Accountability

RIP Professor Jason Arday: The Tragic Cost of Scrutiny

Hannah Wilson portrait

Written by Hannah Wilson

Founder and Director of the Belonging Effect (formerly Diverse Educators).

Rest in peace, Professor Jason Arday.

The news of his death at just 41 years old is heartbreaking and devastating. A partner, father, son, friend and colleague has been lost.

My social media timeline is awash with tributes to a man who impacted so many. I never met Professor Jason Arday, but I followed and admired him from afar. I feel deeply sad at his loss, angry at how he was treated and sick to my stomach that we find ourselves standing at yet another crossroads where our shared humanity is being questioned.

Professor Arday, a working-class Black man, became the youngest Black professor in the University of Cambridge’s history. His remarkable journey, scholarship and leadership should be remembered and celebrated.

His death is a devastating loss to education. It should also make us confront some difficult questions about racism, scrutiny, trauma, mental health, the media and institutional responsibility.

Content warning: This article discusses mental health, racism and death.

Contribution

Professor Jason Arday dedicated his life to challenging inequality in education, opening doors for those too often left outside them and pushing institutions to become more reflective of the society they serve.

His work helped shape important conversations about race, social mobility, inclusion and educational justice.

A post by The Black Curriculum reminds us that in moments like these, we all have a choice about the stories we amplify. Let us not reduce a life of service, scholarship and advocacy to its final chapter:

  • Let us remember the work.
  • Let us remember the impact.
  • Let us remember the lives changed because he dared to imagine something better.

We need to drive the right narrative, to honour the legacy and to remember the work.

Accusations, Accountability and Humanity

Professor Arday faced serious public accusations concerning his academic work and other aspects of his record. He disputed allegations of deliberate wrongdoing, and some previous allegations had not been upheld.

I fully agree that questions about academic integrity deserve proper scrutiny.

Accountability matters. Investigations matter. Evidence matters. Truth matters.

But people matter too.

An investigation should never become a process in which we forget there is a human being at its centre.

Professor Arday’s family has spoken about the impact of sustained abuse, harassment and misinformation. The precise circumstances surrounding his death have not yet been established publicly, and we should be careful not to claim a medical or legal cause that has not been confirmed.

But acknowledging that uncertainty does not require us to ignore the context in which his death occurred.

Everyone deserves fairness, due process and an opportunity to respond to allegations without being subjected to relentless public humiliation. Scrutiny and accountability are not the same as dehumanisation.

The Media

I firmly believe that our media needs to take a long, hard look at itself.

Professor Arday was subjected to an extraordinary level of public scrutiny. NEWSCORD has catalogued 249 articles published about him over a period of just 22 days.

Think about that… Two hundred and forty-nine articles… Twenty-two days…

Front pages and headlines are not produced in a vacuum. Editors decide which stories deserve repeated attention. Algorithms reward outrage and engagement. Audiences click, share, comment and search for the next revelation.

Collectively, a human being can become content.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the allegations against Professor Arday, we must be able to ask whether this level and intensity of scrutiny was proportionate and in the public interest.

We must also be prepared to ask another, more uncomfortable question:

Would everybody have been subjected to the same scrutiny?

This is where it is important that we need to acknowledge and talk about racism.

If we cast our memories back to 1993 when Stephen Lawrence was murdered, there was public outcry at the time about the wrongdoing. The media focused on the individuals and the institutions who were in the wrong to ensure that they were held to account. This led to a lengthy investigation and the publication of the Macpherson Report in 1999. It famously concluded that the Metropolitan Police investigation failed due to “institutional racism,” professional incompetence, and a lack of leadership.

I am curious who will be holding to account the individuals and institutions who are collectively responsible for Professor Arday’s death. I wonder who will drive this justice forward for him and for his family.

Racism, Scrutiny and the Invisible Weight

Racism has severe consequences.

It is not always a racial slur or an explicitly discriminatory act. It can operate through systems, cultures, expectations and patterns of behaviour. It can shape who is presumed competent, who is given the benefit of the doubt, who is scrutinised most intensely, whose mistakes are survivable and whose mistakes become defining.

Professor Arday’s death has prompted many Black academics, educators and leaders to speak publicly about the racialised nature of scrutiny and the invisible weight of occupying spaces in which people like them remain underrepresented.

That invisible weight matters:

  • The weight of representation.
  • The weight of being “the first”.
  • The weight of knowing that your success may be treated as evidence of progress while your mistakes may be used as evidence against an entire agenda for equality.
  • The weight of wondering whether you will be afforded the same grace as others.
  • The weight of having to be resilient again and again and again.

Racism creates trauma. The cumulative experience of racism can affect mental health, physical health which in turn impacts individual levels of confidence, trust, safety, hope and belonging.

We cannot discuss what happened to Professor Arday without being willing to discuss that context.

In His Own Words

A few weeks ago, I signed the Good Law Project’s Solidarity Letter supporting Professor Arday.

