School Belonging in England: What New 2026 Research Means for Attendance and Learning

Imagine a Year 8 pupil returning to school after several weeks of growing reluctance. Her timetable is unchanged, the subjects are familiar and her teachers have high expectations. Yet she spends breaktime alone, is unsure whether any adult would notice a problem, and has stopped asking questions in class. A school could respond by counting the days she has missed. But that would not necessarily explain why attending school has become so difficult.

This is a fictional illustration, not a testimony from a government study. It highlights the question behind a significant development in England’s education news: can schools maintain ambitious academic standards while making pupils feel genuinely accepted, safe and connected?

On 16 October 2026, the Department for Education published School belonging case studies research, an investigation commissioned from Ipsos in partnership with TONIC, Professor Kathryn Riley and the Anna Freud Centre. The researchers used an in-depth qualitative case-study design involving 16 mainstream primary and secondary schools to explore how schools support belonging alongside attendance and attainment.

This is not an announcement of a new law, nor a controlled experiment proving that a particular initiative raises GCSE scores. It is an attempt to learn how schools understand and support belonging in real contexts. Its release matters because England is also debating attendance, inclusion, bullying, school culture and how children’s experiences should inform education policy.

For teachers and leaders, the central question is not “How do we make every child feel happy every day?” It is how to establish a school environment in which pupils can belong without lowering expectations, and where adults can recognise the difference between non-participation, unmet need and lack of effort.

What exactly did the Department for Education publish?

The official Department for Education publication dated 16 October 2026 identifies three purposes for the research: finding schools that combine strong belonging with good attendance and attainment, understanding how those schools develop practices suited to their context, and exploring how those practices intersect with attendance and achievement.

The study involved 16 mainstream schools across primary and secondary education. Its researchers were from Ipsos, working with TONIC, Professor Kathryn Riley and the Anna Freud Centre. The government’s publication includes a summary and a full report.

The methodology matters. Researchers examining school culture through detailed case studies can illuminate how relationships, routines and leadership decisions operate within institutions. They can identify practical questions worth investigating and describe experiences that broad statistical averages may conceal. But case studies of selected schools cannot, by themselves, establish that a single programme caused better attendance or attainment throughout England.

A further source-access distinction is important: the government’s publication details and research description were directly verified for this article, but the full summary and 90-page report were not fully accessible for inspection during preparation. Accordingly, this analysis does not attribute any specific undocumented practice, school quotation or improvement percentage to the 16 case studies. It examines the study’s verified scope alongside separately identified policy evidence and reporting.

That restraint is important in education reporting. A positive case study is not a ready-made national prescription. Good editorial analysis distinguishes what has actually been observed from what remains an interpretation or a proposal.

What does “school belonging” mean?

A pupil may attend every day without feeling connected to their school. Another may have close friends yet believe that teachers consistently misunderstand them. Some enjoy individual lessons but dread corridors, toilets, breaktimes or the journey into school. “Belonging” must therefore mean more than simply appearing on the attendance register.

In practical terms, belonging is a pupil’s sense that they are recognised, accepted, respected and able to participate as a legitimate member of the school community. This does not mean every child needs to be popular or every teacher must become a personal friend. It means that school relationships and systems convey that a pupil matters and can learn here.

Belonging is closely related to, but distinct from, safety, wellbeing, engagement and achievement. A school may have reassuring survey scores yet still overlook bullying. A pupil may feel safe but disengaged from academic learning. A student can belong to a strong peer group whose attitudes are hostile to study. Good analysis should keep these concepts separate even as it explores their connections.

England’s Every Child Achieving and Thriving white paper, published in February 2026, explicitly places belonging and pupil engagement alongside attendance and attainment. It describes positive pupil engagement as an important factor associated with broader educational outcomes. The wording matters: an association is not proof that changing one variable automatically changes another.

The case-study publication is timely because school leaders need to know what belonging looks like as a daily experience, not merely as a positive phrase in a mission statement.

Why this issue is urgent in English secondary schools

A different dataset, reported by Tes on 1 October 2026, illustrates the scale of the challenge. Drawing on the Growing Up in the 2020s research involving Year 8 pupils in England, Tes reported that more than a third of surveyed pupils did not feel they belonged at school. Girls, young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and some other groups were less likely to report belonging.

