From Curriculum to Connection: Embedding Belonging in the UK’s New National Curriculum
Written by Chloe Watterston
Chloe is an educator, athlete, and advocate for inclusive, curiosity-driven learning, dedicated to creating spaces where every young person feels safe, valued, and empowered. Her work across mainstream and SEND education, community projects, and curriculum reform is driven by a passion for amplifying marginalised voices and breaking down barriers to learning.
When the Department for Education announced a new national curriculum (to be implemented from 2028), headlines focused on oracy, digital literacy, and enrichment. Yet behind every subject reform lies a deeper question: Do our students feel like they belong here?
A sense of belonging – feeling seen, supported, and valued – is the heartbeat of learning. Without it, even the best-designed curriculum risks falling flat. For pupils who are neurodiverse, disabled, or marginalised, belonging isn’t a luxury; it’s the foundation of success.
This guide translates the government’s new framework, which centres on life skills, enrichment, and stronger foundations, into practical actions that put belonging at the centre of every classroom and corridor.
“Belonging isn’t an outcome of curriculum reform — it’s the condition that makes reform work.”
Curriculum Design: From Coverage to Connection
Goal: Build a curriculum that feels relevant, achievable, and identity-affirming for all.
- Audit representation: Ensure diverse identities, including disability and neurodiversity, appear meaningfully across units and texts.
- Chunk and scaffold: Sequence content clearly for learners who need structure; use visual roadmaps and checklists.
- Bridge knowledge with identity: Link new content to students’ own experiences and communities.
- Amplify oracy: Give pupils the language to share their thinking aloud, it builds both confidence and cognition.
Example: Pair Macbeth with The Hunger Games to explore power and morality through different cultural lenses.
Enrichment for All: Making the ‘Core Entitlement’ Inclusive
Goal: Deliver the new national “core enrichment entitlement” – arts, sport, nature, civic life – so that every pupil can take part meaningfully.
- Audit participation and remove barriers (costs, timing, accessibility).
- Offer sensory-friendly, shorter, or flexible versions of activities.
- Provide varied roles – performer, planner, designer – so every learner can contribute.
- Train staff to understand fatigue, sensory needs, and invisible disabilities.
Example: For civic engagement, let students design campaigns or social media projects if public speaking feels overwhelming.
Pedagogy & Climate: Making Belonging the Norm
Goal: Build classrooms that balance structure with humanity.
- Predictable routines reduce anxiety; flexible responses show care.
- Replace “behaviour management” with “community agreements.”
- Display student contributions publicly – belonging must be visible.
- Give feedback as conversation, not correction.
Example: Begin each lesson with a one-minute grounding question like “What’s one thing that made you smile this week?” Small rituals can anchor connection.
Staff Culture: Belonging Starts with Us
Goal: Equip teachers to teach through belonging, not just about it.
- Embed neuroinclusion in CPD: autism, ADHD, chronic illness, not as “issues,” but as perspectives.
- Hold peer reflection sessions: “Whose belonging have we strengthened this term?”
- Celebrate staff who champion inclusion.
- Model belonging in leadership – consistency, curiosity, compassion.
Example: Host a termly “Belonging Showcase” where staff and students co-present examples of inclusive success.
Measuring What Matters
Goal: Track belonging with the same intent as attainment.
- Use quick-pulse surveys: “Do you feel you’re understood here?”
- Cross-reference belonging data with attendance and enrichment participation.
- Form neurodiverse and SEND student panels to co-design improvements.
- Include belonging outcomes in school development plans.
Example: If ADHD students report low belonging, pilot flexible seating or movement breaks — then re-survey to measure impact.
Final Thought
Belonging is not a soft extra, it’s the soil that allows learning to take root.
As we rebuild the national curriculum for the next generation, we can decide what kind of classrooms our students inherit. Will they be systems of delivery, or communities of connection?
With intentional design, the new curriculum can become more than a framework of knowledge. It can be a map towards a society where every young person feels seen, capable, and connected – not just prepared for life, but part of it.
AI in Education: Promise, Peril, and the Diversity Question We Cannot Afford to Ignore
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Embedding Inclusive Allyship into Critical Friendship
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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Belonging in Schools: From Staff Culture to Pupil Experience
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.
Creating a school where every individual feels they truly belong is one of the most transformative goals a leadership team can pursue. But what does “belonging” actually mean in practice, and how do we move past buzzwords to build genuine, inclusive communities?