On 5 August, as a signatory I received a personal update from him confirming that he had resigned from his position at the University of Cambridge.

He reflected on becoming the youngest Black professor in Cambridge’s history, something he said he could scarcely have imagined as a child growing up with autism and not speaking until he was 11.

More significantly, he described the personal impact of the scrutiny he was experiencing. He wrote of the “profound toll” the accusations, speculation and public commentary had taken on him and those he loved.

And then came the sentence that, reading it again now, feels particularly heart-breaking: “But there comes a point when the personal cost becomes too great.”

He spoke about wanting to be present for his family. He wanted peace… privacy… an ordinary life. He no longer wanted to live under a constant spotlight in which every aspect of his life was subjected to public examination and judgement.

I think we should sit with those words. Sit with that discomfort. Sit with the knowledge that his Black Excellence had led to such significant personal harm. 

Institutional Racism

The Macpherson Report famously described institutional racism as the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service because of someone’s colour, culture or ethnic origin, manifested through processes, attitudes and behaviours that disadvantage minority ethnic people.

Sivanandan, A. Director, Institute of Race Relations, described institutional racism as racism residing, overtly or covertly, within the policies, procedures, operations and cultures of institutions.

These definitions matter because they remind us, as The Commission for Racial Equality stated,  that racism does not require an individual person to consciously decide to behave in a racist way.

We need to look at patterns, processes, cultures and consequences.

We need to ask the hard questions about who currently benefits from our systems:

  • Who is harmed by them?
  • Who is protected?
  • Who is exposed?
  • Who is believed?
  • Who is given grace?
  • And who is required to demonstrate exceptional resilience merely to remain in the room?

A lens I emphasise in our Belonging Effect DEIB training is that our focus should be on the impact instead of the intention of our words, behaviours and actions.   

There is not an individual who is solely responsible for Professor Arday’s death, there are many people with his blood on their hands. 

Representation Matters, but Representation Is Not Enough

Success does not insulate Black professionals from racism, hostility or harassment. In fact, sometimes increased visibility can make the scrutiny greater.

For people of colour occupying significant positions, there can be an invisible mental load attached to being highly visible and underrepresented: the fear of getting something wrong, of being judged more harshly, of being expected to represent more than yourself, or of discovering how precarious acceptance can become when something goes wrong.

That burden must be recognised because representation alone is not inclusion.

Representation without protection is not inclusion.

Visibility without psychological safety is not belonging.

And celebrating someone’s resilience while ignoring what requires them to be resilient in the first place is not progress.

Institutional Responsibility

Universities and the media need to take a long, hard look in the mirror.

It is not enough for institutions to recruit diverse talent, celebrate “firsts”, publish photographs, announce appointments and point to representation as evidence of progress.

Institutions have a responsibility to the human beings behind those achievements:

  • What happens when they become vulnerable?
  • Who protects them when scrutiny becomes overwhelming?
  • Who notices when accountability becomes humiliation?
  • Who intervenes when criticism becomes harassment?
  • Who considers the cumulative impact of racism, ableism, classism and public scrutiny?
  • Who safeguards the person while the process takes place?

We need to lead institutions where people do not have to become exceptionally resilient simply to survive them.

Professor Jason Arday’s death should not become another moment of collective grief followed by institutional silence.

I think it is important to remember that we can hold two things at once:

  • We can believe in academic integrity and humanity.
  • We can believe in accountability and proportionality.
  • We can believe in scrutiny and dignity.
  • We can ask legitimate questions about someone’s work without forgetting that there is a human being answering them.

And we can acknowledge that racism does not have to be the only factor operating in a situation for us to examine seriously how race shaped what happened.

My thoughts are with Professor Arday’s family, friends, colleagues and all those mourning him. I have discovered in the last 24 hrs how many of my network were connected to him and have been impacted by his death.  

May he rest in peace. May we learn from this tragic loss.

Read, Reflect and Act

Read and engage with the reflections being shared across our network and wider community, including those from: Adam Vasco, Caroline Keep, Chantelle Haughton, Clive Lawrence, Domini Choudhury, Patrick Cozier, Shammi Rahman,  The Black Curriculum.

Read Broken Ladders from The Runnymede Trust and consider what the evidence tells us about racism and the experiences of people of colour within UK academia.

Follow, listen to and engage with organisations campaigning for racial equity and racial justice, including: 100 Black Professors, 100 Black Headteachers, Aspiring Heads, BAMEed, DARPL, Everyday Racism, REND, The Black Curriculum and The Runnymede Trust. (Lots of these orgs are listed in our DEIB Directory).

Consider filing a complaint against the media outlets that printed endless stories about Professor Jason Arday.

Consider donating to the GoFundMe page set up by Professor Sir Patrick Vernon OBE FrHistS – ‘In Memory of Dr Jason Atta Kwei Arday: Supporting His Family’. 

Most importantly, do not let this conversation disappear when the headlines do.