The same reporting found a serious communication gap around bullying. Among students who said they had been bullied, 31% thought school staff knew about it, while 33% said staff did not know and 36% were uncertain. Those results belong to the separate Year 8 survey—not to the 16-school case-study report published on 16 October.

These findings challenge the assumption that a school’s official incident record captures everything important about pupil life. If a student does not disclose bullying, it may be absent from a database while remaining central to that student’s experience.

Tes also reported that pupils with SEND were more likely to give lack of appropriate support, bullying or anxiety as reasons for absence. That should not be interpreted as proof that all absence can be solved with a more welcoming classroom. It means the reasons behind absence can be diverse, and some are serious enough to require tailored support, safeguarding action or specialist services.

For a teacher, the question becomes practical: How would I notice that a pupil feels invisible here, and what happens after I notice?

What belonging research can and cannot prove about GCSE attainment

The connection between belonging and achievement has attracted growing attention, but causal claims need care. The Department for Education published a separate linked-data study on school belonging and attainment at key stage 4 in August 2026. It drew on international survey data from PISA 2022 linked to administrative pupil records to explore belonging, bullying and attainment while considering background characteristics and prior achievement.

That is a different research design from the qualitative case studies. The two sources answer different kinds of questions. Large datasets can examine how variables move together across groups. Qualitative research can explore the conditions and decisions behind daily school experience.

Neither form should be casually presented as proof that a school-wide “belonging week” will raise exam results. Schools vary by pupil intake, staffing, resources, policies, neighbourhood and many other factors. A programme that appears successful in one setting may be ineffective or inappropriate elsewhere.

A useful interpretation is that belonging deserves attention as one component of the conditions for learning. It should not replace effective curriculum design, high-quality teaching, SEND provision, attendance support, family partnership or safeguarding.

That point is especially important when policymakers search for inexpensive responses to complex problems. Relationships can be improved through skilled daily practice, but they also rely on time, staffing, stability and meaningful access to services.

A delayed framework creates a leadership dilemma

The government’s white paper says it expects all schools to monitor pupils’ sense of belonging and engagement by 2029. The intention is to make schools more attentive to what pupils actually experience, including safety, inclusion, relationships with staff and peers, and motivation to learn.

But implementation has already generated uncertainty. On 1 October 2026, Schools Week reported that the planned Pupil Engagement Framework had been delayed. The Department for Education said it would be ready towards the end of the academic year, for planning ahead of the following September.

That is separate from the publication of the 16-school research on 16 October. A research report is not the same as the completed measurement framework, and the release of one does not mean the other is available for immediate statutory implementation.

Schools face a genuine tension. They should not wait indefinitely to learn whether pupils feel welcome. At the same time, they should not invest heavily in a new measurement system based on anticipated questions that have not yet been finalised. The most responsible approach is to use existing evidence carefully, invite pupil feedback safely and plan to review systems when official guidance appears.

Leaders should be especially cautious about presenting a single school belonging score as an objective ranking of schools. Survey responses can reflect the composition of a school’s population, its culture of honesty, pupils’ experiences outside school and how questions are asked. Paradoxically, a school whose pupils trust adults enough to report problems may look worse than one where pupils remain silent.

The purpose of monitoring should be to understand experience and improve practice, not simply to make graphs look better.

What does a meaningful sense of belonging look like in lessons?

Consider two classrooms with identical subject content and apparently similar behaviour. In the first, the teacher knows the high-achieving pupils’ names, regularly hears from three confident volunteers and corrects errors quickly. In the second, the teacher also provides clear instruction but checks whose understanding has not been heard, models how to ask for help and responds to mistakes without attaching failure to the student’s identity.

Both may be orderly. The question is which environment gives more pupils a credible route into learning.

Belonging is not the absence of challenge. It is being able to experience challenge without humiliation or exclusion. A pupil should be expected to revise an inaccurate answer, contribute responsibly, respect others and make progress. But the adult’s response should communicate that the pupil is still a valued member of the learning community.

This distinction protects schools from a false choice between “being kind” and “having standards”. A school may need firm, consistent behaviour expectations to keep pupils safe. What matters is whether those expectations are fair, understood and accompanied by effective routes to support and re-engagement.