In a recent webinar hosted by Iona Kelliher, the Managing Director of Edurio and The Belonging Effect, experts Hannah Wilson and Zahara Chowdhury dug deep into these exact questions. Drawing from their extensive work with schools, they shared practical, actionable insights on how to transform school culture from the staffroom to the classroom.
- Navigating the Biggest Challenges in School Belonging
When it comes to cultivating belonging, school leaders often face roadblocks on two fronts: workforce demographics and communication barriers.
- Workforce Diversification & Retention: Hannah says, recruiting, developing, and retaining a diverse cohort of staff, leaders, and governors remains a major challenge. To overcome this, schools must move toward active listening. Hannah Wilson emphasizes the need for regular feedback loops, structured listening activities, and thorough exit interviews.
- Courageous Conversations: Zahara points out that many educators struggle with having uncomfortable conversations and knowing exactly what to say (and when to say it) in both classrooms and staffrooms.
The Solution: Overcoming these hurdles requires deep consistency. Schools must build a shared language, routine, and approach to belonging so that all students and staff feel secure within the school’s overarching identity – and their own individual identities within it.
- Extending Belonging Beyond the School Gates
Schools do not exist in a vacuum; creating a sense of belonging for children means engaging with families and the wider local community.
- Meet Communities on Their Terms: Zahara advises school leaders to physically step into the community. Go to community strongholds, local environments, or even the supermarket to engage with families where they feel safe and on their terms.
- Co-Create Solutions: True collaboration means enabling what the community actually needs, rather than what school leaders think they need.
- Celebrate Diverse Identities: Highlighting local initiatives that champion diversity can bridge the gap between home and school. For instance, looking at local community projects – like Bristol’s Black Joy Trail – can provide beautiful blueprints for celebrating diverse identities and fostering joy.
- First Steps to Take Right Now
If you want to immediately shift your school’s culture toward greater belonging, the experts recommend starting with these two tangible steps:
- Implement a Shared DEIB Calendar: Build a shared Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB) calendar for all staff. Review your current assemblies and celebrations against it to see what might be missing, ensuring a healthy balance of focus across various awareness days, weeks, months, and religions.
- Just Ask (and Listen): Be explicit with your school community. Send a clear message stating that you want to ensure everyone feels included, and humbly acknowledge that you might not always get it right. Establish clear, transparent communication lines detailing how you will gather feedback, what you will do with it, and the timelines for action. Whenever possible, look for opportunities to co-create policy with your community, or experiment with frameworks like reverse mentoring.
- Designing a Neuro-inclusive Environment
Many neurodivergent pupils find themselves “tolerating” or masking at school rather than genuinely thriving. Because the traditional school model is highly systemic, reasonable adaptations alone are often not enough.
To address this, schools must look at neuro-inclusivity through a wider lens:
- Consistency in Adjustments: Staff and pupil training on neurodiversity is essential. Any reasonable adjustments made for pupils must be clearly communicated and clarified across the board so that application is consistent.
- Shift from the Individual to the System: Instead of focusing purely on modifying the minoritised student, look at the environment, the people, and the student experience around them. Investigate what everyone needs to learn and do to adapt, with the goal of creating a classroom and community that is universal by design.
- Investigate the “Toleration”: Don’t be afraid to ask students and parents exactly what they are tolerating. Examine the nuances – from transition periods and email communications to clubs and curriculum materials.
- The Danger of “Inclusion Bases”
Many schools utilise inclusion bases or separate spaces for specific pupils, but how does this impact a child’s sense of belonging?
Hannah warns that we must critically examine whether our inclusion efforts are actually forms of hidden segregation or exclusion – such as placing students in a different building, room, or table. Leaders need to act as their own “critical friends” and ask hard, reflective questions: Why are these pupils in that base? Have they been excluded? Do they actually feel more included there? Addressing these systemic questions is incredibly powerful when embedded directly into a school’s strategic development plan.
- Aligning Belonging with Inspection Frameworks (Ofsted)
Belonging is not just a pastoral nice-to-have; it sits squarely within modern inspection expectations. Under current inspection frameworks, Ofsted assesses belonging through the lenses of inclusion and personal development. Inspectors look past simply providing a “seat in the classroom” to evaluate several core areas:
- Curriculum Representation: Does what you teach reflect the diversity of your school’s community? Minority groups, pupils with SEND, and disadvantaged children should feel visible and respected in the curriculum.
