The Belonging Gap: Using Inclusion Data to Improve Attendance and Outcomes
At BETT this year, a SEND Theatre panel titled “The Belonging Gap: Using Inclusion Data to Improve Attendance and Outcomes” explored one of the most persistent challenges facing schools and local authorities.
Why do attendance strategies so often fail to deliver sustainable change, particularly for learners with SEND and those experiencing disadvantage.
The panel quickly challenged the common assumption that attendance should be treated as the problem to be fixed. Throughout the conversation, speakers repeatedly returned to a different conclusion. Attendance is not the cause of disengagement, but that disengagement can be the cause of low attendance. Belonging sits upstream.
When children do not feel safe, recognised or able to access learning, absence becomes a rational response. For learners navigating complex needs, trauma or transition points, this is particularly acute. Policies that focus solely on thresholds and compliance risk addressing the symptom while leaving the root causes untouched.
Several panellists emphasised curriculum accessibility and identity. A curriculum that does not reflect a child’s lived experience, or adapt to their needs, erodes engagement long before attendance data begins to shift. Belonging is not a soft concept. It is foundational to learning, wellbeing and participation.
The danger of data without meaning
A second major theme from the panel was the way schools currently use data to understand attendance and inclusion.
Dashboards are everywhere. Year on year comparisons show reassuring arrows pointing upwards. But as one speaker warned, comparing against a weak baseline can give a false sense of progress. In some cases, schools may be sleepwalking into a deeper problem.
Attendance data viewed in isolation often masks emerging risk. Aggregate figures hide vulnerable cohorts. Visualisations can obscure lived experience rather than illuminate it.
The panel raised an important challenge for both education leaders and edtech providers. Belonging, engagement and safety are human experiences. Treating them like attainment metrics strips them of context and meaning.
There was also a clear acknowledgement that many schools lack data literacy and data maturity models. Staff are rarely trained to interrogate how data is designed, what questions are being asked, and whose voices are missing entirely. Without this capability, even well-intentioned systems can reinforce blind spots.
One message was clear. Numbers are the way in, not the answer. Quantitative insight must sit alongside qualitative narrative, context, student voice and professional judgement. Stories do not weaken data. They complete it.
From knowing there is a problem to acting on it
The discussion did not stop at diagnosis. The panel offered practical insight into what action can look like when belonging is taken seriously.
Distributive leadership emerged as a key factor. When responsibility for attendance, progress and inclusion sits with one role, systems struggle to respond early. Schools that share ownership across subject leaders and teaching teams are better placed to notice patterns, intervene sooner and sustain change.
Curriculum design was repeatedly cited as a lever for belonging. Learners engage more deeply when they see themselves reflected in what they are taught and how it is taught. Recognition and representation matter.
Relational and trauma informed approaches were also central. Understanding absence requires psychological frameworks that prioritise safety, trust and connection. Several speakers stressed the importance of starting with the individual child and building a story around their context rather than working backwards from a data point.
Crucially, the panel highlighted the importance of getting upstream. Waiting until attendance falls below a threshold is often too late. Patterns at 95 to 97 percent attendance could already contain early signals of future issues if schools and local authorities have the visibility and confidence to act.
Belonging is not abstract. It is operational. It depends on systems that allow early insight, shared understanding and coordinated response across teams and across transitions. When those systems work, attendance follows.
The discussion at BETT reinforced something we see consistently in our work with local authorities and schools. Attendance does not improve in isolation. It improves when children feel known, supported and understood, particularly at points of transition where belonging is most fragile.
Belonging requires better visibility of context, not just outcomes. It requires systems that combine data with narrative, professional insight and student voice. And it requires that this information is shared safely and meaningfully across settings so that support can begin early, not once problems escalate.
At Pupil Pathways, our platforms are designed around this principle. We focus on capturing the right inclusion insight at the right time, especially during transition points, so schools and local authorities can act upstream, coordinate support and build belonging before attendance becomes a concern.
If you are rethinking how inclusion data, transition insight and attendance connect in your local area, we would welcome a conversation.
Get in touch to explore how Pupil Pathways is supporting earlier intervention, stronger transitions and better outcomes for children and young people.