The classroom climate is shaped as much by ordinary events as by exceptional interventions: whether a pupil gets a second chance to explain, whether a question is dismissed, whether a new student is helped into a group, or whether someone notices repeated silence.

A teacher cannot control every experience of belonging, but can influence whether each lesson strengthens or weakens the learner’s connection to academic work and to the people around them.

Seven coaching-informed strategies for teachers

Learning Coach’s preferred pedagogical response is to make adult support both relational and progressively autonomy-building. Its training on the fundamentals of coaching posture emphasises clear goals, awareness, access to resources and a gradual reduction of dependence. Translated carefully into classroom practice, that leads to seven strategies teachers can try and evaluate.

1. Replace anonymous entry with a brief human welcome

A predictable greeting at the door, using a pupil’s name and a calm tone, can help make contact. It is not a guarantee of improved attendance or a substitute for deeper relationships. But it creates an everyday opportunity to notice when something seems different.

A practical question might be, “What would help you get started today?” rather than “Why are you never ready?” The first question invites a next step without implying that all difficulties are the pupil’s responsibility.

2. Make academic goals visible and reachable

Learners are more likely to participate meaningfully when they can understand what success involves. Explain the intended knowledge or skill, model a manageable example, and clarify how pupils can recognise progress.

The coaching dimension comes later, when the learner identifies their own next action: “Which part can you attempt independently? Which resource will you use if you become stuck?” This connects belonging to legitimate academic participation, not just to social comfort.

3. Design fair ways to be heard

Whole-class questioning can inadvertently favour fast speakers or the same familiar pupils. Use brief thinking time, paired explanations, written preparation, diagrams or small-group exchanges when appropriate.

Then invite varied contributions and respond seriously to them. The message is not that every answer is correct. It is that every learner has a route into the intellectual conversation.

4. Respond to errors without turning them into identities

“You are bad at maths” communicates something radically different from “This method does not work for this problem; let’s locate the first step to change.” The latter leaves the learner with a task they can improve.

Teachers can maintain rigorous correction while avoiding public embarrassment. Private feedback, a modelled example and another opportunity to attempt the problem can all support progress. For some pupils, the key improvement is discovering that being corrected does not mean they no longer belong.

5. Build structured peer connection

Peer relationships are part of school experience, but group activities do not automatically create inclusion. A learner repeatedly left without a partner can be excluded inside a supposedly collaborative classroom.

Deliberate grouping, rotating participation roles, shared responsibilities and teaching respectful disagreement may help. Teachers should observe who participates and who remains peripheral, intervening when group dynamics are unsafe or unequal.

This is also a place for meaningful peer learning: pupils can help each other explain ideas, ask questions and revise conclusions, while adults remain responsible for safety, content accuracy and accessibility.

6. Use reflection to develop agency

After a demanding lesson, ask pupils to identify one thing they learned, one obstacle they encountered and a strategy they could try next. Let them reflect orally, in writing or by other accessible means.

Over time, the purpose is to help pupils answer, “What can I do when learning becomes difficult?” The Teacher Coach does not become a permanent rescuer. Support is effective when it helps the pupil gain more control over their learning decisions.

7. Follow up when engagement changes

A sudden change in participation, absence or work quality is a reason for attentive inquiry—not an automatic diagnosis or assumption about home life. A teacher can notice the change, ask a respectful question and involve the appropriate pastoral team.

If a pupil discloses bullying, serious distress or a safeguarding concern, the response must follow school procedures and professional responsibilities. Coaching cannot replace safeguarding, mental-health care, appropriate SEND provision or formal attendance support.

These strategies are Learning Coach’s pedagogical suggestions. They are not claimed as a tested intervention from the 16-school government study, and no specific improvement percentage is promised.

A 15-minute weekly routine for a tutor group

Schools often recognise the importance of relationships but struggle to find the time to make them consistent. A short weekly tutor-group routine can connect pupil voice, learning reflection and practical follow-through without pretending to resolve every systemic difficulty.

Minutes 0–3: Quiet check-in. Offer a confidential, optional way for pupils to indicate whether something is helping or obstructing their participation. Do not demand public personal disclosure.