- Relational Inclusion: Moving away from a strict reliance on rigid reward and sanction charts, inspectors look at how staff actively build trusting, emotionally safe relationships with pupils -particularly those struggling with behaviour or attendance.
- Pupil and Parent Voice: Evidence is gathered through surveys and discussions to check if learners truly feel they matter, have a voice, and are treated fairly.
- Safe Spaces for Dialogue: School leadership must demonstrate how they handle difficult conversations regarding discrimination and equality to foster peer-to-peer respect.
- Measuring Progress and Overcoming Pushback
How can school leaders ensure that their belonging and anti-harm work is genuinely shifting staff behaviour and building pupil trust?
- Track the Data: Utilising weekly pulse surveys provides a quick, regular check-in on school climate. Interestingly, after robust training, schools often see a temporary spike in reported incidents. Do not panic – this is usually a positive sign of increased consciousness and staff confidence in noticing and naming harm.
- Gather Qualitative Insight: Set up dedicated email inboxes and compile staff case studies to capture the nuances of the student experience. Remember, a wealth of research confirms that belonging and inclusion directly correlate with improved student outcomes and academic progress.
Navigating Community and Staff Pushback
When introducing topics like Pride or LGBT identities, leaders occasionally encounter friction from staff or students. While student voice is vital, areas that impact student safety and prevent harm cannot be ignored.
To move past “complicit compliance” or a snail’s pace, look at pushback with genuine curiosity. Ask yourself: Why is there pushback? Is it due to a lack of inclusion literacy, media influence, high workloads, or a feeling that other areas are being ignored? Often, friction is projected when staff or students feel a lack of belonging and wellbeing themselves. Introducing intersectional role models (such as showcasing that someone can co-exist within multiple identities, like being both LGBT and Muslim) can humanise these conversations and bridge cultural divides.
Looking to Deepen Your Practice?
Cultivating true belonging requires a continuous commitment to training, reflection, and structural change. For school leaders, governors, and trustees looking to further their development, The Belonging Effect offers a wealth of tailored toolkits, books, job boards, and specialised training frameworks – spanning inclusive recruitment, neurodiversity awareness, and governor DEIB oversight.
If you missed Part 1 of the series you can catch up here: Edurio – Belonging in Schools: From Staff Culture to Pupil Experience
Ready to take the next step in measuring culture across your school network? Stay tuned for Part 2 of the series: How to Measure Belonging in Your Trust on 6th July.
AI Will Shape Education - But Who Gets to Shape AI?
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.
Artificial intelligence is already changing education. From lesson planning and assessment tools to tutoring platforms and student support systems, AI is becoming embedded in how schools operate and how young people learn. The conversation is no longer about whether AI will influence education. It already does.
The real question is this: Who gets to shape the future of AI in education?
Because AI is not neutral. Every AI system reflects the decisions, assumptions, priorities, and perspectives of the people who build it. The data selected. The questions asked. The problems chosen to solve. The voices included – and excluded – from the room.
If we are not intentional, AI risks reinforcing the very inequities education is trying to disrupt. And that matters deeply for schools.
We have already seen examples of AI systems producing biased outcomes:
- Recruitment algorithms favouring certain demographics
- Writing detection tools disproportionately flagging multilingual learners
- Facial recognition systems performing less accurately on darker skin tones
- Predictive technologies reinforcing historical inequalities rather than challenging them
Bias in AI is often not malicious. But it can become invisible, automated, and scaled at a speed education systems have never seen before. That is why educators must be part of shaping AI strategy – not simply responding to it after decisions have already been made.
Teachers, school leaders, inclusion specialists, youth workers, parents, and community voices bring something essential to this conversation: human understanding. Educators understand context: they understand belonging; they understand lived experience; they understand the difference between efficiency and equity.
If AI strategy is shaped only by technologists and commercial interests, we risk creating systems that optimise for speed and standardisation over humanity and inclusion.
But there is another possibility…
AI could become a powerful tool for accessibility, creativity, personalisation, and opportunity – if a broader and more diverse range of people are involved in shaping what responsible AI looks like in practice.
That means we need more diverse voices and thinkers involved: more perspectives; more challenge; more collaboration. We need people from different backgrounds, communities, cultures, identities, and professional experiences helping to shape the future of AI in education. Not because diversity is a “nice to have,” but because it is a safeguard against harm.
At The Belonging Effect, we believe belonging and equity must sit at the centre of conversations about innovation and technology. That is why we are inviting our network to get involved.
