The Bell Review is not only about prejudice. For school leaders it is also about safeguarding, trust, belonging and attendance. If a pupil is frightened to come to school because of antisemitic, racial or religious abuse, the attendance response must begin with safety.
This is not a niche issue. It is a leadership issue. It is a safeguarding issue. And when fear keeps a child away from school, it is an attendance issue too.
The official review hub confirms that the review examines prevention, decision-making, incident handling, accountability and the influence of campaigning organisations. Same-day reporting says the review contains 27 recommendations. Reported recommendations are labelled as such until the final official text is published.
Bell is reported to argue that a generic commitment to tackling racism and hate can fail to identify antisemitism as a distinct form of prejudice.
Reported recommendations include explicit recognition of antisemitism within safeguarding and online-safety practice.
Leaders need staff who can recognise overt, subtle and online antisemitism and know what to do next.
Low reporting may reflect low trust rather than low incidence. Pupils must believe adults will act.
Reported recommendations call for clearer guidance so difficult issues can be debated without pupils feeling that adults impose political views.
Reported recommendations include media literacy, online hatred, conspiracy theories, stronger Holocaust education and better understanding of Jewish life.
The official terms of reference explicitly examine accountability where incidents have not been handled well, including the role of inspectorates.
The review's call for evidence deliberately sought evidence from children, young people, parents, staff, trusts and community organisations.
When a pupil's attendance deteriorates after abuse, leaders must investigate whether fear and loss of trust are now barriers to education.
A register records whether a child was present. It does not tell you whether they stayed home because they feared being abused, humiliated or targeted. That distinction is fundamental.
That does not mean lowering expectations. It means identifying the barrier to attendance and addressing it with the same seriousness we would apply to any other safeguarding barrier.
Do not allow an attendance threshold to trigger a purely procedural response before anyone has asked what has happened. Do not treat the pupil's fear as a refusal to comply. Do not make the victim carry the burden of avoiding those responsible.
Attendance, safeguarding, behaviour, SEND/pastoral and senior leadership work from one plan. The plan records what happened, what the pupil says they need, what the school has changed, how education is maintained and how return will be reviewed.
This is the core implementation section: immediate assurance, pupil-level response, workforce confidence, curriculum and governance.
Use this sequence when attendance has deteriorated following antisemitic or other identity-based abuse.
| Stage | Leader question | Evidence to retain |
|---|---|---|
| Disclosure | What happened, where, who was involved, and what does the pupil fear now? | Pupil voice, chronology, screenshots/messages, witnesses, parent contact. |
| Immediate safety | What must change today so the child is not exposed to further harm? | Safety plan, named adult, movement/social-time arrangements, risk decisions. |
| Investigation | What does the evidence show and which policies/thresholds apply? | Investigation record, behaviour/safeguarding decisions, referrals where appropriate. |
| Education while absent | How will we protect the child's connection to learning and belonging? | Work provided, teacher contact, pastoral check-ins, adjustments. |
| Return | What will make the first day back feel different from the day they stopped attending? | Return plan, trusted adult, phased steps if appropriate, family agreement. |
| Review | Has safety and trust improved, not just the percentage? | Attendance trend, pupil/family voice, incidents since return, engagement and wellbeing. |
The school must communicate both seriousness and safety. Families need evidence that adults understand the harm and have taken responsibility for changing the environment.
“I want to understand what has made school feel unsafe for you.”
“You are not responsible for solving this. The adults are responsible for dealing with the behaviour.”
“What would need to be different for you to feel able to return?”
“Who would you like to meet you when you arrive?”
“We will review both your safety and your attendance, because one affects the other.”
“Your attendance is now the main issue.”
“We dealt with the other pupil, so there is nothing to worry about.”
“You have to come in or this becomes unauthorised.”
“There is no evidence that the school is unsafe.”
“You need to move on from what happened.”
Tick each statement you can evidence. Your progress saves on this device. Use the print button to take the audit to SLT or governors.
The official GOV.UK review hub is live. At the time of this build, it still states that findings are expected by autumn 2026 and does not yet expose the final report on the page. Parliament's Order Paper confirms a written ministerial statement is scheduled for 21 October 2026.
This is the authoritative DfE page for the independent review. It sets out the review's aims, scope, terms of reference, timeline and call for evidence.
The House of Commons Order Paper lists today's statement. Until the statement page itself appears, use Parliament's written statements search to locate the final text once published.
Official sources first, then contemporary reporting used only for recommendations not yet visible on the official review page.