Minutes 3–6: Shared learning problem. Invite pupils to discuss a manageable question: “What makes it easier to ask for help in lessons?” or “How can a new classmate find a partner during group work?”

Minutes 6–10: Identify a small action. Choose one classroom change the group can realistically make. It might be a clearer help-seeking routine, predictable pairs for one activity or a better method of welcoming new pupils.

Minutes 10–13: Assign responsibility. Establish what the adult will change and what pupils can decide or try. Belonging is not only something provided to children; participation can give them a meaningful part in shaping school life.

Minutes 13–15: Agree on a review. Check the following week whether the action happened and how pupils experienced it. If a concern requires individual or safeguarding follow-up, address it privately through the appropriate process.

The routine is an illustrative practical suggestion, not a component of the verified government study. Its purpose is to transform vague intentions into a small cycle of listening, action and evaluation.

What school leaders should avoid

The new interest in school belonging could be useful—or it could create another layer of performative compliance. There are several obvious pitfalls.

One is reducing belonging to assemblies, slogans and themed days. Such activities can have a place, but pupils are more likely to judge their environment by daily interactions: whether adults respond to bullying, whether lessons include them, whether facilities feel safe and whether support arrives when needed.

Another is asking pupils for honest feedback and taking no visible action. Surveys without response can make trust worse. Schools should explain what was heard, what can be changed, what cannot be changed immediately and why.

A third is expecting teachers to solve serious structural problems through friendliness alone. Inadequate support services, staff instability, unmet learning needs or unsafe environments require more than a positive classroom tone. It would be unfair to load responsibility for every absence or emotional difficulty onto an individual teacher.

Finally, schools should not confuse belonging with approval of every choice a pupil makes. Safe boundaries, fair consequences and consistent expectations can be integral to a trusted environment. The test is whether discipline protects dignity and offers a viable route back into learning.

The recent Schools Week reporting on the delayed belonging framework makes this question of implementation even more relevant. Schools need instruments and guidance that help them act intelligently—not another number to report without understanding.

How a school can measure belonging without creating a new ranking

School leaders often ask for a dashboard because it feels concrete. Yet the quality of measurement depends on the question asked and on what happens afterwards. A survey asking “Are you happy at school?” cannot explain whether a pupil is respected in lessons, knows whom to tell about bullying or understands how to ask for support.

A more useful approach combines several clearly differentiated sources of information: carefully worded anonymous pupil feedback, attendance patterns, safeguarding and pastoral reports, observations of participation and conversations with families. Each source has limitations, and none should be treated as a complete account of a child.

School leaders should look for differences within the institution, not merely the school-wide average. Does belonging vary by year group, pupil need or transition point? Do pupils feel heard by adults? Are those who report concerns receiving an understandable response? Can students describe a reliable route to help?

This work must be ethical. Responses about bullying, safety and mental health may raise sensitive matters. Schools need clear arrangements for safeguarding, confidentiality, data minimisation and communicating the limits of anonymity. Staff should never imply that a quick survey is a diagnostic clinical tool.

A productive review cycle would ask three questions: What did we hear? What did we change? How did we check whether the change helped? Such a cycle supports professional judgement rather than replacing it.

That is an appropriate place for the Director of Pedagogical Coaching or a leader using coaching-informed practices. The task is not to announce a one-size-fits-all programme. It is to help teachers identify a challenge, observe what is happening, test a feasible response and reflect on its impact while maintaining pupil protection and high expectations.

How the Learning Coach perspective fits this news

The 16 October research does not test Learning Coach. It would be misleading to suggest otherwise. However, the questions it raises about pupils’ connection to school are directly relevant to Learning Coach’s educational philosophy.

In its training on coaching posture, the adult’s role is to work alongside a learner towards a clear objective, help them identify available resources, make their progress more visible and build the capacity to move forward independently. In classroom terms, this can translate into an important shift: instead of asking only “Why is this student not doing the work?”, the teacher also asks “What is preventing participation, what support is appropriate, and what next step can the student increasingly own?”

The distinction is fundamental. A pupil facing harassment needs protection, not simply a more motivational conversation. A learner without adequate subject knowledge needs good instruction. A child experiencing a significant barrier to attendance may require coordinated support beyond the classroom. Learning coaching complements these duties; it cannot replace them.