Over the coming months, we will be hosting a series of free webinars exploring AI, education, equity, and belonging. These sessions are designed to create accessible spaces for educators and leaders to learn, question, challenge, and contribute to the conversation – regardless of their starting point with AI.
We are also collaborating on a fully funded training programme with our partners at CVP Group for educators and professionals who want to deepen their understanding of AI, inclusive practice, and ethical leadership in this rapidly evolving space.
We are keen to amplify more diverse voices in this conversation as too often, discussions about AI are dominated by a narrow range of perspectives so we want to help change that. Therefore, we are actively looking to publish blogs, reflections, case studies, and opinion pieces from educators, practitioners, community leaders, and changemakers from diverse backgrounds who are thinking critically about AI, inclusion, belonging, and the future of education.
You do not need to be an AI expert. You do not need to work in technology. If you care about equity, representation, belonging, and the future young people are inheriting, your voice matters, because the future of AI in education should not be built for communities without them – it must be built with them.
This moment presents both a challenge and an opportunity as the decisions being made now will shape classrooms, opportunities, and experiences for years to come. We cannot afford for those decisions to be shaped by only a small group of voices. Disrupting bias in AI starts with diversifying who is involved in shaping strategy and that work belongs to all of us.
The future of AI is being written right now. The question is whether education – and the communities most impacted by these technologies – will help write the story.
To join one of our free webinars, apply for the fully funded training programme, or contribute a blog to our growing community of voices, connect with The Belonging Effect today. Our monthly newsletter will be out on Wednesday.
Together, let’s ensure the future of AI in education is inclusive, ethical, and rooted in belonging.
Does your belonging culture include every Generation?
Written by Alex Atherton
Alex Atherton is an award-winning speaker, trainer and consultant who focuses on Gen Z recruitment & retention and leading multigenerational workplaces. He is the author of The Snowflake Myth: Explaining Gen Z in the Workplace and Beyond. He is also a former secondary school headteacher.
Age ranges are growing across UK workplaces.
This is largely because the proportion of workers aged 65 and over has more than doubled in the last two decades.
A four generation workplace with an age range of fifty, if not sixty, years has become increasingly common. At the younger end Generation Z now account for over a quarter of the workforce, with that figure set to exceed a third globally by 2030.
At no point in modern history have so many different generational experiences been present in the same building, on the same Teams call, or trying to agree on what a productive working culture looks like.
Concept of generations
The concept of generations is useful in terms of analysing outlooks and attitudes over time. Fifteen to twenty years is long enough for there to have been enough economic, social, political and technological change for that exercise to be worthwhile.
But we are all the same species, and there is no guillotine between them. Whilst the concept is useful it is also limited, and generational stereotypes serve no one. Differences within generations are far bigger than those between, and I strongly recommend you treat everyone as individuals first with no generational label.
Analysing the impact of change over time can offer clues when understanding your workforce, and therefore what needs to be done to ensure everyone feels they belong.
I want to differentiate between ‘age’ and ‘generations’. The former is, of course, a protected characteristic. The latter is cohort-based. Opinions and outlooks may change for individuals over time, but there is something about those created in the formative years which stick with people in different ways and to various extents.
It would be an interesting tribunal case that sought to separate the two fully. My argument is organisations who consider the full range of their age diversity to be a considerable asset are in a better position to thrive, and considering generational perspective is part of that exercise.
This is the set of names and dates that I use. You may find others elsewhere, which is fine as it reinforces the idea that these are not hard and fast:
- Silent Generation (1925-1945: 81-100 years old)
- Baby Boomers (1946-1964: 62-80 years old)
- Generation X (1965-1980: 46-61 years old)
- Millennials (1981-1996: 30-45 years old)
- Generation Z (1997-2012: 14-29 years old)
- Generation Alpha (2013-2028: max 13 years old)
The snowflake problem
I came into this topic area as a reaction to the youngest generation currently in the workplace, Gen Z, being labelled as ‘snowflakes’.
In my book The Snowflake Myth, I argue that the stereotypes routinely applied to Gen Z (lazy, unreliable, apathetic etc) tell us more about a failure to understand them than about who they actually are.
Gen Z’s academic record is off the scale compared to all who came before them. They are more likely than any previous generation to work nights and weekends for higher pay. They are the most diverse generation we have ever seen, and the most vocal advocates for equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging in the workplace.
