Trustee questions on inclusion: what to ask and what good evidence looks like

Trustees who want to know whether inclusion is working need to ask for data from pupils, not a summary from the headteacher. The trustee questions on inclusion that work best ask for cohort-level evidence, collected the same way in every academy, with a named person responsible for each action. A narrative report, however careful, cannot show whether Year 8 pupils with SEND feel they belong, or whether that has changed since last term.

This article sets out six questions that prompt useful answers, describes what the evidence behind a good answer looks like, and walks through an illustrative example across a four-academy trust. It then shows how to turn the questions into a termly rhythm a board can keep up without adding to leaders' workload.

Why a headteacher's report is not enough evidence on inclusion

Attendance, suspension and attainment figures are lagging indicators. They record what has already happened. By the time a cohort's absence rises, the shift in how those pupils experience school has usually been under way for some time. Belonging data is a leading indicator: it measures the experience that tends to come before the outcome. Satchel Pulse reports that belonging data can flag cohorts at risk of rising absence, suspensions and exclusions up to 18 months before they show in attendance or behaviour data. That is a company finding, not independent research, so treat it as a reason to test the approach in your own trust rather than as settled fact.

Whole-school averages create a second problem. A belonging score of 78% across a secondary school can sit comfortably beside a much lower score for Year 8 pupils with SEND, or for Pupil Premium pupils who joined in Year 7. The average is accurate and still tells the board very little about those pupils. Only a breakdown by cohort shows it.

The third issue is consistency. Trustees set direction, hold executive leaders to account and make sure oversight is effective. Narrative reports from four or ten academies vary in format, length and emphasis. One headteacher leads with attendance, another with a new behaviour policy, a third with a pupil voice event. Comparing them means comparing writing styles. Data collected with the same questions at the same point in the term lets a board compare the experience of pupils, not the prose of the report.

None of this is a criticism of headteachers. Good leaders tend to welcome sharper questions, because the same data gives them a clearer picture of their own school. A trustee who asks for cohort-level belonging results is giving the headteacher a reason to look at something they may not have had time to examine.

Six questions trustees can ask about inclusion

These questions work because each one asks for a specific kind of evidence. A strong answer to any of them is specific, dated, broken down by cohort and attached to a named person.

1. Do pupils from every group report that they belong, and how do we know? This asks for pupil voice rather than assumption. A strong answer cites survey results for named groups, states how many pupils responded, and does not rely on staff impressions or the absence of complaints.
2. Which cohorts score lowest, and has that changed since last term? This asks for segmented, comparable data. A good answer names the cohorts, gives the scores and shows the direction of travel. A weak answer offers a school-wide figure and a general sense that things are improving.
3. How do inclusion results compare across our academies, using the same questions and timing? The qualifier matters. If academies used different surveys or collected data in different terms, the comparison is not reliable. A strong answer comes as a single view across the trust.
4. Which pupils or year groups are we watching for rising absence or behaviour concerns, and what is being done? This links the leading indicator to the lagging ones. A good answer names the group, shows the attendance and behaviour data alongside the belonging data, and describes the action already under way.
5. What have staff and families told us, and does it match what pupils say? Gaps between the three groups are informative. If staff report that inclusion is strong and pupils in one cohort disagree, the board has found something worth a conversation.
6. Who owns each action, and when will we see whether it worked? A strong answer gives a name and a date, usually the next survey point. An answer that says "the SLT" or "ongoing" has not yet become an action.

Trustees do not need to ask all six at every meeting. Two or three, chosen to fit the committee's focus that term, will draw out more than a long list that leaders answer in general terms.

What good evidence looks like behind each answer

Some terms need fixing first, because they get used loosely. Belonging here means pupils feel accepted, valued and connected at school. Inclusion means all groups of pupils can access what the school offers and do well within it. A cohort is any group of pupils defined by a shared characteristic, such as year group or Pupil Premium status. A leading indicator moves before the outcome it predicts. A lagging indicator reports the outcome afterwards.

With those terms in place, good evidence has five features.

Consistent voice from pupils, staff and parents

The same survey, run each term, gives trustees a baseline and a comparison point. The report should state the response rate for each group. A belonging score based on 90% of a year group means something different from one based on 35%, and trustees should be able to judge that for themselves.