Racism has consequences. Institutional responsibility matters. Our shared humanity matters.

by Hannah Wilson

Language in the Classroom: The Signals We Send

Amy Wilby portrait

Written by Amy Wilby

I am an experienced senior educational leader, currently serving as an Assistant Headteacher with responsibility for Curriculum, as well as a Trust-wide DEIB Champion, edublogger, and proud mum to a 21-year-old son. Since qualifying as a teacher in 2009, I have built a career rooted in both academic excellence and strong pastoral care. I bring extensive experience across middle and senior leadership, including roles as a Specialist Leader of Education (SLE) and Associate Assistant Headteacher. I hold an NPQSL and a master’s degree in educational leadership, and I am deeply committed to evidence-informed practice, drawing on educational research to enhance teaching, learning, and curriculum design.

Walk into any classroom and you’ll hear a constant flow of language, questions, instructions, feedback, encouragement. It’s so familiar that it can feel almost invisible.

But there’s a deeper question we don’t ask often enough:

What are our words actually signalling to students, and how are they being received?

Because language doesn’t just deliver learning.
It shapes expectations, communicates beliefs, and quietly influences who feels confident, capable, and included. It can also show our own bias, our own understanding of what is an is not acceptable.

If curriculum is what we teach, and literacy is how students access and participate, then language is how belonging is communicated, both directly and indirectly.

The hidden layer: micro-signals in everyday language

Most classroom language is not part of a formal plan. It lives in the small, repeated interactions:

  • how we respond to a wrong answer (Nonverbal cues as well as verbal ones)
  • who we call on, and how often
  • the tone we use when giving instructions
  • the way we frame challenge or difficulty
  • the ways we build engagement and excitement in our classrooms

These are micro-signals, subtle, often unintentional cues that students pick up quickly.

Over time, they begin to answer questions like:

  • Am I seen as capable here?
  • Is it safe to take risks?
  • Do my contributions matter?

Students don’t just listen to what we say.
They interpret what it means about them.

The Pygmalion versus the Golem effect!

Your expectations matter and the subtext of your language and choices will have an impact.

‘The belief the teachers had in the students’ potential had been unwittingly and nonverbally communicated. More important, these nonverbal messages were then digested by the students and transformed into reality.’ (Acher. S, 2010)

Tone: more powerful than we think

Two teachers can say similar words and send completely different messages.

Consider:

  • ‘Not quite. Try again.’
  • ‘Not quite yet, let’s think it through together.’

The difference is small, but the signal is significant.

Tone communicates:

  • belief (or doubt) in a student’s ability
  • patience (or frustration)
  • partnership (or hierarchy in the classroom) 
    • Which classroom environment would you rather take risks in? Which classroom highlights the importance of metacognition and learning the steps? Which one is stressful and the focus on the outcome only?

When tone consistently signals respect and belief, students are more likely to stay engaged, even when learning feels difficult.

Expectations: what we imply, not just what we say

High expectations are often discussed in terms of outcomes. But in practice, they are communicated through language every day.

For example:

  • ‘This is tricky, so I don’t expect everyone to get it’
    vs
  • ‘This is challenging, and I’m going to support you to get there’

The first lowers the bar, even if unintentionally.
The second maintains high expectations while offering support.

Students are highly attuned to these cues. Over time, they internalise them:

  • who is expected to succeed?
  • who is expected to struggle?
  • who gets stretched, and who doesn’t?

Ultimately this leads to,

  •  ‘Who believes in their ability to succeed, and who doesn’t’?
  •  ‘Who wants to be here, and who doesn’t?’
  • ‘Who is going to mask their struggle with other behaviours and who is going to embrace it’?

Inclusive classrooms are not those where work is made easier, but where expectations are consistently high and clearly supported.

Framing: how we position learning

The way we frame tasks and responses shapes how students experience learning.

Deficit framing might sound like:

  • ‘Some of you didn’t understand this’
  • ‘This group struggled with…’
  • ‘You are set… and therefore we are doing something different…’

Asset-based framing shifts the perspective:

  • ‘Let’s build on what we’ve started here’
  • ‘Here’s where we can go next’
  • ‘Learning starts only once it gets tough. Thinking and working hard is good!’

This doesn’t ignore gaps, it reframes them as part of the learning process, rather than a fixed limitation.

Similarly, how we respond to mistakes matters:

  • Are they signals of failure?
  • Or are they positioned as a normal, valuable part of learning?

The language we choose answers this for students.

The risk: when language goes unchecked

Just as curriculum can become tokenistic, classroom language can become habitual, and habits are powerful.

Without reflection, we may unintentionally:

  • call on the same students repeatedly
  • soften expectations for some and not others
  • use praise that is uneven or limiting. Focusing on the student rather than the choices (‘You’re so clever’ vs ‘That strategy worked well’)
  • signal frustration more quickly with certain learners

None of this is usually deliberate.
But over time, these patterns can shape students’ sense of where they fit.

