A Belonging Lesson from the Education Secretary: Are Schools Becoming the New Wellness Retreats for Kids and Parents Alike?

In a move that might inspire a round of eye-rolls from parents juggling work, school emails, and the threat of another Ofsted report, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson has called for a sense of belonging in schools to address falling attendance rates and the increasing needs of SEND pupils. It seems that, on top of producing A*s and sport prodigies, schools are now to become emotional wellness hubs, cultivating the youth with the power of belonging and purpose. But one wonders, as teachers are once again asked to step up and take the lead on everything from exam results to pastoral care, what role is left for parents?

Achievement, Affirmation, and Parenting: Is There Space for Responsibility Anymore?

Phillipson’s speech in Birmingham, rallying for a broader curriculum to include music, sport, art, and drama, would make any parent nod along. The concept sounds lovely, especially if you’re thinking of your own school days when a rugby match or a choir rehearsal provided a break from chalkboards and maths books. But when she talks about fostering a sense of belonging and “wellbeing,” it’s hard to ignore the subtle subtext here: schools, it seems, are now expected to bridge all gaps—emotional, developmental, and social—that traditionally lay within the family’s domain. It’s a noble goal, yes, but there’s an air of mission creep about it.

One can't help but wonder: have we started demanding so much from schools that the family’s role in a child’s development is relegated to the background? It’s as though the parenting manual now reads, Chapter 1: Pack lunch. Chapter 2: Let the school do everything else. While a nurturing school environment is vital, the expectation that teachers should be the main source of students’ “sense of power and purpose” seems to overlook that such values are often formed, or lost, at home.

Tunnel Vision, Meet Prism of Progress—and Parenting

Phillipson has decried the “tunnel vision” of previous governments, who she claims were narrowly focused on exam success and “standards.” It’s an ironic point, coming from a government that’s spent years obsessing over Ofsted reports and testing regimes. The problem with this new, well-intentioned “belonging” agenda is that it risks pushing parental responsibility further out of the picture. Are we now expecting teachers, stretched thin as they are, to provide the entire moral, emotional, and intellectual grounding of our young people, while parents watch from the sidelines?

SEND Pupils, Parental Engagement, and the Mirage of Belonging

Phillipson rightly highlighted SEND pupils in her speech, stating that they, too, need to feel a strong sense of belonging. But once again, one can’t shake the feeling that parental involvement is being overlooked. SEND support is a complex ecosystem, where teachers, parents, and specialists need to work in concert. Yet the reality is often that schools and parents aren’t on the same page, and “belonging” won’t come from a clever curriculum addition. It will come from a collaborative approach where parents feel responsible, engaged, and empowered to advocate for their child’s specific needs, not expect schools to fill every gap.

Belonging with a Side of Debt: Are Parents and Students in This Together?

Alongside the wellbeing drive, Phillipson announced a tuition fee rise for 2025-26, bringing the eye-watering total to £9,535 per year. And while she talks about improving university access for disadvantaged students, the reality of student debt is often a family burden. With the rising cost of living and skyrocketing housing prices, it’s becoming increasingly clear that university debt isn’t just “student” debt—it’s family debt. When students are made to feel like their future relies on expensive degrees, parental involvement in their financial and educational decisions becomes all the more crucial.

But again, where’s the acknowledgment of this financial reality in Phillipson’s vision? If “belonging” is supposed to empower students, perhaps the government could acknowledge that a stable family backing—financially, emotionally, and educationally—is one of the most significant indicators of a student’s future success. Parents can’t just step back and let schools handle it all; it’s high time they were positioned as co-educators, not mere spectators.

Where's the Money for Schools—and the Support for Parents?

Phillipson’s curriculum expansion—art, music, and sport—sounds fantastic, but without corresponding funding, it’s another lofty promise that could fall flat. Schools are expected to wear all the hats, while parents, it seems, are quietly absolved from responsibility. But how much of this falls on families? It’s easy to romanticise a vision of teachers as fountains of wellbeing, life skills, and social-emotional enlightenment. But the fact remains that children come home to parents, who provide the structure, values, and consistency that no school can replace.

Perhaps rather than focusing on “belonging” in schools, Phillipson might consider initiatives to support parental engagement, encouraging parents to take more ownership of their children’s education. Rather than adding more to the teacher’s plate, this is the moment for a cultural shift—one where the government stops seeing schools as catch-all institutions and starts looking at ways to fortify families and communities.

The Epidemic of Absence: A School Issue or a Family One?

Phillipson’s main talking point was tackling the “epidemic of school absence,” yet she focused almost exclusively on the school’s role in reversing it. Here’s a novel thought: what if attendance is as much a reflection of family dynamics as it is a school issue? Children skip school for many reasons—bullying, mental health, yes, but also issues stemming from home life, socioeconomic strain, and a lack of parental engagement. Schools can only do so much to make children feel welcome; real change will come from parents instilling in their kids a sense of responsibility and the importance of education.

If Phillipson wants to solve the attendance crisis, she’ll need to bring parents into the equation. Instead of letting teachers act as the primary motivators, perhaps the government should focus on supporting parents to engage in their children’s school lives, making education a family priority.

In the end, Phillipson’s speech is aspirational, certainly, but it’s also something of a red herring. Children don’t need a school to do everything; they need a solid support system that begins at home, with parents taking responsibility, setting expectations, and collaborating with teachers. Belonging can’t be manufactured from above—it’s built through community, family, and a government that recognizes its duty to support both. Perhaps Phillipson’s next speech could remind parents that their role in their children’s education is as vital as ever, and that no amount of school reform can replace it.