Cohort breakdowns with sensible suppression

Results should be split by year group, SEND, Pupil Premium, EAL, FSM and children in care, with combinations where numbers allow. Where a group is very small, the report should suppress the figure and say so. Showing a score for five pupils can identify them, and anonymity is part of why pupils answer honestly.

Trends, not snapshots

One term's result is a single point. Three or four terms show a pattern. The trend should sit beside MIS attendance and behaviour data for the same cohorts, so the board can see whether the leading and lagging indicators agree.

Free-text themes

Scores show that something moved. Comments show why. Analysing free-text answers by theme and sentiment lets trustees read a short summary of what pupils are saying, without reading hundreds of individual comments.

Accurate reference to trustee duties

If you cite the board's oversight duties in a paper, check the wording against the current DfE Academy Trust Handbook. As of this writing, the handbook is updated regularly, and the exact phrasing of trustee responsibilities is worth confirming at source rather than quoting from memory.

A worked example: Year 7 belonging across a four-academy trust

The following is an illustration, not a real trust's result. Suppose a four-academy secondary trust runs its autumn belonging survey in the sixth week of term. The trust-wide view shows Year 7 belonging at similar levels in all four academies, within a few points of each other. On the headline figures, nothing stands out.

A trustee on the inclusion committee asks the second question from the list: which cohorts score lowest? The CEO asks for the Year 7 results split by Pupil Premium status. In one academy, Pupil Premium pupils score noticeably lower than their classmates. In the other three, the gap is small.

The headteacher of that academy had not seen the gap in the whole-year figure. In the committee meeting, she reads the free-text comments for the group. Several mention finding it hard to make friends in the first half term and not knowing which staff to approach. That points towards transition rather than anything in the classroom.

The response is modest and specific. The assistant headteacher for Year 7 becomes the named owner. A small group of Pupil Premium pupils joins a weekly lunchtime programme with a trusted adult, and the school adds a second induction activity in the first half term for the next intake. The survey will run again in the spring term, and the committee agrees to look at the same cohort then.

The board sees the result on one page: a comparison of Year 7 belonging across the four academies, the cohort view for the academy in question, and an action log showing the owner, the action and the re-measure date. It does not receive four separate narratives.

One caution applies. A single term's dip is a prompt to look closer, not a verdict on the school. Cohorts can be small, and scores move for ordinary reasons. Trustees should look for a pattern across terms before drawing conclusions, and leaders should expect that a first look may sometimes find nothing that needs action.

Turning questions into a termly cycle the board can sustain

The questions only help if they recur. A workable rhythm has five steps:

1. Run the survey early in the term, so results arrive while there is time to act on them.
2. Share results with academy leaders within a few weeks.
3. Agree actions, each with an owner and a date.
4. Report to the relevant committee, using the same format each term.
5. Re-measure the following term and compare.

Keep the survey short. Five to ten minutes protects response rates, and response rates decide whether the data is reliable enough to act on. Pupils who read English as an additional language need to be able to answer fully, so read-aloud and translation support matter. If those pupils cannot follow the questions, the EAL cohort will be missing from the picture you are trying to build.

Share results with staff openly. When staff see the data, they can help explain it and suggest what to try. The aim is to learn what works, so avoid ranking academies against each other. A league table of belonging scores tends to make leaders defensive and less willing to look closely at their own results.

Agree a small set of standing measures for the board dashboard, perhaps overall belonging, the lowest-scoring cohorts, the gap between pupil and staff views, and response rates. Then resist adding more each term. A dashboard that grows every cycle stops being read.

A tool can make this easier at trust level. Perceptions gives every academy the same survey, breaks results down by cohort and compares them automatically across the trust, which is the view these questions depend on.

Choosing your first two or three questions

For your next board or committee meeting, pick two or three of the six questions. The second, on the lowest-scoring cohorts, and the sixth, on ownership and re-measurement, are a good pair to begin with, because together they ask what the data shows and what will be done about it.

Before the meeting, ask each academy for cohort-level belonging data using the same questions and the same timing. If that is not yet possible, make it the first action: agree who will arrange it and by when. Then, for the first action that comes out of the meeting, record an owner and a re-measure date before the meeting closes.

Learn more about our services