And again, students notice.

What this looks like in practice

The strength of focusing on classroom language is that it’s an immediate, actionable shift.

You don’t need to redesign the curriculum.
You need to become more intentional with what you’re already saying.

  1. Pause and notice patterns
  • Who do you respond to most?
  • Whose answers are extended, and whose are closed down?
  • When does your tone shift?
  • If a student doesn’t know the answer, how do you frame this as a learning opportunity rather than a failure?
  1. Make belief explicit
  • ‘I know you will absolutely give your best to this’
  • ‘I believe in you’ (supported with appropriate scaffolding)

These statements matter, especially for students who may not hear them elsewhere.

  1. Normalise struggle
  • ‘This is challenging, but we’ll get there, learning starts once you get stuck’
  • ‘This is the part where it gets tricky’
  • ‘If you’re finding this hard, you’re in the right place’

This reduces anxiety and increases participation.

  1. Use inclusive questioning
  • Give thinking time before taking answers
  • Invite multiple approaches
  • Build on responses rather than evaluating them immediately, if a learner gives a partial or incorrect answer, build on it, don’t dismiss it!

‘I can see why you might think that, that’s a really astute observation, however I was thinking more of this…can someone build on this?’

  1. Be consistent with expectations
  • Avoid lowering the bar for some learners
  • Instead, increase the scaffolding and support

Why this matters for belonging

Belonging is not built through single moments, it’s built through patterns.

And language is one of the most consistent patterns students experience.

Over time, it tells them:

  • You are capable
  • Your ideas matter
  • You are part of this learning

or you can signal the opposite.

The power of language is that it operates in real time. Every lesson, every interaction, every response is an opportunity to reinforce inclusion.

What you can do tomorrow

If you’re looking for a simple starting point:

  • Choose one class and consciously adjust how you respond to incorrect answers
  • Add one phrase that signals belief (‘Let’s work through this together’)
  • Track who you call on, and aim for greater balance
  • Try to build in some tasks that don’t have a definite answer. I like to use 4 seemingly random pictures and ask,  ‘Which one is the odd one out and why’? so that everyone has a chance to explain their thinking and get praised for their work! (There is no correct answer, only answers that are not thought of effectively, everyone has the same starting point) This builds confidence over time.

 

Small, intentional changes in language can have a disproportionate impact.

Final thought

If mirrors and windows help students to see,
and literacy helps them to participate,

then language is what tells them:

‘You belong here and you are valued!’

And often, it does so in ways we don’t even realise until we choose to notice.

Further reading

Achor, S. (2010) The happiness advantage: the seven principles of positive psychology that fuel success and performance at work. New York: Broadway Books. 

Erikson Institute (2019) Inclusive language is a classroom superpower, Erikson Institute Blog, 2 October. Available at: https://www.erikson.edu/blog/inclusive-language-is-a-classroom-superpower/ 

Kratz, J. (2024) ‘6 research-backed inclusive language dos and don’ts’, Forbes, 4 February. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/juliekratz/2024/02/04/6-research-backed-inclusive-language-dos-and-donts/ 

Roberts, N. (2021) ‘Why we need to ditch deficit labels in SEND language’, TES Magazine, 22 June. Available at: https://www.tes.com/magazine/analysis/general/why-we-need-ditch-deficit-labels-send-language 

University College London (UCL) (2023) Using inclusive language in education. Available at: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/publications/2023/jul/using-inclusive-language-education 

Worth-it (2021) How to build positive relationships in school, Worth-it Blog, 17 May. Available at: https://www.worthit.org.uk/blog/positive-relationships-school

by Hannah Wilson

Supporting Neurodivergent Colleagues in Schools

Laura Douglas portrait

Written by Laura Douglas

Laura is a Freelance 1:1 Study Skills Tutor and Specialist Mentor, working both locally and nationally to support neurodivergent students in receipt of Disabled Student Allowance (DSA) in higher education. Through her Education Consultancy, she supports curriculum development and neuro-inclusive practices, in both school and ITT settings. She is passionate about developing neuro-inclusive practice and in October 2026, she will begin the PhD (Prof) at The University of Lincoln, research focussing on the support given to neurodivergent teachers if this is linked to teacher retention.

Is there a relationship between the number of teachers who leave the profession and neurodivergence? How well supported are neurodivergent colleagues in school? How do we know?

These questions are of interest to me due to my experience of working in initial teacher training (ITT), supporting Early Career Teachers (ECTs), and when working with experienced class teachers and leaders in school. I have found that neurodivergent colleagues, whether formally diagnosed or self-diagnosed, face a range of barriers which impact greatly on their confidence, self-esteem and classroom or leadership practice. I have had many conversations with colleagues about the barriers they face, including a current lack of support and understanding in neuro-inclusive practice. I begin my PhD (Prof) at the University of Lincoln in October 2026 and am looking forward to undertaking research in this important area.  