Calling them snowflakes is not a neutral observation. It is an exclusion.
But you know this, otherwise you would not be on this website. So what to do?
Belonging Is not age-selective
Let me tell you something else you already know. When belonging is present, engagement rises, wellbeing is protected and performance improves. When it is absent, the damage is real.
Does your belonging culture extend to the oldest and youngest people in your organisation?
Gen Z in the workplace will tell you, should you ask them, that they are watching. They notice whether the DEIB commitments on your website show up in how decisions are made and who gets a seat at which table. They notice whether authenticity is genuinely embedded in your culture, or whether the sign behind reception is performative. They notice whether any effort has been made to understand their experience, or whether they are simply expected to adapt.
The Boomers (and Silents too) will also give you their feedback as to whether they belong or now feel marginalised, but you may need to work a little harder to capture their voice. It is too tempting to consider that your belonging culture is in the right place because a clear majority say they belong. It needs to work at both ends of your age range.
What multi-generational belonging looks like
The good news is that this is less complicated than it sounds. It requires curiosity more than strategy.
It means seeking genuine feedback from colleagues, and on an ongoing basis rather than just at onboarding.
It means recognising that a generation which grew up collaborating online, co-creating content and working simultaneously on shared documents brings real and underutilised strengths to any team.
It means deliberately noticing what is happening at the edges, and across every group. That includes noticing that the older colleagues who had their eyes wide open as the new recruits refused to stay late or take work home started wanting the same themselves. What used to be ‘Gen Z demands’ has now extended elsewhere.
It means understanding that cross-generational collaboration is not a nice idea for an away day. It is about driving better decisions and developing ownership amongst your workforce that creates the belonging culture you need.
Most importantly, it means accepting that belonging is not something organisations can get away with extending only to the groups they find easiest to champion.
To what extent does your belonging culture cover the full breadth of your age range?
Understanding the Experiences of Black Teachers in London: Why Mattering Matters
Written by Tara Elie
Tara Elie teacher, psychologist, lecturer and coach. Tara has diverse experience in education and Learning and Development spanning over decades. She is renowned for her engaging training delivery, both face-to-face and virtually. Her performance background, alongside her passion for supporting individuals and organisations to flourish and thrive, characterise her delivery style. Tara has completed research on Black Teacher Mattering which she is delivering in keynotes. She is passionate about teacher wellbeing and uses the theories of Positive Psychology to inform her work with all clients with a proven record of success. Tara stands for social justice and social change. She appreciates and celebrates the individual, their differing backgrounds, cultures, experiences, perceptions, and values.
Introduction
Understanding the experiences of Black teachers is essential if we are serious about improving well-being, retention, and professional fulfilment in education. Conversations about diversity in schools often focus on pupils, yet far less attention has been given to the psychological experiences of teachers themselves. One concept that offers a powerful lens for exploring this is mattering – the sense that we are valued and that what we contribute has value.
Psychologist Morris Rosenberg (1985) described mattering as an individual’s belief that they are important to others and able to make a meaningful contribution. When applied to the experiences of Black teachers in London, this idea moves the conversation beyond statistics and into the lived realities of belonging, recognition, and professional identity. Understanding whether teachers feel that they matter – to colleagues, to leaders, and to the wider system – may help explain why some remain in the profession while others leave.
Why Representation Still Matters
The relative scarcity of Black teachers makes this question particularly important. Representation in education is not only about fairness in employment; it also has wider implications for students, schools, and communities. The Black Teachers in London report, commissioned by London Mayor Ken Livingstone, highlighted a clear relationship between the success of Black teachers and positive outcomes for Black pupils. In some London boroughs, nearly half of pupils were Black, yet only a small proportion of teachers shared that heritage. Increasing diversity across all levels of education – from classroom teachers to leadership and governance – was identified as essential for improving representation, aspiration, and achievement.
However, addressing the shortage of Black teachers requires more than recruitment initiatives. It requires a deeper understanding of how teachers experience their professional lives, how valued they feel, and whether they believe their presence makes a difference. Without this understanding, efforts to improve diversity risk focusing only on entry into the profession rather than on belonging within it.
A Gap in UK Research
Much of the existing research on mattering in education has focused on students, particular subject areas, or the education system in the United States. In the United Kingdom, despite ongoing concerns about a lack of diversity in the teaching workforce, relatively little research has explored the experiences of Black teachers themselves.