Within those limits, the Teacher Coach approach encourages attentive listening, precise feedback, meaningful goals, strategies that pupils understand and a gradual transfer of responsibility. The relationship should support independence rather than create permanent dependence on a particular adult.

For a deeper exploration of belonging, emotional safety and the learner’s experience, the English-language Learning Coach book The Learner’s Emotional System addresses the topic directly. It is a Learning Coach publication, not an independent validation of the new DfE research.

Educators and school leaders who want to examine this professional approach can review the Learning Coach training pathways and Teacher Coach specialisation, checking the current programme and application details. The training supplements professional practice; it is not a substitute for UK teacher qualifications or statutory duties.

Frequently asked questions

What new research on school belonging was published in England on 16 October 2026?

The Department for Education published qualitative case-study research conducted by Ipsos with TONIC, Professor Kathryn Riley and the Anna Freud Centre. It examines how 16 mainstream primary and secondary schools approach belonging while maintaining attention to attendance and attainment. It is not a new statutory requirement or a national experiment.

Does the report prove that belonging programmes raise GCSE results?

No. A qualitative case-study design can explore practices and context but cannot establish a nationally generalisable causal effect. The Department for Education has also published separate linked-data research on belonging and key stage 4 attainment; its design and conclusions should not be confused with those of the October case studies.

How many English pupils say they do not belong at school?

Tes reporting on a separate Year 8 survey in October 2026 indicated that more than one-third of those surveyed did not feel they belonged. This is a finding for a defined survey population, not a claim that precisely the same proportion applies to every age or school.

Are English schools already required to use a new pupil engagement framework?

The February 2026 white paper describes an expectation that schools should monitor belonging and engagement by 2029. Schools Week reported on 1 October that the planned framework had been delayed. Readers should verify the final publication and any subsequent statutory guidance before treating an anticipated framework as already in force.

Is school belonging the same as happiness?

No. Belonging concerns whether a learner feels accepted, respected and able to participate. A student can belong to a school while finding particular lessons difficult, receiving corrective feedback or facing appropriate behavioural consequences.

What can teachers do this week?

Start with small, meaningful changes: notice changes in participation, greet pupils consistently, ensure fair routes into discussion, teach help-seeking explicitly and follow up on concerns. Couple these actions with rigorous teaching and existing safeguarding, pastoral and SEND support.

Before demanding engagement, examine the conditions for it

A pupil’s attendance record tells a school whether the child was present. It does not necessarily explain what school feels like to that child. Exam marks reveal something about attainment, but they do not show whose questions went unanswered, who feared public embarrassment or who did not know where to seek help.

The DfE’s 16 October 2026 case-study publication contributes to a timely national conversation. Its value will depend partly on whether the wider system treats belonging as a serious element of school improvement without turning it into a superficial league-table measure. Good educational policy should be evidence-informed, honest about uncertainty and attentive to the resources needed for implementation.

Learning Coach’s preferred pedagogical contribution is to combine clear teaching with a coaching posture that makes learners seen, capable and progressively autonomous. Belonging is not an alternative to achievement; in a well-designed school culture, it can be one of the conditions that allows more pupils to participate fully in the work of learning.

Explore Learning Coach professional training to learn more about the Teacher Coach approach and how it may complement responsible classroom and school leadership practice.

Sources

1. Department for Education — School belonging case studies research. Official research publication, 16 October 2026. Publication description and methods verified; the complete 90-page report was not independently inspected for this article.

2. Tes — Most students say school staff not aware of bullying. Education news report, 1 October 2026, covering the separate Growing Up in the 2020s Year 8 survey.

3. Schools Week — Framework to measure sense of belonging is delayed. News report by Ruth Lucas, 1 October 2026.

4. Department for Education — Every Child Achieving and Thriving. Schools white paper, February 2026.

5. Department for Education — School belonging and attainment at key stage 4. Research publication, 19 August 2026. Separate linked-data study.

6. Chartered College of Teaching — Leading for belonging: How school leadership shapes attendance, behaviour and inclusion. Professional perspective by Charlotte Marie Speechly, published 16 October 2026.