Disabled Student Allowance (DSA)

Since October 2025, I have worked part-time as a freelance 1:1 Study Skills Tutor and Specialist Mentor, supporting neurodivergent students in HEI in receipt of Disabled Student Allowance (DSA). I have supported students during the 2025-6 academic year on ITT programmes and have seen first-hand the difference such mentoring has made to these individuals. In my research I aim to raise the profile of specialist mentoring which is fully funded through DSA, which is available for, but not limited to, undergraduate, postgraduate, ITT and PGCE courses. 

Workplace Support

Access to Work is a grant that funds practical support in the workplace for people with a disability or health condition; this grant seems very little known in the education sector. In order to be eligible for an Access to Work grant, there is no requirement to have a formal diagnosis with a condition to apply, with individuals having a disability, illness or health condition that means you need support to do your job. According to GOV.UK (2012), this includes, for example:

  • a physical disability, for example if you’re hard of hearing or use a wheelchair
  • a learning disability or related condition, for example if you have Down’s syndrome
  • a developmental condition, like autism spectrum disorder
  • having ADHD or dyslexia
  • an illness such as diabetes or epilepsy
  • a temporary condition, like a broken leg
  • a mental health condition, for example anxiety or depression

Upon finding the grant and reflecting on the enormous number of colleagues in school that this could help, I contacted highly regarded and experienced educators via LinkedIn, including keynote speakers of neurodiversity and an Education Policy Government Advisor – none of these individuals had heard of the grant. This raised many questions, which again has supported my decision to undertake vital research. 

Teacher Retention

According to the Department for Education (2024) and recent workforce analyses by City and Guilds (2023 and 2024) approximately 200,000 to 215,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) teachers left the state-funded sector in total over the last five years.

Teachers Leaving the Profession in England

Academic Year FTE Leavers (Approx.) % of Workforce
2023/24 40,813 9.0%
2022/23 43,500 9.5%
2021/22 43,900 9.3%
2020/21 36,000 8.1% (Pandemic low)
2019/20 33,000 7.4% (Initial lockdown period)
Total (Est.) ~197,213 —

Over 90% of leavers in recent years have cited “non-retirement” reasons for leaving teaching. The most common factors reported in DfE surveys include high workload (84%) and stress/wellbeing (75%) (Maisuria, A., Roberts, N., Long, R. and Danechi, S: 2023). 

Approximately 31% to 33% of teachers leave the state-funded sector within five years of qualifying, with an average size of recent qualifying cohorts (which typically range from 23,000 to 28,000 new entrants per year) with roughly 8000 to 9000 teachers from each annual cohort leaving before they reach their sixth year in the classroom. According the most recent studies, this has a cumulative impact, with 40,000 to 45,000 ECTs leaving teaching in the first five years:

Years After Qualifying Retention Rate Estimated % Leaving in that Period
1 Year ~89.7% ~10% leave immediately
3 Years ~76% – 80% An additional 10-14% leave
5 Years ~67% – 69% Another 7-10% leave

I aim for my research to support an update in national policy to develop clear, systematic training across the education sectors in accessibility for neurodivergent teachers. I aim to develop knowledge and understanding for leaders in schools to understand the difference between reasonable adjustments and adaptations in the workplace, in addition to understanding the support available to neurodivergent teachers. This will, in turn, support teacher retention and support the inclusivity and representation of neurodivergence across the sector.   

Bibliography

City & Guilds (2023) Neurodiversity Index Report 2023. [online] Available at: https://77f20764.flowpaper.com/CityandGuildsNeurodiversityIndexReport2023/#page=1 [Accessed 20 June 2026].

City & Guilds (2024). City & Guilds Neurodiversity Index Report 2024. [online] Available at: https://77f20764.flowpaper.com/CityandGuildsNeurodiversityIndexReport2024/#page=1 [Accessed 20 June 2026].

Department for Education (2024). School Workforce in England: report. [online] Available at: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-workforce-in-england/2024 [Accessed 22 June 2026].

GOV.UK (2012). Get Support in Work If You Have a Disability or Health Condition (Access to Work). [online] GOV.UK. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/access-to-work [Accessed 23 June 2026].

Maisuria, A., Roberts, N., Long, R. and Danechi, S. (2023). Teacher recruitment and retention in England. commonslibrary.parliament.uk. [online] Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7222/ [Accessed 21 June 2026]

by Hannah Wilson

AI in Education: Promise, Peril, and the Diversity Question We Cannot Afford to Ignore

Betty Johnson portrait

Written by Betty Johnson

Betty Johnson is Director of Rinnovate Recruitment & Consultancy and founder of B3Inspire, a women's empowerment coaching brand. She is a School Improvement Partner, AI in Education advocate, and contributor to an upcoming Routledge publication exploring AI and primary school leadership.

Artificial intelligence is reshaping classrooms at speed. But if we are not careful, we risk automating the very inequalities we have spent decades trying to dismantle.