This gap is especially significant in London, where teacher shortages have historically been higher than in other parts of the UK and where the student population is among the most diverse in the country. Exploring the lived experiences of Black teachers in London can help build a clearer picture of what supports – or undermines – their sense of belonging, confidence, and professional fulfilment. Understanding these experiences is essential if diversity efforts are to be meaningful rather than symbolic.
A Positive Psychology Perspective
This research approaches the topic from a Positive Psychology perspective, the scientific study of individual, group, and community flourishing (Hefferon & Boniwell, 2011). Rather than focusing only on problems, Positive Psychology asks what enables people to thrive. Applying this perspective to teaching allows us to consider how feeling valued influences motivation, self-esteem, and commitment to the profession.
When teachers experience a strong sense of mattering, they are more likely to feel engaged, resilient, and able to sustain their work over time. For Black teachers, the experience of mattering may be shaped by factors such as representation, recognition, relationships with colleagues, opportunities for progression, and the extent to which their perspectives are heard. These factors are closely linked to recruitment and retention, but also to well-being and professional identity.
Beyond Recruitment: The Importance of Belonging
Teacher shortages are often explained through workload, accountability pressures, and working conditions. While these are important, psychological factors such as belonging and value may be just as significant. Exploring mattering offers a way to understand inclusion at a deeper level. Policies can increase diversity, but they cannot by themselves create environments in which teachers feel respected, listened to, and able to contribute fully.
Listening to the lived experiences of Black teachers in London can help develop a more nuanced understanding of what supports their flourishing and what undermines it. This understanding is essential if schools are to move beyond representation alone and towards genuine inclusion.
Why This Matters for the Future of Education
Improving diversity in education is not simply about numbers. It is about creating professional cultures where teachers feel that they matter – where their presence is recognised, their work is valued, and their contribution is meaningful. When teachers experience this, the benefits extend beyond the individual to pupils, colleagues, and the wider school community.
Understanding mattering is therefore not only a psychological question, but an educational one. If we want a teaching profession that is diverse, sustainable, and capable of supporting all young people, we must pay attention to whether those within it feel that they truly belong.
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.
Shaping Intention into Impact: How Belonging Creates a Lasting Effect
Written by Hannah Wilson
Founder and Director of the Belonging Effect (formerly Diverse Educators).
We often underestimate the power of small actions. A word spoken. A behaviour modelled. A decision made with – or without – care. Yet time and again, research and lived experience show us that impact rarely begins with something loud or grand. It begins with intention.
To understand how intention becomes impact, it helps to explore three interconnected ideas: the Ripple Effect, the Butterfly Effect, and what we call the Belonging Effect.
The Ripple Effect: Intentional Actions That Travel
The ripple effect describes how a single action creates a chain reaction of consequences, spreading outward like ripples from a stone dropped into water. A kind gesture can inspire another. A thoughtful idea can spark collective change. Equally, negative behaviours can ripple just as far, reinforcing harmful patterns if left unchecked.
This phenomenon appears across economics, sociology, leadership, and personal development because it reflects a simple truth: our actions do not exist in isolation. Every choice – especially those made by leaders, educators, and organisations – sets something in motion.
Ripples are visible. They move outward in predictable ways. We can often trace them back to their source.
The Butterfly Effect: Small Moments, Unpredictable Outcomes
The butterfly effect takes this idea even further.
Originating in chaos theory and popularised by meteorologist Edward Lorenz, it suggests that a small change in initial conditions can result in large, unpredictable outcomes later. Metaphorically, a butterfly flapping its wings in one part of the world could influence a storm system elsewhere.
Here, the emphasis is not just on reach – but on sensitivity. Tiny moments matter more than we think. A brief interaction. A missed acknowledgement. A single experience of inclusion – or exclusion – can alter a person’s trajectory in ways we may never fully see.
Unlike ripples, these effects are often invisible. But they are no less real.
The Belonging Effect: Where Intention Becomes Human Impact
This is where the Belonging Effect comes in.
The belonging effect describes the profound influence that a sense of belonging has on human wellbeing, motivation, and performance. When people feel they belong, they are more engaged, resilient, creative, and committed. When belonging is absent, the outcomes are equally powerful – anxiety, disengagement, poor performance, and diminished wellbeing.
Decades of research across schools, workplaces, and communities show that belonging is not a “nice to have.” It is a fundamental human need. In educational settings, a strong sense of belonging is linked to higher achievement and retention. In workplaces, it drives engagement, collaboration, and psychological safety. Across all contexts, it supports better mental and physical health.
