The recent government white paper has brought the language of belonging closer to the centre of educational policy. Yet before we react to headlines or speculation, it is worth pausing to ask a more fundamental question: what does the government actually mean by belonging, and what might it expect schools to do with it? One of the clearest signals within the paper is that, by 2029, all schools will be expected to monitor pupils’ sense of belonging and engagement. This is a significant shift. It moves belonging from something implied within culture and ethos to something that schools are expected to notice, track and, ultimately, improve.
Belonging is often used as if it were self-evident. In research terms, however, it is a construct that captures a student’s sense of being accepted, valued and included within a community (Allen et al., 2018). When policymakers adopt such language, they are rarely doing so in a purely philosophical sense. More often, they are signalling an expectation that schools will be able to evidence this experience in ways that are visible, comparable and open to scrutiny. The commitment to monitoring belonging across all schools suggests that this is no longer peripheral. It is becoming part of the core business of education, sitting alongside attainment, attendance and behaviour as something that matters at a system level.
This is where the recent debate about belonging league tables has emerged. The idea that schools might be ranked according to students’ sense of belonging has understandably generated concern. It feels reductive. It risks oversimplifying something relational and deeply human. It also reflects a broader unease about what happens when something complex becomes something measured. Yet it is important to separate what the white paper actually sets out from what might be inferred. While it clearly establishes an expectation that belonging will be monitored, it does not prescribe league tables or public ranking. The question, then, is not simply whether belonging will be measured, but how that measurement will be used and what we believe it should be used for. At the same time, it is important to separate what is possible from what is probable. Large systems tend to look for multiple uses of the data they generate. If belonging were measured at scale, it is not inconceivable that comparisons could follow. Yet this does not mean such league tables are imminent. Nor does it mean that, if they did emerge, they would necessarily be something to fear.
Part of the discomfort lies in the belief that belonging is too subjective to measure. This is a compelling argument on the surface. Belonging is shaped by perception, identity and context. It resists easy quantification. However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that all measurement in education is, in some sense, subjective. When we assess mathematical competence, we do so through a limited set of problems that represent only a fraction of the domain. When we assess understanding of literature, we rely on responses to carefully selected questions that privilege certain interpretations over others. These are not objective truths. They are structured approximations, designed by experts, that allow us to make inferences about learning.
Measuring belonging is no different. It involves asking a set of carefully designed questions that have been validated through research and shown to correlate with broader outcomes. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has been doing precisely this through the Programme for International Student Assessment, where students’ sense of belonging is measured and compared across countries (OECD, 2019). These measures do not capture the full richness of students’ experiences. But they do provide meaningful signals that can inform policy and practice.
This brings us back to the practical question of what schools might do with such data. In my earlier post, “Taking the Pulse of Belonging,” I argued that if we are serious about belonging, we have to be equally serious about how we notice it, understand it and respond to it. Measurement, as Harrington’s often cited line reminds us, is not about control for its own sake, but about creating the conditions for understanding and improvement.
In that post, three broad approaches begin to take shape.
First, there is the use of structured surveys and diagnostic tools. Their strength is not that they capture everything, but that they allow us to see patterns that would otherwise remain hidden. When we ask students carefully designed questions about whether they feel recognised, supported or included, we begin to surface trends across groups, year levels and contexts. This matters because belonging is not evenly distributed. Some students experience school as a place where they are known and valued, while others experience something very different. Surveys give us a way to make those differences visible, and once visible, they become harder to ignore.
Second, there is the deliberate act of listening more deeply. In the blog, this is reflected in the move towards open responses, conversations and the refusal to reduce student voice to pre-determined categories. When students are given space to articulate their experiences in their own words, what emerges is often more complex than any scale can capture. Themes of friendship, recognition, fairness and relational trust come through strongly, alongside barriers such as exclusion, misunderstanding and impersonal systems (Belonging- The Results are In!) The benefit here is not scale, but depth. It allows leaders to understand the texture of belonging in their setting, not just its headline score.
Third, there is the attention to lived experience through everyday indicators. In the earlier post, this sits beneath the surface but is no less important. Attendance, participation, behaviour and engagement are not measures of belonging in themselves, yet they are often shaped by it. When a student withdraws, disengages or resists, there is often a story about connection sitting underneath. Equally, when students participate fully, take risks in their learning and invest in school life, this often reflects a stronger sense of belonging. The benefit of these indicators is their immediacy. They are already present in the system, offering real time signals that can prompt further enquiry.
What becomes clear, both in that post and in the wider research, is that no single approach is sufficient on its own. Surveys without dialogue risk superficiality. Dialogue without patterns risks anecdote. Behavioural indicators without interpretation risk misreading the signal. But when these approaches are held together, they begin to form something more powerful. They allow schools to move from assumption to evidence, from instinct to insight. As we know from our wider work, test outcomes without teacher assessment only gives you half the story.
And perhaps this is the most important thread that runs through my earlier blog. The work is not about finding the perfect instrument. It is about cultivating a disciplined curiosity about students’ lived experience. It is about asking better questions, listening more carefully and being willing to act on what we hear.
If the white paper signals that belonging matters, then this is where the work becomes real. Not in the abstract language of policy, but in the daily practice of noticing, asking and responding. Because ultimately, taking the pulse of belonging is not a one off activity. It is an ongoing commitment to understanding how it feels to be here, in this place, at this time, for every child in our care.
The key is not measurement for its own sake, but measurement that leads to insight and action. If a survey reveals that certain students do not feel recognised by their teachers, that should prompt reflection on classroom practice. If belonging is lower in particular year groups, that should lead to questions about transition, curriculum or pastoral support. In this sense, measurement becomes a starting point rather than an end.
There is, of course, a risk that belonging could be reduced to a score that is chased rather than understood. This is a legitimate concern and one that should shape how any future policy is designed. Yet avoiding measurement altogether carries its own risks. What we do not measure is often what we do not prioritise.
Ultimately, education systems improve what they choose to pay attention to. We improve what we measure. Accountability frameworks signal what matters. If belonging is genuinely central to students’ experience and outcomes, as a growing body of research suggests (Walton & Cohen, 2011), then it is reasonable to ask whether it should be more explicitly included within the indicators by which schools are judged.
This is not about creating another pressure point. It is about aligning our measures with our values. If we expect schools to foster environments where every student feels they belong, then we should be prepared to take that expectation seriously. And that may mean being willing to measure it, to discuss it openly and, where necessary, to be held accountable for it.
Would that really be something to fear, or might it be a step towards a more complete understanding of what education is for?
References
Allen, K. A., Kern, M. L., Vella-Brodrick, D., Hattie, J., & Waters, L. (2018). What schools need to know about fostering school belonging: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 1–34.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018 results (Volume III): What school life means for students’ lives. OECD Publishing.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2011). A brief social-belonging intervention improves academic and health outcomes of minority students. Science, 331(6023), 1447–1451.
The Belonging Collective 