There is a moment I return to often. I was sitting with a group of teachers in South London, brilliant and committed educators, watching them use an AI writing assistant for the first time. The excitement was palpable. Then one teacher paused and asked quietly: “But does it know our children?”

That question has stayed with me. Because behind it lies the central challenge of our time in education: how do we harness the extraordinary power of artificial intelligence while ensuring it serves every child? Not just the ones whose experiences, languages and cultures it was trained on.

The promise is real

Let us start with what AI can genuinely do. Adaptive learning platforms can tailor content, pacing and assessment to individual learners in ways that even the most devoted teacher simply cannot replicate in real time when managing a class of thirty. Intelligent tutoring systems can offer immediate, personalised feedback. For students with SEND, for English as an Additional Language learners, and for children in under-resourced schools, this is not a trivial benefit. It is potentially transformative.

Research published in AI and Ethics (Fitas et al., 2025) confirms that AI can meaningfully support special needs provision and address language barriers, provided it is deployed thoughtfully and with equity at the centre of design.

The peril we are not talking about loudly enough

Here is the uncomfortable truth. AI systems learn from data. And the data that exists in the world reflects the world as it has been, not as it should be. When a model is trained predominantly on content that centres Western, English-speaking, middle-class experience, it does not arrive at the classroom as a neutral tool. It arrives carrying biases.

Research published in the International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education (Baker & Hawn, 2022) found that algorithmic bias in educational AI can produce systematically unfair outcomes across assessment and instruction, disproportionately affecting the very students who most need support. A 2025 review in Frontiers in Education confirmed that unchecked AI models can continue to amplify underlying social and cultural biases, impacting equity and fairness in both assessment and instruction.

“The environment the machine operates in is social in nature. It functions within the socio-technical system that encompasses the cultural values and beliefs of the people using it.”

Put simply: AI is not neutral. It is a mirror. And if we have not yet built a system that reflects the full richness of our children’s identities, we should not be surprised when the mirror distorts.

The digital divide: a growing fault line

There is a second, more immediate danger. Access to AI tools is not equally distributed. Schools in disadvantaged communities face significant challenges in investing in technology and establishing fair access policies. A 2025 study in Frontiers in Education warned explicitly that equitable access to AI tools is crucial to prevent educational inequalities from widening further.

Attainment outcomes continue to vary significantly between ethnic groups in England, with some communities continuing to experience substantial educational disadvantage despite decades of policy attention and intervention. Education Policy Institute data indicates that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils experience some of the largest attainment gaps in England, equivalent to approximately 30 months of learning behind their peers by the end of secondary school. Meanwhile, Universities UK continues to report degree awarding gaps between White students and several minority ethnic groups across higher education.

If AI becomes the new frontier of educational provision and some children cannot access it, or access a version of it that does not truly see them, we will not close those gaps. We will cement them.

What can we actually do? Seven practical steps

  1. Ask the equity question first.

Before deploying any AI tool in your school, ask who it was trained on. Ask who it serves well and who it might underserve. Demand transparency from providers about their training data and bias testing. This is not a technical question. It is a values question.

  1. Use AI to reduce teacher workload, not to replace teacher relationship.

The most powerful protective factor for disadvantaged students is a trusted adult who knows them. Use AI to free up that time, for planning, marking and administration, so teachers can invest more of themselves in the human connections that matter most.

  1. Curate and contextualise AI outputs.

Do not present AI-generated content as given. Teach children and staff to interrogate it. Whose perspective is missing? What has been assumed? This is media literacy for the AI age and it is a diversity lesson in itself.

  1. Pair AI with inclusive curriculum design.

AI is a tool, not a curriculum. Ensure that what children are doing with AI reflects a genuinely diverse and representative body of knowledge, including authors, histories and contributions from across the global majority.

  1. Invest in staff training with diversity at the centre.

AI professional development must include bias recognition and culturally responsive pedagogy, not just technical skills. Teachers need to understand not only how to use these tools but when to challenge them.

  1. Amplify student voice in AI decisions.

Which students are at the table when your school decides how to use AI? If the answer is mainly those who already have power, change the table. Invite your most marginalised students into the conversation. They will see what others miss.

  1. Advocate beyond your school.

The decisions that shape AI in education are being made at government, policy and corporate levels. Join or create the conversations that push for representative datasets, diverse AI development teams and equity-first regulation. Your voice belongs in those rooms.

A word to women leaders in education

I want to speak directly to the women reading this, particularly those who, like me, came into this profession from communities that have historically been spoken about in education rather than listened to within it.

We are not incidental to this conversation. We are central to it. The research is clear that cultural and social context shapes how AI interacts with learners. We carry that contextual knowledge. We have spent careers navigating systems that were not built with us in mind and we have built extraordinary things within them regardless.

The question is not whether AI will change education. It already is. The question is who gets to shape it. The answer should include every teacher in every underfunded classroom, every headteacher in a school where the children look like the world, and every leader who has ever been the first, the only, or the one they did not expect.