Belonging does not happen by accident. It emerges when people feel seen, valued, safe, and connected through meaningful relationships.
Shaping Intention Into Impact
The Ripple Effect reminds us that our actions spread.
The Butterfly Effect reminds us that small moments can change everything.
The Belonging Effect reminds us who those moments land on.
When intention is grounded in belonging, impact becomes sustainable.
A leader who intentionally creates space for voices to be heard doesn’t just improve a meeting – they shape culture. An educator who signals “you matter here” does not just support a student – they alter a future. An organisation that prioritises belonging doesn’t just retain people – it unlocks potential.
This is the heart of the Belonging Effect: intentional actions that create human impact, often far beyond what we can measure. Because when people belong, the ripples are positive, and the butterfly effects change lives.
Putting student inclusion at the heart of Trust strategy: Why inclusion must be at the heart of Trust strategy
Written by Harriet Gill
Head of Trust Partnerships, No Isolation. Harriet works with multi-academy trusts (MATs) to explore the art of the possible around school attendance, supporting inclusive approaches that give all learners equal access to education despite today’s evolving social and educational challenges. At No Isolation, the creators of the AV1 telepresence robot, she helps MATs and their schools embed AV1 into attendance, inclusion, and SEND strategies, helping pupils unable to attend their lessons in person to stay connected to their school community.
In a recent TES article, Jack Mayhew, CEO of Learning Partners Academy Trust, highlighted the power of multi-phase, locally rooted trusts, where primary, secondary, special, and faith schools collaborate within a defined area. This approach creates continuity and a sense of belonging for pupils, particularly during key transitions.
For MAT leaders, this raises a crucial reflection: how intentionally are inclusion and belonging embedded in your trust’s design?
Belonging often fractures before attendance shows it
Research shows pupils frequently experience disconnection long before it appears in attendance data. Risk factors include:
- SEND or SEMH needs
- Socioeconomic disadvantage
- Racial or cultural marginalisation
Once belonging breaks, learning loss follows quickly. Inclusion, attendance, and culture are interconnected – different angles on the same challenge.
Sustaining belonging across phases
In our conversations with MAT leaders, multi-phase structures are seen as offering unique opportunities to act early, before small issues escalate:
- Pupils in Year 5 or 6 showing early signs of disengagement – struggling to get into school, attend assemblies, or engage in class – can be supported proactively.
- Sharing expertise across phases allows trust leaders to address these challenges with human-centred strategies, including small-group support or assistive technology, rather than waiting until they evolve into entrenched attendance or behavioural issues.
- This proactive approach maintains belonging, reduces future learning loss, and smooths transitions between schools.
When inclusion is strategy, not rescue
Southend-on-Sea City Council provides a powerful example:
- They invested in AV1 telepresence robots to keep pupils connected despite medical, emotional, or social barriers.
- 46 pupils used AV1 in 2021-22, 12 returned fully to school, and others reintegrated gradually.
Financial impact:
- Traditional 1:1 tutoring (~50 pupils): £850,000/year
- AV1 continuity support (~50 pupils): £23,000/year
This demonstrates a key insight: preventing disconnection is cheaper, more effective, and more child-centred than trying to rebuild engagement after it’s lost.
Implications for MAT leadership
Inclusion is not a service added on later – it is a system choice. Trust leaders might reflect on questions like:
- Are structures in place that allow expertise to flow across schools and phases, rather than sit in silos?
- Are attendance and engagement treated as strategic, preventative priorities, rather than reactive responses?
- Are technology-enabled approaches being leveraged to reach pupils in ways that feel natural to tech-native learners?
Multi-phase trusts offer a unique opportunity to act early, maintain belonging, and prevent the cascade of disengagement and learning loss, but only if leadership sees it as an intentional, trust-wide design responsibility.
A call to act
The evidence is clear: belonging breaks down before attendance does, and early, proactive interventions pay dividends in both engagement and cost.
Trust leaders have the chance to ask themselves:
- Where are the early signs of disconnection in my trust?
- How can we leverage multi-phase structures and technology to support these pupils before challenges escalate?
- What changes in trust design could make inclusion strategic rather than reactive?
Take the next step: For your free AV1 MAT consultation, contact Harriet Gill, Head of Trust Partnerships, at gill@noisolation.com. Explore how your trust could maintain pupil belonging, sustain engagement, and prevent disconnection before it becomes entrenched.