership and management, Amy Edmonson describes psychological safety as the ability to share concerns, ask questions and provide supportive challenge, without fear of reprisal.
Let’s be clear, this is a well-researched field, with a robust evidence base that points to the benefits of psychological safety across industries.
Research shows that organisations with the highest levels of psychological safety are more resilient and innovative. They perform better than others.
When we remember we’re people first, professionals second; we can connect the dots. Higher levels of psychological safety positively impact staff retention and productivity.
Remarkably, there’s very little information for school leaders about how to practically apply the principles of psychological safety. And yet, there has never been a more urgent need to consider the psychological safety and belonging for staff and pupils.
Hence my research in this area was borne out of personal and professional frustration…
Whilst cross-referencing the evidence base, with qualitative data from schools and universities nationally that have strong cultures, recurring themes began to emerge. This took the form of 10 pillars, or areas of school strategy that we want to ensure are underpinned by psychological safety to foster inclusivity:
- Leading with purpose
- Creating a culture of belonging
- Cognitive diversity
- Learning from failure
- Professional Development
- Coaching and Mentoring
- Distributed leadership
- Flexible working
- Innovation
- Place-based support for the community.
I’ll be using this blog to explore these 10 pillars; sharing research, evidence informed practice and case studies that exemplify psychological safety in schools for staff, pupils and the wider school community.
Frameworks for implementation:
Typically practitioners engaged in developing psychologically safe environments are signposted to Dr. Timothy Clark’s, 4 stages of psychological safety:
- Stage 1 – INCLUSION SAFETY: feels included and part of a team
- Stage 2 – LEARNER SAFETY: safe to learn and ask questions
- Stage 3 – CONTRIBUTOR SAFETY: safe to contribute and share ideas
- Stage 4 – CHALLENGER SAFETY: safe to contribute and challenge the status quo
Whilst this model prompts some useful thinking, it’s not without its challenges. We know from our own experience that progress is rarely linear! However, we could be forgiven for interpreting this framework as though we should be smoothly transitioning from one stage to the next. In reality there may be very good reasons why teams or individuals stall or need to revisit key principles to deepen their understanding. Of course, it’s also quite possible for team members to be moving at a different pace.
We know that too often underrepresented groups are required to carry out their roles in workplaces that are not inclusive or reflect the systemic barriers that exist in wider society. Yet these colleagues still need to move beyond stage 1 to find agency and autonomy.
For this reason, many practitioners have embraced Amy Edmonson’s 4 Domains of Psychological Safety as outlined in ‘The Fearless Organization Scan’:
- Attitude to failure and risk
- Inclusion and diversity
- Open conversation
- Willingness to help
This model reminds us to keep all four domains in mind when cultivating psychological safety. We can see how these domains are intrinsically linked and interdependent.
What might success look like if we’re brave enough to hold ‘open conversation’ and become ‘willing to help’? How can this approach drive more impactful solutions and tangible outcomes when it comes to inclusion?
Furthermore, we know that when it comes to psychological safety, the work is never done. Rather it is constantly evolving. It’s dynamic and shifts based on each new interaction and or shared experience…
“Psychological safety creates sanctuaries of inclusion and incubators of innovation.”
Dr. Timothy Clark