“We do not get a fairer future by accident. We build it, deliberately, strategically and together.”

The next time someone asks whether AI is good or bad for education, resist the binary. The better question is simply this: good or bad for whom? Ask that question consistently and loudly, at every level, and AI in education may yet become the equaliser it promises to be.

 

References

Baker, R.S. & Hawn, A. (2022). Algorithmic bias in education. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 32(4), 1052-1092.

Fitas, R. (2025). Inclusive education with AI: supporting special needs and tackling language barriers. AI and Ethics, 8(2), 115-129.

Education Policy Institute (2024). Annual Report: Ethnicity Gaps.

Universities UK (2019). Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Student Attainment at UK Universities: Closing the Gap.

Frontiers in Education (2024). Promoting equity and addressing concerns in teaching and learning with artificial intelligence.

by Hannah Wilson

Embedding Inclusive Allyship into Critical Friendship

Sarah Vogel portrait

Written by Sarah Vogel

Sarah has been working in development and training since 1989. As a facilitator and coach she has enjoyed successful relationships with clients across a wide variety of sectors. Sarah is currently a trustee at Collaborative Education Trust in Solihull and chairs their People and Culture committee. She has also volunteered at Anawim: Birmingham’s Centre for Women, for 8 years delivering a Confidence Course for vulnerable women.

The role of a critical friend is central to effective governance. Whether serving as a trustee, governor, or board member, we are expected to provide both support and challenge. We build trust and psychological safety while also asking the difficult questions that improve outcomes and strengthen accountability.

But what happens when we combine critical friendship with inclusive allyship?

The result is a more powerful form of governance – one that not only seeks improvement but actively works to ensure that no individual or group is overlooked.

What Is Inclusive Allyship?

Inclusive allyship is the deliberate practice of using your influence to create more equitable outcomes. It requires us to examine our own assumptions, listen to voices that are often underrepresented, and challenge behaviours or systems that may disadvantage others.

Allyship is not about having all the answers. It is about being willing to learn, reflect, and act.

This can involve:

  • Recognising our own biases and assumptions.
  • Being mindful of language and identity.
  • Educating ourselves and staying informed.
  • Building relationships with people whose experiences differ from our own.
  • Amplifying marginalised voices.
  • Challenging inequitable behaviour when we see it.
  • Remaining open to feedback, even when it feels uncomfortable.

Inclusive allyship requires courage, curiosity, and a willingness to move beyond our comfort zones.

Why Allyship Matters in Governance

In governance, allyship means intentionally using positional power to ensure that decisions consider a wider range of perspectives and experiences.

Too often, boards focus on overall outcomes without exploring whether those outcomes are experienced equally by different groups. Strong headline results can conceal significant disparities.

Inclusive governance requires us to look deeper.

This means asking questions about:

  • Attendance patterns
  • Exclusion rates
  • SEND outcomes
  • Staff progression
  • Recruitment practices
  • Complaints and concerns

It also means paying attention to boardroom dynamics. Who is contributing to discussions? Whose perspectives are missing? Are assumptions being challenged, or simply accepted?

Inclusive allyship is not separate from good governance- – it strengthens it.

Developing a Curiosity About Disparity

One of the most valuable habits governors and trustees can develop is what I call a disciplined curiosity about disparity.

When we identify differences in outcomes between groups, it is tempting to ask:

“Why are results lower for this group?”

However, that question can unintentionally place responsibility on those experiencing disadvantage.

A more effective approach is to focus on the system itself:

  • What might be happening within the system that is producing this gap?
  • What evidence do we have?
  • Have we heard directly from those affected?
  • What perspectives might be missing from our analysis?

These questions move the conversation away from blame and towards understanding.

Three Practical Skills for Inclusive Allyship

  1. Ask Equity-Focused Questions

When reviewing data, resist the urge to focus solely on overall performance.

Strong results can still mask inequities for specific groups. Looking beneath averages and examining disaggregated data can reveal patterns that would otherwise remain invisible.

The role of a critical friend is not simply to accept the data presented but to explore what it may be hiding.

  1. Interrupt Bias Using Influence

Bias often appears subtly in discussions and decision-making. As governors and trustees, we have an opportunity to challenge assumptions constructively.

A simple framework can help:

Notice – Identify what you are observing.

“I notice we are talking a lot about behaviour but not about support.”

Name – Gently surface a potential assumption.

“I wonder whether assumptions about certain groups are influencing our discussion.”

Nudge – Move the conversation towards evidence and reflection.

“Could we look at the disaggregated data before reaching a conclusion?”

Small interventions can have a significant impact on the quality of decision-making.

  1. Use Better Critical Friend Questions

Inclusive governance benefits from asking questions through different lenses.

Equity Lens

  • Who benefits most from this decision?
  • Who benefits least?
  • Who may be disadvantaged?

Impact Lens

  • How will we know this works for everyone?
  • What would success look like for those most affected?

Curiosity Lens

  • What assumptions are we making?
  • What evidence supports our view?
  • What perspectives are missing?

These questions help boards make more informed and inclusive decisions.

A Governance Responsibility

Inclusive allyship is not about political correctness or compliance. It is about precision.

It is about recognising that averages can conceal inequity. It is about identifying patterns before they become complaints, inspections, or crises. Most importantly, it is about ensuring that the interests of all pupils, staff, and stakeholders are visible within governance discussions.

Strong boards do not wait for problems to emerge. They actively seek evidence, challenge constructively, and make inclusion measurable.

As trustees and governors, we hold influence. Inclusive allyship simply means using that influence deliberately -ensuring that no voice is overlooked and no group becomes invisible in our oversight.

When allyship is embedded into critical friendship, governance becomes more insightful, more effective, and ultimately more equitable.

by Hannah Wilson

The LGBT Educators Report 2025

Ashley Robyn Harker portrait

Written by Ashley Robyn Harker

Ashley Harker is a North London based Trans humanities teacher. She is a trustee of the national Woodcraft Folk and Vice-Chair of Epping Forest District Museum.

The LGBT+ Educators report highlights the prevalence of othering and discriminatory treatment of LGBT+ and particularly trans teachers working in England and Wales’s education sector.

From a survey of over 50 LGBT+ educators in the National Education Union (NEU) 78% had seriously considered leaving the teaching profession as well as 60% believing queerphobia to be on the rise in their schools and half believing that it was treated as a lesser form of discrimination by their school leadership.

Major issues found are a lack of support, trust or respect for LGBT+ educators’ identity, experiences or contributions in schools as well as repeated cases of targeting and poor treatment of LGBT+ individuals.

In terms of recruitment and retention:

  • 85% of cis LGBT+ educators reported they felt they faced greater difficulties in getting a job compared with straight cis teachers.
  • 40% of LGBT+ educators believed that school employers negatively considered LGBT+ candidates. 
  • A third of LGBT+ (40% of trans) educators had the role they applied for changed after it was offered (most usually going from a permanent role to temporary). 
  • Trans and Black educators on average had to interview for nearly 3 times as many roles compared with white and cis LGBT+ educators and Trans Women often have worked in more than 3 times as many schools as cis LGBT+ educators.
  • 57% of binary trans educators had started their current role in the past 12 months and 80% of LGBT+ educators leaving or potentially leaving their school at the end of the academic year were trans (with 66% not securing a role).

In terms of treatment in schools:

  • 45% of LGBT+ educators believed they were treated differently in the workplace, with 1/3 stating they were treated differently by colleagues including being told not to come out or hide their identity by SLT.
  • 90% of LGBT+ educators had heard homophobic and transphobic language used in schools. Educators were more likely to hear and be subjected to Transphobic language than Homophobic language from colleagues.
  • Only 47% of LGBT+ educators had received any form of training on LGBT+ topics in an educational setting, with only a third who had requested such training for their school having it delivered.
  • Only 33% of trans educators stated they were able to use the toilets and changing facilities that aligned with their gender. 78% of trans educators had had to argue for access to school toilets.
  • 93% of LGBT+ believed that how their schools acknowledged LGBT+ topics had little to no impact and 50% of educators who had attempted to include LGBT+ topics in their curriculum had been ignored or told not to.
  • 18% of LGBT+ educators had not been included in school trips or residentials because of or in part because of their LGBT+ identity.

The report also highlights the impact recent and historic decisions against LGBT+ equality have had on the education sector:

  • 50% of LGBT+ educators believed that their school was still impacted by Section 28 and 100% believed something similar could be put in place in the near future.
  • 88% of LGBT+ (including all trans) educators reported that their mental health had deteriorated following the For Women Scotland Supreme Court ruling with 44% stating that this had impacted their ability to work. 50% reported the decision had had a negative impact on pupils. 
  • Only 25% had been approached or supported by colleagues following these decisions. A quarter stated that their schools had already made changes such as removing gender neutral toilets, amending pupil’s school data or denying trans staff access to toilets following the Supreme Court ruling.

The survey for the LGBT+ Educators report was carried out between May and August 2025.

The research was led by Ashley Harker and covered LGBT+ Educators experiences of recruitment, perception, policy, curriculum, bullying, training and opportunities in education.

by Hannah Wilson

Allyship in Action: Finding and Growing Allies in Education, Work, and Everyday Life

Marie Manley portrait

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.

by Hannah Wilson

What do school governors need to know about DEIB?

Hannah Wilson portrait

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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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?
  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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
  1. 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.

by Hannah Wilson

Permeable Minds: How Omission Forms Meaning

Rachida Dahman portrait

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.

by Hannah Wilson

Keeping Children Safe in Education 2026 Consultation

Belonging Effect Favicon

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:  

  1. 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. 
  2. 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. 
  3. 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. 
  4. 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.

by Hannah Wilson

Privacy Preference Center

Privacy Preferences